Archers thread #160: Ram a lamb a ding dong! To rate the mass wisteria in Ambridge, tap the feedback tablet here.

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads.

All views on The Archers welcome here! New blood welcomed, and of course we are always delighted to welcome back former or occasional listeners/posters. We don't all agree on all points, although we do mostly try to be civil about it. Most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you'd have given a home to Hilda the Hellcat, or other unusual views.

Spoilers: not on this thread, please! We don't wait for the omnibus to discuss the weeknight episodes, but we do try our best to avoid cross-contamination from www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/4636789-the-archers-spoilers-thread-7-cant-wait-for-702pm-join-us-here, where spoilers are positively welcomed!

For newer listeners, lurkers or those who just have no idea what we're talking about, @DadDadDad has created this useful thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3557323-For-Archers-fans-a-guide-to-acronyms-on-the-long-running-discussion-threads-and-any-other-meta-thread-questions-you-may-have - BOOP point for him! (See thread for explanation.)

Thanks to @MerryChristmasToYou, @OverArmour and @LillianGish for the thread title ideas.

This week is a bit better than last week, but the Brad/Adil/Lily stuff is very odd. Coming up to the anniversary of Jennifer's death (22nd January last year). We need a new matriarch - could that be Natasha? I find her quite an interesting character. Sometimes she's awful and then she has moments as last night where she utterly redeems herself.

Over to you!

I find It laughable #Clickyheels, that in these enlightening times that anybody would need a Priest or Vicar to tell them about married life as most people,not all,get married in a church for show rather than for religious reasons. I apologise if I have upset up anyone with my laughing.

I think that the more (sensible and objective) advice engaged couples get, the better. All churches should include info on DV, for a start.

I think the amount of training ministers get for this is inadequate however, so they quality of the courses/ guidance depends on the experience etc of the individual leading it.

@Alwaysdieting , The way it came across to me was that you found it laughable that a priest or vicar would have any idea about marriage.

I attend a fairly 'happy clappy' church. Some of the young couples seem to be in a hurry to get married so they can shag each other, so they probably do need guidance on the realities of day-to-day living as a couple.

I am amazed at the number of acquaintances who claim to not believe but want the wedding ceremony at a picturesque church or a big church christening for PFB.

Wow, I didn’t know you got all that! It seems we lost quite a lot by going over to the commercial marriage-as-a-spectacle model.

we got married in a registry office (church or registry office were the only options then, and DH was divorced so church wasn’t an option) but had been living together for several years so had got quite a lot sorted out.

Speaking only of the course I help to deliver (because I appreciate that, as @JanglyBeads says, quality varies), we do recognise that couples are in different places emotionally and spiritually and e.g. that most already live together, many have children together or a blended family, and other situations. I'm not just standing up forcing them to listen to a pre-prepared speech on the Catholic understanding of marriage pretending we're all Victorians and they haven't seen each other's ankles yet!

And yes, I do talk about DV. It's especially important in a Catholic context because we don't have divorce, so we want to make sure women understand the implications of that and that it emphatically doesn't mean they should stay living with a violent spouse.

I work in an area with a high immigrant population so I also talk about cultural expectations of marriage. I take the line that pretty much anything is fine (in terms of women working or not, closeness to in-laws, division of household labour ...) as long as both spouses agree on an ongoing basis, and it's not something that can be set in stone before the marriage and never discussed afterwards, e.g. both of you have to agree if you're going to be sending remittances back home out of the family pot of money, if one of you is going to be a SAHP, and so on. So we ask them to be open with each other about these things before they get married, but also to acknowledge that people have the right to change their minds over time. And I ask them to talk to each other about what they saw of relationships in childhood (from their own parents or carers) and what they want to keep from that and what they want to avoid repeating. It's not intrusive, I don't listen in to any of the responses, I just give them prompt questions and the time to discuss it with each other.

Honestly, I wish all couples had some sort of marriage prep (and parenting prep). Even without the religious element, I find it helps. Maybe some people resent the time and effort it takes when they'd rather be planning seating arrangements or colour schemes for the wedding breakfast, but I would hope they might take away one or two things to reflect on.

Me.

But it does require well screened or distant neighbours.

if my bedroom didn’t get light in the morning I’d sleep round the clock.

@RegimentalSturgeon Because she doesn’t want nine months of hosting a parasite , two to three years of herding a small suicidal maniac, a constant drain on her finances and intermittent sleepless nights for the rest of her life? Nothing like saying it as it is

And yes, I do talk about DV. It's especially important in a Catholic context because we don't have divorce, so we want to make sure women understand the implications of that and that it emphatically doesn't mean they should stay living with a violent spouse What are their options if they leave? Are they able to form another relationship?

That sounds amazing. I wish ALL marriages required that kind of pre-marriage course

Thank you @AngryBirdsNoMore one thing I enjoy about these threads is the expertise brought from people in all different walks of life. With me, it's Catholicism (and guinea pig care a few threads back 😆), but there are posters on here who know chapter and verse on crop rotation or wills or residential care homes and I really like hearing from them about how the SL would play out IRL.

As is often the case with 'English' Catholics, I am largely Irish by descent - on one side immediately and on the other way back - but I grew up mostly in England and have been working in the church here for a number of years, so although I understand the church in an Irish context too (and I've lived abroad in a different traditionally Catholic country as well), I think 'devout English Catholic' would probably be a reasonable summary!

So important @Fink . Well done you and your church.

It's complicated (annulment and such). But our immediate concern would be firstly to make sure they're safe and then to encourage them to get what money & rights they're entitled to, which often means getting a civil divorce. A new relationship would be a way down the line. I've posted before about divorce, remarriage, and annulment in the Catholic Church, this probably isn't the time to rehash it all. If you want to carry on the conversation, do say, but I'm conscious of trying not to derail the thread even further. I feel like we're already quite a way off the current SL!

I agree.

Arguably not even just as much, but more so, in this day and age of "starter marriages" and divorce being seen by society as acceptable (I'll just add that, of course, divorce should be seen as an acceptable option, but....) in the context of Christianity, marriage is viewed as a serious commitment for life "till death do us part" and shouldn't be entered into lightly or without preparation, to ensure that a couple is 100% certain about their lifelong commitment.

I think many couples see a wedding as a big day not about the marriage, and want a baby not the childrearing.

Natasha's fruit juice business is called Summer Orchard. She and Tom run the BridgeFresh app. She was pretty busy before they decided to take over the running of the tea room.

I don’t think that we had marriage lessons, I can vaguely remember a meeting with the vicar. But I was there for the nice pictures, I am not a believer, so it might be that I’ve deliberately forgotten it.

How on earth do Natasha and Tom have time to do anything more with their twins?

Seren and Nova go to a childminder. I think she's called Mariette.

I can’t do anything other than roll my eyes to this post, to be honest

Roll your eyes all you like if you want to act like a teenager, but what I wrote is true.

Harrison is fictional

Yes, all the characters are fictional. Many of us in real life are married to men who made great dads- not the LTB men of the relationships boards

Not having kids is a totally rational choice and the face having them is seen as default is an older generation thing for sure

Perhaps in your generation/group/world, but not in mine and not in many others’. Your experience does not equal truth.

I always think Harrison is just slightly “wet”. He gives me the ick and I’m not sure why.

@BeatriceBatchelor , it was Harrison is fictional and works part time
MN has no end of threads where the OP has a partner who doesn't 'help' with the day-to-day childrearing. If your DH pulls his weight then great. Unfortunately that does not seem the default.

Fallon has a full-time job and plenty of interests. Her husband would like children and works part time. They are in their late 30s. They have a mortgage, which is probably quite hefty. She doesn't plan on having a child, but he would like children.

The subject has been mentioned so there's a possibility that the SW have something planned. It's not part of the current SLs though.

As regards the Roll your eyes all you like if you want to act like a teenager, but what I wrote is true., was that level of defensiveness necessary?
What you said isn't necessarily true of couples nowadays. I'd have thought that the default is to plan a family. If a couple didn't actively decide to TTC, then conception would be unlikely.

I hope they find a better job for Fallon, ideally her own tea room at the EV Charging Station.

It's about 60 years since married women* in the UK got access to the pill and could finally control their own fertility, which in some cases was probably done without their husband's knowledge (thinking of Educating Rita here!). That's a pretty long time. I certainly knew by the time I was in my teens that it would be a choice whether or not to have children.

*Unmarried women had to wait a bit if they couldn't pay to see a private doctor.

Only 30 years since marital rape was criminalised though. So your husband could effectively make you pregnant against your will.

seren and nova: why do they go to a childminder, when Helen - I think? - had free childcare from her parents for both kids? Or did they go to nursery and I missed it? Is this part of Natasha asserting an independence from Bridge Farm?

I'm actually not sure "having babies" is a default position: the Office of National Statistics tells me that in 2022, 43% of families had no children living within them. So that would be not having babies, possibly as a default. Also in 2022, they reported that in 1971, just 18% of 30-year-olds had no children, but by 2022 the figure had risen to 50%. And while women may be putting off starting families so they can have careers, that can't really account for that reduction entirely.

And then of course there are some people who feel that it's really rather selfish to add to the population problem, I suppose. (I have a vague memory that Fallon may in fact be one of these.) I do remember that it was Jolene whom she first told that she didn't actually want to have children, when Jolene was putting pressure on her about it: that happened on 1st October, 2020, the last day of Lowfield! Later synopses by a different hand have this on 20th October: "Fallon continues to agonise, trying to explain to Harrison why she doesn't want a baby. She says that apart from the planet being a concern, she just doesn't feel she needs one."

the Office of National Statistics tells me that in 2022, 43% of families had no children living within them. So that would be not having babies, possibly as a default.
Could this be due to the older generations living longer and the younger generations having children later?

@AngryBirdsNoMore , but a woman not wanting a pregnancy would probably have been on the Pill then.

I suppose, not that long ago, people were living with their parents until they married, usually at a much younger age than today, and weren’t so worldly wise. Living together before marriage was frowned upon.