Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
Henry's weight
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Friday, 7th January 2011
How much did Henry weigh?
I saw this asked on DtA and thought it was going to asked here?
I can't see a question though apologies if I've missed it.
As we had the 'small for dates' panic and he was premeture surely this is an important detail? -
Message 2
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Sunday, 9th January 2011
Hi fondantfancee
Pretty sure Henry's weight hasn't been mentioned on air, but I'll ask in case I'm wrong.
Tayler -
Message 3
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Thank you Taylor.
-
Message 4
Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Monday, 10th January 2011
I'm sure the weight hasn't been given on the air - hence the need to aske the question.
Despite the lack of mention on the air it would be interesting to know what his weight was, and wonder if that question could be answered here....? -
Message 5
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Tuesday, 11th January 2011
It hasn't been mentioned, but, as discussed several times on DTA, Would be critical and relevant to Henry's medical care, and is one of the first bits of information given and asked in relation to a new baby, very especially a premature one.
-
Message 6
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Wednesday, 12th January 2011
Hi all
You're right that Henry's weight hasn't been given on air, but he was born at 33-34 weeks.
Hope that's of some help!
Tayler -
Message 7
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Wednesday, 12th January 2011
Thank you for trying Taylor.
It's sad that having brought in the 'small for dates' episode the writers felt unable to follow this up.
Perhaps it would have been better to not have bothered with information that wasn't followed through.
However, in the light of susequent events, I feel no suprise at this.
Thank you again for replying. -
Message 8
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Wednesday, 12th January 2011
Thanks for the reply, Tayler, but it doesn't give us the information that is significant to the whole SL.
The MB had actually calculated that he was born a month, 6 weeks early, so his weight at that prematurity would be critical, with other factors, of course, to what treatment would be required and how long the duration of his inpatiency might be.
As Helen was shown to be deeply shocked by the knowledge that he was "small for dates", which her eating and exercising regime might have contributed to, it is even more relevant.
(While I think of it,a baby being "small for dates" would immediately alert the medical staff and to a clued up pregnant woman to the possibility of pre-eclampsia, so it makes the revelation and subsequent emergency even more implausible.)
Have the SWs deliberately ommitted this information for any dramatic purpose, or did they not think that it was significant? -
Message 9
Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Thursday, 13th January 2011
I wonder if we'll ever discover his birth weight....?
-
Message 10
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Thursday, 13th January 2011
At his 18th birthday?
"Well, Henry, you're a big lad now - whoever would guess that, when you were born, you were only....Aargh! Not the....Dum dee dum dee dum dee dum.." -
Message 11
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Thursday, 13th January 2011
Snork!
I was suprised at first that there wasn't more demand for this information as I remember the great 'how prem was Abbey' debate.
However, in view of the circs the past 10 days, my suprise has abated! -
Message 12
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Are we any nearer to an answer to the points raised in #8, please?
-
Message 13
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Hi carrick
I don't think it was any deliberate omission, just not part of the on air conversations, which were more about the relief that Henry was ok and had all his fingers and toes, so to speak.
Tayler -
Message 14
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Thanks for your quick response, Tayler - I'm a bit incredulous that such a crucial bit of information, especially under the circumstances of "mother with a possible eating disorder", "baby small-for-dates" and "Such severe pre-eclampsia that an immediate caesarian of a premature baby was required", wasn't given.
Anyway, too late now, but thanks again for responding. -
Message 15
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
Well of course carrick.
I'm not going to nag Taylor, she's done her very best, but it's a nonsense to deliberately bring in 'small for dates' if the you then back out of an 'average' weight for the baby.
This is of course because the SWs knew that it would cause a furore so just easier not to say.
I would say - shouldn't have brought in that completely unecessary complication in the first place; but what do I know ...... -
Message 16
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
Couldn't agree more fondant, especially since no very good reason for him being kept in hospital other than born a month earlier than expected has been explained i.e he doesn't have an actual condition such as jaundice, immature lungs etc .I've rarely heard of a baby in an incubator in special care for two weeks who was so blithely accepted by all as perfectly fine and well.
-
Message 17
Posted by Crystal kitten (U14676404) on Friday, 21st January 2011
One of the adoring relatives or admiring neighbours will surely ask to hold the baby soon, and in doing so will exclaim, "Why, little Henry, you're no heavier than a baby [insert name of animal: lamb, cow, chicken, lama etc] and then we'll know.
-
Message 18
Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Friday, 21st January 2011
Slightly confused that the weight can only be known if it has been mentioned on air - given that Shula was known by the sw's in the 70s to have gone on the pill even though it was never mentioned on the air (William Smethurst confirms this in his book) - so someone somewhere must know! Surely knowing this is surely the least we deserve after all we've been through lately!!
-
Message 19
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
Struggling to get MY head round the notion that something 'can only be known if it's mentioned on air' is a confusing concept for radio drama! That is its only existence! Things can be inferred by the listener from things that do or don't happen, and their inference confirmed off air in a 'back formation', like Shula's contraception, but generally if something isn't mentioned after much prompting, it's usually for a reason,like too contentious or shows up poor research.In the case of Henry's weight, it's both. (And if it emerges as a plotline later that his special care was because he WAS at severe risk, it would have to be explained why everyone, including grandmother of three Pat showed no worry and asked no questions)
-
Message 20
Posted by San Fairy Anne (U14257911) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
including grandmother of three PatÂ
???????????????????. SFAnneâ„¢ -
Message 21
Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
"things not mentioned on the air"
But someone must be making a decision about what is and what is mentioned on the air, therfore there must be things known that someone has chosen not to include. Is the 12.5 mins selection of Ambridge dialogues totally random? I think not, so the content of what is not included must be equally as well known as that which is included in order to make the choice!
PS where has the "the" gone in "on air". Do we say "the bird is up in air"...? -
Message 22
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
There was a long running argument over the birth of Abby Tucker - who it was claimed was born early/late (really can't remember)!
Either way, sharp eared listeners knew the SL was wrong - continuity again - and possibly the Sws have decided not to go down that route again!
Having said that, I think there was a discrepency about how early our little (how little)? Henry was.
Again, the 'small for dates' SL seems to have come out of a desire to make HellQueens pregnancy 'interesting' without too much thought about it's implications and therefore seems slightly bizarre. -
Message 23
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
'grandmother of three Pat'
Thought someone would pick up on that SFA, but I was about to go out when I realised -I meant of course, 'grandmother, and mother of three'.I think you knew that but you can have a (virtual) dog biscuit anyway -
Message 24
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
'the content of what is not included must be equally as well known as that which is included'
Why must it? In this particular instance it is perfectly possible that
a) an editorial decision has been taken to keep it vague
b) different scriptwriters have different ideas about the 'fact' of Henry's weight-none has been at liberty or pains to mention it
c) it may emerge later (as low enough to justify a stay in special care) with no attention being given to the lack of concern shown at the time.
Let's remember what the word 'editor' means. -
Message 25
Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Saturday, 22nd January 2011
I'm puzzled. Are you saying that there was no weight? Inasmuch as there was a baby, surely there must also have been a weight. If there was a weight, someone must have known what it was. If a sw knew that there was a baby. why should he/she not also know there was a weight, and therefore what that weight was? Am I thinking along the wrong lines...?
-
Message 26
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
It's such a basic bit of information, with any baby and especially in any one of the circumstances surrounding Helen's pregnancy and Henry's birth and subsequent care, though - to not mention it is more unrealistic that saying that someone's gone on holiday and neither mentioning or being asked "where?".
-
Message 27
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
Inasmuch as there was a baby, surely there must also have been a weight. If there was a weight, someone must have known what it was. If a sw knew that there was a baby. why should he/she not also know there was a weight, and therefore what that weight was? Â
You are Donald Rumsfeld and I claim my $5. -
Message 28
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
Snork peet
'Am I thinking along the wrong lines?
'Er...you might want to be sitting down before I carry on Rick, and have you got a friend there with you?
HENRY DOES NOT EXIST -
Message 29
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
Hi all
I think this is just a detail that hasn't been precisely defined - I guess the fact that he was early was deemed enough info in this case? (And that's just me pondering this one!). For example, Jolene's exact age has never been given - we just know that she's probably in her 50s.
Tayler -
Message 30
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
I guess the fact that he was early was deemed enough info in this case? Â
From my point of view, the fact that he was early (and small-for-dates, with an over-exercising, severely pre-eclamptic mother with eating issues) makes no-one having any info about his weight very unrealistic.
Oh well - from a cynical POV, I suppose that by not giving us his birth-weight, the SWs have avoided any further controversy, and challenges to the existence and accuracy of their research. -
Message 31
Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
"You are Donald Rumsfeld and I claim my $5"
You've made me very proud...!!
"HENRY DOES NOT EXIST"
Eeek! -
Message 32
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Sunday, 23rd January 2011
Hi Taylor!
I'm afraid it is/was a *very* important detail as it was brought up specifically in the 'small for dates' storyline.
To then ignore the actual weight of the baby is like the story just falling off a roof (for example)... -
Message 33
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
Hi fondantfancee
I have let the team know about the views here : )
Tayler -
Message 34
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
That's good to hear Taylor.
We were told that this storyline was researched very carefully - I'm sure an expert could come up with a weight that would tally with the lead up.
I'm sure that, as many on DtA have pointed out, one of the first questions asked by most - after the sex and is the woman ok - is how much the baby weighed. More especially if this was a concern during the pregnancy. -
Message 35
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
after the sex Â
Usually about nine months after. -
Message 36
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
Snork Peet!
But not in HQ's case ...... -
Message 37
Posted by Rural Rosie (U2796791) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
In reply to message 22, fondantfancee:
Abby was born early, but the argument was over how early. We heard on air the day Hayley missed her period and did a pregnancy test, which turned out positive. As can be checked in any text (in a book or online) on pregnancy, including on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ús own site, pregnancy is counted from the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) even though there is no actual pregnancy for the first 2 of these weeks and the due date is calculated as 40 weeks from that date. So Hayley (and anyone else doing a test on the first day of a missed period) would be counted as already 4 weeks pregnant on that day. However someone on the SW team calculated Hayley's due date as 40 weeks from the day Hayley found out. Which is just plain wrong.
They made a big thing about the worries surrounding Abby being born 10 weeks early (I think it was) when it was clear from the date we knew Hayley did her pregnancy test that in fact Abby was 6 weeks early. Still early, but not so very early.
However in spite of the incontrovertible evidence, the editorial team kept on insisting that they had got it right while various MLers quoted expert texts on how to work out due dates. This argument continued over several weeks.
With Helen we heard on air when she went to the clinic for AI, which if when she was ovulating would count as 2 weeks since the LMP. The due date for Helen should therefore have been 38 weeks after this. I haven't myself counted but others have said that the due date given for Helen was 40 weeks since that date, rather than the 38 weeks it should have been. In other words if Helen got pregnant on the occasion we heard her go to the clinic for AI, she was actually due at the beginning of February, not mid February.
This would mean that either the SWs got it wrong again (but surely they would be extra careful to make sure they got it right this time) .... OR Helen/the clinic discovered she was not ovulating at the time of the appointment and she had another go at being inseminated a couple of weeks later, this time successfully but off air.
This second attempt having been off air we do not know (yet) whether it happened with the help of the clinic and an anonymous donor, or perhaps using the sperm of someone known to Helen (and possibly called Henry/Harry/Hal or Ian) -
Message 38
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011
Helen's due date was 2 Feb if she availed herself of the clinic's incredibly generous queue-jumping offer and it 'took' straight away. There is no other interpretation unless the prod team are deliberately 'back-filling' with a different version and thinking we are stupid. Tayler is persisting with the 'six or seven' weeks early spin, very loyally but she is doing so in the face of scores of posters/listeners who are mothers/midwives/babycarers or all three. The example Rural Rosie gives, correct in every detail, about the even more approximate Abbie maths makes it more rather than less likely that they have been at it again, since they never acknowledged their tricksiness last time
-
Message 39
Posted by Vicky S (U2258400) on Friday, 28th January 2011
And of course if Helen's due date WAS 2nd February she would have been closely monitored by her experienced midwife during her last four weeks, experienced midwife would have probably picked up the pre eclampsia, H would have been in hospital on the night of the 2nd, the family party would have been going on regardless, with no opportunity for roof antics.
For want of a date a life was lost........... -
Message 40
Posted by Vicky S (U2258400) on Friday, 28th January 2011
Sorry, last six weeks.
Not to mention the fact that she is an elderly prima gravida, with an obsessive personality, a 'small for dates baby' and a history of eating disorders. imo her birthplan should have had a huge skull and crossbones embossed on it . -
Message 41
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Friday, 28th January 2011
They did worse than that.
They calculated the date from when Hayley told MIKE.
Which was two weeks after she did the test and told Roy. -
Message 42
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Monday, 31st January 2011
Listened to the last episode via the omnibus yesterday (popped out to the shop so I didn't have to rehear the Helen/Pip/Ruth emetic drivel) The script is still maintaining the 'mid-February due date around Tony's birthday' according to Pat. Why do they persist in rubbing in their inaccuracies ? They KNOW lots of us will notice.
And (I'ma little vague here-help me out somebody)-but hasn't someone Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Úside in the media linked the celebration of 60 years of TA with 60 years of Tony A, despite the six week gap? -
Message 43
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Monday, 31st January 2011
Have they? Where?
-
Message 44
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Monday, 31st January 2011
Sallyrith - I'm sure you have seen this but I think this is what is being referred to -
-
Message 45
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Monday, 31st January 2011
But that's noy linking Tony's February birth, is it?
-
Message 46
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Monday, 31st January 2011
Not sure then Sallyruth - sorry.
-
Message 47
Posted by antiquelemonsqeeze1 (U14259306) on Monday, 31st January 2011
Thanks fondant- 'Tony was born in the first month of the programme's history, his son John was born round the twenty-fifth anniversary, and now baby Henry ,Ton's grandson is born for the sixtieth' . Seems a pretty clear linkage in the prod team's minds
-
Message 48
Posted by JennyDarling Long Gone (U250754) on Sunday, 6th February 2011
I don't mean to go on, Tayler, but it is the first question people ask when aa baby is born. I remember asking it myself when my daughter was born, everyone does it.
So this omission is just plain wrong.
And new mums get asked over and over again How much does he weigh now? This goes on until they are well out of babyhood. -
Message 49
Posted by Sallyruth (U14589711) on Sunday, 6th February 2011
And the Health Visiter was impressed at "how much weight " Henian had gained.
-
Message 50
Posted by shesings (U2666459) on Sunday, 6th February 2011
Didn't we have Ian saying something about Henry putting on weight when he was showing his latest mobile pics of his namesake to Linda/Caroline? No figure there either.
Considering the amount of stress the editorial team have put on the central role of Hellqueen in the 60th plotlines (not to mention the stress they have put on ML) they have been very cavalier about the details!
About this Board
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
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
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.