[rasbo]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s3/coronation-street/news/a374414/coronation-street-betty-williamss-secret-revealed.html

So....how is this possible? Did Anne own the Rovers when she left? What happened when Bet lost it in 95?

As announced earlier this year, Betty's tribute episodes will include the revelation of a long-held secret kept by the popular character.

Collinson confirmed the full storyline on This Morning today (April 2), explaining: "What they discover as they're clearing out her house is that Annie Walker, who was the landlady of the Rovers Return for the first 20 years of the show, actually bequeathed The Rovers to Betty in her will.

"Betty carried this secret and never took up this bequest. So she's left behind a bit of a bombshell, really! Certainly for Stella in terms of who owns the pub now and what happens going forward.

"But more brilliantly I think, she'll always be the longest-serving landlady of the Rovers Return by right, which I think is such a brilliant tribute to her."

Collinson promised that Betty's farewell is "brilliant and moving", adding that it was "incredible" to see Bill Kenwright reprise the role of Gordon.

[k9fan]

Originally Posted by rasbo

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s3...-revealed.html

So....how is this possible? Did Anne own the Rovers when she left? What happened when Bet lost it in 95?

Annie Walker did not own the pub; it was owned by Newton & Ridley.

[AJ21]

what would happen in terms of ownership of the pub then if betty was the legal owner?

[AJ21]

producers are using their artistic licence, it does not matter that their is a continuity error

[jackbell]

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1647685

[Flukie]

What a silly 'storyline' for Betty.

As has been said, the pub belonged to the brewery, Annie was just the licensee, but it's still silly anyway, to suddenly invent something as daft as this.

[Agent F]

Originally Posted by Flukie

What a silly 'storyline' for Betty.

As has been said, the pub belonged to the brewery, Annie was just the licensee, but it's still silly anyway, to suddenly invent something as daft as this.

It's just a light hearted sub-plot. A little tribute to Betty to reflect her role in the show. Nothing more, nothing less.

[DaZ_yUv_X]

Originally Posted by Flukie

What a silly 'storyline' for Betty.

As has been said, the pub belonged to the brewery, Annie was just the licensee, but it's still silly anyway, to suddenly invent something as daft as this.

i'm pretty sure that annie did actually own the pub (if i'm wrong i apologise!), but she sold it to her son billy walker when she retired (still making the storyline ridculous as, according to phil collinson, annie left betty the rovers in her will), the brewery bought it back off billy when they weren't impressed with how he was running things.

this would have been a nice tribute story for betty, had history allowed it, but it just doesn't add up & seems insulting to, not only the characters of annie and betty, but to all the characters who purchased the actual pub - not just the license - since annie retired.

i'm quite disappointed really, as this demonstrates poor research and thought. this storyline would un-do a lot of history in my opinion, and although it's tribute to betty, it makes TPTB seem incompetent which they clearly aren't as they've developed some really good storylines recently. it's a shame really.

[mancunianway]

It certainly doesn't make sense.

Annie and Jack Walker were licensees - Newton & Ridley owned the pub. It was when Newton & Ridley decided to sell it that cause Bet Lynch such anguish as she couldn't afford to buy it on her own - this was in 1987 when Annie Walker was still alive. How could Newton & Ridley sell the pub to Alec Gilroy in 1987 if it was still Annie's property? Alec sold it back to the brewery in 1991 - again, how can this have happened if it was Annie's? The brewery sold it again in 1995 prompting Bet to run away - again, Annie was possibly still alive at this point. It doesn't make any sense.

Even if you believe it was Annie's property, or she owned a lease to bequeath, it still makes no difference as since her death in 1995 the pub has been owned by the Duckworths, Natalie Barnes, Fred Elliott & gang, Duggie Ferguson, Fred again, the MacDonalds and now Cindy Beale - its not like buying a stolen car; you can't reclaim a house (or pub) if the buyers were innocent, and especially not with a chain of owners like that. For anyone to have any claim on the pub itself, all of those subsequent owners (since Annie Walker's death) would have had to be in on the cunning plan to defraud Betty of her inheritance. That isn't the case.

And even if Annie did own it and was able to bequeath it and Betty had refused the gift in the will, it would have gone into the residue of her estate and presumably her son Billy Walker would have inherited it in 1995. There's no comeback for Betty's son Gordon - she refused the gift so its lost. Unless Gordon can prove his mother was not mentally competent to make the decision - which wasn't the case anyway. And even if that was the scenario, that Betty had been ill or barmy when she made the decision, all the subsequent buyers were 'innocent' and so any claim he would have would be against Annie's estate/executors of Annie's will.

So its totally barmy. We're asked to suspend disbelief, forget the major storyline that saw Bet Lynch leave and pretend it never happened. And then we're supposed to believe that someone can dig up a will from 17 years ago and try and take over a pub?

Piffle!

[stud u like]

Another reason not to watch. Coronation Street writers are living in "la la land" lately.

[sian2011]

So what if it doesn't make sense or it's a continuety error? It's a fitting tribute to a lovely lady.

[mancunianway]

The plots are getting audiences so what do they care? What they are doing, sort of cleverly, is having the usual outlandish 'oh look here comes another murderer'-type plot, then they sprinkle it with stories like these that namecheck the golden era to give it a sheen of 'Old Corrie'. Whereas its actually more like Hollyoaks nowadays.

As an example - PC on telly the other morning saying Rita and Dennis would marry and create another Mrs Tanner on the street - he said "How good is that?". Basically thats the whole point of the plot; that producers and writers can relive their childhood.... Meanwhile the core plots are barmy.

[mancunianway]

Originally Posted by sian2011

So what if it doesn't make sense or it's a continuety error? It's a fitting tribute to a lovely lady.

Thats as maybe, but its still getting it WRONG! I'm sure they could have thought of something else, maybe her hotpot recipe was actually from a F*nny Craddock book or she'd had a secret first husband who was a Newton or a Ridley or something!

[Flukie]

Originally Posted by mancunianway

It certainly doesn't make sense.

Annie and Jack Walker were licensees - Newton & Ridley owned the pub. It was when Newton & Ridley decided to sell it that cause Bet Lynch such anguish as she couldn't afford to buy it on her own - this was in 1987 when Annie Walker was still alive. How could Newton & Ridley sell the pub to Alec Gilroy in 1987 if it was still Annie's property? Alec sold it back to the brewery in 1991 - again, how can this have happened if it was Annie's? The brewery sold it again in 1995 prompting Bet to run away - again, Annie was possibly still alive at this point. It doesn't make any sense.

Piffle!

Summed up perfectly in a few words. I remember that, now you mention it, about Bet not being able to afford to buy the pub when the Walkers vacated the tenancy, so she was put in as manager, and Alec bought it later.

As you say, even if Annie HAD 'owned it' it's passed through many hands since then, including Jack and Vera's!

But I noticed in the Sun today, the fact 'the pub was bequathed to Betty' is being treated like something that will lead to Stella being in danger of losing the pub, but her mum (Sue Johnson) will fight to make sure she keeps it!

So I don't think it IS being treated like a sub-plot that is light and frothy that means nothing, if that article is anything to go by!

[David the Wavid]

Originally Posted by DaZ_yUv_X

i'm pretty sure that annie did actually own the pub (if i'm wrong i apologise!), but she sold it to her son billy walker when she retired (still making the storyline ridculous as, according to phil collinson, annie left betty the rovers in her will), the brewery bought it back off billy when they weren't impressed with how he was running things.

this would have been a nice tribute story for betty, had history allowed it, but it just doesn't add up & seems insulting to, not only the characters of annie and betty, but to all the characters who purchased the actual pub - not just the license - since annie retired.

i'm quite disappointed really, as this demonstrates poor research and thought. this storyline would un-do a lot of history in my opinion, and although it's tribute to betty, it makes TPTB seem incompetent which they clearly aren't as they've developed some really good storylines recently. it's a shame really.

Not quite - the Walkers had the Rovers tenancy but not the pub. When Newton & Ridley bought Billy out in 1984 they were buying the tenancy. Bet then ran it for two years as a manager before using Alec's money to buy the tenancy in 1987 (and again from 1992 to 1995 when the brewery bought Alec out). If Annie had owned it outright, the brewery wouldn't have had any say in how she ran it but this clearly wasn't the case as she was always answering to them.

This isn't some obscure piece of trivia mentioned a couple of times, it was a huge part of the show from 1960 until 1995!

[Flukie]

Originally Posted by mancunianway

The plots are getting audiences so what do they care? What they are doing, sort of cleverly, is having the usual outlandish 'oh look here comes another murderer'-type plot, then they sprinkle it with stories like these that namecheck the golden era to give it a sheen of 'Old Corrie'. Whereas its actually more like Hollyoaks nowadays.

As an example - PC on telly the other morning saying Rita and Dennis would marry and create another Mrs Tanner on the street - he said "How good is that?". Basically thats the whole point of the plot; that producers and writers can relive their childhood.... Meanwhile the core plots are barmy.

If they wanted to 'create another Mrs Tanner' as a sort of tribute to Elsie, why not just bring in some younger relation of Dennis' who could BE a sort of 'new Elsie'.

Giving the name to an 80 year old woman who used to be Dennis' mother's rival' for Len 40 years ago, doesn't really have the same appeal!

[I love tea]

Hmm it's a nice touch, but feels a bit shoehorned it to me, completely unrealistic but hey, when was Corrie ever realistic?

[sian2011]

Originally Posted by mancunianway

Thats as maybe, but its still getting it WRONG! I'm sure they could have thought of something else, maybe her hotpot recipe was actually from a F*nny Craddock book or she'd had a secret first husband who was a Newton or a Ridley or something!

It's only 'wrong' to those who are so obsessed that they'd actually know any different. I've watched Corrie since I was a kid (so that's ALONG time) but I wouldn't know or care that Annie didn't actually own the pub. It's just a story as with all...come on do you really think that people live with that many murders and kidnappers in one street in real life????

[Kat's Stilettos]

Oh, chill out guys, it's a nice little tribute! Showing us that Betty wasn't only the bread and butter of the Rovers for so long, she was actually the owner while all the deals and switch overs were happening over the years. It just plants Betty as the true owner of the base of the street.

But does that mean that any future lists of Rovers owners can't include anyone after Annie?

[David the Wavid]

Originally Posted by sian2011

It's only 'wrong' to those who are so obsessed that they'd actually know any different. I've watched Corrie since I was a kid (so that's ALONG time) but I wouldn't know or care that Annie didn't actually own the pub. It's just a story as with all...come on do you really think that people live with that many murders and kidnappers in one street in real life????

But it's a story that's clearly meant as a shout-out to exactly the people who will notice they've got it wrong!

I'm trying not to slate it before I see though as there will probably be more to it than we know, I can't see the scriptwriters making such a big blooper. That's why the show has an archivist.

[Honestweegie]

Im sure the die hards (myself included) will realise there have been too many storylines since Annie walker died regarding the ownership and people buying the pub... surely nonhe of this would be able to happen without the consent of the real owner.

[mancunianway]

Originally Posted by sian2011

It's only 'wrong' to those who are so obsessed that they'd actually know any different. I've watched Corrie since I was a kid (so that's ALONG time) but I wouldn't know or care that Annie didn't actually own the pub. It's just a story as with all...come on do you really think that people live with that many murders and kidnappers in one street in real life????

Its fantasy of course. But if you want to 'buy into' the fantasy it has to be honest with itself and not contradict its own history. You can't just pretend that inconvenient things never happened (like Bobby Ewing appearing in the shower...)

I'm very surprised about all this as, given that PC's history was dealing with Whovians (the most obsessive fans), he'd surely understand how there are two sorts of viewers - those like you who don't really cling to the 'facts', and the other fanatics who shout at the telly when its wrong!

[gemma-the-husky]

Originally Posted by DaZ_yUv_X

i'm pretty sure that annie did actually own the pub (if i'm wrong i apologise!), but she sold it to her son billy walker when she retired (still making the storyline ridculous as, according to phil collinson, annie left betty the rovers in her will), the brewery bought it back off billy when they weren't impressed with how he was running things.

this would have been a nice tribute story for betty, had history allowed it, but it just doesn't add up & seems insulting to, not only the characters of annie and betty, but to all the characters who purchased the actual pub - not just the license - since annie retired.

i'm quite disappointed really, as this demonstrates poor research and thought. this storyline would un-do a lot of history in my opinion, and although it's tribute to betty, it makes TPTB seem incompetent which they clearly aren't as they've developed some really good storylines recently. it's a shame really.

there is no continuity error (is the thread claiming leaving the pub to Betty as such an error)

you can make a will leaving something to someone. if by the time of your death you have already disposed of the item, it does not invalidate the will. just that bequest. you do not have to make a new will each time your assets change

[boshealecta]

I think its a bit daft and ridiculous, I know some are saying its a nice touch but it could of been done better.

Even if we presume Annie owned the Rovers and left it to Betty when she died and it turned out Billy sold it to the brewery without permition so technically Betty always owned it, it doesnt add up for Betty to watch her friends, such as Bet, struggle and even leave because of money troubles with buying the pub, surely she would step in and say, I own it, you can have it.

I was secretly hoping it turned out she had won the lottery years ago but she still kept coming to work just because she loved the place so much

[mancunianway]

Originally Posted by Flukie

But I noticed in the Sun today, the fact 'the pub was bequathed to Betty' is being treated like something that will lead to Stella being in danger of losing the pub, but her mum (Sue Johnson) will fight to make sure she keeps it!

So I don't think it IS being treated like a sub-plot that is light and frothy that means nothing, if that article is anything to go by!

Barmy. Like I say, even if the pub was Annie's and there HAD been some dastardly plot/threats to swindle Betty out of it, there would be no claim on it now. There would instead be a claim on the person who swindled her/threatened her, or the executors. Gordon (or whoever) could claim the value of the pub (plus damages) from whoever did the threatening and swindling, but he CAN'T claim the pub itself.

PC said on This Morning that "she has left behind a bit of a bombshell really, certainly for Stella.." Not much of a bombshell as far as I can see - she's left behind the topic of a 5 minute conversation for Stella that will end in 'Ah bless..' and she'll get on with her life..