Harry and Meghan, more news!

[callmeadoctor]

New thread following on old one: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/3932323-Harry-and-Meghan-news?msgid=97617755

I thought middle age was half way through life (approximately), as in the middle of your life, so 55 - 65 would mean a life expectancy of 110 - 130. That seems a little unrealistic! It would be nice though.

Sitting

I think that's a conservative estimate!

The Telegraph is behind a paywall/subscription and I prefer thisenglishlifes version

I don't know what you mean, but please don't discuss other threads on here

I'm not.

And on this occasion, I won't bite either. You know perfectly well what I mean but I will not be drawn on it further.

Telegraph article - that's from a survey with what some people thought was middle aged, dictionary definitions are different.

So Harry is back in the UK? Perhaps private jets aren’t bound by the same rules.

Sousone No idea but there is a vile forum called Tattle. It’s a cesspit (I know a lot of other posters on MN on other threads have called these threads a cesspit) but I looked at Tattle after seeing it mentioned on MN before) and Tattle is vile, full of Daily Mail type comments.

@Rousette It is amusing to put the biography of Alan Turing, that inspiring man, alongside a biography by Lady C designed to dish the dirt on the Queen's grandson and his wife, what a comparison, you gotta laugh

Laugh all you wish. I didn't put Andrew Hodges beside Lady Colin Campbell. I just pointed to the ridiculousness of the statement (which you seem to support) that a biographer who doesn't know his/her subject is somehow "less than", the implication being that his (or in this case her) work, is somehow suspect.

@Rousette I think it's a bit different talking about someone long dead, a historical character, having a biography written, and someone who, so say, moves in royal circles (LadyC) writing about a young couple who were within the RF.

Yes, it is. Historical subjects of biographies are all, unlike HaM, incredibly accomplished individuals, often, in life changing ways for the world.

calm
Dunno but there's a lot of people finding it odd on Twitter too.

Roussette And i are being slagged of on another forum, strange that. And suddenly people start picking a fight here.

I don't read any forum which discusses other forums. So, if I am "slagging you off", it is because I disagree with what you post, not because of what anyone else on some site has said about you, or Rousette.

@Rousette, I always go to Twitter to determine the general mood of the populace.

According to Twitter, biological women should be referred to as "menstruators" rather than "women", and anyone who questions that deserves to be burned at the stake.

Were we to take Twitter trends seriously, Hillary Clinton would be president and Jeremy Corbyn would be PM. So I wouldn't put too much store in Twitter as an accurate account of views of the world.

Most people don't care about HaM, or the RF at all. I have asked all my twenty something children if they know who Prince Harry is (vaguely - one son had no idea who he is) and who Meghan Markle is (blanks from my sons, my daughter asked "Is she the woman who married Prince Harry? They all read Twitter, but only one has a Twitter account, which he uses primarily to troll other tweeters.

According to Twitter,

cool

It depends where you look and what you look at. You might hate Twitter, not all do.

And I never remotely said in a million years it was an accurate account of views of the world.
As much as your twenty something children aren't an account of twenty something views of the world either.

I've been on there a number of years, follow a lot, have a lot of followers, never have I seen that women are called menstruators. Not once. Perhaps you searched 'incel' or something.

As I say, it depends what your looking at on Twitter. I just did a search on H&M and quoted what had been said today about LadyC book that I saw. There are other views there too of course.

^oops. Hit post too soon. Oh well, you get the idea.

I’ve noticed a few posters don’t seem so happy that this thread is more balanced now instead of the usual sounding off negativity about MM and H.
I wonder why.

Who are these posters? Criticizing Lady Colin Campbell for writing a biography of someone she doesn't know personally is ludicrous. Personally, I believe a biography of someone the biographer doesn't know will always be more objective, both in positive and negative views.

When she said she was writing a biography, I read Lady C's biography of Diana. It was quite accurate, although I believe at the time, it was criticized as fantasy. She could have used a good editor, though.

I've been on there a number of years, follow a lot, have a lot of followers, never have I seen that women are called menstruators.

That's the whole issue around JK Rowling. Her rejection of the word is why she is now being criticized.

Are you certain you're on Twitter?

I admit I thought LAdy C new H&M and they were writing from that angle.
I do get the point though.

I haven't delved into all the JKR stuff. I use my twitter a/c for politics. There's a lot I could quote to you that is very current that you won't have a clue about. But I would not be so rude as to ask you if you're certain you're actually on there.

I remember seeing KM on the TV after giving birth to George, I had never seen anyone so soon after they had given birth, I never realised how pregnant you still look afterwards.

One of my first jobs was in a small boutique, it was a quiet day and I was alone, reading my book. A woman came in and started looking at some skirts. I carried on reading. She asked about the elastic waist. I sighed, put my book down and said "well they'll stretch a bit but not that much". She said "oh no, I've had the baby".

Kate really did a public information service and deserves full credit for it.

I wonder if Harry is back in the UK. I didn't think residency rules applied to such internationally important people as him.

I don't go to Twitter, as there is nothing useful on it. I only know of the JK Rowling issue because it spilled into the news.

In the early 2000's, I used to post on a forum at The Atlantic. It was full of very smart people, and had a great books section, a sort of virtual book club, as well as great book recommendations. It also had an American politics subforum, which I read occasionally, although I never participated. There were posters there who were paid by political parties to post. That came out much later. Some were very partisan, others were far more skilled. The same thing occurs now on social media. If you are reading about either politics or celebrities on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook, there are operatives there who are paid to shape opinion. WRT politics, there are also party volunteers. That is why what occurs on Twitter, which leans left, does not reflect, even imperfectly, election results.

If you are reading about either politics or celebrities on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook, there are operatives there who are paid to shape opinion

I do know that

I didn't think residency rules applied to such internationally important people as him.

I assume Harry would obtain an immigrant visa as a spouse of a US citizen.

I do know that

Then why are you referring to Twitter as some sort of authoritative source?

I'm not and I did not. I said something in passing. Much like you did about all your 20 something children. Touché.

I'm going to leave it there now. Up to you if you do, but you'll be talking to yourself on this, if not.

Have yourself a nice rest of evening.