Seems to me that I’m hearing a lot about Helen taking care of her own children, shock, horror. Today she actually turned down an offer from Pat to take Jack off her hands. I’m sure the grovelling Pat was bitterly disappointed that she didn’t get to change a poopy nappy but rather that her fragile but brave daughter had to. Of course Helen did have her handmaid with her for the picnic so it’s not as if she had to cope entirely on her own.
But I think the production team has definitely taken it on board that many listeners have the impression Helen has always taken it very much for granted that she could dump her brats on various people when it suited her and are now trying to overcome that.
And why were we subjected to the drooling imbecile Henwy’s spotter’s notes? To convince us he is not in fact the tedious little retard that he manifestly is and will be so long as he continues to be acted - no, to be voiced -by whichever of the prod team’s spawn or grandspawn or nepling he happens to be. While it is no doubt wicked to wish for a child to encounter an unfortunate accident, the fact remains that many do, and I’m not sure that having an order of preference is that big a sin…
Laryngitis, both severe and chronic, would do at a pinch.
Well I just wish they wouldn’t try and make Helen a lovely person. She never has been before, so why should stabbing someone suddenly transform her? They tried transforming her with motherhood, now abuse a stabbing and prison are supposed to do the trick? I don’t want Helen to be nice! Things are far, far more interesting when she’s her usual touchy, prickly, self-centred, bitchy self.
I do hope she wants to take the Justin’s money and that Kirsty is horrified. I so want that pair to fall out.
It didn’t work last time! After a parting like the one they had, I wouldn’t have expected Kirsty ever to set foot in Ambridge (where she had never lived except with the man who dumped her at the altar) again as long as she lived.
Yes, after Henry was born, Helen did go through a brief period of being weirdly serene, the way she is now. One of the writers said Helen was to be ‘transformed by motherhood’ and it was a ghastly idea. I think the storywriters must have tired of writing her that way because to my relief the old Helen came creeping back. Let’s hope this happens again, especially as there’s bound to be a few Bridge Farm family rows over Justin’s offer.
What they will probably do, and what I will find most annoying, is have Helen give the impression she is above being interested in money when she discusses this with Tom, as she probably will. She can afford to be, as she knows she will always be cocooned and protected by the family. Or at least she always has been … how nice if that changed and the penny finally dropped as to how expensive Helen has been and still is. I always expect Tom to turn on her. It would make a good story, all the resentment built up over the years at the way things revolve around Helen as far as Pat and Tony are concerned.
What would be ideal would be Tony and Pat take the money, and then retire to the seaside taking it with them and leave Helen and Tom to pay their own debts and the mortgage on the farm that Helen and Tom talked them into buying.
I agree! It’s a shame they care so much about the farm and about leaving their legacy in the safe hands of Tom and Helen, poor deluded souls.
I do hope they have changed their wills to acknowledge Johnny. As Sharon and John were not married, I don’t suppose he’s due for anything, not that I know for sure. It would be normal for them to have a will in place leaving their goods equally split between their children and, in the case of a child who pre-deceases them, that child’s offspring. But I think in France legitimacy doesn’t matter but in the UK it does.
Now, I wish this not out of kindness to Johnny, of course, but to put Tom’s and Helen’s noses out of joint.
That’s all right then. But if grandchildren come into the equation, Helen will argue for a larger share to acknowledge the fact that at great personal inconvenience she has provided two, whereas all Tom has managed so far is a single, accidental and abortive attempt. Handbags at dawn. Yesssss!
[quote=“JustJanie, post:8, topic:394”]
But I think in France legitimacy doesn’t matter but in the UK it does.
[/quote]In England and Wales at least since 2014, and as far as I can tell since 1976, illegitimate children are regarded simply as children of that person, as long as satisfactory proof of parentage is available.
(In France an illegitimate child gets a full share, but if the parent was married to someone else at the time the share is reduced.)
[quote=“Gus, post:9, topic:394, full:true”]But if grandchildren come into the equation, Helen will argue for a larger share to acknowledge the fact that at great personal inconvenience she has provided two, whereas all Tom has managed so far is a single, accidental and abortive attempt. Handbags at dawn. Yesssss!
Let her try! The way it normally works (yes, I know, this is the BFNI) Henwy and GiddyJack would get less than Johnny and only get anything if HellQueen pre-deceases them. So, one-third of the estate to Johnny, one-third to Tom and if HQ is dead, one-sixth each to H & GJ.
I don’t mean Pat and Tony would have to do that, only that it is quite a usual way of leaving your estate, not to leave anything at all to grandchildren unless their parent has pegged it, the idea being that you are supposed to trust your offspring to take care of the interests of their offspring. Ah, I see where I might be going wrong …
Ah, thanks, Hedgers. It occurred to me that if Pat and Tony want to leave part of their estate to Johnny, they would name him and his legitimacy or proof that he is John’s son wouldn’t matter, would it? They are convinced he is John’s son and it would be quite normal in my view that they’d want to include him specifically in their will. And I hope they do.
I suppose what I was thinking was that there might already be an existing will that had the usual arrangement of leaving everything equally split between offspring or if offspring deceased their issue. Then Johnny could make a claim and HellQueen and Tom contest it, claiming he is not John’s son but an imposter. (I seem to have killed off poor Pat and Tony at this point.) I should imagine a DNA test could prove Johnny is a close relative of Tom and Helen, so Johnny would get his share. There would also be the fact that Johnny was well known to be accepted as John’s son by everyone at Bridge Farm including Tom and Helen so they’d be stupid to contest his claim but … this is Tom and Helen! Yes, it would be a lovely punch-up but I doubt they’re going to kill off Pat and Tony so soon so it isn’t going to happen.
Second best would be that they do a Peggy and create an Inheritance Row by telling Tom and Helen they are going to leave a third of Bridge Farm to Johnny. Then Helen would ‘rack the house with sobs’, Tom if it were OldTom would go all squeaky with indignation, I’m sure the new chap would manage something similar. Lovely!
Does anyone need a financial motive for murdering any of Tom, Helen, Henwy or the Rapelet? Or indeed Johnny, who is tedious in the extreme? Possibly not actually vicious - yet - so stong incentives to booger off in a northerly direction and not often be seen in Borsetshire again would do, a la limite. But any of the five has a strong incentive to do in any of the eldest three and in the case of Henwy and Wapelet, each other.
Did anyone notice - I think it was Thursday - that Helen was actually doing some physical work? There was the noisy banging of crates. I thought that must be deliberate because we are so apt to say she never does any work or takes care of her children. I was sure Johnny would end up doing all the grunt work but what a miracle, Helen was at least going through the motions of tidying up wherever it was!
Note the typical response from Pat: ‘isn’t Johnny supposed to be doing that?’ or words to that effect! Hope Helen doesn’t strain something. Ruth and Pat should exchange notes on their hard-working daughters, it is a bit of a worry to them.
Oh, I had meant to add that I looked up ‘per stirpes’ and yes, by that method if HQ were dead Henry and GJ would get one-sixth each and Tom and Johnny one-third but on the same wiki page I came across ‘per capita by generation’ by which method - as I’m sure you know - if HQ were dead Tom would get one third and the other two thirds would be divided equally between Johnny, Henwy and GiddyJack.
So, ‘per capita by generation’ provides a greater motive for Henwy & GJ to murder their mother and Johnny with a good motive for keeping her alive! Or for murdering at least one of Henwy or GJ. With ‘per stirpes’ Johnny wouldn’t care if she were dead or alive other than on the general principle of Helen being Helen.
Of course, in so many ways, it’s better to keep her alive so that there is some hope she will find herself with a dose of real life, not Terrible Things I Have Gone Through which mean I Deserve Special Consideration, but being told to pick up her bloody children’s toys for once and no, we can’t take care of them, we’re tired, take care of them yourself, you chose to have them.
I postulated that she should marry Doctor Locke who appears to be drawn to apparently fragile women in the hopes that he would, in the face of terrible strops from his daughter, find himself not quite as solicitous towards Helen as she would think she deserved.
But Helen is possibly the most internally consistent character there is. Hmmm. How much of that is writing and how much excellent acting? And is LP secretly on our side, I wonder? Whatever ‘our side’ means, of course. Well, scepticism rather than adulation of Mrs Titchener, even after ‘all she’s been through’, I suppose. What she has mainly been through is a lot of other peoples’ money.