Archers thread #180: Burgeoning backstories! Continuity, what’s that? Discuss The Archers 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 think it's a great idea for Helen and the boys to lodge with Tom, Natasha, Seren and Dippity*, 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/5244480-the-archers-spoilers-thread-10-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.)

*Can't remember who coined this, but it's genius.

I was strongly tempted to use one or both of the posts suggested for the title of this thread on the last thread, but went for something a bit briefer. However, they're brilliant and will kickstart this thread very nicely, so here they are:

@Sidebeforeself: Beavers, bridge, bunny boilers and busybodies - it's all a load of bollocks!

(I couldn't agree more!)

@DeanElderberry: I don't usually speculate much on the appearance of characters, but do wonder what it is about Miranda that is bringing out the chest-thumping silverback in Brian and Justin? One little bridge game and the course of Ambridge rewilding is set. The face that launched a thousand beavers.

Over to you!

Cinderella? No idea really.

That was another ridiculous insert. Susan is a houseproud organised woman, no way would she have such a mess that she couldn't find a pair of shoes.

Maybe Nick Warburton is a chaotic and unashamedly disorganised man and could lose a shoe quite easily.

Or maybe it is indeed all about Cinderella. Tracy is a very unlikely Cinderella but they are capable of anything now.

I don't believe Susan would have borrowed Tracy's shoes. I assume the shoes are the style of the shoes Germaine Greer once accused Suzanne Moore of wearing.

How likely is it that they share both shoe-size and bunion-placement? (Serious question. I have no friends whose shoes I would be able to wear without a fair amount of discomfort.)

Haha yes, so true, Tracy would wear exactly that type of shoe! But not Susan, I agree.

Sharing shoes 🤮

I agree Joy hasn't shown any unpleasant characteristics hitherto. I'm Team Joy and I'm happy for her to star in a storyline about Rochelle but I suspect the SW didn't actually plot through what the mysterious problem between them was, so expect them to be wildly inventing it as they go along.

On that topic, I refuse to listen to the Neil storyline. It's an outrageous bit of retconning. I was hoping the foundling story would be met with bewilderment by all the other Carters, leading to the revelation that poor Neil has contracted a pig-borne virus and is madly confabulating. I suppose later he would run into traffic shouting about aliens, so the actor can retire.

Warren Clarke is the perfect model for Vince, the sexy beast.

Vince was nasty to Joy. He's such a bully. And why is Mick giving Joy the silent treatment whilst living in her house?

Rochelle isn't going to reappear in the panto, is she?!

The shoe stuff was really silly. Much as I dislike Susan, she wouldn't be so cavalier with someone else's possessions and would absolutely realise that Tracy is poor and can't afford to have multiple pairs of nice shoes. She would never in a month of Sundays go around complaining about Tracy's attitude when she must realise that Tracy had been entirely reasonable. The only believable part was Tracy's bafflement at Susan's personality transplant.

Cinderella or not, they surely can't think it's ok to completely butcher Susan's character, established over decades, to fit short-term narrative.

Cinderella or not, they surely can't think it's ok to completely butcher Susan's character, established over decades, to fit short-term narrative.
That has never stopped them before.

It’s true Susan wouldn’t usually behave in such a manner, but between George and looking after Martha and her husband’s emotional upheaval it wouldn’t be surprising if her memory and organisational skills have been disrupted. I know that’s what happens with me when I’m stressed.

But yes - Cinderella …

That sounds absolutely fascinating @Trivium4all !

It's just about within the realms of possibility that she would lose the shoes (I draw the line at losing one show but not the other, that was ridiculous), and when it was only that much I thought we might be getting a SL about how the family situation is affecting Susan deep down, which might have been interesting to explore. But what tipped it over the edge for me was her lack of understanding and empathy about why Tracy would care and need to make a fuss over the shoes, and her very half-hearted excuse for an apology. That was what felt completely out of character.

I don't share an exact shoe size with anyone in my family, but I would borrow my mum or sister's shoes for a special event and be prepared to not be very comfortable. Nice-looking shoes never fit me properly anyway (I have wide feet), so I am resigned to the idea that leaving the house wearing anything other than my DMs in the winter or teva sandals in the summer means hobbling around and grimacing; one size up or down is only a little worse than normal!

I also thought it was a terrible episode and will be switching off the for the week. Is Vince really normally quite that rude?!

I think I’ll take an archers detox this week as I can’t bear the panto nonsense. Perhaps it will be permanent tbh. Only thing that keeps me listening is this thread!! Perhaps I need to find a hobby and another thread!!!

Yes, only a matter of time until Pip and Leonard go water-skiing on Arkwright Hall lake and “jump the shark”!

I’m mildly curious to see how they pull off the pantomime …

But after scam week and Neil the Baby Foundling and millionaire Vince berating Joy for something way out of her control - even I have been contemplating an Archers End Game. It’s unimaginable that I might give it up after 60 odd years - but the BBC / producers / creative team are unabashedly taking the piss now.

They have jumped the shark so many times recently that it no longer seems ridiculous. Well not quite as ridiculous 😁

Vince was really very unpleasant and aggressive. Quite why Elizabeth is so taken with him I don’t understand - she seems to treat him like a small domestic pet rather than an equal partner, and his whining to be allowed to move in would certainly drive me at any rate to screaming at him to shut up and go away (preferably permanently).

So the whole idea of Vince and Freddie creating a staff outing to the panto was so that he could get super-angry when it was cancelled (to the extent that he is willing to bet Lynda £500 that she can't put on Cinderella(?) by Friday). Lynda, of course, rises to the challenge.

With the coach already booked presumably the workers will traipse out to Ambridge to watch the panto (but not before Clarrie and Susan get super-stressed making costumes).

They've not had a village panto for a while, but presumably most of the cast in the last one are still alive. They could just re-perform that one.

This still doesn't really explain why we didn't have this storyline in December/early January when pantos tend to be on. We could have been saved from the implausible scam week or Rochelle.

Funny enough I know of a farmer who married the only daughter of a multi-millionaire who controlled the local cattle market amongst other other agricultural/development enterprises. The farmer had got a part-time job at the market (just like Eddie) and met his wife there.

Everyone in the village was slapping the farmer on the back that he’d married into money!

It didn’t end well for the farmer. His wife ran off with a race-horse trainer, he then lost his job at the cattle market and the large cash gift his father-in-law had given them for a wedding present for farm improvements turned out to have been a loan that had to be paid back and as part of the divorce settlement the father-in-law also ended up owning several fields which were auctioned off (all with 25% overage on them). (I know this as someone I know bought one of the fields at auction and told me about the overage clause payable to the ex FIL)

Then the village gossips found out that the ex FIL had started out as a lowly but ruthless farm-hand, who married the only child of his boss and ended up part-owning the farm, got divorced but ended up with lots of land land and built up his business empire from there.

Although Vince is portrayed as charming the pants of Elizabeth, deep-down he is very ruthless and money grabbing, just like the cattle market owner. When he realises that Freddy actually owns Lower Loxley, he would be doing everything to marry off one of his daughters to Freddy, but with Lower Loxley ultimately ending up part of the Casey empire, not Pargetter any more.

This is the type of thing going on in the countryside, not pantos put on in 5 days!

I don't want to encourage a revival of the Scam Week shambles, and there are so many other loose ends to be tied up, but it annoys me that all of those people rocked up in the village in one go, and although everyone threw up their hands once they realised that there was no way to combat it (catching criminals, taking the adverts down, anything that would be actually able to put a stop to it), still no one else has come with a false booking. How? The criminals tried it once, got away with it, and didn't bother to try again?!

I’ve always assumed the stately homes are set up so they are divorce proof these days. Rather like a Patek Philippe are they not merely being looked after for the next generation?

but ultimately it’s an asset rich cash poor situation surely?