Think she called him John (after her brother) Anthony (after her Father) on the birth certificate but to be known day to day as Jack (after her Grandfather)

I thought, if married, then the baby would be given the Father's surname on the birth certificate as the Father's details are included by right, when married.

Embarrassingly so am I.

I'm pretty sure it's John Anthony Archer and they call him Jack after Jack Wooley and so the baby doesn't get confused wtih Helen's brother John.

I think you are correct.



Count me in too.

I suppose we couldn't have Adam being the only gay in the village

I really wish you hadn't said that.

You have put one helluvan image into my mind.

Re. naming. It was JACK Anthony Archer on the certificate wasn't it?

I know Jack is traditonally a diminutive of John but I don't think it is in this case. Could be totally wrong!!

**** oops I googled it and it is John
Daft to do that imv as now neither Jack nor Gideon is his real name.

Me too. Notwithstanding he provides a foil and a reason for the lovely Ian, any drama would be the poorer if all the characters were loveable and flawless. I can't stand Susan but I have said many a time on this thread that the narrative absolutely needs her.

LOL - the continuity guy.

I am really pleased with that outcome and sat here with a big siilly grin on my face. But I do have odd views on fidelity it seems. I mean odd compared to the zeitgeist - I think my views are completely rational.

Ooh do expand. What are your odd views?!

Well nothing very subversive. In the first place personally I don't seem to experience jealousy as most people do. I just don't feel that gnawing, suspicion that seems to be all encompassing for many folk. ( I do envy sometimes BTW but that is different)

So I find it really hard to empathise with someone who is or fears they are being cheated on. I make the right noises because I have learned what is expected but I am not feeling their emotion in the way I would if they were experiencing the pain of bereavement, or going through anger or anxiety or joy. Or at least I assume I have an inability to know what jealousy feels like, that explains my difficulty understanding people's reactions to it.

So I find people's reactions to infidelity quite difficult to handle. In the first place fidelity is an entirely man made construct. It isn't innate to our species. Instead I believe the sacred nature of fidelity is peddled by the ruling classes as part of a means of (among other things) controlling the masses and maintaining their own power.

In the second place there seems to me to be something logical about fearing infidelity and experiencing jealousy as the precursor to possibly losing something/someone you love and value. So the reaction of kicking someone out of your life on discovering they have been unfaithful makes no sense at all to me. It takes you from fearing something that might happen if your partner 'cheats,' to making absolutely certain of such a feared outcome.

Finally someone who has a philanderer for a partner often has the constant confirmation of being that persons's first choice. This is assuming its the sort of guy who plays away for a spell and then returns to the spouse until his feet (or something ) itche again. In most cases it will be the other woman (why do we never speak of "the other man"?) who is dropped not the wife. In many ways I think there is something far more committed and affirmatory about a person who plays away and chooses to come back of his/her own free will than one who just picks someone, grits their teeth and tolerates whatever.

ETA - On reflection I can, maybe, empathise with the pain but not the outrage that often goes with it.

I agree with nearly all of what you are saying. I too do seem to suffer jealousy much below the average, which I think is a blessing, as jealousy, in my opinion is one of the most pointless emotions in the spectrum.
Yes, infidelity happens, by design, by lapse of judgement or by accident. All of which is not good. I think you are more succeptible to being hurt when you are in the initial 'in love' phase than in the later hum-drum.
One thing that I feel very strongly about is not to use your partner as the confessor. In the sense of absolving the gult of the person that has commited the adultery. If my partner had a lapse, I'd rather not know about it, let him deal with the guilt rather than dumping it on me.

So, I suppose of that Adam is not guilty.

Quite disappointed that Ed humoured Rob and didn't say anything about the set-to with Emma

Agree with all of that. Do you think jealousr or possessiveness of the type we're discussing now stems from insecurity or a lack of pragmatism?
I think there's an element of that. There is also the ideal fed to us constantly of a static end-goal where everything will be rosy and lovely forevermore (cf the ending of most films). And that just isn't realistic.

Yeah I want someone to verbally assault him!
Having said that, perhaps the portrayal is pretty realistic. We probably all prefer not to confront and it can be difficult to work up a head of steam especially when a swine like Rob comes across so genial and amiable.
The passive exclusion and the curt cold-shoulder is probably ultimately more effective as it won't make anyone pity Rob and allow him a foothold.

I rather enjoyed his pathetic pleading with Pat, and bleating at the bar when Kenton decided other customers were more in need of being served

I feel sorry for the supermarket driver that has to deliver to Rob. Probably has to face all the worst attributes of all the worst customers combined times a million.

Hope he wipes his arse with Rob's nectarines beforehand.

Well my barrier to true empathy on this subject probably invalidates my opinion but I think I agree with your second paragraph. I think the way we feel is to an extent informed by those around us. I don't mean every person and on every occassion but I do think we can be conditioned by social mores such that we react and even feel the way we are 'supposed to feel'. However even if it might sound as if I am, I am not invalidating the feelings of an individual. It doesn't matter why someone feels what they do, they feel as they feel. On the other hand I do feel as a society and in the media especially we should be more cogniscent of the risk of creating a self fulfilling propehecy and making people miserable about things that they may otherwise take in their stride.

Talking of Susan, it struck me last night that she has very little to do with Johnny, who is her nephew.

Imo, it would be more in character for her to be sucking up to that branch of the family. Maybe she feels they're a bit beneath her, now she's related to the Aldridges.

I found that very out of character, too. Then I got to wondering if the family had kept it from him. I don't recall hearing him mention the incident at all.

I don't understand why Kenton hasn't barred him, tbh. I certainly couldn't have someone like that around if I ran a pub. I'd make Peggy Mitchell's "get outa my pub!" sound like a whisper.

Rotflol!

i hope he makes sure Rob's plums are crushed.

What about his nuts?

I thought it hilarious that Rob had to ask "is your mother in law serving in the shop today?". I guess Susan has made her feelings for him made very clear.

I suppose it makes more sense to have Rob staying in the village as far as the story line goes. But honestly can you see anyone who has just been outed in court, as Rob recently has, sticking around in a small close-knit village where just about everybody is related to each other in some way? He could easily move to Felpersham/Borchester and commute to work and his access visits don't need him to be living quite so close to his son.

I think the silent treatment is probably the most effective way to deal with him. Most of us would probably do the same and just keep away from the person concerned - he'll get the message soon enough.

Oh yes. That's a bit odd isn't it? Especially as she works at Bridge Farm. Maybe the story writers have forgotton to read the archives.