Archers thread #199: Kaboom! The Aldridges are self-destructing, and it's GLORIOUS. 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'd drop everything to help Helen create a new cheese on national minimum wage, 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 https://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.)

If you haven't heard last night's episode (Friday 22nd May) you really must. It's episodes like that that keep me addicted. Funny how often they involve the Aldridges, the most dysfunctional and also by far the most interesting family in Ambridge. Also very well acted on the whole. How lovely to hear Tamsin Greig in TA, but I wonder if we ever will again.

Some cracking posts towards the end of the last thread, which is here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/5518503-archers-thread-198-josh-sent-to-patagonia-pip-stays-put-wrong-way-round-discuss-the-archers-here

Over to you!

That they aren't his biological children was always going to be the elephant in the room. The stepchildren came across as unbelievably grabby in the meeting.
I can see why he said it.

If I were Alice and been in the meeting I'd have been thinking the same.

Jenny could have divorced Brian in response the Siobhan/Ruari incident (plus numerous other infidelities), and provided very well for herself and her four children.

This is exactly it - he likes to keep his children dependent on him, for their homes and for their jobs, so they don’t really have lives of their own. They have what he allows them to have - in Alice’s case her house, in Kate’s case her business, Adam has his job, Ruairi a home - but to have these things they need to stay close and they need to be toeing the line. He doesn’t take any account of what Adam (and Debbie before him) have done for the business. Any success is his success and his alone, the slightest mistake is someone else’s fault. What we heard from Debbie at the meeting was the realisation that she is actually free - she has her own life and a career that is no longer dependent on Brian or his approval. She is the only one to have broken free.

It’s awful for all the offspring, because if they lose the land they lose all remaining tangible connection to Jenny.

(Except each other, of course.)

You know, even more than Lilian, I would hope Tony might be able to talk some sense into his BIL.

Or Dopey Dave, who was Brian’s confidant during the Siobhan mess. He

Either of them would be well placed to remind him of just how much he owes Jenny - and consequently, all her children. And he’s more likely to listen to them than to Lilian.

What’s the 30 days all about?

Is Adam completely self-absorbed and avaricious?

Or just plain thick?

Probably a bit of both 🤔

Thank goodness he's got Ian (the voice of reason) to explain things to him.

I don’t actually think it’s all about the money for Adam. It’s more about recognition and validation, something he got from his mum but not from his Dad or stepdad.

I noticed the group thing and I have no idea what it's about.

To the first question, yes. To the second, also yes. It's probably best if I bite my tongue about Ian.

Why on earth do the SW think we are interested in listening to two characters we barely know or care about, droning on and on about grab rails for half an episode.

If they want to highlight the problems of having an aged parent who is losing their independence but being stubborn about accepting help, they need look no further than Alistair and Jim.

If I were Carol, I'd be thinking "Better grab rails than visits from Bunter".

I feel we do know Carol and Anna, though.

Carol is Old Ambridge (20th c). And despite the BBC not quite understanding what role she played in Helen’s trial, Anna has, to my mind, earned a voice in the village.

It’s just a shame the writers left it so late - if they both sound untethered to their environment it’s because Jill isn’t in any of their scenes. Leonard is no substitute at all.

They frankly need to Kill Bill Jill and consign the increasingly pointless Leonard to sweating to death in Singapore, or wherever it is that his son lives.

I believe the groups are to gather long-running threads together - so it's the threads that are in the group, not the contributors.

if they both sound untethered to their environment it’s because Jill isn’t in any of their scenes. Leonard is no substitute at all. This is it in a nutshell @TottersBlankly. Except Jill can’t be in any of their scenes because Jill actually is a 95 year old, in fact she sounds exactly like someone who needs grab rails and a care assessment (indeed the actress herself lives in a care home!) - the actress playing Carol should take note!

Yes, that's it. There's one for TA and one for TA spoilers. I have to tick a box or similar to add a new thread to the Group, which I didn't do for the last thread because it was new and I didn't grasp the procedure. MN had added all the others when they introduced this Groups thing. It doesn't seem to add much for us as there are very few other threads in Radio Addicts anyway.

Quoted wrong post.

Ah, thanks. But what do you think the purpose is?

Well you can get all the previous Archers threads in one place, which might be handy if you suddenly want to go back and check something dimly remembered from weeks ago. It probably doesn't feel all that useful because the first post always has all the relevant links, but maybe other long-running threads aren't this well organised?

Todays' ep reminded me that no-one except Brian and Adam knows that Adam was offered the complete running of the farm.
This means that it's Adam's word against his, with siblings thinking that Adam has a screw loose or is outright lying.

Yes what IS the 30 days thing? Presumably the notice Brian has to give before withdrawing from the partnership or something - although am not even sure he can withdraw and even if he could, a month’s notice is nothing!

Does Brian know about Adam's covert visit to Debbie in Hungary?

Is that still a secret or not?

Brian knows he went away but not the true reason.
This was symptomatic of Adam's utter lack of reliability unlike the work he put in at the farm at Brian's request while still working for was it Pat?

I remember an episode after Siobhan died when Brian was trying to persuade Jenny to take on Ruairi. Adam had a showdown with him and asked how could he expect Jenny to love and care for a child who is not hers etc. IIRC Brian countered that he had grown to love Adam and Debbie as his own (I know the circumstances under which he became a step-parent were wildly different). To be honest, I think he did. Debbie was always the favourite and Adam acknowledged recently that it was his stepfather who spent time with him and taught him to love the land. There was a lovely episode a couple of years when he spent the day with Adam at the races and told him “you’ve been a good son”.

I think his comments re. A&D not being his bio kids came about as a defensive reaction to seeing the two of them as the selfish, grasping, deeply unpleasant entitled individuals they are. It must hurt to realise the two ingrates are eagerly awaiting his demise so they can get their hands on the assets he has worked all his life for. Adam literally only cares about the land (I hope Ian realises that he and Xander come a distant second)

selfish, grasping, deeply unpleasant entitled individuals

Not sure I’ve ever thought of either Debbie or Adam in quite those terms! To me they’re both rounded human beings, neither completely good, nor bad, generally trying to do their best. They’re both talented farmers, both siblings in complicated families needing to carve out a space for themselves. Both still dependent on Brian’s goodwill. Despite what Debbie said about her wonderful life - she wouldn’t have come back if there wasn’t something she badly wanted.

Though I don’t understand how she thought she’d get it through continuous absence.