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!

Day 28

I can't cope.

My mum has been in hospital for four weeks now and it seems to be all about complications and apathy. Without going into too much detail she has a medical condition but is on a rehab ward with no doctor; we got a duty doctor called but he arrived at 3am, my mum was asleep so he didn't bother to see her OR organise any follow-up. She's in a lot of pain and distress; they've done NO follow-up testing to see if the treatments are even working and they give her paracetamol only occasionally. On top of that she's at serious risk of dehydration because she just can't / won't drink enough. I'm looking at having to quit work now so I can look after her while she's still in hospital because it's that bad!

The cat's paw thankfully seems to have healed, the plumbing crisis has been fixed (thank you, dad!) but naturally now *I* am having a health scare too.

The bit that finished me off though was my daughter's uni finances application which I hate on principal and always get super stressed out over but this time ended up with the entire family screaming and me getting the blame for everything. My father started banging on "there's no point having a panic attack" ...well thanks for that astute observation you absolute FUCKTARD! Not like it's a matter of choice and you're not bloody helping. Complete bloody moron.

I just want everything to STOP.

Day Nineteen

My mum is starting to make some baby steps toward progress. We guessed at the outset that this was going to be a long hard journey...I don't especially like being right but I feel it's better to plan for the hard stuff than setting yourself up for disappointment expecting it to be easy. I'd rather fear a difficult recuperation and be right (or pleasantly surprised if it's 'not that bad') than anticipate a speedy recovery and be disheartened.

So...she's starting to spend a bit more time awake and alert; she's doing better enunciating and projecting her voice - more than half the trouble understanding her is how quietly she's been talking, especially difficult in a noisy ward with lots of distractions.

Tonight though we had a little bit of a hiccup. Toward the end of our visit my mum asked if her parents were alright...

As I said in an earlier post my grandad, her dad, was left severely incapacitated from a stroke. He died, aged 91, in 2000 from related causes. Her mum died, aged 95, just a matter of weeks later - also, as it turns out, from a stroke.

My mum cared for them from the outset right to the very end so the fact she'd lost track of those memories came as quite a shock. Not only that, but they died a long time ago - back when my kids were really small so the fact she recognises them as being adults (and me as a middle-aged woman) seems a tad incongruous.

At the same time I'm seeing it as progress - she's thinking more about life outside of her hospital bed, of people and things that are important to her...even if she's getting a bit muddled on the details.

She took the 'news' pretty well. Thankfully it didn't seem like she was going to grieve them over again. However, she is starting to get a tad depressed as the realisation of how ill she's been starts to dawn on her. For two and a half weeks she's been in a weird kind of bubble of existing in a hospital bed and just accepting that's how things are but now she's remembering a life outside of that and feeling frustrated she isn't better yet...there's a lot of hard stuff still to come, I think.

Understanding and Forgiveness

This blog is directly linked to my last: '22 - 40 - 70-something'

I have always been the sort of mum to talk to my kids; to explain things that are going on in an age appropriate way and not to hide stuff from them. One thing that particularly bugs me is parents who, when expecting a new baby, avoid having The Talk with their kids when it's the perfect opportunity to do so. My daughter Erin was 4 when her great granddad died and like everything else I explained to her why everyone was sad but that he had been very ill for a long time. Just as at age 2 I explained how she was going to become a big sister and at 5 and a half I explained 9/11 to her as best I could.

I did not have a happy childhood. One of the worst parts was being at a certain primary school, between the ages of 6.5 and 9.5, where I had a rough time being bullied by my teacher. I felt that by age 9 my parents, my mother especially, had lost all interest in me. In trying to explain what was happening at school I was told to "fight your own battles" which a kid of that age clearly can't do and I felt utterly abandoned. In year 5 I finally got out of that school but the damage was done; beyond criticising my grades and perceived lack of effort at school they didn't seem to care anymore, then, when my behaviour deteriorated in consequence, that was just another thing to have a go at me for.

Despite now being 40 I have had a realisation about all this just in these last couple of weeks - and more than ever I advocate HONESTY and talking to even very young children.

When I was 6 years old my parents moved house (to a fixer-upper, they would spend YEARS putting it right) and I was enrolled at that school where I had such a hard time. Also when I was 6 my granddad had a severe and debilitating stroke; he died when I was 22. Although I associate my difficulties with a few years later I now see the connection.

Sadly I only came to this realisation now my own situation mirrors it somewhat. I moved into this house (with a fair few teething troubles) nearly 9 months ago, I have been struggling with stress in my 'new' job...and now my mum has had severe and debilitating strokes. On the plus side my children are now 19 & 22 and far better equipped to understand and deal with my being extremely worried and distracted.

Now I realise what a tough time my parents were going through, my mother especially. Obviously I knew my granddad was ill and in hospital, later that he was home and disabled but, as I saw it, he was old and that happens. I don't think I especially lacked empathy for my mother but I certainly didn't understand just how stressful it was for her - because she didn't tell me - maybe it sounds ridiculous but even as a full-grown adult with full-grown adult children of my own I could not have imagined just 3 weeks ago how traumatic this would be. I knew my mum was worried when her dad was in hospital and later I knew she had a rough time caring for her parents so that they could stay in their own home, but only now do I get an inkling of what that entailed.

I wish my parents had talked to me more, back then especially but at all other times as well; I wish that I had had a better chance to understand. Maybe I'd still have been a needy little shit but I could have tried to add less to their burdens.

As the only child of a stay-at-home mum I expected more attention - I literally got picked on because other kids were jealous I had that, but it sucked being so alone all the time. Kids NEED parenting support, I can't judge myself too harshly for wanting something I needed so badly.

I do feel bad that I've been a teenager, an adult, a mum since then and I still didn't get it but it's the domino effect. Because of how I grew up feeling neglected I've seen the world in a certain light, and at no point over the years have we talked about what happened with my granddad and how it affected our family. I wish I had come to understand this without my mother having to go through all this - sadly it may be true that you can't understand until you have walked in someone else's shoes... Maybe it would have been different if I had ever related my childhood experience with my granddad's stroke.

Over the last 2 weeks I have had an awakening - I understand so much more what was going on in my childhood and how that has affected my relationship with my parents right up to the present day. I even understand better why they reacted so badly to my teenage pregnancies. They were going through so much but I just thought, because of the suffering I was going through, that they hated me. Finally, I feel like I can forgive.