Fighting The Wrong Fight: Forgotten Before Famous

I've had a quick through my list of blogs and didn't see anything on this topic but I'll start with an apology if I've been here and done this topic before. I know I've written about it a number of times on Twitter and even one of my uni essays went this way so it has good reason to feel familiar territory for me.

I love museums. I worked in one, as a cleaner, and working through my degree modules it was the workplace I aspired to. The particular type of museum wasn't hugely important; art, archaeology, anthropology, natural history, social history...museums are just INTERESTING. From world renowned collections to even very small local ones with relatively little to offer - they provide an invaluable learning resource.

So yeah, I like museums and I've been to all sorts all over the place. Had an almost religious experience (actually, it probably was... #praisetheAten) in Luxor Museum.

When it comes to 'controversies' I mostly take the side of the museum. I say 'mostly' because when it comes to human remains there's a whole different set of ethical nightmares to consider but I'm keeping this blog off that one. Possession isn't really the point; so long as they're available to the public and preserved for future generations.

It is somewhat problematic that somewhere like London has such a high concentration of world artefacts - admittedly disasters like The Great Fire or The Blitz are unlikely to destroy this huge wealth of treasures - but even within a small nation like the UK there are many who will never see such things; even in the south it is considered too far for many schools to offer educational trips. There is an argument to be made for safety of these objects, though. If all the artefacts of a particular culture were returned to its home nation and that nation was to be ravaged by war or fall to religious zealotry (see Buddhas of Bamiyan, Timbuktu, Ninevah, Nimrud) ...isn't that a risk too high to take? There's a reason putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea.

However, I do see the wisdom in it too...London is a major world city, a busy hub for tourists and business-people. An awful lot of people will have a chance to visit at some point in their life - more, it could be argued, that would pass through an awful lot of other capitals. And that is the crux of my argument - that world treasures belong to the world, not just the nation from which they originate. Not least of all when the culture from which they originate - such as with Ancient Egyptian artefacts - is no longer extant. The modern people of Egypt have next to no cultural connection with the pharaonic era...especially if you consider the Ptolemaic dynasty was Greek. Then there are the Romans who got all over Europe. If you were going to do such a thing, who would artefacts be returned to - their country of manufacture or the country they were found in? Or would you argue that everything Roman belongs to Rome and no other Italian city, let alone the rest of the empire?! IF such a practice of 'returning' items was to be adopted it would be an absolute logistical nightmare for starters.

I also feel very strongly for people of non-caucasian origin living in the UK...what message does it send them if artefacts of African, Asian, Aborigine origins are sent away? Why should diaspora be denied access to their cultural heritage? Why should European museums be limited to European history? How do we educate the young of the importance of other world cultures if the evidence of them is no longer there???

I believe, very strongly as you may have noticed by now, that these things belong to the world as a whole more than they do to specific places or even peoples.

But the reason for this blog post is, as so often, an article I saw on BBC News about the efforts to create a digital museum of hidden palaeontological artefacts: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46497406 It may take 50 years to complete the digital recording of the 40 million fossil specimens at The Smithsonian ALONE. FORTY MILLION FOSSILS that may have incredible scientific value but are never seen and inaccessible. 

"there are drawers here in the museum that haven't been opened for decades,"

said Kathy Hollis (Smithsonian)

THIS is what makes me angry about arguments over objects like the Benin Bronzes or Elgin Marbles. They get fought over cos they're famous and envied but they're constantly available to be enjoyed by the general public somewhere at least. No one seems to give a fuck about museums holding MILLIONS of items in storage.

No, I have not gone stark raving mad, OF COURSE I know there is a huge difference between fossilised animal bones and the artefacts of human cultures BUT just think on it for a moment: museums of all kinds have 'surplus stock' - possessions which for a variety of reasons (mostly logistical) are neither displayed nor studied. Worse even than them being in private collections if they're not even being enjoyed! Just think about it...paintings which are never looked at. Why is THAT not something to get mad about?

There's an argument that possession will be of negligible importance in the digital age - as treasures are digitised and made available on the internet will there be a demand for real-world museums with actual stuff in them? OF COURSE THERE WILL BE! There's a thrill to seeing something for real for the first time that is ENHANCED by having seen pictures of it beforehand. Ownership however might become obsolete - the accessibility of artefacts either publicly or privately owned displayed or in storage can only be for the good. I get that people like things to be THEIRS alone but there's something decidedly off about big museums hoarding stuff only to keep it away from people who might study or enjoy those items.

Possession and ownership are not the same thing of course, and part of what makes me mad about stored objects is that they're not on loan to other museums and galleries who could make good use of them. A museum could still own what was on loan and another museum, perhaps in another nation, could possess it - for a time at least.

Example: The Alfred Jewel was found in Somerset and when it was at The Museum Of Somerset in Taunton it garnered enormous attention - queues around the courtyard, people fainting in the heat...staff stressed and cleaners exhausted lol. It normally resides at The Ashmolean in Oxford. Not so very far away and yes, it is on display...I've seen it there too...utterly ignored; a small object unimportant in amongst more exciting displays. So just imagine what a non-displayed object might do to revive a small local museum, or else to found an entirely new one. These objects could and perhaps should be sent around the globe to share the wealth of knowledge and art and history with EVERYONE.

And if they won't share and display actual objects it is probably long past time for ALL museums to digitise their entire collections. To preserve for posterity as well as to enable access.

We need to stop squabbling over a (relatively) few items that are contentious and deal with the bigger scandal that big museums act like monopolies, acquiring and hoarding for no gain - huge hidden collections do not add to their appeal (and footfall) or to the accumulated knowledge of the communities they serve. Because knowledge is power, not what you have hidden away under lock and key.

A Hairy Problem

I woke up this morning to the following article on the BBC News website:

"Alopecia patients call for NHS to fund real hair wigs"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46194962

1) Why are people with alopecia being 'treated' on the NHS??? A condition of hair loss is not an illness and there is no treatment. 

2) Wigs are purely cosmetic and the NHS should not imho be funding things that do not improve a person's health. 

As synthetic wigs ARE provided on the NHS it's not like there's nothing available for those who can't afford such things. NHS glasses used to be ugly af - if you wanted something nicer you had to pay for it. If you couldn't afford it you were stuck with functional. The voucher system on prescription specs has helped with this and maybe could be applied to wigs...but there are opticians on every high street in a way that wig suppliers just aren't. Not to mention the shortfall would be drastic and still price a lot of people out of real-hair wigs...but that does not mean the NHS should foot the bill.

"For many people with alopecia, wearing a wig is an essential part

of managing the psychological impact of losing their hair;

those who wear wigs for medical necessity

don't see their wig as an optional luxury."

3) As the impact of alopecia is psychological the treatment should also be psychological. However, as much as I feel for the mum in the article whose teenage son hasn't received any counselling for his hair loss I would point out that even after a suicide attempt many kids have to wait ages to see a counsellor. IF there's even a referral, that is; my kid didn't get counselling for 6 years!!! OBVIOUSLY that's not saying one psychological issue is more important than another but the system is already unfit for purpose - spend NHS money on improving counselling services for ALL conditions and you save money on dozens of other things; such as A&E visits, addiction services, eating disorder clinics, and maybe even wigs. 

Usually I argue for treating the cause, not the symptom but there is no known cause for alopecia so there's no choice but to go after the symptom...the symptom is lack of hair so address that with a wig, but that doesn't address the real issue which is psychological impact. Wigs are a band-aid solution, fixing nothing.

"Your hair is the first thing people see...

I've always had long hair, it's part of my identity."

We are socially conditioned to think that people (particularly women and younger men) should have hair while older men get a pass, baldness even being seen as attractive in some instances. It is cultural too - shaved heads being normal in many cultures. Addressing the social norms of hair and the psychological impact of losing it would be far more helpful in the long run. Those with baldness shouldn't feel obliged to hide it.

Taking the idea of hair being 'essential' to the extreme, you could in theory argue that if hair loss is to be treated as a medical issue then hairdressing, grooming products, razors etc should logically be available on the NHS - for those with conditions such as male-pattern baldness or excessive body hair for example. Actually, that's a bad example as male-pattern baldness and excessive body hair usually are related to hormone levels which could actually be treated medically...

For myself I could wrangle an argument that being stuck with my natural hair colour is detrimental to my psychological well-being. True but ludicrous. But so is arguing for a wig because your hair is your identity. Just because you've always had something doesn't mean you will, or can or should, always have that thing. You can get false teeth on the NHS cos you need them to talk and eat properly. You can get functional prosthetic limbs on the NHS but cosmetic ones cost extra because they are not medically necessary. What function does hair even have?! Answer is: none at all. 

Next issue: women from poor countries being targeted for their hair.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ugly-truth-behind-multi-million-7513507

Yes, this particular article from 2016 cites the beauty industry's demand for hair but it would be naive to think there is a clear line separating cosmetic hair pieces from wigs for those with alopecia or cancer. Human hair has to come from somewhere and most of the time it's poor women being exploited. There have also been stories of women being attacked and their hair cut off - some baseless rumours, others may be for motives such as humiliation - but in a world where human hair has monetary worth such things are liable to happen.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an industry based on human hair but I'm saying there is an ethical argument against the NHS buying into it.

In the western world we see altruistic kids having their hair cut off for people with cancer but that's just a strand in a big ol' hairball. I don't think many people really consider where their real hair wigs and extensions actually come from.

In Les Miserables by Victor Hugo (1862) a desperate and destitute Fantine sells first her only possession of worth - a locket - then her hair and teeth, then finally falls into prostitution; scenes which are deeply distressing to a modern audience - be it the book, musical or the 2012 film (with Anne Hathaway winning an Oscar for her portrayal of Fantine). Set the best part of 200 years ago you'd hope that such events were firmly in the past but clearly they are not. No 21st century woman should have those life experiences.

Most of us accept the idea that the NHS is underfunded but with a limited set of resources should this even be open for discussion?! Essential services that save lives HAVE to come first. The NHS should be about what you NEED not what you WANT. Waiting lists can appalling - months waiting for cancer testing and ECGs. My mum waited 4.5 months after discharge from hospital for a physiotherapy referral - she now refuses to go because it has been 'too long'. That will inevitably impact her life expectancy as her mobility continues to deteriorate. These are things people NEED - not prettier wigs.

One more point before my rant comes to an end: IF the NHS were to supply real hair wigs who would be responsible for the products and care required to maintain them?! 

Bring My Bones Back Home, I Don't Need Them Any More

And bury me all alone, keep my memory.

The title, and that line, are from an Ashestoangels' song "Bones Part 1" from A Trauma Shared. This is a very important song to me as it is one of three tracks I tend to play on loop from that album. The others are 'One Last Glance' and 'Endlessly'. They've been on loop for me 7 months tomorrow...since my mum's stroke. And that is why those words seemed so apt for this blog post.

This link should take you to a BBC video 'Where's the right place to bury your parents? - Deciding where to bury your parents if they were not born in the UK'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-46212155/deciding-where-to-bury-your-parents-if-they-were-not-born-in-the-uk

Case studies: Tosin lost her parents in quick succession, both aged 52. Her Nigerian born dad was buried with his dad and brother in London - they did not know his wishes; her mother was cremated and scattered in 'her father's land' - also Nigeria - according to her wishes. Ndu had to call elders in Nigeria to approve burying his father in London.

"I just did the best that I thought I could" - Tosin

This is a hugely important point. If your loved one did not leave specific instructions for the disposal of their mortal remains it is okay to do what is right for YOU. Do not assume that their not giving those instructions was because they left it too late to have that conversation; if it was that important to them they would have said or left a document with their directions. Tosin's decision for her dad is also based on decisions within his family - if the UK was a good enough final resting place for his close kin there's no great reason to suspect it wasn't good enough for him. Additionally, despite her dad dying first Tosin's mum was clear she wanted her ashes to go home to Nigeria. Do not feel bad about splitting up a couple who have died. If they wanted to be buried together fair enough but if the last surviving wants to be elsewhere then that is right too...

...which is not to say there are right and wrong answers here. Honouring someone's express wishes are, I suppose paramount, but where those wishes are absent, unclear, or unable to be fulfilled an executive decision must be made. And while you can take your lead from family precedent you can also do what is right for you.

Tosin also speaks of the fact she has a place to visit for her dad and Ndu agrees that this was an aspect of his decision for his father. Some funerary rites are for the deceased - such as ancient Egyptian mummification or the Catholic last rites - but most are for the living, a chance to say goodbye, to mourn, to let go - these include most funeral and memorial services, wakes and tombs. This is why, in my humble opinion, it has to be about what the immediate family want: it's THEIR goodbye more than it is the deceased's last hurrah. 

I have never yet had to make these decisions, and my parents are UK born and bred, but here's my take:

My parents went on holidays for a while after I'd grown up and left home and I was given instructions on what to do if they died out there - I was to have them cremated. Repatriating remains was a ridiculous waste of money and I was absolutely NOT to do that. My parents' have a VERY practical take on this.
I can understand the need to repatriate remains when someone has died outside their native land whether on work, holiday or, historically, via the slave trade. However, if someone took the decision to live their life in another country...well, maybe it depends WHY you decided that. If it was for work or a partner maybe you always wanted to go home. Or maybe you migrated as a child and the choice to not return 'home' wasn't really viable.
My parents have lived most of their lives within a radius of just a few miles - is that because they are deeply connected to the place or is that just happenstance? Happenstance seems most likely.

My maternal grandparents died close together in 2000. My mum fell apart and I was told to stay away, which I respected. However, both my grandparents were cremated and scattered so there is no goodbye, no paying my respects.

My paternal grandparents are a different story. My grandfather died long before I was born and was buried. I only plucked up the courage to ask to visit his grave after my other grandparents died as it suddenly felt like a terrible omission. A few years after that my nan also died. Despite 38 years of widowhood she was buried with him. Again I wasn't welcome for the funeral but I have visited since and seen the new combined headstone.

Meanwhile I have been to two funerals ever. The first was my cousin Allister in 2016; his was a church service followed by cremation. His ashes were scattered at a favourite spot. I remember thinking, somewhat inappropriately, that my kids had better not try this kind of a send off for me as it would be pitiful in comparison. Allister's was standing room only - he had lots of family and friends, colleagues and running mates - my turnout would be about 5 people. Maybe. The second was my great aunt Ben (Rosalind Brenda by birth). Hers was a simple crematorium service with maybe a dozen or so attendees.

My parents have always talked about death but neither has made much in the way of specific plans. Not from an unwillingness to talk but from an "I don't care, I'll be dead" mindset; but both decidedly prefer cremation. My mum has a prepaid funeral plan and as she has more family she'll need some form of service. I'd prefer church although I know that's not her...so most likely it'll be a crematorium. My dad isn't close to his surviving family and he's a no frills kind of guy so direct cremation seems likely. If at all possible I'd like to keep a funeral home out of the proceedings - I'd like to shroud them and so forth myself.

But then there's what to do with their ashes...

Once upon a gazillion years ago, when my parents were still together, my dad expressed the desire that I should chuck a handful of my mum under a passing bus...I find myself wondering how many handfuls there'll be...*mutters darkly* I certainly wouldn't mind chucking some of him under a bus.

I'd like to bury at least part of their ashes somewhere - not because I want to keep them when they're gone cos that's kinda weird and it's not like we're a close family anyway - I just don't like the idea of being completely gone. I'd like there to be an inscribed stone where I can lay flowers and tell my grandkids what annoying gits they could be. That's the sort of thing I would want for myself...a stone that could be visited intermittently and ultimately forgotten and when the weather has removed the inscription it'll be done.

Although, for my dad, he's been talking a lot about a place where he spent summers as a kid. I kept trying to talk him into going back for a visit but I doubt he ever will. I offered to go with him / drag him kicking and screaming ...but now I'm caring for my mum I can't. I think I'd like to take his ashes there.

I know I'll have to make these decisions sooner rather than later. Along with stupid, unimportant decisions like readings and music. That said, I'm kind of glad those decisions will be mine. Having specific directions and disliking them or failing to adhere to them would be so unpleasant.

Second Sight Second Hand

Tonight I was watching an old episode of Hamish Macbeth with my mum.  The one where Alex dies (Season 2 Episode 4; Radio Lochdubh; orig. air date 14 April 1996).  Hamish's sidekick TV John , an experienced seer, encounters a woman who has been having premonitions - they connect and he sees Alex's death through her vision.

This second hand second sight made me wonder...such things exist in my family and we've compared notes of premonitions but nothing quite so useful as to see through each others' eyes.  It might be rather useful, if disturbing, if we could figure out a way to do such a thing.

According to Wikipedia "There is no scientific evidence that second sight exists. Reports of second sight are known only from anecdotal evidence given after the fact".

Hmmmm.

There are a couple of problems with that statement:

• Seeing the future is never 'scientific' - a chain of events can lead to a certain outcome but any number of interventions to alter the course of things could occur. Just because the prediction did not come to pass does not mean that was not the outcome that was right when it was foretold.
• Reports are NOT only anecdotal nor only 'after the fact; people do tell their predictions or write them down - however, given the nature of these things predictions can be unpleasant or little believed.

 Take this example:

Three weeks before my cousin Allister's death from cancer I was so certain of the specific date I tweeted it.  However, not wanting to alarm family members I was very vague about it.  Indeed there is only my word and that of my daughters (who I told in full) to say what this tweet meant.  But honestly, how likely are you to say publicly that X will die on date Y?  Not exactly polite, no mater how sure you are.  And if I had forseen his brother's fatal accident an intervention may have been possible - I would have tried to tell HIM, not the world.  Incidentally, I favourited my own tweet so as I could find it again (I tweet a LOT) if it proved correct.

Then there's the fact Allister had terminal cancer...his death was no surprise although, not being a close relation, I had no idea the end was particularly nigh.  The prediction could be put down to chance although I remain unconvinced that could be the case.  But it also fits with my ideas of futures being changeable - there was little to interfere with his death occurring at any given moment unlike an accident such as the fictional Alex.  

Despite having no news of a particularly ominous nature the weeks leading to Allister's death were especially tense.  My parents and I stopped phoning each other as we prepared for The Call.  For me that came when my mum rang a little after 7pm on the 21st.  I swore at the phone and started crying before I answered it.

A more recent example was Sunday 15th April this year.  As my mum left my house I turned to my elder daughter, tears in my eyes, and said something along the lines of "I feel like I won't have my mum much longer"...27 hours later my stepdad called to report a problem - my mum had FINALLY answered her phone but he couldn't understand her.  It turned out she'd had a severe stroke.

My mother's still alive but in some ways I lost her that night - she's living with me now, I am her carer.  I have already lost the sound of her voice in my memory...they say it's the first memory to go.  I still feel like I won't have her for much longer but I don't know how much of that might be 'wishful thinking' - her quality of life is not so good, and she is very unhappy.

Who is to believe I foresaw this catastrophe?  If I'd had the idea it would be a stroke I would have been over at her flat, that had actually been the plan until I asked her for Sunday lunch instead... If I had been there to see her collapse perhaps the sodding doctors would've believed that it was a stroke and treated her - instead they insisted it wasn't a stroke and she wasn't diagnosed until the damage was permanent.  As creeptastic as I find my meagre psychic 'gift' I wish it was stronger so as to be of more use.

Obviously as I believe I have seen things before they happen you'll never get me to entertain the idea of coincidence or a 'lucky' guess.  If my mum or my daughters were to give me a warning I would heed it, no questions asked. 

I don't expect any warnings I give to be heeded but I would give them anyway - I'd rather be wrong than right.

NOTE

Just thought of a second hand example. My mum was once told her fortune and that she would die in her mid 50s. As she'll be 74 soon that clearly did not come to pass. However, in her mid 50s she suffered a DVT with pulmonary emboli; a condition that would have been fatal when the prediction was made. I'm not convinced the broken ankle that triggered it all off was a fixed point in time but who knows?!

My mum used the example as one of inaccuracy whereas I see it as a possible future that was averted. The explanation of 'anecdote' only works if the person reporting it believes in the prediction, surely?

9 weeks plus three? four?! I lose count...

Monday 16th April to Thursday 21st June

It's just the early hours of the 21st BUT...my mum is coming home today!!! I am roughly equal parts excited, relieved and terrified.

It's a new chapter of all our lives. It's tremendous that we finally made it to this point. But I am totally aware of how difficult this is likely to be. I just got my life back after raising my kids, I was enjoying my new-found freedoms...and now it's gone. Not gonna lie, that makes me sad. I was going to Bristol to see Ashestoangels on Sunday night and now that's gone. This last year I went to TVAES lectures...now that's out too.

I know it's pretty selfish but I never had much of a life. I went from being a kid to a teen mum and then after a brief midlife crisis I'm gonna be a full-time carer. No career, no relationships. It's difficult.

Day Sixty...I think?

It has been eight and a half weeks since my mum was taken into hospital following a severe stroke affecting both hemispheres of her brain.

My mum is doing okay and a couple of days ago we had a home assessment to see what my mum's needs will be...that went really well as the house was considered very suitable and they think mum can come home ahead of the ballpark "early July" we were previously told. In fact, it might be at the end of next week!

On the downside we're not getting a lot of support. The home physiotherapy service has already notified us there's likely to be a very long wait and, despite my mum only being able to walk very short distances with a frame and me not driving, she hasn't even been deemed in need of a wheelchair! Bloody ridiculous IMHO.

My cancer scare may yet turn out to be nothing (please keep everything crossed for me!) as my smear test came back normal. No idea what on earth it could be but personally I'm hoping for it to be something menopause related. Yes, I'm 'only' 40 but it's been a very real possibility since surgery when I was 29. The colposcopy is booked for the same day my mum's big meeting to arrange her discharge is scheduled. 

So that's the good(ish) news. On the more difficult side we have the fact I left my job almost a week ago. Unscheduled. I had given notice but a change of computer system and being expected to learn all these new procedures for the sake of a handful more shifts got me stressed out of my gourd until I felt I had no choice but to walk out.

It wasn't bad timing either as the next day my mum had a fall in the hospital and has been really shaken and upset ever since. She is TERRIFIED they'll find a reason she can't come home. It has been a great relief to know I can be there every day to support her.

Then there's the thing where my dad, who is my next door neighbour and my mum's ex partner (by about 14 years at this point), got mortally offended that he "wasn't invited*" to the home assessment mentioned before that he's now not talking to me and hasn't been back to visit my mum. Absolutely pathetic! Unfortunately, the home assessment was nothing to do with him, not to mention that my mum didn't want him there and neither did I...also, he didn't help me prepare for it and actually got in my way quite a lot.

Not that he has to help me as an adult or my mum as his ex the sudden change of heart has made things a good bit more difficult. I kind of hope it's just that the stress of the whole situation has got to him and he'll come around but he has a loooong track record of this sh*t so I won't hold my breath.

*Incidentally, he has never invited me over to his house (assuming we can exclude him asking me to check his emails and the like) and that's INCLUDING the 20 years we lived in Somerset. All the times I visited it was me asking if we could come up.

So yeah, that's where we're at. My mum has times when she wishes she hadn't survived but as someone I know went through that just last week - he mother passed just 2 days after a stroke - I am immensely grateful my mum is still with me and with as much of her abilities and personality intact as she has. We could have lost her in more ways than just by death.

Not gonna lie though, this is by far the most stressful experience of my life...I can only imagine how much worse it must be for my mum.

UPDATE
The colposcopy was fine - no idea what was causing the severe, heavy, prolonged, non-menstrual bleeding but it may have been stress related as it turned out one of my daughters was having the exact same thing!

Anti Labels

Facebook, On This Day 24th May 2015:

I just found myself on Stedman Graham's Wikipedia page and I need to share this...

"Stedman Graham gives inspirational speeches at schools. His driving question is "Who are you?", questioning peoples self-identity. Ironically when asked "Who are you?" at a recent speech in early 2015, he didn't have anything to say."

I don't think there's ANYTHING ironic in that actually. How do you answer the question "who are you?" without using LABELS??? I see people use labels in their Twitter bios...I do it myself - goth, student, mum - but is that who I am? What I am maybe... Who are you...are you a colour, a religion, a nationality, a gender, a sexuality, a set of pronouns? Are you a JOB??? Perhaps the best possible answer is enigmatic silence.

In a similar vein...

Facebook, On This Day 24th May 2017:

[Shared post] 

Imprisoned by their barbaric, primitive beliefs,

they hate their lives & envy our freedom & joy.

Fuck them. Carry on. Have fun.

They lose. 

- Facebook post by Ricky Gervais, 24th May 2017;

regarding the Manchester Arena Attack

[My response]

This makes me all kinds of uncomfortable.

Are you talking about terrorism or Islam here? Is that deliberate ambiguity to 'disguise' Islamophobia? From the comments I see it's how a fair proportion of people are interpreting it. At a time like this be careful how you phrase stuff or you become part of the problem.

Again with the 'them' and 'us' mentality. Who are 'they'? Who are 'we'? 

This guy was British. He was one of us. His freedoms and our freedoms were the same. We need to acknowledge this.

We're all PEOPLE. Divide and conquer is not the solution. Should we not aim for unity and dialogue instead of emphasising difference?

The same topic in two very different posts two years apart.

Labels.

We use them all the time and they're not an inherently bad thing. We use them to understand ourselves and each other. BUT all the labels we use DIVIDE us. They emphasise how we differ from one another. Now, variety is the spice of life and we should not be afraid or ashamed to be different...but 'us and them' is always bad. People who are not as we are should not be feared or hated.

I’m Tibetan, I’m Buddhist and I’m the Dalai Lama,

but if I emphasize these differences it sets me apart

and raises barriers with other people.

What we need to do is to pay more attention to the ways in which we are

the same as other people.

- Tweet by His Holiness The Dalai Lama, 21 May 2018

So, who are YOU Heggie Speller?

• White / British...with about one 16th Irish if anyone cares about such things
• Church of England heritage but Pagan tendencies
• Ordained minister (I looked up online ordination and did the thing. Ooopsie!) 
• University graduate
• Single mother (one at uni, one graduate...PROUD MOMMA!)
• Cat momma (not at uni but still proud)
• Dead-end job, soon to be a carer (which could also be defined as a dead-end job...)
• Fat
• Vegan
• Tattooed
• Agender
• Straight but terminally single
• Artist with a thing about coelacanths
• Loves alt rock and Agatha Christie books

Should any of that matter to anyone? I really don't think so. Most of it doesn't matter a helluva lot to me!

Use labels wisely...and sparingly. Use them to place yourself (and others) in the world not apart from it.

On the subject of Royal wedding gowns

I remember when the BBC ran a reputable news site *sigh*...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44202178

First of all "Katy Perry slams Meghan's wedding dress" is a grossly overstated headline for the 'critical' quote ""I would have done one more fitting." Indeed, since I started typing up this blog entry they've changed the headline to "Katy Perry says Meghan Markle's wedding dress 'needed another fitting'" 

Many brides lose weight in the run-up to the big day...particularly noticeable in the wedding gown of Sophie, Countess of Wessex in 1999. But whilst comment on the fit of Sophie's gown was acceptable nineteen years ago it is now considered akin to body shaming and I felt that Katy Perry's comment could be a little backhanded in that regard.

Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones, 1999

Perhaps Meghan's gown could have been a little closer fitted but it was simple, elegant, understated and classic. It fitted Meghan's style perfectly and suited her. Literally the only other criticism you could make of it was that it was 'too plain' but that was very much the point; Meghan's feature piece was her veil - embroidered with flowers to represent all 53 Commonwealth nations and also her native California 

(https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/20/sketches-reveal-hidden-details-meghan-markles-wedding-veil-7562878/).

Meghan Markle's veil as she arrived to wed Prince Harry

The new Duchess of Sussex emerges from St George's Chapel

I think, given that she was marrying a younger son, it was important for Meghan not to be seen to be trying to 'out-do' her sister-in-law's wedding dress. 

Catherine Middleton, now Duchess of Cambridge,

married Harry's elder brother Prince William in 2011]

Catherine's wedding dress was not as elaborate as many from the past reflecting current tastes but taking into consideration her expected future role as Queen Consort - a role Meghan does not have to worry about as following the births of William's children - Prince George (2013), Princess Charlotte (2015) and Prince Louis (2018) - Prince Harry is now in sixth place and it is exceedingly improbable he shall reign.

There is also a certain danger in going too far. Sarah Ferguson who married Prince Andrew Duke of York in 1986 received a fair amount of criticism for being over the top. Her train was 17 feet long and featured intertwined beaded initials as well as other symbols representing Andrew's navy career and her family crest embelished an ivory silk dress.

(Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/people/royal-wedding-dresses-years/sarah-ferguson-wedding-dress/)

But the symbolism didn't end with beaded detailing on the dress - 

Sarah arrived on her father's arm wearing a headdress of flowers (above) 

which was removed at the signing of the register to reveal a tiara (below)

to show her transition from commoner to Princess.

Her veil was 20 feet long.

Much of this could have been interpreted as trying (too hard?) to follow in Princess Diana's footsteps. Diana's dress was ivory silk taffeta and featured lace, hand embroidery, sequins, 10,000 pearls and a 25 foot long train! She also had her and Charles' initials as feature...hand painted onto the arches of her shoes. 

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales,_and_Lady_Diana_Spencer)

I feel the criticisms of Sarah's gown are unfair - the eighties was all about being over the top and it was her wedding to her prince and she could have what she wanted so far as I'm concerned. Also, Andrew and Sarah's wedding was THE royal event of my childhood so I may be a tad biased.

I also feel the pedestal of perfection Diana is placed upon is unwarranted. Particularly at the breakdown of her marriage it was emphasised that she'd been a bride of 20 to his 32, but she was no naive child; she wanted to be queen and she wanted her place in history - the length of her wedding train was from her express wish to have the longest in Royal Wedding history. 

Wedding Gowns of Queens

 Victoria was already Queen when she married 

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1840.

Alexandra of Denmark married Albert Edward, Prince of Wales in 1863.

He became Edward VII in 1901.

Mary of Teck, bride of Prince George, Duke of York (later George V)

who was then second in line for the throne after his father.

They married in 1893 and became king & queen in 1910

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married Prince Albert, Duke of York in 1923.

Although Bertie was then second in line to the throne Elizabeth did not expect to become queen as the first in line was still expected to marry and have issue.

When Edward VIII abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson in 1936 

Bertie became King George VI.

When Princess Elizabeth married Philip Mountbatten in 1947 she was heir apparent.

Her gown was paid for in WWII clothing ration coupons!

 Diana Spencer was considered a future queen when she married the heir apparent Charles, Prince of Wales in 1981. However, they divorced and she died young.

Despite the lasting popularity of Diana's wedding gown she emerged from the carriage looking like nothing but a bundle of crumpled hankies!

When Prince Charles married for a second time his bride,

Camilla Parker-Bowles (nee Shand),

was deemed so unpopular that it was announced that on Charles' accession 

she would be styled 'Princess Consort' instead of Queen. 

This statement has since been quietly removed.

As an older bride, divorced and with adult children 

Camilla opted for a very different type of wedding gown.

When Prince William married Kate Middleton (left) he was second in line to the throne after his father. Kate was certainly seen as a future queen.

By the time of Prince Harry's marriage to Meghan Markle (right)

Harry had moved down to sixth place so he and Meghan 

can expect a quieter, simpler life.

Meghan is not 'competing' for anything - she has her prince. She does not need to out-do Kate. She does not need a gown fit for a future queen. All she needed was to wear something she was comfortable with. And she looked absolutely stunning.

A Gown Comparison

Kate's dress

Designer: Sarah Burton

Fashion House: Alexander McQueen

Details: ivory satin, lace, 58 buttons, 8' 8" train

Cost: £250,000 (est)

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6284875/kate-middleton-royal-wedding-dress-cost-designer/

Meghan's dress

Designer: Clare Waight Keller

Fashion House: Givenchy

Details: pure white double-bonded silk, 16.5 foot silk tulle hand embroidered veil

Cost: no reasonable estimate available - but despite being simple and unembellished the label and fabric are expected to make it a very costly gown even if we do not include the veil 

Source: http://time.com/5245809/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-dress/

Harry and Meghan...but mostly Meghan ;)

I was scanning through this BBC article on the Royal Wedding (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44172172) and felt compelled to type a few words...

Directly linked to the article is my first point.

Several paragraphs begin with points:-

• It's not that she is a commoner
• Nor is it that she is divorced
• Nor is it that Meghan is American
• But it is the fact that she is, in her own words, "biracial"

And then it goes on to emphasis "And there's more. She has (or had) a job! She has (or had) a public profile!" ...well, I don't think her racial identity is key - although I see that for the black and biracial communities this is a significant event - and I feel the BBC article has rather missed the cumulative aspect of all these points. Just as Meghan is black AND white she is also a commoner AND Divorced AND American AND an actress!!!

Commoners marrying into the British Royal Family isn't unusual; the aristocracy pool is limited. Foreigners are less common nowadays but again, no big deal. The divorcee aspect is more interesting as, combined with the fact that Meghan is American, it invites a comparison with Wallis Simpson.

Born Bessie Wallis Warfield in 1896 she was twice divorced. Her first marriage, to Earl (name, not title) Winfield Spencer lasted from 1916 to 1927. Incidentally, Earl and his 2nd wife (of 4) divorced in 1936. He died in 1950.

Her second marriage was to Ernest Aldrich Simpson, a second marriage following divorce for both parties. Ernest and Wallis were married from 1928-1937 when Wallis divorced him to marry Edward VIII, or the Duke of Windsor as he became when he abdicated in order to wed her. Whilst Ernest may seem a victim in this scenario it is worth noting that he married his third wife, Mary, that same year. Ernest died, widowing a fourth wife, in 1958.

Unlike Wallis however, Meghan has only been married once before - to Trevor Engelson, from 2011-2013 - and, again unlike Wallis, did not have to obtain a divorce to marry Prince Harry; she was already three years divorced by the time their relationship was established.

Possibly the single most significant detail is that Harry and Meghan are marrying at St George's Chapel, Windsor. In 2005 Harry's father, Prince Charles, married his stepmother, the once-divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles (nee Shand) in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall followed by a blessing at St George's Chapel.

The denial of a church wedding to the heir to the throne marrying a divorcee (despite being divorced himself, although first wife Diana was already dead...this former-spouses-still-living seems significant; Camilla's ex husband is still living) was still a step up from Edward VIII being forced to abdicate. It is worth remembering though that Prince Harry's place on the accession list has been bumped down three times in recent years with the births of his nephews and niece; it may be that Harry marrying a divorcee, and in church, is less controversial not only because times are a'changin' but because he is so unlikely to ever take the throne - and with it the role as head of the church of England. All the same, times HAVE changed and we have moved on from the abdication crisis...and hopefully Camilla will be acknowledged as Queen Consort in due course ;)

Personally I don't think Meghan being biracial is of particular significance...is there any reason to expect a British Royal to only consider a white spouse?! Mixed marriages aren't especially noteworthy in British society...but I *AM* interested in the fact that she is from a 'broken home'.

Meghan was born in 1981 to Doria Loyce Ragland from her only marriage - to Thomas Markle, 1979 to their divorce in 1988. Thomas had been married before and has two children from that marriage - Thomas Markle, Jr. and Samantha Grant.

This alone is not new or especially significant. Diana Spencer, Harry's mother, was also from a broken home - her parents divorced when she was 8. Diana had a famously difficult relationship with her stepmother Raine (d. 2016). Similarly Sarah Ferguson, who married Prince Andrew, had parents who divorced when she was 15.

However, it is the behaviour of Meghan's family that sets her story apart.

Doria, her mother (who is black) has behaved impeccably. She has seemingly accepted advice from the palace and has supported her daughter's impending nuptials with grace and poise.

Thomas, her father (who is white) has been, in my humble opinion, a complete and utter twatfuck. He has seemingly accepted no advice from any quarter and is intent on making life difficult for his youngest child, aided and abetted by his two elder offspring. Between the three of them they have had plenty to say, especially to TMZ, little of it supportive. I am supremely unimpressed with Thomas Markle, Sr's public image. I do not hold the palace or the media accountable; he is a grown man who ought to realise what harm he is doing his daughter. If I humiliated one of my daughters like that I doubt either of them would ever speak to me again! It is utterly callous and selfish.

Despite family break ups the parents and siblings of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson had the good sense (and good manners) to avoid making spectacles of themselves and embarrassing the brides-to-be in the international press. I feel deeply for Meghan in this situation but I also think this high profile mess will be of some benefit to other young people with divorced parents. While the promoted image is of divorcees who will still co-parent their child(ren) properly and considerately the reality is often very different with dead-beat or absentee parents who their children are likely better off without. And yes, I *AM* thinking of my ex and his non-existent role in raising our daughters. This hits home as I imagine one of my daughters asking their father to play a part in their wedding...only to be disappointed in the final stages of preparations.

The fact Meghan has had a career, particularly a high-profile one, before her marriage into the royal family is especially noteworthy.

She has (according to her Wikipedia page) worked as an actress (best known for her role as Rachel Zane in Suits), as a freelance calligrapher, and also ran her own lifestyle website called The Tig from 2014 to 2017.

Other celebrity royal brides include:

• Grace, Princess of Monaco was formerly Grace Kelly, Hollywood actress, before her 1956 to Rainier III.
• Queen Letizia of Spain was a divorced TV presenter before marrying then Crown Prince Felipe in 2004.
• Charlene, Princess of Monaco was born in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and competed at the 2000 Olympic Games as a swimmer for South Africa. She married Albert II, Prince of Monaco (son of Grace Kelly) in 2011.

The idea that royal brides sacrifice their independence, their careers, their personal freedoms, their opinions and pretty much everything upon marriage has been popular with feminists and republicans alike. The idea that a successful, independent, self-proclaimed feminist such as Meghan Markle would be willing to make such a sacrifice (to me) suggests that the feminists and republicans are missing something. Maybe love is worth all the sacrifice; but maybe the platform royalty have is an opportunity to do real good in the world too. NOT that I'm suggesting she's marrying Harry for a position of power, merely that despite the restrictions of royal life it does have an advantage of profile - you only have to look at the charitable works of other royals to see what can be achieved; Harry's mother Diana did much for the campaign against landmines and did incalculable good for people living with HIV/AIDS, Harry has done much charitable work, particularly in founding the Invictus Games for disabled armed forces personnel and veterans. You can only imagine what a determined, educated woman like Meghan Markle might be able to achieve. Marriage is what you make of it. Think of it as restrictive and you will feel trapped and miserable; think of it as a set of new opportunities and (hopefully) it will be a whole different experience...says the terminally single potato person lol.

I wish Harry and Meghan all the best - both for their wedding tomorrow and in all that follows. I particularly hope that Thomas Sr's absence will not blight Meghan's big day. I find it especially touching that of all the people she could have asked to stand in his stead she chose to ask Prince Charles, her father-in-law-to-be, to accompany her down the aisle...as if she has already been fully accepted into the fold. I hope Doria plays a significant role tomorrow too, and maybe in the future as well - as a single mum I would rather like to see Doria become an honorary part of the establishment!

Burt Gummer in Tremors: A Cold Day In Hell

Firstly, if you haven't seen Tremors: A Cold Day In Hell yet and you complain that this post contains spoilers...well, you're a numpty. Whilst I'm trying to avoid spoilers here any discussion of a film you haven't watched is likely to give SOMETHING away. If you don't want to read 'em don't read this. Simples.

Secondly, if you're gonna be offended by the fact that Tremors is my favourite movie franchise...get a life. I bloody love Tremors (but I am so glad Kevin Bacon's spin off has been scrubbed. He dissed Tremors so many times that to reboot it without anything but the first movie being canon? RUDE!).

Right, so with my disclaimers up here goes. I shan't cover the premise of the movie itself - just Burt Gummer. I bloody love his character across the franchise. He starts out as the scary survivalist gun-loving neighbour you really wouldn't want and becomes the hero you never expected to need. His sense of self-preservation extends to protect his whole (if tiny) community...with the exception of Melvin, who is a git LOL.

If you've only seen the first movie (1990) you'd be forgiven for wondering what the heck. Burt was a side character and the fact he's even in the SIXTH movie might come as quite the surprise. Kevin Bacon took point in that film as Val McKee; his sidekick Earl Bassett (Fred Ward) was lead in the second; but by the third it was clear the real star was Burt Gummer, played by Michael Gross. Burt 

The franchise (so far) consists of:

• Tremors (1990) - set in Perfection, Nevada.
• Tremors 2: Aftershocks (1996) - set primarily in Mexico.
• Tremors 3: Back To Perfection (2001) - set in Perfection.
• A 13 episode TV series of Tremors (2003) - set in Perfection.
• Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) - set in Perfection; a prequel featuring Gross as Gummer's ancestor, Hiram.
• Tremors 5: Bloodlines - set primarily in South Africa; Gummer meets up with a videographer named Travis Welker (Jamie Kennedy) who is in fact his long-lost son.
• Tremors: A Cold Day In Hell (2018) - set primarily in Arctic Canada.

Which brings me to my point...

The sixth film builds on Burt's struggling relationship with his son. Travis wants to build a relationship with his long-lost pops but Burt's still struggling with his unintended parenthood; not least the idea that his son will someday fill his shoes.

Some fans of the franchise didn't like seeing their hero vulnerable, less rational and more paranoid, claiming the script put him out of character...but he's facing his own mortality. Not in an abstract concept way but as in I-have-a-middle-aged-son-therefore-I-am-OLD way. Character ages aren't specified but Michael Gross is 70; Jamie Kennedy is nearly 48. Sorry if you're 70+ but that IS getting on a bit. Illnesses get more serious, injuries take longer to heal...and the health risks of old age - such as arthritis, dementia, stroke - are increasingly common. In the real world 28 years have passed since the first movie; in the fictional world Burt has long since split from his wife, lost everything (KABOOM!!!) and rebuilt his life. There is no pretence that time is not rolling on.

Burt has always been stubborn / ornery / paranoid / independent. Not only does the plotline have Burt in peril (no great surprise there) but this time he's reliant on others, and particularly the son he rather resents. His reaction to this is not at all out of character - I think the objecting fans just don't have the proper empathy for his situation.

Given what's happening with my mum right now, I get it. She was fiercely independent a month ago. She organised us all - my dad, my stepdad, my kids and I all relied on her entirely too much. Seeing her scared and vulnerable is pretty terrifying. And, of course, it's even worse for her; she's lost so much and we're still not sure how much of it she has realised - she's talked of giving up her car but not her flat. I can't foresee her ever being able to live independently again. On top of that she's never much liked people much; doctors and hospitals even less...and now she's got zero privacy and stuck in an environment which terrifies her for good and valid reasons. Can any of us truly imagine how we'd react going through such a thing?! I know damn well I wouldn't want to and I've never been as good at adulting as my mum!

Meeting Travis and having a full-grown man call him 'pops' has been quite the shock to Burt; regardless of how old he feels, it forces him to acknowledge how old he's become. The plotline of the sixth movie has him face a scarier prospect than the average graboid / shrieker / assblaster - and the fear is real. Of course he's reacting 'badly' - he's like a beaten dog; snarling and snapping - but it's TOTALLY in character. Burt is never gonna retire gracefully and live in some home with bridge parties and afternoon tea!!! Given half a chance he'll go out kicking and screaming and attempting to shoot the grim reaper!