- This topic has 41 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In which case why has he enlisted the help of his mother, if he doesn’t have some kind of masterplan?
The way the storyline has been developed just doesn’t ring true. It’s obvious that editorial decisions have been made to take things this way, and now those decisions are eating themselves.
As I said, I’m very surprised Rob has invited his mother to stay, as I had the strong impression he wasn’t close to his mother. Perhaps he thinks his mother will keep a close eye on Helen while he’s at the shop, ensuring that Helen does what he (Rob) thinks is best i.e rests, eats properly, doesn’t go out on her own (or see friends!) The alternative would have been for him to give up work altogether to stay with Helen; however, in his deluded brain, he needs to turn up at the shop to ‘look after Helen’s interests’, (which, are in fact, his own.) I suppose, for Rob, his mother’s presence is the lesser of two evils; if Pat suggests coming round to look after Helen, he can say that there’s no need, because Ursula is there. I wonder, too, if Rob is expecting financial gain from his parents once he’s produced a son and heir?
Ramblings on a theme, a theme I need to leave alone or it will not get better
I am trying not to be drawn in to ” the story” but I was in Japan last week and as soon as I got wifi I was downloading the archers podcast. 17 hours time difference between Seattle and Japan! ..but .resistance is…. futile …Then the usual Monday walk with the dogs, back home in Washington now, it’s Dumteedum time with Lucy and Roifield (such a treat) and a lovely long walk for my Dumteedogs and a jet lag cure for me then I missheard Milliebelle, I though she said Arse-ula, so now I have my new name for the ghastly grandma, Arse-ulcer,
too harsh?Perhaps he thinks his mother will keep a close eye on Helen while he’s at the shop, ensuring that Helen does what he (Rob) thinks is best i.e rests, eats properly, doesn’t go out on her own (or see friends!)
Right… and that would explain the conspiratorial pantomime villain phone call from Ursula to Rob saying that she thought Kirsty was bad for Helen, and that she should definitely be kept away from her…?
Do me a favour… This plot is as good as a leaky roof, and we all know it.
And, indeed, I did make that point several messages ago!
Quote: The implausibility (for me) is that when Ursula met Kirsty, she didn’t see through Rob’s lies and notice how much more relaxed and happy Helen was when Kirsty was there. Unquote:
I’ve since been wondering what it was that Ursula didn’t like about Kirsty. Maybe the reference to demonstrating against GM crops?
Ah, the personality transplants continue. Remarkable how it’s so catching, isn’t it?
First Pat, then Tony telling her she shouldn’t even think of approaching Helen – not even in the face of glaringly obvious evidence that All Is Not Well chez Titchener.
And now Kirsty – who is normally utterly straightforward and open. She challenged the dark lord, and there is NO WAY she would fail to raise her concerns with Tom in confidence. Not after their personal history, her close relationship with his family and, of course, that bust-up with Rob.
Yet again, the characters (and their history) are being twisted out of all recognition to serve the storyline. The fact that no one seems to be talking to anyone else is just plain sodding ridiculous: it’s a small village, people are close, they talk, period.
Plus the tired old trope of bringing in pantomime villains like Ursula to hang out this scenario beyond any semblance of logic or sense. The sooner she and the dark lord are consigned to an unpleasant conclusion, the better. (Mind you, at least we now know where Titchyknob gets it all from.)
Eitherway, I agree with Roifield. As our good friends north of the border would say, ‘Ahm oot.’
Hi, I’m new.
I’ve been trying to make sense of the introduction of Ursula – I agree it’s bizarre. I wonder, though, whether she’s here to help Wob get rid of Henry?
The way she was emphasising the changes in Henry when she was “confiding” in Pat and Tony (and it’s all Helen’s fault, of course) made me wonder if there isn’t something awful in store for Henry. It would all be made to look like an accident – does he run off in a fit of temper and fall down a blocked culvert? – probably as a result of one of Helen’s uncharacteristic outbursts. That would leave the way clear for MiniWob to flourish without the hindrance of an older brother for whom Wob clearly doesn’t care a fig. And presumably that will tip Helen over the edge, she’ll have to go back to the big house with the padded walls, and Wob becomes the heroic victim.
Be grateful I’m not on the writing team 🙂
Judging from tonight’s episode (Mothering Sunday), Ursula isn’t here to collude with Rob, but to dominate him. We’ve just heard that she’s eager to get rid of Henry (packed off to Prep School, just as she packed off the ‘obstreperous’ young Rob) and she’s making invidious comparisons between Jess and the ‘unconventional’ Helen who, it seems she knows, had a child by Donor Insemination. Now, if this continues, this could be a great twist, and would certainly go some way to explain (although not excuse) why Rob’s so messed up—think of the famous words of Philip Larkin! I notice that tonight’s episode was written by Tim Stimpson, one of the best Archers scriptwriters in my view, and I thought the scene between Ursula and Rob was brilliant. Ursula is even better than Rob at manipulation in the guise of caring and it makes for chilling listening.
I’m with Katie, on Sunday it was all about Rob being dominated by Ursula. It was obvious Rob was not keen on sending Henry to Boarding school because as I’ve always thought, Rob actually likes Henry.
Of course I could be completely wrong when we find out exactly how Henry got burned by the scalding bath water. My money is that it wasn’t Helen.
I think Rob ‘likes’ Henry, but only in the sense that the child’s existence feeds his fantasy of being the perfect husband and surrogate father. I think that, as with Helen, the moment Henry starts showing any self-will, Rob’s attitude towards the boy could change, and he’ll get angry and impatient with him. At the moment, he wouldn’t want Henry sent away, but things could very well be different when he has a son of his own; Henry will then be seen as ‘spare’.
But back to Ursula; how interesting that Rob now seems to be seeking her approval, showering her with Mothering Sunday gifts and making no attempt to bully her the way he bullies Helen.I was impressed by the writing that had Helen offer for Rob and Ursula to go to the Bull by themselves, only for it to backfire when they insisted on taking Henry. Poor Helen must have been looking forward to spending some time alone with Henry just like old times. Just like the brutally cruel trick of not waking Helen up for Christmas, making her miss Mother’s Day is diabolical.
I agree with Jim-it was very upsetting when Rob and Ursula took Henry away from Helen on Mother’s Day. But there was that moment when Rob seemed to have a flash of insight into his own childhood when Ursula suggested sending Henry to boarding school. Are the script writers setting up the final conflict between the the Tichyknobs and the Archers? Or are they creating a lifeboat for the whole storyline – Rob has an epiphany as he realizes that he has been controlling Helen as his mother had controlled him? Oh, no! He will change his ways and we will be stuck with him forever!
Being stuck with Rob forever?! What a dreadful thought!
However this storyline ends – and it does feel as though it’s being ratcheted up to a close with the introduction of Ursula and the impending birth – I hope Rob goes.
How they finish him off (divorce, death or going doolally) doesn’t really matter, I’d just prefer Ambridge as a Rob-free zone. He can’t hang around being consistently evil indefinitely, surely?! They’ve given him loads of interesting and juicy stuff to do already – there can’t be much more. Even JR Ewing’s reign of terror didn’t last that long.
(By the by, it turns out that Ursula and Bruce have money (enough to send a child that isn’t their biological grandchild to prep school) … Maybe that’s how Rob can afford to “volunteer” at the farm shop. I say “volunteer” because there’s no way that shop can pay him anything like the salary he’s been earning up until now. Maybe he has access to “The Bank of Mum and Dad” to prop him up. I wonder if Rob stays around we’ll get to meet Bruce or the brother Miles, too?!)
Much as I love the concept of redemption, realistically, it would take years of therapy to fix Rob and even then, I don’t think it would work. His epiphany would have to be a thousand times bigger than the one that hit St. Paul on the road to Damascus. It’s not just his relationship with Helen, there’s the question of his homophobia, his lies, his lack of anger management, his over-weening narcissism and the fact that he’s probably got a personality disorder. No quick fix here! Having said that, I would be sorry to lose Rob entirely from TA a) because Timothy Watson has done such a cracking job of portraying him b) antagonists are always useful in drama and Rob’s so much more interesting than the simple yob Clive Horrobin who used to pop up to cause trouble. Of course, I want Helen and Henry out of Blossom Hill Cottage asap, but if Helen’s baby survives, she can never be entirely free of Rob unless there’s a convenient hunting accident.
The good news is that Helen can be free of Rob. There is now a law against domestic cruelty: the Serious Crime Act 2015. All Helen needs to do is to prove what’s happened (it doesn’t have to be physical, the Act governs coercive behaviour and systematic emotional abuse in intimate relationships). If so, a court could rule in her favour – not only that, but they could put him away for up to five years.
A court has to consider the best interests of the children – they usually rule in favour of the mother unless there are circumstances to counter that.
The situation is clearly so malevolent and damaging that Rob could indeed be ousted from Ambridge for good – no matter how hard he tries. Helen would have not only the protection of her family and friends, but of the law. If he shows up or tries anything, she can call the police. Also, she could take out an injunction against him, so that he can never come anywhere near her or the children.
The show must take account of this legal development and bring it into the storyline, because it’s hugely relevant. Rob is guilty of virtually all of the criteria of offence under the Act (see p. 4,’Types of behaviour’):
Also, the National Centre for Domestic Violence can assist with obtaining emergency injunctions, which the show needs to be aware of:
And today, on International Women’s Day, we are looking out for our sisters. I’m not interested in hanging out this storyline a moment longer (although of course, kudos to Mr Watson for doing a good job). I’m tired of The Archers being ‘The Rob Show’, and I’m no longer interested in what ‘motivates’ him. I just want him gone.
The sooner b’stards like him are openly given their comeuppance – fictional or otherwise – the better.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.