Note that spoilers are included below the cast and crew.

Cast :
Ben Archer - Ben Norris
David Archer - Timothy Bentinck
Helen Archer - Louiza Patikas
Henry Archer - Blayke Darby
Pip Archer - Daisy Badger
Ruth Archer - Felicity Finch
Ian Craig - Stephen Kennedy
Eddie Grundy - Trevor Harrison
Emma Grundy - Emerald O'Hanrahan
George Grundy - Angus Stobie
Tracy Horrobin - Susie Riddell
Kirsty Miller - Annabelle Dowler
Stella Pryor - Lucy Speed
Adil Shah - Ronny Jhutti
Lynda Snell - Carole Boyd
Oliver Sterling - Michael Cochrane
Rob Titchener - Timothy Watson
Lottie - Bonnie Baddoo
Announcer - Jack Ashton

Writer : Liz John
Director : Jess Bunch
Editor : Jeremy Howe

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

Spoilers:
Sunday 13th - Lynda's interest is piqued, and Pip has plans
Monday 14th - There's an awkward encounter for Ian, and Adil finds
himself under pressure
Tuesday 15th - George makes a dangerous plan and Ben struggles to let go
of the past
Wednesday 16th - Ruth has cause for concern and David attempts to offer
reassurance
Thursday 17th - Henry finds himself in too deep and there’s a grand day
out for the Grundy’s
Friday 18th - The nightmare continues for Helen and Tracy proves to be a
friend in need.
 

--
CaroleT

On 11.8.23 23:37, carolet wrote:
> Note that spoilers are included below the cast and crew.
>
> Cast    :
> Ben Archer    -    Ben Norris
> David Archer    -    Timothy Bentinck
> Helen Archer    -    Louiza Patikas
> Henry Archer    -    Blayke Darby
> Pip Archer    -    Daisy Badger
> Ruth Archer    -    Felicity Finch
> Ian Craig    -    Stephen Kennedy
> Eddie Grundy    -    Trevor Harrison
> Emma Grundy    -    Emerald O'Hanrahan
> George Grundy    -    Angus Stobie
> Tracy Horrobin    -    Susie Riddell
> Kirsty Miller    -    Annabelle Dowler
> Stella Pryor    -    Lucy Speed
> Adil Shah    -    Ronny Jhutti
> Lynda Snell    -    Carole Boyd
> Oliver Sterling    -    Michael Cochrane
> Rob Titchener    -    Timothy Watson
> Lottie    -    Bonnie Baddoo
> Announcer    -    Jack Ashton
>
> Writer    :    Liz John
> Director    :    Jess Bunch
> Editor    :    Jeremy Howe
>
Well I suppose 5 is better, but it remains inadequate.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:51:21 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On 11.8.23 23:37, carolet wrote:
>> Note that spoilers are included below the cast and crew.
>>
>> Cast    :
>> Ben Archer    -    Ben Norris
>> David Archer    -    Timothy Bentinck
>> Helen Archer    -    Louiza Patikas
>> Henry Archer    -    Blayke Darby
>> Pip Archer    -    Daisy Badger
>> Ruth Archer    -    Felicity Finch
>> Ian Craig    -    Stephen Kennedy
>> Eddie Grundy    -    Trevor Harrison
>> Emma Grundy    -    Emerald O'Hanrahan
>> George Grundy    -    Angus Stobie
>> Tracy Horrobin    -    Susie Riddell
>> Kirsty Miller    -    Annabelle Dowler
>> Stella Pryor    -    Lucy Speed
>> Adil Shah    -    Ronny Jhutti
>> Lynda Snell    -    Carole Boyd
>> Oliver Sterling    -    Michael Cochrane
>> Rob Titchener    -    Timothy Watson
>> Lottie    -    Bonnie Baddoo
>> Announcer    -    Jack Ashton
>>
>> Writer    :    Liz John
>> Director    :    Jess Bunch
>> Editor    :    Jeremy Howe
>>
>Well I suppose 5 is better, but it remains inadequate.

6

On 12.8.23 08:57, Vicky wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:51:21 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11.8.23 23:37, carolet wrote:
>>> Note that spoilers are included below the cast and crew.
>>>
>>> Cast    :
>>> Ben Archer    -    Ben Norris
>>> David Archer    -    Timothy Bentinck
>>> Helen Archer    -    Louiza Patikas
>>> Henry Archer    -    Blayke Darby
>>> Pip Archer    -    Daisy Badger
>>> Ruth Archer    -    Felicity Finch
>>> Ian Craig    -    Stephen Kennedy
>>> Eddie Grundy    -    Trevor Harrison
>>> Emma Grundy    -    Emerald O'Hanrahan
>>> George Grundy    -    Angus Stobie
>>> Tracy Horrobin    -    Susie Riddell
>>> Kirsty Miller    -    Annabelle Dowler
>>> Stella Pryor    -    Lucy Speed
>>> Adil Shah    -    Ronny Jhutti
>>> Lynda Snell    -    Carole Boyd
>>> Oliver Sterling    -    Michael Cochrane
>>> Rob Titchener    -    Timothy Watson
>>> Lottie    -    Bonnie Baddoo
>>> Announcer    -    Jack Ashton
>>>
>>> Writer    :    Liz John
>>> Director    :    Jess Bunch
>>> Editor    :    Jeremy Howe
>>>
>> Well I suppose 5 is better, but it remains inadequate.
>
> 6

I have double counted and I still make it 5. Rob, Ruth and Ian do not
count as they have only married into the bloodline. Stella has yet to
achieve marriage.

I am behind on my podcasts and have just been listening to Felicity
Finch being interviewed on "One Stilleto in the Grave" from September
last year. As the interview progresses I am convinced her north eastern
accent declines in intensity. A lot of discussion about her work as a
radio documentary producer which is interesting as a change from
discussion about The Archers.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

In message <npecnZQgi7SZZkr5nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Sat,
12 Aug 2023 22:34:59, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> writes
[]
>I am behind on my podcasts and have just been listening to Felicity
>Finch being interviewed on "One Stilleto in the Grave" from September
>last year. As the interview progresses I am convinced her north
>eastern accent declines in intensity. A lot of discussion about her

Could be that you just get used to it.

>work as a radio documentary producer which is interesting as a change
>from discussion about The Archers.
>
Yes.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A sleekzorp without a tornpee is like a quop without a fertsneet (sort of).

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 22:34:59 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On 12.8.23 08:57, Vicky wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:51:21 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11.8.23 23:37, carolet wrote:
>>>> Note that spoilers are included below the cast and crew.
>>>>
>>>> Cast    :
>>>> Ben Archer    -    Ben Norris
>>>> David Archer    -    Timothy Bentinck
>>>> Helen Archer    -    Louiza Patikas
>>>> Henry Archer    -    Blayke Darby
>>>> Pip Archer    -    Daisy Badger
>>>> Ruth Archer    -    Felicity Finch
>>>> Ian Craig    -    Stephen Kennedy
>>>> Eddie Grundy    -    Trevor Harrison
>>>> Emma Grundy    -    Emerald O'Hanrahan
>>>> George Grundy    -    Angus Stobie
>>>> Tracy Horrobin    -    Susie Riddell
>>>> Kirsty Miller    -    Annabelle Dowler
>>>> Stella Pryor    -    Lucy Speed
>>>> Adil Shah    -    Ronny Jhutti
>>>> Lynda Snell    -    Carole Boyd
>>>> Oliver Sterling    -    Michael Cochrane
>>>> Rob Titchener    -    Timothy Watson
>>>> Lottie    -    Bonnie Baddoo
>>>> Announcer    -    Jack Ashton
>>>>
>>>> Writer    :    Liz John
>>>> Director    :    Jess Bunch
>>>> Editor    :    Jeremy Howe
>>>>
>>> Well I suppose 5 is better, but it remains inadequate.
>>
>> 6
>
>I have double counted and I still make it 5. Rob, Ruth and Ian do not
>count as they have only married into the bloodline. Stella has yet to
>achieve marriage.
>

I thought if the surname is Archer they count, and Elizabeth does and
Shula too. What about Jill?

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:35:10 PM UTC+1, krw wrote:
<snip>
("Real" Archers)
> I have double counted and I still make it 5. Rob, Ruth and Ian do not
> count as they have only married into the bloodline. Stella has yet to
> achieve marriage.
<snip>

Gosh. This looks so simple and obvious but the more I delve into it, the more complicated it seems to become. Maybe umrats can help me out here?

There was something like this raised in an agony column in a newspaper recently. The man, let's call him Arbuthnot (not his real name) died and the first Mrs Arbuthnot (with whom Mr Arbuthnot fathered her children) wrote to the second, legally married, Mrs Arbuthnot (who had no children) asking her not to attend the funeral service because it was for family only and she was not, in the eyes of the others, real family.

Then you have matrilineage and patrilineage. My go-to examples would be the New Testament book of Matthew Chapter1 which follows the male line of descent of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph. (There's an obvious flaw in this argument but IMO it's no worse than the way the law in England and Wales is supposed to work.) Luke Chapter 3 does something similar, again ending up with Joseph but apart from a few places where the names converge, the lists are different. Christian tradition has it that this is the matrilinear line, Mary's line of descent, although expressed through the males in that line.

IIUC KRW, you are neither promoting the time-honoured doctrine of patrilineage, adopted by many societies or matrilineage, adopted by others but Arbuthnotlineage where you use a different rule to decide who's a real family member and who isn't and which seems to depend on whether the children are born male or female or not at all.

It also seems to me that if you are from the Archer family, you might form a different opinion about who is a "real" Archer depending upon whether you are looking downstream or upstream at the family tree. People from outside a family, I feel, tend to look downstream. I find it interesting to apply the principle to my own family (about which I know relatively (sorry) little and if you haven't gathered already, I am no geneaologist or anthropoligist or indeed any other sort of 'ologist). My maternal grandfather's second wife rejected the legitimacy of his first wife and child and it's only in comparatively recent times that the different strands of that part of the family have found common ground. My favourite cousin, once deceased, never bore the name Odell but always thought of herself as one. Work that out if you can?

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On 13/08/2023 09:36, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:35:10 PM UTC+1, krw wrote:
> <snip>
> ("Real" Archers)
>> I have double counted and I still make it 5. Rob, Ruth and Ian do not
>> count as they have only married into the bloodline. Stella has yet to
>> achieve marriage.
> <snip>
>
> Gosh. This looks so simple and obvious but the more I delve into it, the more complicated it seems to become. Maybe umrats can help me out here?
>
> There was something like this raised in an agony column in a newspaper recently. The man, let's call him Arbuthnot (not his real name) died and the first Mrs Arbuthnot (with whom Mr Arbuthnot fathered her children) wrote to the second, legally married, Mrs Arbuthnot (who had no children) asking her not to attend the funeral service because it was for family only and she was not, in the eyes of the others, real family.
>
> Then you have matrilineage and patrilineage. My go-to examples would be the New Testament book of Matthew Chapter1 which follows the male line of descent of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph. (There's an obvious flaw in this argument but IMO it's no worse than the way the law in England and Wales is supposed to work.) Luke Chapter 3 does something similar, again ending up with Joseph but apart from a few places where the names converge, the lists are different. Christian tradition has it that this is the matrilinear line, Mary's line of descent, although expressed through the males in that line.
>
> IIUC KRW, you are neither promoting the time-honoured doctrine of patrilineage, adopted by many societies or matrilineage, adopted by others but Arbuthnotlineage where you use a different rule to decide who's a real family member and who isn't and which seems to depend on whether the children are born male or female or not at all.
>
> It also seems to me that if you are from the Archer family, you might form a different opinion about who is a "real" Archer depending upon whether you are looking downstream or upstream at the family tree. People from outside a family, I feel, tend to look downstream. I find it interesting to apply the principle to my own family (about which I know relatively (sorry) little and if you haven't gathered already, I am no geneaologist or anthropoligist or indeed any other sort of 'ologist). My maternal grandfather's second wife rejected the legitimacy of his first wife and child and it's only in comparatively recent times that the different strands of that part of the family have found common ground. My favourite cousin, once deceased, never bore the name Odell but always thought of herself as one. Work that out if you can?
>
> Nick
> nickodell49@yahoo.ca

I believe krw's rule is blood descendant of Dan Archer's parents (so
that Jack's children are included, as would Paul Johnson if he turned up
but not Terry Barford). Married-ins are not included but their children
with an Archer are (thus the Frillies but not Nigel). Of course it
assumes that parentage (especially paternity which is always a matter of
opinion rather than fact) is accurate.

john

john

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 01:36:02 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell
<nickodell@bigfoot.com> scrawled in the dust...

>Gosh. This looks so simple and obvious but the more I delve into it, the more complicated it seems to become. Maybe umrats can help me out here?
>
>There was something like this raised in an agony column in a newspaper recently. The man, let's call him Arbuthnot (not his real name) died and the first Mrs Arbuthnot (with whom Mr Arbuthnot fathered her children) wrote to the second, legally married, Mrs Arbuthnot (who had no children) asking her not to attend the funeral service because it was for family only and she was not, in the eyes of the others, real family.

Gosh, I'm glad I organised Ray's funeral (with help from D#1).
When I spoke to his younger son (the more readily contacted and far more
sensible of the two), he asked what he had to do now, which I took to mean
he thought he had to make the arrangements. I told him I would make all the
arrangements and it might be helpful if he encouraged his brother to come
and bring their mother with him, possibly along with one or two of Ray's
old friends who lived in the same town.

My daughters and their families all attended, and got to know their step
brothers and other of Ray's family a bit better (his grandchildren were not
their but mine were pleased to see their cousins). None of my older family
(brothers, father) attended - it would have been difficult for any of them
(but I did think I might get an email or card...). It was quite a jolly
gathering as these things go, I've always got on well with his first wife
(which is more than can be said for her younger son) and his remaining
sister.

>Then you have matrilineage and patrilineage. My go-to examples would be the New Testament book of Matthew Chapter1 which follows the male line of descent of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph. (There's an obvious flaw in this argument but IMO it's no worse than the way the law in England and Wales is supposed to work.) Luke Chapter 3 does something similar, again ending up with Joseph but apart from a few places where the names converge, the lists are different. Christian tradition has it that this is the matrilinear line, Mary's line of descent, although expressed through the males in that line.

I'd never considered Jesus's blood line. Was he not supposed to be a
descendant of King David? Who was John the Baptist's mother?

I am reminded of that nice Canadian(?) umrat who talked about the
matriarchy of inuit people and how it totally confused anthropologists who
tried to study them.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

In message <uba602$1oop4$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 13 Aug 2023 09:58:42,
John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes
>On 13/08/2023 09:36, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:35:100 >> <snip>
>> ("Real" Archers)
>>> I have double counted and I still make it 5. Rob, Ruth and Ian do not
>>> count as they have only married into the bloodline. Stella has yet to
>>> achieve marriage.
>> <snip>
>> Gosh. This looks so simple and obvious but the more I delve into it,
>>the more complicated it seems to become. Maybe umrats can help me out
>>here?
>> There was something like this raised in an agony column in a
>>newspaper recently. The man, let's call him Arbuthnot (not his real
>>name) died and the first Mrs Arbuthnot (with whom Mr Arbuthnot
>>fathered her children) wrote to the second, legally married, Mrs
>>Arbuthnot (who had no children) asking her not to attend the funeral
>>service because it was for family only and she was not, in the eyes of
>>the others, real family.

I think (as JA deduced KRW's rule below) it's blood descent: anyone
directly descended from X is "allowed"; the partner being "tolerated" if
offspring were produced, otherwise not. In the above, maybe there was
also some ill-feeling between the two Mrs.s Arbuthnot, or at least the
first resented the second, and just used the lack of children as an
excuse.
[]
>> IIUC KRW, you are neither promoting the time-honoured doctrine of
>>patrilineage, adopted by many societies or matrilineage, adopted by
>>others but Arbuthnotlineage where you use a different rule to decide
>>who's a real family member and who isn't and which seems to depend on
>>whether the children are born male or female or not at all.

Bloodline, and partners who produce it.

>> It also seems to me that if you are from the Archer family, you
>>might form a different opinion about who is a "real" Archer depending
>>upon whether you are looking downstream or upstream at the family
>>tree. People from outside a family, I feel, tend to look downstream. I

It's also somewhat arbitrary where you set the start point - who you
choose as the "root".

>>find it interesting to apply the principle to my own family (about
>>which I know relatively (sorry) little and if you haven't gathered
>>already, I am no geneaologist or anthropoligist or indeed any other

[If you want to try a start, I always direct people to FreeBMD.org.uk,
as it's fairly easy to use, and free. (Less useful before 191x when MMNs
and age-at-death aren't shown, though still somewhat useful; those are
available back to 1837Q2 from the GRO, still free but more fiddly to
use.)]
[]
>I believe krw's rule is blood descendant of Dan Archer's parents (so
>that Jack's children are included, as would Paul Johnson if he turned
>up but not Terry Barford). Married-ins are not included but their
>children with an Archer are (thus the Frillies but not Nigel). Of

Usually (in the case of such hostilities) the spice* are at least
_tolerated_ if they produced.

>course it assumes that parentage (especially paternity which is always
>a matter of opinion rather than fact) is accurate.

Though DNA can help - though for most of us (without access to the
hairbrush-or-similar tools law enforcement have in dramas) it's
dependent on descendants taking the test (for which they - the
descendants - have to [a] exist [b] be known to you).
>
>john
>
>john
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I
have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)

On 13.8.23 09:34, Vicky wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 22:34:59 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 12.8.23 08:57, Vicky wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:51:21 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11.8.23 23:37, carolet wrote:
>>>>> Note that spoilers are included below the cast and crew.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cast    :
>>>>> Ben Archer    -    Ben Norris
>>>>> David Archer    -    Timothy Bentinck
>>>>> Helen Archer    -    Louiza Patikas
>>>>> Henry Archer    -    Blayke Darby
>>>>> Pip Archer    -    Daisy Badger
>>>>> Ruth Archer    -    Felicity Finch
>>>>> Ian Craig    -    Stephen Kennedy
>>>>> Eddie Grundy    -    Trevor Harrison
>>>>> Emma Grundy    -    Emerald O'Hanrahan
>>>>> George Grundy    -    Angus Stobie
>>>>> Tracy Horrobin    -    Susie Riddell
>>>>> Kirsty Miller    -    Annabelle Dowler
>>>>> Stella Pryor    -    Lucy Speed
>>>>> Adil Shah    -    Ronny Jhutti
>>>>> Lynda Snell    -    Carole Boyd
>>>>> Oliver Sterling    -    Michael Cochrane
>>>>> Rob Titchener    -    Timothy Watson
>>>>> Lottie    -    Bonnie Baddoo
>>>>> Announcer    -    Jack Ashton
>>>>>
>>>>> Writer    :    Liz John
>>>>> Director    :    Jess Bunch
>>>>> Editor    :    Jeremy Howe
>>>>>
>>>> Well I suppose 5 is better, but it remains inadequate.
>>>
>>> 6
>>
>> I have double counted and I still make it 5. Rob, Ruth and Ian do not
>> count as they have only married into the bloodline. Stella has yet to
>> achieve marriage.
>>
>
> I thought if the surname is Archer they count, and Elizabeth does and
> Shula too. What about Jill?
>

Lizzie and Shula count as they were Archer lineage when born. Jill was
not and would not count.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 13.8.23 09:36, Nick Odell wrote:
> There was something like this raised in an agony column in a newspaper recently. The man, let's call him Arbuthnot (not his real name) died and the first Mrs Arbuthnot (with whom Mr Arbuthnot fathered her children) wrote to the second, legally married, Mrs Arbuthnot (who had no children) asking her not to attend the funeral service because it was for family only and she was not, in the eyes of the others, real family

Ah well. That means I do not get to go to my wife's funeral. The first
husband won't either as he is already dead.

I think they might be a Catholic family (the Arbuthnots) because of
course then you are married for life.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics