The storyline progressed in a much more satisfying way than I thought it would have, the story definitely benefited from staying away from the legal side of things, as this gives the whole story a bit more leeway.
The will that Annie had left for Betty may have simply have left Betty the tenancy agreement for the Rovers, and Annie may have simply not updated her will since 1984, when Billy was still keeping the license for Annie.
This would also mean that when Betty received the will, which was sometime before 1995, she wouldn't have acted on it, because it could have resulted in Bet losing the Rovers to Betty which would have ruined their relationship.
As for the photo at the end? I think this is a great idea, Betty may never have been the legal landlady, but she was the spiritual landlady and I think it is fantastic that her photo will remain at such a focal point in the Rovers for many years to come.
Follow the Coronation Street Blog on Twitter and Facebook
.jpg)
21 comments:
I think the only reason they put the Betty/Annie storyline in was for nostalgic purposes. A bit of recognition for the older viewers.
I can't see the 'will' (If that's what it was)standing up in court even if the whole thing wasn't hastily resolved.
Yeah, the will would have never had a chance of standing up in court, really glad it didn't go that way. It's turned out really well all in all.
I thought the story pointless and a waste of time and why werent all the regular characters in the scenes yesterday - Kevin and Sally for instance who are long term characters and knew Betty? Betty wasnt the landlady so it seemed daft to put a picture of her saying she WAS. A picture yes, she certaintly deserved to be remembered in the Rovers, but the dates of her being a barmaid not the landlady which she just wasn't! We are getting far too much of Stella as well, forced into almost every story and scene lately, its beginning to irritate Frosty and make him dislike her when I didnt mind her so much before.
Betty was a much loved character, but who was nevertheless in reality, little more than an extra for the past 20 odd years.
Annie Walker, Bet Lynch, Jack & Vera were also much-loved characters, and to put up a permanant photo in the Rovers that claims Betty was the landlady for all that time is not only ridiculous, but flies in the face of the programmes own "reality".
Not to mention how St Ella managed to get that dedication printed in such a short space of time! The whole storyline is quite ludicrous.
Her photo should of read something like Betty Williams Longest Barmaid 1969 to 2012, as that is what she was and is remembered for by fans. Not as a landlady which was written recently into the plot. There was no need for it, fans should be able to appreciate a long-term passing character without the use of a "secret" or "shock".
But without sounding too grumpy, I did love the scenes in the Rovers between the oldies. And I did like the final scene with Betty's voice being heard. But it didn't need this part in the story with the letter.
This story was Coronation Street at its worst. The sad news of Betty's death, the reminiscences and the funeral weren’t enough. There had to be a “dramatic twist” as well. So we get this ill conceived, sloppily researched rubbish that Betty owned the Rovers for the last 28 years. I have to wonder about the freedom of the show’s cast and crew to speak out, when this drivel actually made it to screen. Apart from anything else, it caused a huge continuity error. On Thursday, Rita and Emily reluctantly agreed to conceal the letter’s existence so St Ella could see a Solicitor. The next day the pair virtually asked St Ella’s permission to tell Gordon, although no legal advice had been obtained.
Betty was not the landlady of the Rovers, she was a barmaid and proud to be so as she told us several times. It is supremely ironic that the story was about her declining to become the Rover’s landlady, (which is about the only part which was credible), yet it finished with her stuck on the wall labelled as such. Why couldn’t they have found a letter from some food company executive who had wandered into the Rovers by chance? The letter could have invited Betty to discuss with them the sale of her hotpot recipe for a considerable sum. It could have been framed next to Betty’s photo as a proper tribute. That would have been far more appropriate and not re-written the show’s history, nor insulted several other Corrie legends.
I suppose you could say the caption on the picture was a tongue in cheek reference. She may not have been technically owned the pub, but it was hers in our hearts sorta thing. But then why not put the actual year she became a barmaid instead of 1984 by which time she'd been working there a considerable time?
I suppose this storyline was to bring the old characters together for a last reminisce about Betty.I think it was not badly done EXCEPT, as everyone else has said..Stella was right in there. "She was a life saver when I first came here".I wonder why Mary wasn't there with her annoying quips and put downs-would have made more sense. But it is what it is.
Norris can be sensitive at times, now and then so this didn't really sit that well, him hinting to Gordon to get the 5 pounds back. I could see Mary doing it.
1) Annie Walker did not own the Rovers, she held the tenancy.
2) You can't leave someone a tenancy.
3) Annie would never leave the pub to Betty over her kids. In fact when she left, she left Billy her son in charge who lost the pub 12 months later. That was the end of the Walkers association with the Rovers. After which Annie had no say in who should take over the pub.
4) When someone is left monetary assets in a will the will is usually signed by a witness (eg. solicitor) who would know the Rovers wasn't Annie's to leave anyone!
5) If they were just referring to the tenancy, which I find hard to believe because you can't bequeath tenancy, then why all the fuss over whether Cindy Beale would lose the pub? Even if Annie had owned the Rovers, Cindy wouldn't lose the pub. It has been through too many owners since.
The only way they can backtrack on this is to say the letter meant the tenancy and not the bricks and mortar but even then Annie left the tenancy to Billy who was forced to give it up 12 months later. And Rita outright stated Annie used to own the Rovers which just isn't true.
I wonder what Barbara Knox and Eileen Derbyshire made of this storyline.
You can't leave someone a tenancy! So it's obvious they are talking about the building which Annie Walker never owned.
I don't even understand why they are doing this storyline. Why rewrite all that history when it is not going to lead on to a story in the present? It was all resolved with Gordon giving up the letter to Stella.
I hate the way they have insulted Annie, Bet and Betty with this storyline but it's even harder to stomach knowing this plot won't have any consequences. That means it was all for nothing!
I dont know if this is right but according to wiki Bet and Rita were going to buy the pub together at one point so surely Rita would know that Annie was never the owner?
Does anyone know why the funeral was off screen? I was disappointed by that.
This story is utter nonsense. Even if Annie Walker did own the Rovers, her will would have had an Executor and if Betty refused the bequest the Executors would have had to agree what would happen to it and draw up a Deed of Variation.
The whole thing seems like a huge oversight. Annie had nothing to leave Betty!
Even if the letter meant the tenancy, you can't leave someone a tenancy the brewery would decide any change of ownership. And we already saw the Walker's association with the pub tenancy end on screen when Annie left Billy in charge who subsequently lost the tenancy after 12 months. After which the brewery installed Bet as manager.
Annie looked down her nose at Betty she would never leave her in charge of the pub. She would leave it to her kids and that's what she did. Billy took over the pub until he was thrown out 12 months later.
If the Rovers was really Betty's why would she stand back and watch Billy run it into the ground. And why would she stand back and see her good friend Bet flee Weatherfield when she could have helped her?
Fact is Annie did not own the Rovers and could not bequeath tenancy.
I mean putting aside the fact you can't bequeath tenancy, you can surely only bequeath something once lol.
Ince Billy lost it Annie can't then say right then now it's Betty's turn.
Once you've already given something away, it's not yours anymore to leave anyone!
Is this the biggest screw up in soap history. Rewriting 35 years worth of history is surely some sort of record?
Betty walked out so many times and retired from the Rovers without ever mentioning this.
Whyw ould she not talk about it when she retired, when she won the oldest barmaid award, or when Bet was having to leave?
That's another thing, Bet left because the brewery were selling the pub but if Annie/Betty owned it then how could the brewery sell it?
And since Betty turned down becoming landlady why have they put landlady on her pic and not barmaid? Going against her wishes in death is hardly showing respect, she was proud to be a barmaid.
I'm sure Annie had a certain fondness for Betty but Annie looked down her nose at "Elizabeth dear" and the pair clashed on more than one occasion. Betty was just staff, not a friend. Every time Annie was away she left someone else in charge, not Betty. I don't see her leaving Betty either the tenancy or the actual pub. Both of which are impossible anyway.
Now you could say this was just Annie being grand, writing letters bequeathing something she didn't own but in that case why was St Ella worried she was going to lose the pub?
Annie never owned the Rovers. She carried on the tenancy agreement with the Brewery after Jack died. When Annie retired from the Rovers she asked her son Billy to take over running the Rovers, which he did, reluctantly.
Annie could never had left the Rovers to Betty as she clearly had nothing to leave. The Brewery had the final say in who was manager/tenant until the Duckworths bought the Rovers from Newton and Ridley.
This particular low point in Corrie writing is a farce and a disgrace.
Cheers for the comments, I wasnt sure if a tenancy could be bequeathed, but I was trying to work out how all this could have been possible, it's all rather silly.
Rather tasteless that Rita would get soused at Betty's wake - a disappointment in an otherwise well done bringing together of some of the regulars. Wasn't there talk of bringing back some of the old cast -wonder what happened with that?
Loved the ending with Betty's picture and her comments.
Post a Comment