This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Tuesday, 13th May 2008
How much of this do the SW team do?
It occured to me this evening, not for the first time, that Pip is being groomed to take over Brookfield at some point. In the event of her getting married and producing children there will be a situation in fifty or sixty years time involving one or more of them inheriting the farm.
Will there still be Archers at Brookfield when Pip retires, and if not what will the programme be called?
Interesting point, Reggie. It does seem that way and I have always wondered what Josh and Ben will make of it.
Tue, 13 May 2008 21:31 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham in message 1
Perhaps if Pip marries she will keep her name, as her mother didn't manage to do but loads of women do? In which case any children of hers inheriting the farm would still be Archers.
Amy x
It doesn't really matter, for the purposes of this discussion, what Pip calls herself but what her children are called. I think it is still much more common for children to take their father's surname than their mother's even where paents are unmarried or their mother has kept her own name. Still I suppose customs could change in next half century.
There are still the Bridge Farm Archers don't forget - maybe the emphasis will switch to them, as was supposed to happen in the 70's. They are the true heirs of Dan, after all....!
Tue, 13 May 2008 21:47 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham in message 4
Oh right, maybe you're right Reggie, I just know several mothers (some single, some married or cohabiting) whose children all have the mothers' names and not the fathers', but very possibly that's not usual, I don't know.
Amy x
what will the programme be called?Â
Due to global franchising, by then it will be known as "CSI: Pennyhasset".
, in reply to message 7.
Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Wouldn't this excellent discussion be better in DTA?
Wed, 14 May 2008 08:36 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham
strictly speaking, it should be Ben who inherits Brookfield - the second son, David, inherited above the First Son, Kenton; and the second son, Philip, inherited above the First Son, Jack.
Unless it's still contradict a cousin day.
, in reply to message 9.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
You know I wouldn't dream of contradicting you Rosie but I would really like Pip to inherit Brookfield and run it in her own right rather than being married off to be a farmer's wife, albeit one who is active in running the family business.
I was just speculating on the problems this might cause for the SW team in fifty or so years time and wondering if they had considered them yet.
, in reply to message 10.
Posted by PeterTheOrdinary (U9949465) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
There are plenty more Archers about the place, and people in Ambridge have a habit of dying unexpectedly. Ben will no doubt be hit by a bolt of lightening (or falling aeroplane) at some point when ratings are a matter of concern and a Radio 4 controller decides to spice it all up.
I would really like Pip to inherit Brookfield and run it in her own rightÂ
Or even in a Civil Partnership with Izzy.
message 10
Do you really think there will be anything left to inherit, coz? by any of the Heavesome threesome?
Philippa really is growing into a loathsome, demanding Madame, takes after kinswomen Elizabeth, Kate etc.
Pip could have kids and not be married at all. Then the children would get her surname anyway. This could be so whether or not she has a partner. So many people don't bother to marry at all these days even with a long-term relationship.
I agree that Pip seems to be the next farmer at Brookfield. But perhaps Josh or Ben will want to do it too? Then we can have Brookfield Inheritance Row Mark 2.
Alma.
Almond_Aire in message 14
Ruairi might want Brookfield!
, in reply to message 13.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Well Rosie, I suppose they could dissipate the Brookfield inheritance between them. Clogs to clogs in three generations isn't it?
Then I suppose the focus shifts to Bridge farm but that only postpones the problem a decade or two. I think agricultural tenancies can only be passed on through three generations, so when whoever inherits out of Helen and Tom's children dies that's it. Even if the family inherit shedloads of cash from Peggy there's no guarantee that Borchester Land will want to sell them the farm.
I think Peet may have cut the Gordian Knot. Pip makes a civil partnership with Izzy, she can retain her name and pass the farm on to one of Josh or Ben's off-spring.
I'd copyright that Peet and then you can sell it back to the Beeb when the time comes.
Obviously Pip must marry someone called Archer.
Well, Peggy's mum married two men called Perkins :o)
In answer to the original question, the most forward bit of planning - or at least keeping our options open - was when Ruth and David's third child was born and we had to decide the sex. Someone suggested that a boy would be most interesting, as then they could be an interesting power struggle for the farm in 20 years time. We all agreed, and the someone else observed "on what other programme would you be making plans for 20 years time?"
This isn't to say that there will be such a struggle, of course. Ben might want to be... ooh, a fashion designer.
Keri Davies - Host in message 17
Or join the RAF?
Ben might want to be... ooh, a fashion designer.Â
If you want to predict the /fashions/ in 20 years time you'll have to ask Basia.
, in reply to message 17.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Thank you Mr K., I'll just have to keep listening for the next fifty years to find out then.
Wouldn't that only be if the father was not named on the birth certificate....? (old chestnut #34539755)
As for Pip marrying an Archer - surely it won't be lomg before the progeny of Dan and Doris start to inter-marry; there are so many of them in the area after all. Would it be so bad, for example, if Pheobz and Joshy got together....?
exTAfan in message 21 Wouldn't that only be if the father was not named on the birth certificate.. She can give whatever name she wants. the children can only have the paternal parental name if the father goes and agrees. I think.
, in reply to message 22.
Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
No chance 20 years time could see a situation where two women could be in a power struggle for the farm, then?
Of course, but the struggle posited was between the first born and a younger sibling who saw it as his right because he was male.
Disclaimer: All this is hypothetical!
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.