‘Courtiers’ 2

[RandomPenguinHouse]

The last thread filled up during a particularly chatty morning.

The HR reference was a really strange one at the time, considering all the other confidential avenues they had open to them.

I have since read that it may have been to undermine William, who, in their very first 'Fab Four' interview, when talking about people reaching out about mental health worries,, referenced how only 2% of people reached out to their HR departments.

We seem to have strayed very far from the book thanks to new posters!
When is it available on kindle?

@Novella4 what affairs ??

@Readinginthesun . you might want to note that we're been referencing pigs, in much the same way we talked about pigeons earlier.

Ah sorry , am dipping in and out of the thread !

6th October is the release date, I believe

Cheers glory!

Noted, and that's why it has been reported.

RandomPenguinHouse

LaMarschallin

Yes. As I've already explained, I posted it to show how attitudes have changed.
I didn't expect anybody nowadays to pop up with the answer saying "It's obvious!".
Of course it's obvious; that was my point.
And it wasn't obvious up to the 80s, amazingly, when I was part of a project looking at attitudes to female surgeons.

Actually you’re overlooking something else that’s highly relevant and rather obvious:

the details, wording and phrasing deliberately manipulates the responder towards having a male bias.

Well, yes, it does.
That's how puzzles work; they're intended to be misleading.
In this case, it relies on people expecting surgeons to be male.
My point being that there was a stronger bias back in the day, so it seemed trickier.
These days most people would see immediately that the surgeon was the child's mother and find the premise sexist in the extreme.
So, no: I didn't overlook that.

PS Is anyone else having trouble quoting a post by the OP? I wanted to use the quote function here but had to c&p because only the "See all" and "bookmark" options were available, whereas other posts had the "quote" button too.
Not sure if it's an MN glitch or trouble on my side.

Oh! Now every option has disappeared except "bookmark".

I've only got add message/bookmark/report

I’ve enjoyed the extracts from the book, I think I’m going to buy it, what about everyone else ?

I'm on a pc - working from home - and if you click where the dots normally are, it works! we have invisible dots

I was in two minds about buying it, but after all the insightful posts on here, I’m fully intrigued so will buy it too!

You're right!
Brilliant - thank you

I wasn't.. but now I will , it seems quite measured and like hearing about the staff for a change!

I will certainly read it if it comes out electronically.

I'm on the app and it threw a minor wobbly a minute ago!
Posts disappeared then reappeared , very odd.

I’ve ordered it on kindle

After reading the extracts and discussions on here I’m definitely going to buy it 😁

I have it preordered

No, won’t buy the book, although the excerpts had a few named sources it was overwhelming full of unnamed sources. Plus the excerpts were in The Times and when I checked online to find out something about the author I found that Valentine Low is a Times journalist.

But I wouldn’t buy Harry’s book either. No doubt I’ll have the opportunity to read plenty of excerpts on here when they become available:

I’m now in my 60s. And I’ve been made aware through the newspapers, and then the internet, of Royal Family drama of one sort or another since before Charles and Diana got married. The drama in the Royal Family never seems to stop. This is just the latest incarnation.

Its a never ending story.

I'm PAYE. My income is not sufficient or complex to need an accountant. But high earners with complex income have accountants to deal with their affairs to minimise tax payment. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules or laws.
The queen paid voluntarily because she had to so it wasn't voluntary. It was an arrangement that HMRC and her financial advisors hammered out.

Not sure... I might wait for a charity shop copy. Interesting to hear about things 'behind the scenes' but it's difficult to be certain about all the anonymous sources.

^Well, yes, it does.
That's how puzzles work; they're intended to be misleading.
In this case, it relies on people expecting surgeons to be male.
My point being that there was a stronger bias back in the day, so it seemed trickier.
These days most people would see immediately that the surgeon was the child's mother and find the premise sexist in the extreme.
So, no: I didn't overlook that.^

@LaMarschallin You haven’t understood my point, which is: the wording is misleading in ways beyond relying on people expecting surgeons to be male.

Having the main subjects of the riddle be both male manipulates the listener/reader by suggestion to be thinking ‘male’. If the child was a daughter, it would be far less likely to trip up the subset of people who aren’t so patriarchally biased and are well aware there are female surgeons.

And obviously the “how is this possible?” at the end is meant to make the listener/reader question themselves and focus on the father and son.