ByElizabeth Hours Updated
Comments 389 Comments

Splurge Monday’s Workwear Report: Essie Cropped Boucle Jacket

This neutral cropped jacket from Reiss could very quickly become a wardrobe workhorse. I really like the asymmetric zipper and tailored fit.

The way they’ve styled it with cream and white is super chic, but I would probably wear it over a dark sheath dress or some bold-colored ankle pants.

The jacket is $495 and comes in sizes 0–12.

This Boss Hugo Boss jacket is on sale for $178 (marked down from $445!) at Saks OFF 5th and comes in sizes 0–14.

Sales of note for 12.5

Sales of note for 12.5

And some of our latest threadjacks here at Corporette (reader questions and commentary) — see more here!

Some of our latest threadjacks include:

389 Comments

  1. A light non-controversial topic that I know nothing about: how does one mix/choose picture frames (art, not photo)? I feel like pretty much all design rules can be boiled down to something short (e.g., no floater rugs or hang curtain a bit higher and wider than the window) but I have found nothing about how to mix different frames well. At this point I have accumulated art in all different frames – different types of wood, gold and silver frames, black frames, etc. and it all looks fine enough together but I need to get something large to hang on one wall and am having total choice paralysis. Would white be out of the question?

    Everything I find online is either not on topic or is from tacky store design blogs that are very much not my style (and identical frames are not going to happen because reframing is expensive!).

    1. I feel like frames need to coordinate, but not necessarily match. They need to be right for the piece of art. And they need to work with the vibe of the room. Apart from that, I don’t know that there are fixed rules.

      Mine are all in dull gold frames, with a few in black wood for photos.

    2. Well, my style is pretty eclectic, but I choose a frame to suit each piece. Frames can come from anywhere-some come with the piece already, and some I have picked up in antique stores or Target, etc . I don’t generally worry about matching, but will sometimes group art by style but frames may not all match (all silhouettes together, etc). Mixing makes things interesting in my opinion.

    3. My art is photographs and I like black and white ones. I can’t think that anything but woo black or dark wood would be weird. But I’m too chicken to spend the $ to find out.

    4. White would not be out of the question, but you already have a lot of colors going on, so I might try to pick one of those if it works with the piece.

      My general rule is that I choose the frame color to complement the art, but it has to fit with the overall style of the room. In my main living areas, I have stuck to colors that generally work together: black, white, silver and a gray driftwood for a pair of nature photos that are meant to go together.

      In general, I think frame color matters less than the size/scale of the art or photos. IMO, that’s where a lot of people go wrong.

    5. I think the concept is that the mat and frame should compliment the art piece. If the piece has warm cream tones and you frame it in white, that could make the piece look dingy or dirty. So start with the colors in the piece and work from there, first choosing the mat and then the frame. Don’t try to do this online, you really need to see the mat and frame options next to the piece.

      1. +1 – the frame goes with the artwork, primarily. If you know stuff is going to be hung as a set, then you coordinate the frames – it could be color, it could be detailing, it could be style, it could be scale. But above all the frame should complement the artwork it is framing.

    6. I actually do not like it when all of the frames in one room match each other. I think it looks weird. I prefer for the mat and frame to go with the art. I think the rule is if they compliment the art, then it can hang in any room.

    7. When we moved into our new house, I decided that every single photo and print was going in a white gallery-style frame so I could stop getting crippled by framing decision paralysis. (Old stuff stayed in its existing frames.) So obviously my vote would be for a nice neutral white :) Otherwise I think it’s hard to go wrong with a neutral pale wood.

    8. For an artwork that’s a modern piece on canvas – get a simple floater frame. For a print, get both a passepartout and a frame. You can also put up a canvas without a frame, if you like.

      Choose frame material/colour based on the artwork and the visual surroundings where you want the piece to be.

      You can probably see quite easily if the artwork itself needs a colder or warmer colour to pop, if you hold the piece up to one of your existing frames. Some pictures will disappear if you use a frame that’s too similar to the colours in the piece, or if the frame warmth does not complement. And you can have a warm (peachy) silver, or more cool gold etc, don’t just think gold or wood = warm, silver =cold, there is a lot of leeway. But you want to see the artwork, not the frame.

      In addition to making the frame colour work with your art piece, think about the wall (a pure white frame on a cream or eggshell wall will look dirty or off (unless you have shades of white a theme for the room), for example.

      I have a room with a slightly green wall that will only take wood frames – but lots of different woods. All metallics and whites will look dirty and odd. On my eggshell white walls, everything goes (except white).

      If you have white walls and will need a passepartout in your frame, try and match the whiteness to the wall. If you have eggshell or cream walls, do an off white passepartout. If you have pure white walls, pure white passepartout. If you do a pure white passepartout on a cream wall, you will see the passepartout more than the artwork.

      You can break any of these rules with confidence – if you do have confidence in what you’re doing. Otherwise it’s a starting point.

    9. I prefer exact matching frames, gallery style, but that’s too matchy for a lot of people.

      A good rule of thumb for mixing is to either have them all be the same color (and mix the shape and finish) or to have them all be the same shape and finish (and mix the colors).

  2. I promised I’d report back on my Summersalt swimsuit purchase, so here’s my just-for-Corporette review. I bought the Sidestroke in a long torso size. tl;dr: I’m sending it back.

    Pros:
    – The long torso was actually long enough! I’m 5’8″ with a freakishly long torso/shorter legs.
    – Fabric is nice and the quality is definitely there.
    – It’s a cute style and the colors are vibrant and pretty.
    – Despite its flaws, I would say the suit fit me well and as the brand intended.

    Cons:
    – It has two fatal flaws that made it very unflattering on me.
    – I knew it didn’t have shaping/modesty pads but thought it would be OK since I’m a 36B and don’t need much support. Unfortunately, it flattened me and my b 0 0 bs looked nonexistent. I prefer some shaping in that area.
    – The suit was cut low on the leg and hip while showing a decent amount of cheek, which I also don’t like. I guess it’s supposed to be a retro look? Whatever the case, a higher leg opening would’ve been more flattering.

    I’m disappointed. I had high hopes based on all the ‘gram photos I’ve seen in the past year, but I didn’t feel cute or confident wearing it. I’d say it’s still worth trying if you like the style, though, because the quality is excellent. Back to the drawing board … or Athleta, where I always seem to end up.

    1. That’s how I felt about mine too. I didn’t like the amount of cheekiness and the top squished my larger girls quite a bit.

      1. Same. They’re really missing an opportunity here for larger-busted women (and really, a 36B is not terribly large).

    2. Same on the lack of backside coverage and squishing. I am not well endowed to begin with, but this literally reminded me of the fit I would have in say, a technical Speedo. Same on the backside coverage – I want a one piece for MORE coverage while playing with kids at the pool, not less coverage.
      I’ve found my favorite swimsuits these days either come from JCrew, or a brand like La Blanca. Debating on a Norma Kamali or one of the Esther Williams style retro one pieces….

    3. I will never understand why their swimsuits don’t come with modesty pads. I don’t need everyone knowing what every nook and cranny of my body looks like.

      1. I have the very deep V style suit (swan dive? I can’t remember the name) from 2019, and it has modesty pads. So at least some of the styles do have them! No support per se, which I actually prefer though given how small my boobs are.

    4. Wow, thank you for the review, I think I may go buy this even though I wasn’t looking for one! It sounds like we are body twins, but I have been desperately searching for a good quality suit with a low hip cut, and I don’t like foam pads or shaping on top. Thanks so much!

    5. I recommended this on here before but this suit is amazing and fits my very long torso. It covers the backside extremely well on my very pear bottom. I saw some folks complained the back is seethrough but I absolutely did not have this issue (I made sure to get it wet and squat before wearing it out in public).

  3. I have Keen hiking boots that are 10 YO and are in great shape. But I am thinking — I mainly have them (with gore Tex) due to there always being at least few on the ground and occasionally going through wet areas. Often, it is hot and humid. Am I losing anything major if I get the same version but more in a shoe height vs a boot? I’m never wading (or in deep water — I’d get hunters for that) but thinking it might be cooler in the summer (shorter socks) and look less off with shorts / skorts). What do people do? This year I have been wearing them tons and it looks like that’s not about to let up.

    1. I think if you’re looking for something lighter and more breathable, you could try more of a trail running shoe than a hiking shoe/boot.

      1. +1 for lighter hikes, especially here in the heat I go with a trail sneaker. My keens are for cold/wet or long hikes.
        You can even get waterproof ones

    2. Depends on the kind of hiking you are doing. For harder hikes, the higher sides are providing ankle support which may be necessarily stability, not just water protection.

      1. This. I roll my ankles very easily. If I’m doing anything steep, rocky or slippery, I need ankle support.

    3. I have both low and mid/high Keen hiking boots. The low definitely look nicer with clothing when out and about. I wear both regularly.

    4. I have both low and mid/high Keen hiking boots. The low definitely look nicer with clothing when out and about. I wear both regularly.

    5. The gore-tex is why it’s uncomfortably hot, not the height.
      I live in north Florida where getting wet feet is a fact of life in the outdoors for much of the year if you’re hiking or running on trails. I wear plain running shoes with very thin socks (Balega Hidden Dry are my favorites) and can tromp through anything and be back to a baseline of sweaty/damp in less than 10 minutes.

  4. Corona pup and return to the office question. Our dog is about 9 months now and we (spouse and I) will be going back to the office soon after WFH for a year. Dog seems to eat just at dinner (food is out all day) and poops a lot in the morning. I think we can do this:
    6am – relief break (99% this is just peeing)
    8am – long walk
    Crating (recommended to us until he is 18mo) if left at home alone
    Noon – walk / relief
    5 – walk / relief
    Final relief / short walk
    Bed
    Some days we have him out in the evening. One day a week we may take him to daycare. A lot of my “good in theory” ideas have had a couple of redrafts along the way to what actually works. I’m thinking we could trade off who comes home for lunch (will probably be more spouse) as I am usually the one who can be home by 5.

    1. I think you should hire a dog walker. Leaving your office to return home at lunch everyday just doesn’t sound realistic.

      1. I think it makes sense to have a dog walker in the beginning, stretching out the times until the dog can go all day. Most adult dogs can with no issue. I know they can’t talk but I know they aren’t in a rush to get out because when I come home they often prefer to follow me around the house for attention. If I put them out, they are likely to play with a toy before they stop to pee.

        In the before times, I’d leave the house at 8:30 and my husband would be home at 5:30 and our dogs were perfectly content with that schedule. If they had any issues going on, upset belly, on a medication, we’d do a lunch break or hire a dog walker. For day to day though, it wasn’t necessary.

      2. Also, we don’t know OPs job. Lot’s of jobs have a required lunch break so getting home daily wouldn’t be a problem.

        1. OP here — thanks for the comments! Spouse routinely came home for lunch before WFH started, so we expect that he could do a relief walk for the dog while the leftovers reheat in the microwave.

      3. I leave the office every day at lunch to let my dogs out. I block my calendar for an hr. Hardly is anything urgent enough for to me to move it, but when I need to I shift earlier or later depending. In 5 years of doing this, there’s maybe been one day that I wasn’t able to make it and had to book my pet sitter on late notice.

    2. Hi–I agree with your schedule but think you should reconsider two parts.

      1) I recommend you hire a dog walker. It’s incredibly stressful to have to run out of work. It will be worth the $20/day. Even if you do dog walker 3x a week, daycare 1x and one of the two of you t o come home once a week–worth it.

      2) Is your puppy tall or destructive when you’re home? Do you leave him uncrated for short errands like you going to the drugstore or supermarket? If not, because your dog is past teething, it may be fine to leave him at home uncrated (and would be much, much more comfortable for him. Other possibilities: an exercise pen (if he’s not too big to tip over/jump out) or one “safe room” such as a large bathroom or laundry room for him to chillax in, instead of a crate. If your dog is tall enough to counter surf, think about how that should be factored in.

      3) Yes to doggy daycare, and it might be more than 1x a week to tucker him out and keep his brain occupied.

      4) Start leaving the house for hours at a time NOW. Furbo camera or home security cameras can help you see how active pupper is when you’re not there.

      This will be a big transition but remember, a tired puppy is a well-behaved puppy! GL!

      1. Agree, we didn’t have a COVID pup but I was WFH when we got our dog and eventually took an office job. From ages ~9 months – 18 months we kept him gated in the mudroom/kitchen when not home. Gave him more room and also forced us to keep the counters clear ;)

      2. I would NOT advise letting him stay home alone out of the crate. A bored or curious dog can get into all kinds of trouble. I have heard of dogs who suddenly started eating tissues or magazines or even drywall. Dogs are also escape artists who can often bust out of any enclosure you set up. My dog can undo a standard crate latch from the inside (we have to put a carabiner on it). She would knock over a puppy pen in about 30 seconds. The rescue where she came from tells the story of one dog who would unlatch the gate of his own backyard, then go around the neighborhood and let the other dogs out too. Many dogs can open lever-style doorknobs.

        Crating him while you’re gone will also encourage him to use the time while you’re gone for his naps, and will keep him accustomed to the crate. Having a dog who resists the crate is very inconvenient and can be dangerous.

        1. I think crate training is important but you also have to start testing your dog(s) outside of the crate. Mine no longer need the crate and don’t get in trouble. They sleep on the couch, in a sunbeam, bark out a window, get a drink of water, go back to sleep on the couch. I know because I have security cameras. So, I agree don’t leave an untrusted dog uncrated but you don’t need to crate them for life either.

          1. Our corona-pup is about this age. Now, we are WFH and he is largely uncrated. It’s a house where the floor he goes on is all open and he won’t go up stairs (but someday may). He is unsupervised sometimes for hours if we are upstairs and he is downstairs. He is good 90% of the time. Yesterday, he destroyed a book left on an end table. One time, he ate a leather coaster. He has at times eaten shoes and routinely eats the ear adjusters on masks if not put up high. He ate wood trim a couple of times. So he’s not teething and hasn’t been for a while, but consumes things that aren’t food. I know he can open doors with levers, so if he gets into the pantry, at some point he could gorge on people food. He is about tall enough to counter surf (and could today if he’d bother to jump up). We usually lock the deadbolts on outside doors, but inside doors (pantry) don’t have them). In another year or two, I expect that he will outgrow the nonsense or come upstairs (where he could have a room). Open concept is a design that seems to give you a crate as a choice, which to me is to choose safety at this point.

        2. I don’t think this is at all universal, and crating a dog for most of the day is just cruel. OP, consider day care or a walker for your dog while you’re at work (I would start that now so your pup gets used to it). If you must leave the dog alone all day, figure out an area I. Your house where he/she can move around and play.

          2. I agree with no crate all day! I’m an attorney with dogs (now only one) and either come home at lunch, stay at work all day but home to walk, or get dog sitter if a particularly long day. I was a widow for awhile — so I think with your husband to help that will be great.

    3. My dog is on a similar schedule, although we don’t crate him (he’s 2). It works well. Honestly, having the dog as a reason to go home every day at lunch is a benefit – it MAKES me get out of my office.

    4. Just curious, but why is it recommended to crate him until 18 months? I have a young puppy that will be a small dog and am wondering if this schedule would work. Is it common that all dogs only need to go out about 5 times a day?

      1. FWIW – I have two Chis (one adult/one senior) and they are perfectly fine going out once before work, at lunch, when I get home, and before bed. They can and have held for 8 hours, although I don’t like to make them do that.

    5. Dogs are social animals, and are not happy when left alone. 5 day a week day care may be too much for older dogs, but young dogs often love it. If you can swing 5 x a week doggie day care, go for it. I would never leave a dog in a crate for hours–especially if the dog has not previously had a 5 mile walk/hike. I use a dog walking service that takes dogs on off leash hikes for an hour–this is worth every dime. A lunch time visit and walk is great, but is insufficient for your doggie’s needs.

  5. Question for the people on the Friday secret thread who said they only have ~4 hours of work to fill their day: what are your jobs? I was pretty jealous…

    1. I didn’t answer this, but I used to work for a politician in their ‘central’ office (meaning not a district office) and for 6 months of the year, I worked like a madwoman. Answering 5AM emails from my boss and wrapping up staffing events for my boss well into the evening.

      The rest of the year? I would maaaaybe have 4 hours of work a day to do. If you averaged out how many hours I worked, I think I probably worked a normal amount of hours on an annual basis, but… fun job to have in Grad School.

    2. That’s probably true for me right now, but it’s very cyclical and not always predictable. There are other times when I can barely keep up. Comms and marketing.

    4. I work for the federal government. I should add I’m also very efficient at getting sh*t done.

      1. To the two government lawyers who work only four hours a day: y’all are feeding so many stereotypes that do reputational damage to those of us who work 10+ hours daily. You are stating your truth, but it cuts.

        2. It seems like poor planning to hire staff and regularly have them 100% allocated. I feel like everyone working a set schedule like 40 hours a week should regularly have a little downtime, right?

          1. This is how it should be but sadly, never is. Instead we all have to scramble and work tons of hours when someone is out sick or on maternity leave. Businesses should absolutely not have people at 100% yet so many aim for 110% productivity.

          2. “This is how it should be but sadly, never is.”

            This entire thread is proving otherwise… I think it’s wonderful that so many people have jobs that don’t consume every waking hour of their lives! We should be striving for more of that, and less of the “misery loves company” attitude.

    5. I’m a data scientist. It depends on how many meetings I have too. If its a day without meeting, I am probably at my best for 5 hrs, and I am very efficient during those 5 hrs. I have talked to many other CS people who feel this way and do similar “hours” of work – but I’m getting paid for my output and my insight, not hours worked. I’m still in the office 8+ hrs a day, especially with meetings.

    6. I probably in work only 4 hours a day and I technically do 2 jobs. I’m in government, it’s not my employer’s fault I just have a very high IQ and work incredibly fast. Every job I’ve ever had was like this. I even automated one of my university jobs so I only worked about 45 minutes a shift.

      1. Lol!! I’m reading this remark in the voice of the character in Mean Girls who was like “it’s not my fault I have a wide set v*gina and a heavy flow”.

    7. Design engineering. Sometimes customers need new features or fixes for old features. Sometimes no one needs anything. (More accurately, sometimes I’m waiting on contracts to be signed to authorize new features.)

    8. Transactional finance company (and I’m a department head now so my team does the heavy lifting). When deals need to get done, you get them done, but sometimes it’s very quiet.

    9. I work in software development. I’m a system/business analyst. There are lulls in the development cycle where I don’t have much to do and other times where I’m more busy.

      1. Not in software, but I have a similar cyclical job with projects. Depending on where we are in the cycle, I could be working 10 hour days where I don’t even leave my desk or barely 4 and not getting a single e-mail.
        I don’t feel bad about it, and it all shakes out about right over the course of the year.

    10. This always reminds me how much I hate, hate, hate billing. All jobs have busier times and slow times, but billing increases the pressure to always have exactly 8 hours or more.

      1. Agreed. Boutique consulting here and we were scrambling so hard to stay afloat for the past year that there wasn’t ever any downtime, whereas we could coast a bit between projects in the Before Times.

    11. My hours vary dramatically (in house lawyer) — there are days that I work 15 hours, and days that I barely work for 4. I don’t stress about the days that I don’t have work.

    12. I’m one of the 4 hour people and I’m wondering what the people who are actually working all day are doing? Frankly, I’d be happier if I were doing more but that doesn’t seem to be the norm in the industry I’m in.

        1. I am a deal lawyer with too many deals and always playing catch up. I could literally work around the clock and never run out of work b/c more just comes through the door.

    13. I missed that thread but am going to have to go back and read to see exact details. But I’m a project manager and it can ebb and flow like that for sure.

      Of course a colleague just resigned this morning and that now means that I’ll be doing two jobs for the next few months until I can hire/train someone.

      Billables would be the worst, huge reason why I didn’t pursue my childhood dream of being a lawyer (and then I found this community and got extra glad about it).

    14. Nonprofit lawyer. I love my job, but I do what I have to do and then I stop. They aren’t paying me enough to find busy work to take up time. Some weeks I work a lot (for me- I never go over 50 hours a week and even that would be insane). Many weeks, I average 4-5 hours a day on a very, very flexible schedule.

      1. I average about 6- 7 hours/ day, and I am also in non profit, though not a lawyer. I work hard and am very efficient. I do not overthink things. I also have been in my field for 20 years, so I just have more experience to act on. I have always gotten top notch reviews. I am also well aware that I can do amazing work — and I often do — and I will not get any kind of bonus. Just my regular low salary.

  6. Searching skills fail here – I think we’ve discussed Nutrafol here before – or other products for thinning hair – but suddenly, all I see when I brush my hair is bright pink scalp. Not sure if this is age or what (early 60’s) but not ready for this phase. No new medical issues or other possible causes. Nutrafol seems really pricey, but if it works, I’ll bite the bullet and do it. Anyone with experience?

    1. I started taking it about a month ago, and can’t say I see any difference yet. But I usually give any new product about three months before passing judgment. Will report back.

      In your case, though – maybe first check in with your regular doctor and/or dermatologist to rule out any specific issues?

    2. I’m 53, noticed thinning about six months ago, and started using topical Minoxidil 2%. I don’t think it works for everyone, but I have seen regrowth. The application isn’t as annoying as you’d think. This is definitely one of those things about women’s aging process that you don’t hear much about, and I definitely didn’t see coming!

  7. can we discuss Meghan & Harry. i will admit I did not watch the whole thing. on the one hand, good for them for being so open, raw and honest. i cannot imagine needing so much permission to do everything in my life. on the other hand, if they really want to be out of the limelight, why did they even do the interview and use it as an opportunity to reveal the sex of their baby, etc.

    1. They probably did the interview because they are tired of The Firm lying about them and then random other celebs constantly lying about them on social media. What better way to set the record straight than to tell their story directly so there’s no chance of being misquoted.

      I don’t understand this whole “they’re doing an interview so they must be bad people!” argument I keep seeing. Are yall ok with folks telling blatant lies about you, or would you want to set the record straight? Why aren’t Meghan and Harry allowed to do the same?

      As for the interview, I was simultaneously heartbroken and pissed off for both of them. To be told that you can’t get help for your suicidal thoughts, for someone to question if your child would be too dark (WTF?), for your father to not take your damn calls…It’s clear that Meghan and Harry did the right thing is forging their own path.

      1. +1 to everything here

        They’re going to get attention whether they give an interview or not. Having seen last night, I also see why they wanted to set the record straight. I would have!

        I was pretty horrified by the British royal family. They really tried to protect the Queen, but she IS the ceo. And Charles and William come off looking at best like wimps and at worst, unfeeling/possibly racist.

        1. This. I was a royal fan, especially of Princess Anne and Kate Middleton. After that interview, I firmly believe the monarchy should be abolished. I’m not in the UK, but I don’t know how Brits can look at that institution anymore and think they actually care about them, including PoC in the UK. It’s disgusting that the Cambridges have mental health patronages, yet the palace treated DoS this way. Such hypocrisy. The whole thing was just one worse revelation after another. The racist media in the UK are already calling Meghan Markle a liar. Goes to show they don’t care about mental health at all.

          1. +1 on most of this but I do think the Cambridges genuinely care about mental health. They have both been pretty open about their own struggles. Did you see the documentary where William talked about speaking at Davos and in preparation he was trying to find someone else willing to speak on the panel about mental health issues and basically no one would because it’s so hush hush in the UK? Kate has also been quite open about her postpartum struggles after George, she’s been a guest on a few podcasts to talk about her experiences. Meghan said she didn’t tell many people (she mentioned telling Harry and one other person) so I’m not even clear if the Cambridges were ever directly told at the time.

          2. @10:56 – you made good points and I didn’t know about the Davos detail or Kate’s PPD podcast appearances, so thanks for letting me know about that.
            I agree with you that if they didn’t know, they’re not at fault. But to me, that means their actions after this information about how bad Meghan’s struggle was has come out that much more important. If they didn’t know before, they do now and I hope to see them act accordingly with support and love – ideally publicly.

          3. Yeah, Meghan never really said anything supportive that I’ve seen about Kate being public about it. But Meghan has been plenty public about Kate not being nice enough to her when postpartum pre-wedding so it would be nice if Kate turned the other cheek and was supportive of Meghan. Kate has been public about it as far back as 2017 – https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/24/kate-middleton-motherhood_n_15581516.html

            And was talking about it as recently as last year but it really got overshadowed by H/M leaving. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/02/kate-middleton-podcast-interview-revelations

    2. That’s basically my thought. ‘I want media attention but on my terms’ seems like a naive goal at best.

    3. I think that they don’t necessarily want to be out of the limelight, but away from the toxic British press and oppressive royal institution.

      1. Bingo. They want boundaries, and they don’t want false vitriol spewed at theme very which way. Having an interview on their terms does not conflict with the aforementioned goal. The tabloids were awful and relentless in novel ways (and yes, a lot of it was race-related). I don’t blame them for wanting to set the record straight. It’s clear they are the only ones who can protect themselves and their growing family.

        1. The tabloids are supposed to have boundaries with the royals in exchange for access. They violated those agreements with their coverage of Meghan, both Harry and Meghan asked “The Firm” to step in and they declined to do so. That is at the root of this all.

          But you don’t see a lot of tabloid headlines about Andrew so that’s where they’ve called in their favors.

    4. IDK — in my job I can’t talk to the press the times I’ve had direct calls in my area of expertise because of its impact on other constituencies and the need for the firm (ha!) to have a central spokesperson and checks / balances. It is how a lot of jobs in the private sector and government jobs work (if you work for the state department or military).

      I think throwing Kate under the bus was a bad move. Maybe they didn’t have final edit authority and maybe it was cathartic at the time but it ultimate IMO will make the rift between Harry / William worse.

      The baby skin color convo should have had a name attached (my guess is Princess Michael of Kent) because it sounds like the thing someone’s fossil knuckle-dragging relative would say and it comes across as a smear on everyone without a name. The no-title thing seems like something they don’t even understand.

      And Oprah clutching her pearls over being cut off from family $ just seems like rich people complaining that they didn’t get into the right finals club or eating club — problems we Poors would eagerly trade them for.

      1. Agree on it being a weird move to bring in the Kate thing. It distracted from their real issues. Kate was either 9 months pregnant or like 2-3 weeks postpartum when whatever happened so it’s not exactly shocking that she cried at some point about wedding stress or like Meghan said, said something wrong and regretted it. It could have been shrugged off as ‘press did not report accurately/wedding planning is hard/we have a great relationship now’. And then put the focus back on the real issues.

        1. I thought it was interesting because Kate and Meghan REALLY must not get along. I think that’s probably one anecdote of many.

        2. I don’t think it was weird – Meghan was pilloried in the press for supposedly making her cry. In her shoes, I would want to correct the record too. I thought it was quite classy of her to go on to say she wouldn’t share the details because the incident is over, Kate apologized, and Meghan forgave. And Meghan called Kate a good person.
          That’s way more than we’ve heard from Kate re: Meghan.

          1. Huh, I thought it was a way to sound “classy” but actually completely denounce Kate while pretending not to. If she really hadn’t wanted to point a finger, she would have breezed past the question and just said they don’t have any issues.

          2. Exactly, Monday. It was fake classy but while very obviously throwing Kate under the bus. I’m sympathetic to Meghan about many things but I really don’t believe Kate is the root of her problems and find it frustrating that Kate was the only member of the entire family called out by name when others likely did far worse.

          3. But how else would correct the record about an incident where the other royal is not only named but falsely named as the victim?

      2. I think the baby skin color thing was Philip, Charles or William, no question. Otherwise Harry wouldn’t have been so uncomfortable and maybe would have named names. I definitely didn’t get the sense it was someone they barely see or who wouldn’t be part of these conversations.

        1. They did just recently pass along a message that it wasn’t Phillip or the queen. My money’s on Charles.

          1. I should add – I’m not sure they totally succeeded in that. But it seemed like they were doing the interview version of “I statements.”

        2. It’s actually worse to bring it up and not name names. Now all three carry the stain of having said something like that. Should have either said nothing or named names. Feels like it was Charles and they are trying to hold it over him so he pays for their security out of his personal funds.

          1. By all three I mean Philip/Charles/William although maybe it was Andrew because he’s a pompous a$$? He’s the only one who insisted his non-heir kids have Princess titles.

          2. I don’t think he insisted on that. His daughters were automatically princesses for the same reason the Queen herself was born a princess – she was grandchild of the current monarch. Princess Anne opted out and Prince Edward’s kids’ titles are slightly different because his is slightly different, which is something I assume he agreed to. Andrew is garbage, but he didn’t get special treatment for his children’s titles, at least.

          3. I see your point but in their shoes, I can see how you might not name names for fear of seen as being out to get them. To me, it sounded like they were trying really hard to share their story, focus on what they experienced regardless of who did it to them and why they felt they had to step back without attacking any one royal specifically.

      3. The title thing makes them seem like they really want the Prince title specifically. Archie is already Earl of Dumbarton by birth but Meghan and Harry chose not to use that. Half of the Queen’s grandkids don’t even have Prince/Princess titles and none of the other great-grandchildren do except the direct heir’s.

        1. Right? It seems like the BRF was moving away from the title a generation ago for not-likely-to-rule people. And it’s not like these people aren’t title-rich — Prince isn’t Harry’s only title and he could have named his son the Earl of something already b/c it is his title to share.

          Had Charles been King Charles by now, they’d probably go under the “grandchildren of the monarch rule” and have been able to be princes/princesses, but that may still come to pass. But, come on, I’d settle for being a Countess or an Earl any day. #richpeopleproblems

        2. It seemed like she didn’t want the title for him as much as she wanted security. That’s all she said. He wasn’t going to be protected.

          1. She talked about the title (and the HRH) a LOT for someone who only cared about security, though…

          2. She made that up. It’s not true at all. Only working royals get security. She knows Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses and they don’t have security. She claims she was friends with Eugenie before she met Harry so she knows Eugenie doesn’t have security. Title and security are two totally different things.

          3. What I heard was her say is that’s what the palace said to them. That he won’t get security because no title. If I’m told that as a pregnant woman receiving racist harassment from the press, you bet I’d care about a title if it means security for my son.

    5. The racism they encountered within the royal family is pretty damning, I would say, as is the fact that Charles doesn’t even answer Harry’s phone calls. It’s a toxic, emotionally cold environment and always has been.

      But now that they’ve spoken, I really think they need to retreat and live the private life they claim to want.

      1. If their goal is public service, don’t they at least need some sort of public presence? Their status is probably their biggest asset in accomplishing charitable goals I would think.

      2. i don’t know if you’ve watched the Crown, but assuming there is any truth to what is portrayed there, Charles is a huge jerk. I cannot believe the way he treated Diana

        2. The Crown is heavily fictional, with a grounding in historic events. I think Charles was horrible to Diana based on the books written about that situation, but I take the Crown with a HUGE grain of salt. It is not a documentary and should not be taken at face value.

        3. Girl I’m Gen X on the older side. I got up early in the morning to watch Princess Diana’s wedding (as we all called it, Charles who?) He was an absolute monster to her and I will never, ever be cool with Charles and Camilla.

          After hearing Meghan’s worries about security, I kind of understand why Diana had to date the kind of very rich men she did after the divorce. see also, Jackie O.

      3. They never wanted a private life. They are totally dedicated to their causes and wanted to stay in the royal family without being “senior” members. Unfortunately the institution wouldn’t let that happen. They have a new foundation and they’re going to be doing a lot of public work with that.

      4. The racism is worse that I thought but Charles not taking Harry’s calls at a certain point and wanting the exit plan in writing was the part I was least surprised with. Charles worked super hard to get the Queen to do what the other European monarchies have done and just make the direct heirs the paid working royals vs the other grandkids.

        Princess Anne only does like 450 events a year and she’s 70 so she can’t keep that up forever. When H/M left it blew up Charles’ plans for only his kids to be paid working royals and he will have to rely on some of the other kids/grandkids which is messy because Beatrice/Eugenie bring up Andrew issues. He seems to be bringing in Edward/Sophie more but their kids are still young so they can’t do a lot. So I totally buy that Charles was really mad at Harry for leaving at some point.

      5. There is also a lot of class-ism, like how Kate is the granddaughter of a coal miner and her mother was an “air hostess.” As if she were Nikki, working on a pole down at the Bayou.

          1. In the US, mentioning your working-class roots is what rich politicians do all the time to be relatable. Like it’s a feature not a bug.

          2. Anon at 12:37, not really sure how that’s relevant? It’s clearly not used as a good thing by the royals, and the poster thinks it’s ok to be an air hostess but not an exotic dancer, or to be named Nikki.

    6. Have they ever said they wanted to be away from the lime light? I think they both find fulfillment in charity and service work, and the limelight helps with that. I think they wanted to get away from the toxic, racist environment they were in. She was suicidal and asked to get professional help and they said no. A regular celebrity would be able to do that. They took away her passport and drivers license. A normal celebrity can have those. They weren’t allowed to correct the press. A normal celebrity can do that.

      I came away from it really liking both Harry and Megan, and grateful that he saw what was happening and took action to save his family even at great personal cost to everything he had known.

      1. I came away from it liking Meghan, but Harry less so. I thought Meghan was largely sympathetic (excluding the Kate situation) and wanted to tell her story. Harry just seemed angry and basically out to get back at his family.

        1. I’m so fascinated because my takeaway on the Kate situation was so different than many! I thought the way Meghan handled it was nice, and I actually thought more highly of Kate afterwards. We all have bad days where we make an accidentally thoughtless comment, and Kate owned it and made amends with Meghan. That is thoughtful and showed to me she got how hard it was for Meghan and was trying. I thought Kate looked BETTER after hearing that story, than the prior iterations in the press about Meghan making Kate crying.

          1. Honestly, between one woman being either post-partum or about to pop and the other being in Bride Mode, I think that drama happens but airing it is probably an error of judgment without pointing out that timing in their lives. This just looked petty to me (a post-partum woman said something and made me cry when I was in an emotional state myself). If anything, Kate looks realistically human but Meghan looks like this is something she just won’t let go of. You don’t hear Kate complaining about being in a wedding when she was recently post-partum or about to pop with baby #3.

          2. Boy I did not get that at all. I think Meghan was pointing out how the tabloids got it wrong and the comms team probably fed them the wrong story. So it was about media bias. She did say Kate apologized snd brought flowers and she seems to have completely forgiven her.

          3. If I had screwed up, made a thoughtless comment, sincerely apologized and sent flowers to my sister-in-law — and a year later, at every turn, she’s still reminding everyone [on national tv] how she’s NOT MAD about that comment I made, reminding everyone of the details of our confrontation (even things they didn’t know before!) all to tell them that she’d “forgiven me” for those details — well, I sure wouldn’t feel at all like my sister-in-law had completely forgiven me at all.

          4. @4:14 – what’s missing in your summary though is that the press dragged Meghan about it for months. It’s still cited by royal enthusiasts who don’t like her as a reason why she’s a mean b*tch. So yeah, if you want to set the record straight, you have every right to explain why an incident that’s been fed to the tabloids to make you look awful isn’t actually true.

          5. That was the first time Megan had mentioned it?? All we have been hearing for months is about how Megan made Kate cry. She corrected the record, once, during this interview

      2. I thought she said that an aide said inpatient care wasn’t a good idea – which given the media circus around them is probably not wrong but not that she couldn’t get help. Harry had therapy (and was public about it) for his anxiety attacks only a couple years earlier. Also confused why Harry couldn’t just take her to the hospital if she/he thought it was necessary? He and William are photographed driving cars all the time. The part that most confused me – she told Harry she was suicidal and then they went to a gala? When I went though some really dark times, that would not have been a remote possibility to go to any kind of event. Kate skipped tons of events during each of her pregnancies, seems like there was recent precedent for them to do that.

        1. I think everyone is different. I went through a dark time and my husband dragged me out of town w/ his family on a weekend vacation. I was resentful at the time that I had to act normal in public while I was really really sad on the inside. But, while I went through the motions in a daze, in retrospect I think it was way better for me to be occupied and around people than home in bed with my unhealthy thoughts.

          I still had to process what caused me to go into that dark place when I returned home. I wasn’t suicidal and probably didn’t need in-patient care but was concerned of becoming suicidal and did not want to be alone with anything I could harm myself with. The weekend trip was already planned and I tried to get them to go without me but given my state of mind, they of course wouldn’t unless I came, even if I just stayed in the hotel room the whole time.

          I went and ended up going out to eat and drinks and I probably looked “fine” to outsiders but was struggling inside. Long story short, getting me out and about was for the best even if I was against it then. H and M may have made a similar choice because (1) getting out was good for her and (2) they didn’t want to answer questions about why they weren’t going.

        2. It screams you don’t know anything about or have lots experience with self or familial depression/ su*c*dal ideation that you think someone can’t function with it, especially when you’re publicly expected to perform. Millions of people do everyday (hello to the many celebrity deaths who were on a red carpet days before), some just don’t survive it.

          1. Wow you seem nice. The “really dark times” I mentioned was me attempting suicide, very nearly ‘succeeding’, and being hospitalized against my will for a month. In the period prior to that I was attending both work and school regularly. I disclosed to no one prior to the attempt. Meghan said she told Harry that she was suicidal and he took her to a gala instead of the hospital. It might make sense to her and you but it sure AF doesn’t make sense to me. If my DH ever told me he was suicidal I wouldn’t be headed out to a work event (which is what a gala is for them). Kate skipped tons of events when she was pregnant, they had a ready made reason for her or both of them to stay home with a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

        3. She said she didn’t have her own passport or keys. It doesn’t seem like she could just drive anywhere.

          Anyway, let’s not make a habit of telling people who finally ask for help with their mental health issues that they’re asking wrong.

    7. There are so many inconsistencies in what they’ve told the press over the years that I find it hard to know what to believe.

      Like- in the engagement interview the family was SO welcoming, even the corgis loved her, she was ready to hit the ground running. She was given special permission to do things as a fiancé (Christmas with the RF) that Kate was not granted. Now- everyone hated me all along. She had barely heard of Harry and yet… she visited London as a teen and went to BP. She was so trapped and had to relinquish her passport and yet made multiple international trips unofficially (NY baby shower, NY US Open, Elton’s private plane to Nice). Reading tabloid coverage ruined her life and yet she said before she doesn’t read them, ignores them, only reads the Economist. Oh how could we be trapped in this awful institution with all the rules and yet wait, why wouldn’t Archie receive a title?? (FYI, it’s a special exception that allows George, Charlotte, and Louis to have their HRHs. Eugenie’s baby, a fellow great-grandchild of the monarch, is not a prince, either (neither are Zara’s or her brother’s children, though obviously neither of them have a title themselves per Anne’s decision, so of course their kids wouldn’t either).)

      She’s clearly not a dumb woman, prides herself on her education, and was in her 30’s when she met Harry. She famously carried massive binders of research and preparation upon Australia arrival. So I find the ‘naive’ act to be just too much.

      1. Yeah but Archies a future grandchild of the monarch and Eug’s kids aren’t. It’s just that Elizabeth has lived so long that he wasn’t automatically going to be Prince Archie.

        I remember when she was pregnant thinking how impactful to have a diverse member of the royal family actually be Prince or Princess X, and was disappointed they turned it down. Now I’m super disappointed to know there wasn’t a special dispensation offered!

        1. He gets it automatically when Charles is King though? Which is actually much more generous that the other European royal families (Sweden/Norway etc). They are all changing the laws to end the Prince/Princess titles with the first in line direct heirs (like the direct heir and their kids and that’s it).

      3. Just say yo don’t get racism and go luv. Almost everything you mentioned was covered in the interview.

        They were welcoming in the beginning, and then everything changes when she had the very successful first tour. They realized she would outshine Kate and pull attention, and there was a huge shift.

        She of course had heard of Harry, she just didn’t google him before their date.

        She had to get permission for all those trips you mention. Which means they could also deny her permission. Which would make you feel trapped!

        They were concerned about security for Archie as the first mixed race heir. Obviously they would also like the same exception William got – especially given how awful the press was being and the security concerns. Would’ve been a great time for them to show public support for Megan Harry and Archie .

          1. I think if you’re dating someone famous, you might not. That way, you’re getting to know them for who they are and not what the paparazzi says. You already know they’re not a criminal or something really bad.

          2. But like not even before you’ve met their family? I haven’t dated anyone more famous than a second line NHL player but I’ve definitely googled all my dates.

          3. I mean, I’ve only ever googled men I’ve connected with on dating apps. I wouldn’t feel the need to google someone I’m set up with by a friend and IIRC that’s how Harry and Meghan met. I think she addressed this in the interview as well, saying she was glad she didn’t google them because she would have been all in head about it when meeting them. Like, I get what someone else would choose differently but it doesn’t strike me as disingenuous that she didn’t.

          4. I don’t google dates. I don’t want to go in knowing things about someone they didn’t tell me

          5. I didn’t, once. I met him in a bar and he asked me out on a date, and I thought it would be fun to get to know someone the old fashioned way. At the time it was fun, but after the date I had some questions so I finally looked him up . . . he was married. I was a naive idiot in her mid 20’s, I didn’t even realize that was a possibility! Ugh. From then on I felt completely justified in “researching” men before the first date.

          6. She live blogged Will and Kate’s wedding so I don’t buy that she didn’t know who he was at all.

          7. There’s a big difference between tuning to watch the royal wedding (millions of people did that) and understanding how the institution actually functions. All of us commenting here today clearly know who they are but we all have different levels of knowledge – all incomplete – about royal protocol, history, major royal figures, etc.

      4. Admittedly I know very little about the royals, but isn’t Eugenie (the grandchild of the monarch) a princess? Archie will also be the grandchild of a monarch, right? Isn’t that a more apt comparison?

        1. Eugenie and Beatrice are because Andrew kicked up a fit to insist on it. Edward’s kids aren’t, and nor are Anne’s (although Anne specifically choose that they wouldn’t have titles).

          Andrew got a bunch of flak when Charles started trying to slim down the wiring Royal family, because he wanted a bunch of privileges for Beatrice and Eugenie.

          1. I think that’s why Charles is so mad. Andrew in the Queen’s favorite and he resisted his kids not getting the same privileges as Charles’ kids and Charles had to work really hard to get the Queen on side when in the end Harry turned out like Andrew – a spare who is bitter about his kids not getting heir treatment.

    8. “If they really want to be out of the limelight, why did they even do the interview?” was my perspective going into it as well, and I was pretty negative overall going into it. However, I don’t think you can feel anything but sympathy for a woman who admits she actively contemplated suicide. No one says that just for fun or just to shock. That was a real game changer in how I look at her, them, and their situation. On a positive note, I’m glad that Meghan made clear that the Queen has never been anything but nice and welcoming to her though–sounds like she needed it.

      1. This. The likes of Piers Morgan and Megyn Kelly this morning have been disgusting. This woman had the courage to share she was *this* close to suicide and their response is to say she’s saying it all for attention.

    9. I think that Harry was naive and Meghan was unprepared for Royal life and frankly many of her allegations did not seem credible. But at the end of the day cutting off their security is abhorrent and when commonwealth countries vote to end the monarchy after Elizabeth the “Charles stopped taking my calls” statement will be a big part of why.

      1. Cutting off their public paid security was something they had months of warning about. It was all over the Canadian media when people thought they might stay in Canada. None of the non working royals regardless of their titles have paid security. And they totally made up that Archie having a ‘Prince’ title means he gets security. Beatrice and Eugenie are Princesses and they don’t have security paid for.

        In Canada there was like zero support for paying for security for millionaires who do not perform any public service. Diana left Harry all her money precisely because she knew that the long term plan was to slim down the monarchy and once Harry was 7th/8th/9th in line for the throne and William’s kids were old enough to do events, that Harry would probably be a non-working royal. All of this was planned years before Meghan came along, it had nothing to do with her.

        1. Charles easily could have offered to pay for their security out of his personal funds at least temporarily. Any decent father would have.

          1. But like why when Harry has tens of millions of dollars? He’s in his mid-30s and a multi-millionaire – how is he not embarrassed to be running to daddy for more money?

    10. I think there is a difference between not wanting to be constantly stalked and smeared by the press and the paps and doing a single interview on your own terms to tell your side of the story/defend yourself. They are not going to be out of the limelight as long as the press leaps on every move they make and write nasty articles about it against their wishes.

      It’s not like they’re doing a press tour. This is a single high profile interview to say what they need to say. Now if they do a bunch of follow ups, that’s another thing and I’ll change my mind. But I would imagine that if I, like Harry, had to watch my spouse be attacked constantly for years and betrayed by my family who made shallow promises about how it would all be okay (after going through a really traumatic childhood where I watched my own mother be stalked and psychologically tortured by the paps and abused by the royal family and literally died fleeing from the press), I would feel well within my rights saying my piece once and then trying to live a private-ish life after that.

      I also think we blame Meghan for all the press she gets. She’s not the one writing the articles. People gobble them up, which leads to tabloids writing them. Tabloids aren’t dumb. They know what makes money. And talking tr@sh and creating drama about someone who doesn’t fit their image of a royal is a great way to make a lot of money. The way the entertainment media in general treats celebrities is appalling. The way they treat women, and black women? Even worse. So many people I know found the Brittney documentary “so eye opening!!!” about the problematic way the media treated female pop stars in the 90s, but thinks that the way the media treats Meghan today is fine. It’s not that the media is creating a narrative to sell tabloids, it’s that Meghan is a selfish uppity (dog whistle) drama seeking brat??? Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

      2. +1 I have become more and more Team Meghan as I’ve seen comparisons to the press she got and gets compared to other members of the family, and this interview made me feel for her even more. I don’t know that she could have predicted just how bad it would be – and I would have been scared as a parent too. Good for Harry getting them out of that situation.

      3. Thank you. Reading these comments is how I feel meeting trump supporters. Like how you walk away from this situation thinking Megan is too “whatever” is mind boggling. She wasn’t even mean to Kate!! William ran to the press about the bridesmaid thing when William was caught having the affair. How is correcting the record on that “being mean to Kate”

        I hate to throw this out there – but if you have an instinctive need to defend Kate over Megan … you may want to think about why that is

        1. +1

          There is often a reflex to praise Kate and bash Meghan. I don’t get it. Well, actually, I do. Let’s be honest. If you’re more offended that Meghan was “being mean to Kate” when correcting the record, I’d love to hear you defend Meghan and her son against all the vitriol. I’ll wait…

          1. I have zero preference between them, and I think that Meghan was treated horribly by the British tabloids, but Kate was also treated horribly for years before it all settled down and I do wonder if Kate was just somewhat better prepared for it because she understood the hierarchy/local ‘politics’ there a little better vs. Meghan who was somewhat famous and assumed that therefore she knew how to handle the media when in reality it’s impossible to prepare for what was in store for her.

          2. I agree AIMS – the only marriages that have worked are the ones where they lived together for like 5 years before getting married (William/Kate and Edward/Sophie), everyone else ended up divorced. Harry picked getting out over getting divorced it sounds like.

          3. All of this makes me wonder what the point of the monarchy is. They’re funded by the government but appear to be beholden to the press and the concept of public image/reputation. They have no political power, and actually can’t vote. They would keep drawing tourists even if they didn’t exist simply due to the centuries of history. Why do they still need to be kept around?
            QEII’s uncle abdicated, the Queen Mother insisted her husband died early from the stress of being the monarch, QEII, Charles and William and all seem to see it a duty/burden. The married in spouses have to sacrifice all their freedom and independence for the good of the institution. They all claim they yearn to be normal.
            All the Queen seems to do is have garden parties, give a Xmas address, and show up at charities every once in a while. It almost seems the the most expensive, least efficient way possible to have a First Lady like figure in the UK.

          4. The purpose is a non-political head of state. Head of government is political and responsible to the legislature. Head of State does the non-governing stuff like handing out awards, supporting charities, raising awareness (eg Diana and Aids), welcoming other heads of state. Not sure if it’s more or less expensive than lifetime secret service coverage for multiple presidents who don’t perform any public service anymore.

            It’s a lot more than a ‘few charities’ a year. The Queen alone does over 300 events a year and Princess Anne has long been the hardest worker at 455 events last year.

            It’s not an anomaly in Europe – the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Belgium all still have constitutional monarchies with the same type of roles. Outside Europe it’s used throughout the Commonwealth and also in Japan, Thailand and Malaysia.

          5. The flavor of how Kate was treated “badly” by the press is very different than how Meghan was treated. If you think it’s the same, then you’re just looking for reasons to defend it. It’s not the same.

          6. Anon@ 12:33, all things don’t have to be identical to be compared and this isn’t a ranking of wrongs. Kate and her sister were portrayed as striving, low class social climbers. True, racism wasn’t part of it but I think people also don’t appreciate how much class is entrenched and still matters in England.
            People who support MM also often compare the press issues she has with those Diana experienced and say that is what motivated Harry to move to the US. Obviously that comparison is also not the same, but I can see why it’s relevant.

          7. How Kate was treated isn’t the same because she’s white so it wasn’t racist but it was still WAY more awful than being called ‘waity katie’ – like a photo called her a ‘slut’ to try and make her cry after the break-up with William and when she didn’t cry, he spat on her.

            It’s like people forget the pictures of her being chased down the street by like 30 guys with cameras. She had no security for a long time. It wasn’t just ‘rude’ – it was dangerous.

        2. Wasn’t the flower girl/bridesmaid thing a story that came out around the same time as their book last year? And William’s affair was like a couple years ago? I don’t buy that William/Kate leaked that one as it doesn’t make Kate look good to the Queen who would not want to have Kate crying in public regardless of who was to ‘blame’. Seems more like an Andrew leak because it makes both Kate and Meghan look messy and the only one who benefits from that is Andrew.

          Have also heard a lot that M is like Ellen – super nice if you are at her level or above but awful if you are an employee. There was definitely tons of racism directed at her but that doesn’t mean she was problem free on the other issues.

          1. I’ve thought that all of her troubles stemmed from the House of York. And then when she showed up in a coat at one of their wedding, the gloves were off.

      4. Meghan doesn’t write tabloid articles, but she stages photo ops and leaks things to the press all the time. The book Finding Freedom was very clearly their story written in the third person (they very carefully denied sitting for interviews for it, but there are many ways to contribute to a book besides a direct interview). This kind of engagement with the press is totally standard in Hollywood especially for people who are mostly known for fame/social media (e.g., the Kardashians), so it doesn’t make her a bad person for doing it. But to suggest she has played no part in her press coverage is beyond absurd. I think the main problem is that she thought she could manipulate the British press the way she manipulates the American press and it didn’t work.

        1. lol what American press manipulation? She was successful before marrying Harry in the financial sense and being able to support herself rather than being a struggling actress, but wasn’t a household name at all.

          1. I don’t mean she made herself a household name, but she did things like stage papparazzi photos of herself and spin those into neutral-to-positive press coverage (which many people in Hollywood do). Allegedly the root of the Meghan-Kate beef is that Meghan wanted to stage a photo op of them shopping together, and Kate refused. And honestly I am 100% Team Kate on this one. She can’t get papped with every girl Harry dates, that’s just not how things are done in the royal family. The British press did say some horrible racist things about Meghan. But also Meghan was mad that her Hollywood techniques of staging pap photos and leaking them to the press in exchange for glowing write-ups about whatever trendy purse she was carrying didn’t happen/didn’t get the same reaction in the UK. Both things can be true.

    11. My takeaway: there were a lot of half-truths and heavy spin in Meghan’s portion of the interview (I don’t believe for a second that she was as naive about this stuff as she pretends to be). I don’t find Meghan or Harry particularly interesting or insightful and this didn’t change that, so this doesn’t make me more likely to listen to their podcasts or watch their show. All that being said – I don’t have to like them, believe everything that was said, or think they’ve handled this well to believe that they experienced really crappy treatment at the hands of the press and the Royal family.

      1. +1

        You summed up my feelings exactly.

        Meghan is very poised and media trained. Harry, less so. He came off as flustered and vindictive to me. And much of what Meghan was saying, especially in the first half when she was solo, struck me as an indictment of Harry more than anything else.

        I think Harry has always struggled with his role in the RF and it made sense he would choose a woman so diametrically opposed to what he was “supposed” to end up with. But I also think that they each believe each other’s hype to a dangerous degree and buy into this “us against the world narrative” so that it has alienated them from almost everyone in their lives, at great cost.

        Thought it was weird how they stressed that they still have a friendly relationship with the Queen and they wouldn’t say anything bad about her, yet they condemned “The Firm,” which the Queen is essentially CEO of. I don’t get it. Were they implying that the real villains here are William and Charles? Are they trying to stay in the Queen’s good graces? It was strange. The buck stops with the Queen (right?).

        I wonder if they will ever return to the UK. Philip and the Queen realistically won’t be around for much longer — will Harry return for their funerals? I don’t see Meghan ever setting foot in the UK again (I don’t blame her).

        I am also curious about the bullying charges against Meghan that are now being investigated and I wonder why those were not mentioned in the interview.

        2. Bullying charges came up after this interview was done. Pretty clearly retaliatory – and look bad since now we know how much palace HR was failing Meghan at the time!

          Interestingly, Diana had bullying charges leveled against her too after she left – it again feels like history repeating itself.

          1. The bullying charges were around a long time, since she had so many staff quit in a short period. They just got formalized after the announcement that Harry and Meghan weren’t coming back, so people knew they wouldn’t have to work with them again. Seems like both things can be true, BRF is racist and Meghan was a horrible boss.

          2. But all of a sudden these years old complaints, which nothing happened from, are in the news? That was clearly retaliation. Plus the palace is only just now investigating years later?? Seems suspicious. Even if it were true, they’d be horrible bosses for ignoring it so long.

          3. The allegations were in the news like a few days after it was announced that they are not coming back. Not exactly surprising that people were cautious about coming forward if they might have to work for them or around them again. And IDK for sure but someone said on one of the previous posts about them that in the UK employers are required by law to investigate those kinds of allegations so it actually looks bad on the Palace that they didn’t investigate three years ago. Makes it look like they were trying to cover it up when they arguably had a legal obligation to investigate.

          4. But the Times broke this story, not the Daily Mail. And if my bullying boss was going on TV complaining of being bullied, I’d seethe, too.

            Who knows where the real truth is? And both could be true. But I can think of a “why now” that rings true to me, a lowly office minion, that isn’t a big conspiracy theory.

          5. They already came forward to the palace years ago though. It’s not like they just gathered up the courage. Coming forward to the press is done for only one reason, and that is generate bad press.

          6. Disagree that coming forward to the press is only done to generate bad press. Seems like they did it to pressure the palace to investigate and figured they’d be more successful once it was confirmed that they are not coming back. They complained internally before and nothing happened so they used the press to complain and try to get something done.

        3. It definitely improved my impression here but weakened my impression of Harry. Kate had an awful time with the paparazzi stalking her before they got engaged but then William and Kate lived in a small village while he was a helicopter pilot and they got left alone. Might have been easier on Meghan if Harry had gone back to the military and done a low key assignment so they could have lived somewhere quiet until the media frenzy died down. And who only tells their partner if they are expected to curtsy in the car ride on the way there?

    12. I was of the view that they acted too swiftly in stepping down, and both still seem to have poorly developed coping skills. Harry needed to step forward and insist on additional protection for Megan and their child at the time. As the new addition to the family she was not in a position to fight for herself. Now they are unnecessarily cut off from a role where they could have more effectively advanced the causes they support.

      1. This — these aren’t teens helplessly in love and otherwise clueless what do we say here often — let the spouse manage his/her relatives. And fooey if they don’t step up — that has to be on the spouse.

      2. I have to agree with this too – have we not told each other a thousand times here that husbands should manage problems with their families? If your in-laws are the Royal Family, no one should be surprised if you don’t feel comfortable standing up to them about something.

        2. +1,0000

          Totally agree. Harry comes off as cowardly to me! Why did Meghan do the first hour of the interview without him when everything was about his family and their relationship with the RF? Was he trying to play both sides so he could still go back in the future and be like, “that was just Meghan; I didn’t say those things?” I thought he should have been there for that portion of the interview.

    13. Harry saying that he didn’t have the money to properly protect his wife and son without direct funding from his family (his reasoning for the Netflix/Spotify deals) is probably the most out of touch, elitist thing I have *ever* heard. Him saying that really affected how seriously I was able to take the rest of the interview.

      1. Agree. Diana left him tens of millions of dollars. And they live in a huge mansion in a gated community.

          1. That 10mil from his mother was probably invested so it would be a lot more 20+ years later. Plus about 10mil from the Queen Mother and whatever Meghan had prior to their marriage. They aren’t poor.

          2. They’re pretty rich but I would assume good security is also very expensive and they probably need some kind of money coming in. I don’t think it’s weird that they want to continue their lifestyle of being very rich by taking Netflix’s money.

          3. I definitely don’t fault them for taking those deals and making as much money as they want, but they should own that. Saying that your net worth of (let’s ballpark here) $30ish million isn’t enough to pay for security so you HAD to make media deals is a huge stretch to me. It also shows just how naive Harry is about how the world and money actually work.

          4. Isn’t their security somewhere north of 2M per year? Add a kid into that and move off palace grounds and I imagine it only goes up… so they could cover maybe 1 years of security on what his mother left him, assuming it was all cash and they could fund all other expenses from other sources.

          5. Their net worth was like $40 million when they left last year. Doesn’t seem like their security costs on world tours would be a useful measure of their security costs in private life.

      2. Oh no he said that? My general takeaway is that most of the “Firm” and the British press has been horrible to Meghan and good for them for leaving, but also I guess that it makes sense that Harry is still a spoilt prince with no sense of normalcy. Although Meghan could have taught him some?

      3. Security is incredibly expensive and I imagine they wanted to be able to endow it not only for themselves but also their children. A $10-30MM fortune would hardly cover their needs. In addition to 24-hr body guard(s), they need an entity that monitors and assesses locational threat levels, and physical security (which makes housing expensive both upfront and from a maintenance perspective). Educational and experience options for their children will always be constrained by safety concerns and any travel comes with a significant premium (for them private air travel actually makes sense). These are only a few of the cost drivers off the top of my head.

        These people and their children are high-value targets. Harry was spot on when he said he inherited a security risk by dint of his birth, and the biracial partnership, not to mention the effects of the tabloid frenzy and rising white supremacy, multiplied that risk. They deserve to endeavor to make as much money as possible to ensure the safety of their growing family in perpetuity. If this was my family, I would hustle like crazy to try for a $100MM+ endowment.

        Moreover, it was unconscionable of Charles or whoever made the decision to cut off their security to do it so abruptly, without accommodation for a reasonable transition period.

        1. I don’t buy that the people in 7th/8th position for the royal family are particularly high value targets. There are plenty of higher value political targets and the Queen isn’t the richest person in Britain let alone the world if you are looking at financial targets.

          Any school they would attend would have good security as that’s standard for rich people schools. They live in a gated community amongst many other celebrities. They can be as high or low profile as they chose.

          1. They’re lower down in the line of succession but the race issue makes them targets. I remember an article last year when this was happening that MM got the highest number of death threats compared to any other royal.

          2. This sadly reminds me of how, when Obama was running for POTUS, the death threats against him apparently started much earlier than for white candidates so he had to get security earlier in the game.

    14. I think in a perfect world, they could disappear from the limelight and people would just forget all about them, but that’s not real life. Right now, disappearing from view just means more people speculating and spreading rumors, so I totally get wanting to poke their heads out and try to set the record straight.

    15. Here is my funniest takeaway from it. My mom doesn’t use the internet at all. No smart phone. She doesn’t buy or read tabloids. She does watch TV. My mom apparently just learned that Megan is mix-raced.

      I know race identity can be a difficult subject for people that are mixed race or who have particularly light skin that they “pass” as white, so please don’t take my comment as insensitive to that struggle.

      But my Mom’s comment just cracked me up since she is an old out of touch person. I try to talk with her about things that are on TV so we have something in common. How she entirely missed that race was behind a lot of these issues is beyond me, except it shows how little the main stream press is acknowledging it.

      1. My ~25yo daughter didn’t know Meghan was mixed race until yesterday. She is on IG and social media but doesn’t read stories about Harry&Meghan.

      2. I mean, Meghan really does not look mixed-race and maybe it is also the Lifetime movies where she played a white person for many years? I did not know she was mixed race until on Suits when her father on the show was black, and I was surprised that they would cast a white person in that role…

    16. I think the whole thing is distasteful. If you don’t want publicity and drama, you don’t date a royal. You don’t marry that royal. You don’t go on Oprah and dish about it. Meghan knew exactly what she was getting into.

      I have a little more sympathy for Harry because he had no choice about being born into the royal family, but if he wanted to get out he should have quietly faded away before he got married.

      1. But the BRF told M not to worry. They assured her she would be protected. She clearly wasn’t, in multiple ways. She took them at their word b/c she was all in. They lied to her.

    17. She’s basically saying the same things about The Firm that Diana said all those years ago. I don’t know why we would doubt Meghan about that.

      It seems the royal family is controlled by a non-royal staff institution that is out of hand and the royals don’t know how to fix it. Or don’t care to fix it. The staff have a lot of power with the media, and the royals are terrified of looking bad in the media.

      I really do think they threw Meghan to the wolves in exchange for the press agreeing to lay off Andrew, the queen’s favorite child.

      1. I think it’s more that Andrew was mad at Charles for cutting out Beatrice/Eugenie and realized that if he drove Harry/Meghan out via unrelenting bad press that it would not only take the focus off him but there would be more chance that Beatrice/Eugenie would get working royal jobs to cover off all the events. I think he leaked to the media in exchange for the media laying off him.

      2. All of this begs the question of why keep the monarchy around then. To deflect from the family not being loving & supportive, the defense is that palace staff and advisors call the shots and keep rigid protocol. So you either have an institution that has no power or an institution that has no heart. Either way, I wouldn’t want my taxes to go towards that.

  8. Should I tell my fiancé I plan to wear a wedding dress that I bought for a prior engagement that I canceled? I was engaged 5 years ago to a man I’d known for almost 10 years when we started dating. After we got engaged, his mood started to change. At first I chalked it up to stress. A few months before our wedding, he became violent with me and I called off the wedding. Haven’t seen the guy since.

    I’m now engaged to a wonderful man. Apparently my mom still has the dress from the wedding that wasn’t. It’s gorgeous, I still love it, and it fits like a glove. I want to wear it for the ceremony and pictures, then change into a more relaxed reception dress. My friends (all of whom saw the dress 5 years ago) are torn on whether I need to tell FH that I already had the dress. I don’t want it in his head as I’m walking down the aisle that I bought this dress “for someone else;” I didn’t buy it for a guy I bought it for me. I don’t like this attitude that the dress is somehow tainted. Does that mean I’m tainted too? I’m not sure if FH would be upset if he found out later. He’s pretty chill. He’s not buying a new outfit, and fwiw I know he’s picked up women in the suit he plans to wear. Doesn’t bother me. So what do you think, do I have an obligation to tell him?

    1. I would tell him, only because I don’t think it’s weird or something you should hide. I don’t expect he’ll have an issue with it, so… I veer on the side of ‘be honest because it’s nothing to be ashamed of or weird about.’

      1. This is where I land, too. And I think you can say exactly what you said here: I bought it for me because I love it.

        (FWIW, I got married a bazillion years ago and would still pick that dress today — if it fit. :) It was perfect for me.)

      2. Right — better he hear it from you now if NBD but not from a third party at the wedding.

      3. +1. If you tell him, the worst case scenario is he’s uncomfortable with it and you get a different dress and move on with your life. If you don’t tell him, the worst case scenario is he is hurt and feels like he can’t trust you or that you are hiding things. The only reason not to tell him is that you like this dress. But is it worth the risk? It’s just a dress. I think it is very unlikely he will care at all, but I would just tell him.

        1. Just to emphasize this point here because I don’t see this often in all the other comments – I do strongly think you have to tell him; hopefully he is fine with it? Hard to say when we don’t all know him. BUT – and I do think this is an important part – when you tell him, if he is uncomfortable or unhappy with it, I’m sorry but I think you do need to find a different dress.

          1. +1 this is a good point. I’d tell him and I’d also respect him if he wanted you to find a new dress. I probably would truthfully!

          2. Same. Truthfully, I’d also probably want you to if I was him. It’s hard to think of a male equivalent because I don’t know if I’d care about a tux reuse, but I think we all know a dress is more emotional to the bride than a tux is to the groom.

        2. See I have a problem with this. I don’t think he gets to veto my dress choice. But it’s a little heartless to say, oh you have a problem with it? Too bad, grow up.

          If he finds out later… so what? He’s met me. He knows I will never ask a man’s permission or input about what I wear. And I didn’t lie to him. We share finances and have a wedding budget spreadsheet, I told him only one dress is listed but I’m wearing 2. He didn’t ask how the other dress was paid for. He knows my family isn’t helping, so it’s not as if someone else bought the dress. Where does he think a free dress came from? I’m sure he hasn’t put that much thought into my attire, but it’s not as if I’m being sneaky. It just seems like sometimes things are better left unsaid, and that talking about it makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is? I’m still soaking in all the comments here, though.

          1. So I’m wife #2. We try to make a lot of decisions jointly. But he has a great picture of him and his friends taken at his first wedding that I just did not want in my house (compromise: he has it but it is not displayed). A wedding dress is even more than that (or could be) and I feel that not everyone gets a veto on every thing, but it’s a discussion to have, no? That is what a marriage is. Not just one person demanding that they get to decide things unilaterally, which is what you are doing by not telling and what it seems to be the case that you don’t want him to have.

          2. You can obviously make your own decisions here, and if there are truly nuances to you and your fiancé’s personalities to make this chill, you know you both best.

            I just personally fundamentally disagree with this thought process though for me and my spouse. This isn’t him just vetoing a dress because he doesn’t like the style or something. This is him potentially having an issue with a dress because of an emotional attachment he might perceive it to have, even if that isn’t true in your mind. Factually, there was a moment you stood on a pedestal or whatever, wearing this dress as you excitedly chose it, imagining as part of that moment walking down the aisle with someone else. I am REALLY sorry you went through what you did with your ex-fiancé, and I am sooooo happy for you that you got out of that. But that doesn’t take away the likely reality of the moments when you chose this dress, which your fiancé rightfully (in my mind) might not be able to get past.

            And for your second part, I stand by that this is a lie of omission, and given that you were compelled to post on this I think deep down you know that. This isn’t letting a man dictate what you wear on Friday night date night. This is his wedding too.

          3. All I heard here was “I assume, I think he thinks, I think he feels”. This is your fiance. It’s good practice as a wife to openly communicate. Sometimes people have irrational feelings when it comes to big matters. He doesn’t tell you how to dress or what to do on a big day, but this is your wedding day, and if what you wear irks him because it reminds him that you were going to marry someone else, that’s just how he feels. I’d say the same thing if he wanted to wear a horrifying neon green tux, or a necklace his ex gf gave him on your wedding day.
            It’s just a dress, don’t cloud your day with pride in favor of a dress for a marriage with an abusive man.

          4. When I suggested you tell him, I don’t mean sit him down and make it a big deal, I mean when talking about the wedding be like, ‘I actually HAVE a dress I want to wear to the wedding, I bought it years ago and my mom has been holding onto it for me, it’s X level of formality, and so I’m just shopping for a dress for the reception which is more like Y level of formality.’

            He’ll either ask followup questions or not. I just asked my husband what he would think and he shrugged and said, ‘I would have been happy we could have taken that money and put it towards our honeymoon.’

          5. Gently, I feel like “I showed him the spreadsheet, I told him some but not all of the facts and am assuming he can put two and two together if it occurred to him, but it probably won’t occur to him” is kind of the very definition of being sneaky.

            I feel like you should tell him but make it clear you are informing him in the interest of transparency but not soliciting his input.

          7. I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I don’t think you should assume he would know exactly where the dress came from. And that’s why you should just tell him clearly. I would be offended if I were he and you told me I obviously should have known I was wearing a wedding dress from a prior engagement just because it wasn’t listed on the budget spreadsheet.

    2. The danger here is that you don’t tell him and he finds out anyway (which seems likely given that many of your friends know the scoop). I would tell him, but try to frame it like ‘I bought a wedding dress years ago and finally found the right man’ instead of ‘I bought this dress to marry X in, but still love it’.

      1. Just in case it changes anything, there are 3 people who know about the dress: my mom and 2 friends. I doubt any of them would say anything but who knows. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I have a gaggle of like 15 sorority sisters who might spill the beans.

        1. They might not intend to say anything but it’s not just the event itself. You’ll have to worry for the rest of your life that a friend doesn’t tell a story somehow related and accidentally tells him.

          It’s fine to use the dress. It was the right dress but the wrong guy and the dress has been your symbol of hope of finding the right guy to share it with. But he needs to hear it from you and not in 5 years through an accidental reference.

          1. +1. I can think of so many innocent accidental ways over the course of a lifetime that this could come out from one of them (or even you in an absentminded moment!). And even if it didn’t, you’d always have to worry about it.

        2. I can. not. imagine. starting my married life with a ridiculous secret like this.

      2. Oh that’s beautiful wording, and wedding dresses are something that women and girls think about for a long time and have strong opinions of, so it makes sense.

    3. i’d tell him. especially since other people know. presumably he knows you were previously engaged. you tell him you bought the dress for the previous engagement, but you love it even more now since you get to wear it to marry him

    4. I’d tell him because then you control the message, rather than him finding out some other way. Then he’d wonder – maybe – why you didn’t tell him, etc and it could become A Thing.

    5. I’d tell him because I have a 100% honesty policy with my spouse that includes lies of omission and anything that could hurt him. I’d also, personally, rethink the dress – perhaps I’m just superstitious but I wouldn’t want to even think about ex on my wedding day and while it’s just clothing, I get that, I don’t see how you don’t. A wedding dress has special significance even if it’s $20 from Target.

      1. I disagree — I think it’s fine to use the dress and you can frame it as “I found the right dress a while ago — it just took a while longer to find the right guy!”

    6. Tell him. You are jumping through hoops trying to justify it. Bottom line : do you care more about the dress or your future husband?

      2. Apparently the dress if you read what she wrote above. Sounds like she’s not even willing to consider not wearing the dress. For me, that kind of attitude would be a deal breaker. Your way or the highway on a dress without considering my feelings? Not sure I’d stick around if I was her DF.

      3. You have to tell him. I think this is so odd that you don’t think he gets a say here. If you’re lucky marriage is long and your spouse will have all sorts of ridiculous opinions you have to take seriously and weigh and accommodate. You get only a few things to refuse to weigh your spouse’s input on and why would a dress possibly be one of them? This isn’t about a man telling you what to do it’s about you both moving forward making sure you’re both comfortable on a really important day.

    7. The fact that you write about it means its not just a question of ‘how do I handle his feelings’ but ‘this somehow comes up for me too’. Are you going to look at your wedding photos 20 years from now and think ‘I had this dress before we got married and just never mentioned it to him’? Clear the air now. Reclaim the dress with a clean slate, or not.

    8. What is the reason to not just tell him? Obviously if you feel the need to ask the internet you know there may be an issue. If you’re confident in his reaction or that you can figure it out, why hide it? And what will you do if he asks you at the wedding gosh what a gorgeous dress where / when did you get it? Or if a guest asks you those questions?

      1. I’d guess she wanted people to say it was okay to not tell him. Once she tells him, she risks that he doesn’t like the dress history and doesn’t want her to wear it. She’d rather not be 100% truthful and get to wear the dress vs tell him and have it be an issue. As SA notes above, not a good way to start a marriage. I’d take the guy over the dress. I would have married DH in a sack if necessary.

    9. I can’t imagine lying to my husband about something like this. To be clear, I don’t think it’s a big deal and if I were your husband in this situation I would be totally ok with you wearing the dress. But I can’t imagine starting off my marriage by hiding this.

  9. I help MIL with her taxes, organizing all of the paperwork before shipping off to her accountant. She received stimulus checks but has no documentation other than the deposits in her account. I didn’t get the payments so I don’t know firsthand what, if anything, we should be providing to the CPA as documentation. Searching online is providing a range of responses. Does anyone know? Is there a tax form she should have received? TIA.

    1. If she got the full amount, she doesn’t have to do anything. The only reason she’d need to do something is if she was entitled to money and didn’t get it, in which case she declares how much she got and how much the government owes her, but I think the IRS will verify that on its own and she still doesn’t need to provide any paperwork.

    2. I was just looking into this over the weekend for my mother, and according to the IRS website, they issued notices 1444 and 1444-B for the first two stimulus payments, so your MIL should check for those forms. Alternatively, she could look at the IRS Get My Payment website – I think it provides the date of payment, amount, and how it was paid (check or direct deposit) – it seems like a screenshot of that info should be sufficient for the CPA.

    3. We got partial stimulus checks and I think we got a letter in an IRS enveloped, “signed” by Trump separately from our direct deposit. I don’t recall it saying how much we got, just something about the fact that Trump got us this money. It seemed more like a campaign document than official paperwork.

    4. You can just tell the accountant the amounts. I wish there would be official tax forms, but we’ve just been going with what the clients tell us.

    5. I manage my mother’s, and our accountant said the stimulus checks aren’t taxable income and this he didn’t need any documentation of her receiving it.

      1. I know they’re not taxable income but I figured there was some kind of true-up to make sure you qualified or something. How else do you avoid someone getting a check who is deceased, fore example? (I know at least one person whose spouse passed away but the deceased received a check and it was cashed). Maybe I’m over estimating the government, though.

        Thanks all. We’ll just give the amounts to the CPA and we’ll see what he says.

        1. Nope, no clawbacks. If you get a check based on 2018 or 2019 income, it’s yours, even if your 2020 income or status wouldn’t qualify you (though the reverse is not true- if your 2020 income qualifies you and you didn’t get one earlier, you can still claim it on your 2020 taxes). The whole idea behind the stimulus checks was to get money out fast, and if that meant some people got money they wouldn’t have qualified for otherwise, that’s better than going through a lengthy verification process, and it would obviously be terrible to take money back from people who already spent it.

          1. Actually wanted to clarify my comment since I was referring to income/marriage/child status- it is true that you’re technically supposed to return checks for people who died before 2020, but it’s not clear to to me that there’s any enforcement of that, because again, it’s a pretty bad look.

        2. I, too, know of someone who died around that time and their estate received a check, and the accountant said that the government has indicated they were just going to let it ride; the admin cost of clawing back those comparatively few checks isn’t worth it.

        3. TurboTax asked if we got stimulus payments and we said yes and entered the amount, and TurboTax did the math and said no further info from us was necessary. I think they just asked to make sure we weren’t owed any money. We filed and get our refunds last month, and our return did not include any special form.

  10. Ugh, I think I have Gout. I have a doctor’s appointment on Thursday to confirm. Anyone have any experience with this?

    1. My husband (37) has had it since he was 27 and it is…terrible (his in particular is a whole foot/ankle, not just a toe). Apologies. There are definitely diet-related ways to minimize, but they don’t always “cure” it entirely. There are also medications that keep the crystals from forming in the first place, which is where we are now.

    2. My BF had (has?) it. For him at least, it’s nbd now that he knows what it is. The problem is when he powers through because he’s in denial. If you can, make a log of everything you ate in the week or so before symptoms. Your doctor can give you advice about your diet to help avoid flare ups in the future.

    3. My husband has it badly. It’s truly debilitating when he has a flair up. Ignore the armchair advice, which told us it was his fault and his terrible diet, blah blah. Yes, we could eat better but there is truly no one food/drink trigger that caused it in him, which can be true with some cases. He recently had a 5-night hospital stay – the gout lead to an infection, which got in to his joint so he had lots of IV antibiotics and steroids. He’s good now but don’t ignore it… but at the same time there’s not much you can do to make it better but ride it out. Changes to diet can help, as I referenced above, if diet is the root of your particular case. Since the hospital stay he’s been seeing a rheumatologist and has been prescribed one on-going pill and one pill he takes when he feels a flair up coming on, so that’s been an improvement but is not a 100% fix.

      Good luck. Ask questions, learn about this super strange condition. It wasn’t until the hospital stay that we really committed to learning about it (recognizing it was more than just an annoyance), insisting seeing a rheumatologist, etc.

    4. Sorry for the double post! This is what is so weird, I have been eating plant based, no meat, whole foods since the fall and I have hardly been drinking at all since last March when the pandemic started! I am shocked and upset that I have this. I

      1. So sorry you are dealing with this! That is just awful that you have been eating so healthfully and now have this. Hope things get better soon!

    5. We thought my husband had gout in late-March, but now think it was Covid-toes. :/

  11. Ugh, I think I have Gout. I have a doctor’s appointment on Thursday to confirm. Anyone have any experience with this?

    1. My DH has it. He had a v painful foot for a year before diagnosis. Now he takes his med (allopurinol) and is fine. He doesn’t eat stuff that is high in purines any more either (scallops, crab, beer, etc.).

  12. Is anyone here on Weight Watchers? I tried it years ago and it didn’t really work for me, I suspect I was overestimating exercise. I understand it’s changed a lot since I tried it. A friend recently started and I’m thinking about doing it with her. I really need something to offset how sedentary I’ve been this winter. Any thoughts or resources on getting the most out of WW?

    1. Yes. I am 5’9 and have gone from 205 to 165 on WW since September.

      I don’t track exercise at all. I lose weight as long as I stay within my daily points- I ignore weeklies. From Dec-Feb I took a break where I tracked what I ate but didnt really stick to daily points instead shooting for mostly sticking to weeklies. I gained 2 lbs and plateaued.

      I’m on blue and I love it because I only log foods with points. After about a month I developed a great repertoire of 0 or low point foods.

      I tried keto, but it isn’t enough of a lifestyle plan for me. I’m not cutting carbs forever. I also do best when tracking but am too lazy to track. That’s why the 0 point stuff works so well for me. I will often eat 0 point stuff simply so I don’t have to bother logging it ;)

      1. Ooo that’s interesting re weekly points. I was definitely planning to save them for the weekend. Do you still use your daily points that roll over?

        1. When WW has been most effective, I do not. That said, you can totally still lose weight by staying within your daily points and using your “rollovers” on the weekends. It’s just slower. In my case, I didn’t change anything about my exercise habit (see: lazy dieter) so if I wanted to lose ~ .5lb/week I really need to stick with the dailies.

          I would say that in my experience regularly dipping into weeklies will slow progress but once a week isn’t a big deal. I chose to not give up wine, so I budget my meals/points to allow for that. DH did it with me for a bit and prioritized red meat, so he gave up having a beer with dinner, or super starchy stuff, or whatever. Fish eggs beans and chicken are 0 points so I switched primarily to those sources of protein.

    2. Track your water and sleep in the app. Track your activity so you know you get enough but definitely do not eat those points. Don’t buy the WW branded food – it’s a waste of money. Do take a half hour and put all the recipes you currently use into the recipe builder so that you know the points on the meals you are currently eating vs. trying to learn a bunch of new recipes.

    3. I’ve done WW with some success in the past. What I think is best about the program is that it is customizable for different people. I’d recommend eating all of your daily and weekly points at first. Other people will recommend not touching your weeklies, but when I attempted that, my body went into shutdown mode and I didn’t lose anything. I ate my dailies and weeklies, and I consistently lost .5 to 2 pounds per week without adding in any additional exercise than what I had already been doing. I never used the activity points, but some people will also use those and consistently lose the same amount. You may have to try out a plan and then adjust as you go along to see what is working for your body. I also think that you should try the assigned color plan but be willing to change that if it isn’t working for you.

      1. Can you please give some detail? How do they determine which plan to assign or recommend? (I know there are 3 plans.)

        1. When you sign up, they will have to do a short questionnaire. I recall it mostly focusing on eating preferences and habits. One plan provides you with a lot of zero point foods but a very low daily point allowance. The middle plan has some zero point foods like lean proteins and eggs (more than just veggies) and a medium amount of daily points. The last plan has the most daily points but the least amount of zero point foods. I was assigned the first plan I described above and after about a week, I went in and switched to the middle plan. Even with so many zero point foods, I didn’t feel like the daily points were enough. At the same time, I felt like it didn’t hold me accountable enough with how much of the zero point foods I was eating.

  13. Looking for recommendations for self-tanner. Bonus points if it actually doesn’t have self-tanner smell (does this holy grail actually exist??).

    2. I’ve tried them all, and I think the gradual tan ones are least offensive. Jergens is a good one. I think the anti-cellulite one smells better than the regular.

      1. For non-gradual, the L’Oreal sublime is good. I like the towelettes. I use 2 for the whole body. It’s clear, so you can’t see where it goes on so you have to pay attention. I go ahead and plan that I’ll miss some spots the first day and fix it the second day.

    3. Tan luxe the gradual! No smell at all. I also use the isle of paradise drops which you can mix into any old moisturizer—the drops have a smell but it’s fairly faint especially when mixed with another moisturizer.

    4. I like the St. Tropez in shower sunless tanner. It only takes 3 minutes (though you can leave it on longer if you want more color), then you wash it off and go about your day. Very buildable and gradual.

    6. I’ve been using the water mousse by Sol by Jergens, and I’m liking it. It definitely has a smell although it’s not the traditional self-tanner smell, so it’s probably just personal preference as to whether you can deal with it or not. But it’s clear, so no worries about color transfer onto clothes/sheets. You just have to pay attention when applying to make sure you haven’t skipped any areas. I’ve been applying once a week as a pick-me-up for my pale winter skin.

  14. Happy International Women’s Day! We face so many challenges as women, but we have so many strengths too.

  15. did anyone else read the article about the three dads in california all getting their names on their children’s birth certificate? more people to love and care for the children. this is not meant as judgment, more curiosity – how does a polyamorous relationship work? i am surprised it doesn’t turn into a two vs. one dynamic and the complexities involved in decision-making.

    1. A name change is one thing, but did they make all three adults a primary parent, or is it still two parents and one socially recognized but not official guardian? If the former, that poor child if the parents ever break up – either abandonment issues or brutal custody and transient home are in the mix between three parents.

      1. How does that work with health insurance (meaning who you put as your spouse / partner)? How can you add two people — it seems that would be ripe for everyone “marrying” several people to help with people who don’t otherwise get insurance.

    2. Poly families have to learn to communicate super well. When I’ve talked to poly people they always emphasize this. Polyamory just doesn’t work without it. So they probably have a strong base to work off of.

  16. Suggestions for gifts for a 1 year old’s birthday? She has a 2.5 year old sister, so they have a lot of toys and everything else already.

    1. I love getting kids bathtub crayons. Not sure if the one year old can use them yet, though. How about some chewy teething toys?

      1. Please don’t do this. Unless it’s a solid surface or porcelain surround, any older tiling and any grout is going to stain, possibly permanently. And it’s just an absolute mess to scrub colors around the tub after a bath. This is like buying a kid a drum set – a strong signal you actually kinda hate the parents.

        1. Yes and actually I would be fine with a drum set as a parent. But just no on the tub crayons. They really, really didn’t want to come off of my 100+ year old claw foot tub and it was very distressing.

    2. My kid loves books but is pretty hard on them, especially anything interactive or with flaps. Some of ours are mostly tape now. New lift the flap books may be appreciated even if they already have a lot of books.

    3. If not walking yet, maybe a walk behind toy? If walking, the classic fisher price dog on a leash.

    4. Books. The answer to gifts for kids is always books. :)

      For a one year old, board books. I just go to the appropriate age section of a bestseller list to select. Generally I select newer books so that it’s unlikely the family already has it.

    5. Wooden building bricks. (Sibling can build tower, 1-year old tear down)
      Picture book with images of common things (flower, car, sun, etc.) and words (Sibling knows these items and can help “read”).
      Heritage book of fairy tales.

    6. You could get new bath toys, as those tend to mildew and need to be replaced over time. Choose bath toys that do not have an “inside” (rubber duckies with a hole are out) to minimize where the mildew can grow. Instead choose cups or similar. My other favorite gifts for a 1 year old include cars, trains, balls, and blocks. Xylophones are fun.

    7. Board books would be my answer as well because 1) duplicates can be donated to a preschool or library and put to very good use, they won’t fill up a landfill the way duplicate toys would and 2) babies chew, drool and are generally really hard on board books so even people on their second+ kid generally need some new ones.

  17. I need advice on traveling to Germany right now.

    It’s essential travel and I will have paperwork to that effect. The company I work for was planning on sending my entire team abroad for this last fall, but we’ve been delaying and delaying and we can’t delay any more. As the youngest and otherwise-healthiest member of the team, I volunteered to be the one who goes and provides the interface between the German team and my team back in the US. No one else from my team will be traveling.

    I’ve never traveled internationally before at all, never mind during the pandemic. I know I need the passport book, a good amount of euros, a stash of masks, a recent negative Covid test, enough clothes and other necessities for a week so I can quarantine. The German company we’re working with is providing housing for me – it’s apparently empty college student housing – and they’ll make arrangements to deliver food. What else am I not thinking of? I’m planning on carrying a binder on my flight with all the paperwork I need, so I can show it all more easily at customs. It’ll have my housing info, the essential-travel papers, my visa information, my Covid test – what else?

    Thank you so much.

    1. Bring a supply of your favorite snacks. Most stuff is available but there might be particular granola bars or cookies that you like. It will make quarantine more enjoyable if you have a few nice treats.

      Also, Amazon Germany has an English language site as well. Pretty much anything you might need, you can just order there.

    2. A stash of your favorite snacks! Especially since they are delivering food, you won’t be able to go out looking for what you want to eat. Same for medicine and preferred toiletries/personal care items… it can be hard to find exactly what you are looking for when you are abroad (different brands & formulations) in any case. And especially if you are stuck quarantining and have to rely on someone else to buy you the deodorant/tampons/granola bars (or whatever) you really wish you had remembered. Oh, and make sure you have the right shape outlet adaptor so you can plug in all your chargers.

    3. Make sure you know how to get medical care if you need it, and how to loop in a translation service if you need it. We had to seek medical care in Spain and it was ok because I speak enough Spanish to translate, but if you don’t speak German, make sure you have a service available to help with calls, video visits, etc.

    4. I believe Germany has a rule about what masks you can wear – it’s specific to the area of the country. So you can’t just wear whatever, some places you have an N95, etc. Also check your phone plan and if necessary change so that calls and data usage over there won’t be prohibitively expensive.

    5. Call your credit card company and tell them you’re traveling overseas so you can use your card if needed. When I’ve traveled to Eurpoe, I get some cash out of the ATM but otherwise use my credit card.

      Make copies of your passport, ID and other documents to take with you and leave copies at home.

    6. You’ll want to bring Euros but you don’t need to bring much – you can take money out of your American bank account via ATMs. Make sure you have a credit card with no international fees and notify your bank and credit card companies about travel if necessary.

      Also, never plug a hair dryer into an adapter plug. If they don’t supply you with one I’d buy a cheap euro hairdryer instead if that’s important to you.

      1. Germany is notorious for lots of cash transactions, particularly small businesses like bakeries or cafes may not take credit card or any cards.
        In bigger cities, you will easily find English speakers in shops or at Dr’s offices.

      2. I thought it was fine if you are using a voltage adapter and not just a plug adapter. I’ve used a hair dryer and a flat iron that way in multiple countries. Glad I got lucky!

    7. When we went to Germany a couple of years ago, a lot of the restaurants had a strong preference for cash vs card. Might be less of an issue if you aren’t dining in, but find an ATM somewhere near where you are staying in case you need to grab more.
      Also, if you don’t have one already look into getting a credit card or debit card that doesn’t charge foreign transaction fees.

    8. Understand the difference between adapters and converters. I think that buying toiletries and such is fun in other countries. I would really push for housing where you have a kitchenette or at least a mini-fridge–months of eating take-out is going to be very wearing. Also, make sure your company deals with your taxes and agrees to cover any differences in your taxes BEFORE YOU GO–you need to do certain things to avoid-double-tax, depending on how long you stay. Bring English-language books or a kindle because finding English reading material will be hard. If you have specific questions, repost here–my company is Germany-American and we have lots of Berlin expats who are always posting about English-speaking doctors or dentists or navigating the German systems. Enjoy!

    9. You can have a few key phrases written out in German on index cards in case you need assistance. Since I have a medical condition, I have my food allergies written in the language of the company I’m traveling to, a card that says “where is the nearest bathroom” and a few others.

      Take something with the address of where you are staying with you and memorize a few main streets nearby. Once I was travelling and my phone stopped working and I couldn’t remember the name of my hotel. It wasn’t a chain and it was in French. Another time I had the hotel name and address but a lot of the cab drivers didn’t know where that was so I needed to give them a cross street.

      Make sure your landmark isn’t on every corner. I used a Prada store as a landmark in Singapore and later realized there were as many of those as there are Dunkin Donuts in my hometown. Not a good landmark!

    10. I haven’t been to Europe in awhile, so my advice could be outdated. However, I found it very handy to have a chip and pin credit card (not chip and signature), especially when I needed to buy something from an unstaffed machine (like train tickets). The machines would only take chip and pin cards.

      Make sure your cell phone will work (and be affordable!) or plan on getting a local sim (/having someone go get you one since you’ll be quarantined at first).

      1. Yeah, absolutely chip and pin!
        And don’t bring a Diner’s club as your only credit card. Both Diner’s Club and AmEx can be more difficult to use in Europe than Mastercard and Visa, but especially Diner’s club.

    11. You can write to me with any questions at randomemail7607 at the gmail. American resident in Berlin, also traveled during the pandemic. You need letters written in german to show the border guards on arrival. You should be OK if it is essential travel for work and will need a local phone number to sign up for the test results. You must notify (by email) your local health authority on arrival – ‘gesundheitsamt’. Very likely you will only have to do 10 days of quarantine – one test on arrival at the airport and a second one 5 days later you get at one of the many testing centers in any city. You are exempt from quarantine for the period of traveling to your destination from the airport and traveling to testing sites. There are a ton of delivery options here – grocery stores deliver (apps) – REWE and EDEKA, also resturants on lieferando, wolt, etc. Have a safe trip!

    12. Will you be having access to a kitchenette?
      It can be nice to have an electric kettle in your room. Ask them to provide one, so you can make tea and coffee at any time.

      Will you be having access to a washing machine? Ask for a clothes dryer stand and pegs – don’t expect a tumble dryer! That’s not as common in Europe as in the US.

      Bring a favourite pillow and pillow case – helps you sleep better. Bring house slippers, warm socks, a pashmina and other creature comforts kind of items. (Pashminas and warm socks also excellent for long-haul flights, as are noise-cancelling headphones.)

      Bring favourite snacks and maybe some tea bags if you want. I’m not sure about Germany, but you might not get melatonin everywhere in Europe, if that is something you use for jet lag. Generally, bring all your medications (in boxes that shows your name and prescriptions!)

      Maybe try and do some shopping at Aldi before you leave – that’s a German chain. Aldi and Lidl are among the affordable shops, look at some youtube grocery hauls to get some ideas about food you want to try, and look forward to trying. (German snacks videos as well, and expat videos like “this is different in a German apartment”).

      Be prepared for a lot of recycling, including all bottles (back to the store for bottle fee refund).

      How long will you be quarantined? Think about whether you need a yoga mat, or some other excercise stuff. Find out what amenities are in your place. TV? Cable? Wifi? Radio? DVD-player? If there’s nothing, maybe ask for a TV, and some USB-speakers etc?

    13. Some good search strings for informative youtube videos from Expats, look at “Kelly does her thing”, for example, and maybe Deana and Phil, and Zoie-Marie:

      German apartment vs American

      German shopping vs. American

      German culture shocks vs. American (including restaurant culture, driving etc.)

  18. This weekend I read a NYT article that discussed lifespans, and had a bit of a revelation. It was talking about the long lived. Who lives to be 100 etc…

    A link to an online calculator was given and I followed it to calculate my predicted lifespan. It was interesting, asking the expected questions about medical issues, lifestyle, family history etc… And I was brutally honest about my current habits of eating/stress/exercise. What I expected was my calculated predicted lifespan was going to be lower than I would like.

    But it was 87.

    To me, that is plenty. Plenty. Maybe too much actually.

    I honestly thought it would be shorter. But I think the lucky fact that I don’t have diabetes, my weight isn’t too bad and is relatively stable, and I don’t smoke or drink much (I wish I drank more!) is helping me more than I realized.

    I work in medicine.

    I was thrilled. And decided I am no longer going to knock myself out for eating what I want, not exercising (!!!!!), dealing with stress the best I can for now. It is not worth it to me to try to “live” into my 90’s by giving up the food I love or starting spinning or some other torture device. I am so lucky, I think.

    What is it worth to gain a few more years of life, at the end of life, to you?

    1. Every retirement savings calculator I do asks for “life expectancy” and I always plug in 85, because that sounds like enough. No kids, so no grandkids, so when my friends and husband are dead, I’m good to roll on off this mortal coil, too. We’re uncommon in this perspective, I think, but oh well!

    2. I am concerned about quality of life. In my observation, people who maintain a normal weight and a healthy, active lifestyle in middle age and early retirement often end up healthy enough to enjoy themselves in their later years, absent bad luck. People who make poor decisions earlier in life tend to pay for it in later life.

    3. Please don’t confuse length of life with quality of life. One may live well into their 80s or 90s drinking smoking and on a crap diet, but you won’t live well into your 80s or 90s that way. Quality of life and overall healthy matters a lot when it comes to whether or not those latter years are enjoyable. Often someone who maintained a relatively healthy life will live independently and healthily until one bad health event that takes them into a quick downward health spiral – which to me is much preferable to spending the last decade huffing, puffing, on a cane, with high blood pressure.

      I’ve personally seen in my own family what 80 looks like stuck to a chair, watching tv all day, and doing nothing but eating and seeing grandkids a few hours a week looks like, versus 80 that is physically active, social, involved in their community, and generally much more satisfied with life – the latter is preferable.

      1. Length in of life and quality of life are not synonymous. I know I’ll live a long time, everyone in my family does. I don’t take care of myself because I want to live forever I take care of myself because I see my elder family members who are bedridden through their own actions.

      2. Heck, I know people at 60 who are already barely mobile. Quality of life can decline really early from some preventable causes.

    4. Huh. My result was 95. That’s pretty good! I do exercise because I like it but I’m not about to torture myself with anything that resembles crossfit and the like. My diet is overall good, but I do enjoy my treats. But mostly, I know that I’m pretty genetically fortunate. On one side, my grandpa lived to 93 and his mom lived to 94. On the other, my grandparents lived into their mid-80s.

    5. I just did it and I got 90 years! That sounds great to me, I don’t know if I want to be 100+ like the people in that article. I don’t want to live without either my mental or physical health as much as possible.

      1. Genetics has a lot to do with it. My grandmother died at age 100 at the beginning of the pandemic, but she lived by herself til a fall at age 98 put her in a home, and she was never sickly or in pain. She just closed her eyes for a nap and never woke up. She had all her marbles til about 96 or so — was forgetful, but did not have Alzheimers and understood reality (enough that even at age 100 she’d comment on attractive younger men in the halls!). My other grandmother lived into her 90s as well.

    6. Those calculators are really depressing for those of us with parents who died young. I already have enough anxiety that I’ll die in my early 30s like my mother did…

    7. Oooof I got 102 and I find this really unappealing. I saw my grandmother outlive nearly everyone she loved (including her son/my dad) and I don’t want to follow in her footsteps.

      1. My grandmother lived to 103. My great grandfather to 99. I’m afraid to see my answer.

        1. Don’t do it. I got 101, probably because I have a grandmother who lived to 100. I even admitted to daily drinking. I cannot possibly save enough money for this and there are no children or even nieces/nephews to care for me. I took up strength training in my 40s to try to improve the quality of my later years, but I am hoping this ends well before 100 in an adrenaline sport accident or something.

          1. It doesn’t matter that you have no children or nieces and nephews. It’s your responsibility to plan for your old age, not your kids’.

    8. Don’t kid yourselves – so, so much of this is luck. Don’t make stupid decisions, but definitely appreciate your health when you have it. Nothing is guaranteed.

    9. Yeah, I have to agree that 87 (or even 85 or 80) seems enough to me. All I can think is that if I live a long life I’ll have to worry about money that whole time, and as someone who is single/childless and likely to stay that way, I don’t really have much security for the future.

      1. I got 99 but FYI to anyone that doesn’t want to give out personal information – it asks for your zip code as well as your email address and you need to enter the email to get results. The results are available without checking your email though so you could probably use a fake email.

        I’m not one who worries about privacy a ton but this one gave me pause. It’s a ton of personal info. Will life insurance companies be cross matching your answers to this (identified via your email address) to those in your application? I’d hope not but unless you scour their privacy policy you really don’t know.

        1. I had opened the link yesterday, but quit quickly when I say the information requested. It crossed my line of what I am willing to give away.

        2. This website is cracking me up. Why does it look like it was made in 2005? Why is Dr. Perls’ picture on the banner? Why is there a banner add for growth hormone on the main page?

    11. I don’t exercise and drink too much wine. My BMI is normal but on the high side of normal and probably always will be. I’m with you, OP. I don’t enjoy exercise for exercise sake.

      I got 91. My two grandmothers lived to 85 and 93+ (still alive!). My 85 y/o grandma was slowing down and then had a heart attack in bed. I would happily go that way at 85.

      DH is more of an unknown. His dad is still alive and quite healthy at 81. His dad’s parents died in their early 80s after pretty nasty Alzheimers. His maternal grandma is still alive at 91 but his grandfather died in his mid 70s, though he was a smoker and a farmer. DH has a low stress white collar job in the suburbs and doesn’t smoke.

    12. I used to read the crazy aunt purl blog. She gave up smoking but always said she was just talking a break from it until she was 65, along the same lines as your thinking.

    13. My results on those kinds of quizzes are always deceptive. My grandparents all died from self-inflicted ailments (skin cancer from extreme sunbathing, diabetes from being a lazy glutton, heart attack from living off bacon) so I can’t take the family history portion seriously.

      This is all just guessing anyway. We could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Aim for a healthy lifestyle to reduce bone loss and maintain range of motion, plan your estate so you aren’t controlled by corruption if incapacitated, and that’s all you can do.

      1. Maybe they are not actually dead and just moved away from you to get away from your judgment and ill-informed cruelty. Just a thought.

          1. Sure, but saying somebody is dead because they were a lazy glutton is totally acceptable.

        2. What do you hope to accomplish by pretending lifestyle diseases are not self inflicted?

        3. I was robbed of years, possibly decades, of time with family members who repeatedly ignored doctor advice about changing their diets. They chose junk food over family, time and time again, despite us begging them to make better choices and seeing scary test results. And you have the gall to try to shame me about the way I word my frustration and anger over the behavior of people dead for decades, who will never know I said it? I hope you’re proud of your self-righteous rant.

          1. Yeah, I am proud of not letting “lazy glutton” go unchallenged, actually. Nothing justifies fat-shaming cruelty on a public board. Write whatever you want in your diary.

      2. We didn’t know as much about the effects of the sun on skin as we do now. Way harsh, Tai.

    14. Women in my family live forever, but I have never known anyone who had a good quality of life past 85. Most people seem to lose their mental faculties around that age, and the few who don’t have so many physical ailments that they don’t get much enjoyment out of life. End of life care is also hideously expensive – like you can burn hundreds of thousands every year. I know we don’t have any control, but if I could choose I would want to die suddenly in my early 80s. My family is big a believer in quality over quantity, and my mom is always begging me to kill her if she gets dementia (which obviously I can’t because I would go to jail).

    15. I got 101, being honest.

      But it didn’t ask about current health. I have cancer now. I may not get heart disease or diabetes, based on history/parents. But I’ll be happy to get to age 65. I don’t think it’s applicable in my case.

  19. I grew roses last year for the first time from a bare root and they looked great. Due to extenuating circumstances I wasn’t home all fall and didn’t trim them or anything at the end of the season. Now spring is like a week away and I’m wondering what I should do. I clipped off the spent flowers, and any branches growing toward the middle, but should I remove all the leaves too? Many of them turned a darker color and look more waxy but they are perfectly intact and don’t look like they are going to fall off on their own. Should I just leave them be? For what it is worth, I can see the tiny buds started to grow so I know it is still alive.

    1. Clip a little, now, but not too much. If you clip too much you wont have blossoms, as you noticed.

  20. What are some drugstore/low-end beauty products you would buy if money was no issue? What are some high-end products that are worth the splurge in the opposite scenario?

    For me, if money was no issue I would still buy Covergirl Clumpcrusher mascara, Cerave moisturizer, and Cerave hydrating wash, and Elf poreless putty primer, and Dr. Dan’s lip balm (best ever balm for severe dry lips). However, I will always splurge (If I can) for my favorite complexion products, like Hourglass blush and bronzers, and Laura Mercier brightening undereye powder. I’m not loyal to any brand for eyeshadow, concealer, or foundation, but I tend to splurge on those too.

    1. Elf wow brow – better than boy brow, and only $4.
      Also I’ve tried most tubing mascaras, and keep coming back to Loreal Double Extend.
      Pixi by Petra endless shade sticks are fantastic; compare to laura mercier caviar sticks.
      On the expensive end, I really do think the Cle de Peau concealer is worth it, although I do like Wander Beauty’s Dualist as a less expensive option (and I like that the latter is two-in-one).

    2. I’ve been using Maybelline’s Dream Fresh BB cream for years; I’ve sampled other BB creams from time to time, but nothing has come close in terms of quality and value. Mabelline also has this “strobing” highlighter I’ve been using for a long time, I like Benefit’s Watts Up highlighter but it seems silly to pay so much for it when the drugstore stuff works just fine. I’ve also been using NYX’s Pore Filler primer, even though I’ve sampled a ton of other primers, this one is just the best for what I need. I don’t even have pore issues per se, it just makes everything else glide on so nicely.

      I’ve also been using brow mascaras from Maybelline for a while, but if I found a higher-end one at Ulta or Sephora that I really liked, I’d switch.

      But I do splurge on Stila’s Stay All Day liquid lipstick and eyeliner.

      1. I just tried the Stila stay all day eyeliner and I’m so disappointed! My eyes are hooded so the only thing I’ve found that doesn’t smudge is a true waterproof eyeliner. This one got great reviews. Did I apply it wrong somehow? I went back to my old faithful Maybelline Ultra Liner.

        1. Honestly, I don’t know why it didn’t work! But now you’ve got me wanting to try that Ultra liner from Maybelline! Sounds like a lot of us like their products as much, if not more than, the high-end brands.

          But I’m sticking with the lipstick. I’m allergic to some ingredients commonly found in lip products, especially drugstore lip products, so when I found a great red that doesn’t make me break out in a rash, I stick with it.

          1. Thanks for the added info! The Ultra Liner basically dries into kind of like a peelable strip of plastic. That’s the best way I can describe it. The bottle looks like cheap Halloween makeup ha.

            I’ll have to try out the Stella lipstick though!

    3. The one product I use without fail is undereye concealer. The maybelle fit me concealer is a dupe for much more expensive brands.

    4. I second the Maybelline BB cream, it’s the best. I also genuinely like the NYX eyeshadow pencils, and the Almay soft pencil eyeliner. And the Maybelline concealer. I do insist on higher quality foundation (YSL is completely worth it) and mascara (Guerlain).

  21. I’m curious, has anyone machine washed their MM lafluer jardigan with success?

    1. I have. Fairly sure a couple of times I accidentally put it in the dryer as well. It survived.

  22. FYI — since I have not seen this mentioned here…..

    I went in today for my annual mammogram, and they were asking whether you had recently received the Covid vaccine. For another patient who had just received the vaccine, they were recommending that she reschedule her mammogram, rather than risk a false positive & have to undergo unneccessary additional screening later. They were wanting patients to only do the mammogram 4-6 weeks after the second vaccine shot.

    I understood that they have been seeing some swelling in the breast/arm lymph nodes in response to the vaccine, and swollen lymph nodes are one of the symptoms that would trigger followup mammogram screening.

    All the usual disclaimers apply…. take care of yourself & follow the advice of your own medical experts!

    1. There were a couple of news articles about this (with misleading titles that insinuated you could get bre*st cancer from the vaccine) but this is very solid advice.

    2. Yes, there was a good article on this in the NY Times a week or two ago. Either get your mammogram before your vaccine or wait a while after your second one to avoid the swollen lymph nodes from the vaccine being flagged as a false positive sign of cancer. This would also apply to any other cancer screening that looks at lymph nodes, though mammography is certainly the most common.

    3. Recently, I was scheduling medical appointments for 14 days after my second vaccine shot. The mammogram scheduler told me that for a routine screening (no symptoms or concerns), the mammogram should be scheduled at least 4 to 6 weeks after the second COVID-19 vaccine shot.

      1. That’s an important caveat – if you have any symptoms or concerns, do not wait, go in. The vaccine just increases swelling in those areas, which can lead to more invasive secondary screenings; it doesn’t actually mimic cancer. If you have a concern, go anyway.

    4. I know of someone who got a swollen lymph node under one arm after receiving the 2nd shot (Pfizer). She had the fever/chills for one day, but had the swollen lymph node for several days. Good point re the mammograms.

    5. Yes, there have been news stories about it and it makes sense to me. I just got the first shot and had swollen lymph nodes that felt like lumps in my breast (near the underarm area). They went away after a few days.

Comments are closed.