Dame Mary Beard is a British historian specializing in ancient Rome. I would imagine she loves the TikTok trend of women asking their partners how often they think of the Roman Empire. She’s currently promoting her latest book, Emperor of Rome, and she’s been giving tons of interviews in British print media. She has that “cool professor” energy where she can tie ancient history to modern pop culture and modern politics. For weeks, she’s been talking about cancel culture, gender discourse, race throughout history and her Gucci sneakers. Well, Richard Eden at the Daily Mail got her to comment on, guess what? The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Reporting tittle-tattle about the state of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s marriage is important, because it will serve as a historical record of what people are talking about, declares television historian Dame Mary Beard.
‘I’ve been reading that they are going to get a divorce,’ the Cambridge classicist says.
‘Maybe they are, maybe they’re not, but that’s very much the same sort of gossip’ [as in Roman times].
Promoting her new book, Emperor Of Rome, she adds: ‘Before anyone thinks I’m trivialising it, gossip is very important… from a historical point of view.’ Hear, hear…
I would love to know what she was asked specifically and the entirety of her answer in context, because it feels like Eden chopped it up to make it specifically about the Sussexes. As for what she says… yeah, I agree, gossip is important. Gossip saves lives! “Gossip” is just a catch-all term for “information-gathering, informal reporting and early warning systems.” Most of what appears in Politico is GOSSIP. Most of what’s said on ESPN is gossip. I also agree that gossip about the Sussexes serves as part of the historical record. Just as gossip about the Wales marriage will be part of the historical record too.
Also: earlier this year, Beard made other comments about Harry and Meghan, saying “They’re going too far” with their interviews and “because they go further than we can, because we can’t have our own Netflix series, it makes us think about how you want to be and how you want to behave. Is Medea a hero? She gives you a lens on to what it would be like to be the kind of person who killed.”
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
-
- Cheltenham Literature Festival UK…Author & Academic Mary Beard at this years Times, Sunday Times Literature Festival,Image: 538882940, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: Charlie Bryan / Avalon
-
- Cheltenham Literature Festival UK…Author & Academic Mary Beard at this years Times, Sunday Times Literature Festival,Image: 538882958, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: Charlie Bryan / Avalon
-
- Invictus Games 2023 in Duesseldorf Prinz Harry, Duke of Sussex gemeinsam mit Ehefrau Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex gut gelaunt im Buggy auf dem Weg zur Schwimmhalle fuer die Schwimmwettkaempfe bei den Invictus Games 2023 in Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, 13.09.2023 Duesseldorf Nordrhein-Westfalen Deutschland *** Invictus Games 2023 in Duesseldorf Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex together with wife Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex in a good mood in the buggy on the way to the swimming hall for the swimming competitions at the Invictus Games 2023 in Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, 13 09 2023 Duesseldorf North Rhine Westphalia Germany,Image: 805068101, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: imago is entitled to issue a simple usage license at the time of provision. Personality and trademark rights as well as copyright laws regarding art-works shown must be observed. Commercial use at your own risk., Model Release: no, Credit line: IMAGO / Avalon
-
- DUESSELDORF, GERMANY – 13th Sep 2023. SEPTEMBER 13: Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend the Mixed Team Gold Medal Wheelchair Basketball match between Team United States and Team France during day four of the Invictus Games Düsseldorf 2023 on September 13, 2023 in Duesseldorf, Germany. *** DUESSELDORF, GERMANY 13th Sep 2023 SEPTEMBER 13 Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend the Mixed Team Gold Medal Wheelchair Basketball match between Team United States and Team France during day four of the Invictus Games Düsseldorf 2023 on September 13, 2023 in Duesseldorf, Germany,Image: 805097823, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: imago is entitled to issue a simple usage license at the time of provision. Personality and trademark rights as well as copyright laws regarding art-works shown must be observed. Commercial use at your own risk., Model Release: no, Credit line: IMAGO/Moritz Mueller / Avalon
-
- DUESSELDORF, GERMANY – 13th Sep 2023. SEPTEMBER 13: Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend the Mixed Team Gold Medal Wheelchair Basketball match between Team United States and Team France during day four of the Invictus Games Düsseldorf 2023 on September 13, 2023 in Duesseldorf, Germany. *** DUESSELDORF, GERMANY 13th Sep 2023 SEPTEMBER 13 Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend the Mixed Team Gold Medal Wheelchair Basketball match between Team United States and Team France during day four of the Invictus Games Düsseldorf 2023 on September 13, 2023 in Duesseldorf, Germany,Image: 805097831, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: imago is entitled to issue a simple usage license at the time of provision. Personality and trademark rights as well as copyright laws regarding art-works shown must be observed. Commercial use at your own risk., Model Release: no, Credit line: IMAGO/Moritz Mueller / Avalon
-
- DUESSELDORF, GERMANY – 13th Sep 2023. SEPTEMBER 13: Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend the Mixed Team Gold Medal Wheelchair Basketball match between Team United States and Team France during day four of the Invictus Games Düsseldorf 2023 on September 13, 2023 in Duesseldorf, Germany. *** DUESSELDORF, GERMANY 13th Sep 2023 SEPTEMBER 13 Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend the Mixed Team Gold Medal Wheelchair Basketball match between Team United States and Team France during day four of the Invictus Games Düsseldorf 2023 on September 13, 2023 in Duesseldorf, Germany,Image: 805098241, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: imago is entitled to issue a simple usage license at the time of provision. Personality and trademark rights as well as copyright laws regarding art-works shown must be observed. Commercial use at your own risk., Model Release: no, Credit line: IMAGO/Moritz Mueller / Avalon
-
- Invictus Games 2023 Rollstuhlbasketball 13.09.2023 Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex und Megan Markle, Duchess of Sussex lachend waehrend der Siegerehrung Invictus Games 2023, Rollstuhlbasketball Finale USA – Frankreich, Duesseldorf, Merkur Spiel Arena am 13.09.2023 *** Invictus Games 2023 Wheelchair Basketball 13 09 2023 Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Megan Markle, Duchess of Sussex laughing during the award ceremony Invictus Games 2023, Wheelchair Basketball Final USA France, Duesseldorf, Merkur Spiel Arena on 13 09 2023 Copyright:,Image: 805707470, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: imago is entitled to issue a simple usage license at the time of provision. Personality and trademark rights as well as copyright laws regarding art-works shown must be observed. Commercial use at your own risk., Model Release: no, Credit line: IMAGO/BEAUTIFUL SPORTS/Wunderl / Avalon
It would be good to see the whole thing in context because what I’m getting is a historian is stupid or doesn’t do even basic research. I was hoping to read something more nuanced.
I want more nuance too, honestly, but maybe not from her.
100% this.
I find her performative….a real attention-seeker. She posted pics of herself crying on Twitter a while back. She should stick to her area of expertise.
Are you a Tory? Tories hate her cos she beat Bojo at a debate one time and then they tried to block her appointment to the British Museum
@Lisa – No, I am not a Tory and I don’t hate Professor Beard. However, serious academics who post photos of themselves crying on twitter after being dragged for this comment referring to the rape and sexual exploitation of children by Oxfam aid workers in Haiti: “Of course one can’t condone the (alleged) behaviour of Oxfam staff in Haiti and elsewhere. But I do wonder how hard it must be to sustain “civilised” values in a disaster zone. And overall I still respect those who go in to help out, where most of us wd not tread.” – not my cup of tea.
@Lisa – I am not a Tory, and I don’t hate Professor Beard. However, serious academics who post photos of themselves crying on Twitter after being dragged for this 2018 comment referring to the *ape and se*ual exploitation of children by Oxfam aid workers in Haiti: “Of course one can’t condone the (alleged) behaviour of Oxfam staff in Haiti and elsewhere. But I do wonder how hard it must be to sustain “civilised” values in a disaster zone. And overall I still respect those who go in to help out, where most of us wd not tread.” – not my cup of tea.
Yes! As an archeaologist this kind of statements from a scholar makes me nauseous. If she said something like; this is what the gossip press spreads, but is it the truth? For an historian, comparing current situations with the historic record can be useful. We know historic records can be propaganda and not reflect the truth, because the ones with most power (the winners of wars) gets to tell their side, while slandering their enemies. There were no less gossip spread in the roman society than in Britain today.
I think her overall point–they gossiped in Roman times & gossip is important–is true, but I’m willing to bet it’s the DM that brought up the Sussexes & she tried to tie it to her main reason for even talking with the DM, to promote her book.
And hey there, fellow/sister archaeologist! Good to meet you!
Please. I don’t think the Sussexes went any further than Diana did—her interview really shocked the world. Does Beard think she should’ve stayed silent too? While it’s fine to draw parallels with the past, if you’re truly a historian, you view recent history in its proper context. Harry and Meghan’s interview aligns 100% with the zeitgeist of accountability, using your voice, correcting the narrative and telling your truth. A fight for social (media) justice, if you will. Maybe we don’t all have our own Netflix series, but anyone can act as their own spokesperson and correct the record on any social media platform of their choosing.
This.
Agree. This is just dumb. “Is Medea a hero? She gives you a lens on to what it would be like to be the kind of person who killed. “
Meghan and Harry didn’t kill anybody. She is not Medea. The Windsors did some really nasty stuff. But the Sussexes are the baddies. C’mon. Beard is just another publicity hound.
That was a weird segue, going from the Sussexes to Medea. Was there an intervening sentence–or paragraph–that got left out? And Medea wasn’t just ‘a person who killed’, she killed her own children AND FED THEM TO HER HUSBAND!!
And oh by the way, Medea was a work of fiction by a Greek playwright, not an actual person. Sheesh.
Beard has a new book out so it behooves her to play into the narratives that would give her more favourable coverage with the British media and their followers. This is her moment so I suspect she will do whatever to promote herself and her book. Selling one’s soul for likes goes for cheap these days.
This “historian” is another clout chaser using Harry and Meghan’s names to get press for her book.
No, Dr. Beard really is a historian, and I am pretty sure that she was asked a direct question by the press that had nothing to do with her book, that they then sensationalized. I wouldn’t blame Beard for this one.
that second quote is very much on her. and gossip is actually not that useful if the royals are paying for their slant to be what is reported.
Like all the people who comment on them, she has the option to avoid the question or to flat out say “no comment” on them.
Ok but that second comment she made that Kaiser typed out…isn’t that contradicted by her comment about how gossip is important for the historical record? They’re saying too much? When has a historian ever complained that people are putting TOO MUCH information on the record?
@Josephine – we’re gossiping right now. Are you being paid to push a specific viewpoint? I’m not and I’m assuming neither are you.
Josephine: you are correct, that second quote is sus.
I am sad now. It’s sad when people you think are reasonable just…aren’t.
I assume this Mary Beard is British. American historians seem to be more serious and less manipulative than the British ones. Is it because they write about kings and monarchy? Where court gossip is all enveloping? It’s very strange that a historian would talk like this
So “no comment” is not a thing?
We going to hear about her perspective in the superinjunction Will uses to block his cheating rumours from the press?
Just because she’s a historian doesn’t mean she can’t be a Karen. And like clockwork, here come the others to defend her.
You obviously ready nothing but gossip rags. Dr. Beard is an amazing feminist, historian and trailblazer.
@susan collins – no, really.
Dame Winifred Mary Beard, DBE, FSA, FBA, FRSL (born 1 January 1955) is an English scholar of Ancient Rome. She is a trustee of the British Museum and formerly held a personal professorship of Classics at the University of Cambridge. She is a fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge, and Royal Academy of Arts Professor of Ancient Literature. Feel free to look the rest up in Wikipedia by yourself.
A feminist, historian and trailblazer who made a mistake in commenting about something she did not think through or know enough about.
Who apparently reads the tabloids herself. Her further quote about H&M’s interviews was that they were “airing their dirty laundry in public” and it was “damaging to the RF”. She is obviously a monarchist who is parroting the rag thinking about H&M.
@Tikichica. I canceled my comment of laughing emoji’s.
Just because someone is a historian or feminist doesn’t make them infallible – they can also have biases which impact on their work. David Starkey at one time was considered a respected historian only to promote racist views.
This an enduring problem with history I think, its just about the ‘history’ the morals, ethics considerations be damned.
I suspect given who she was talking to that her words were parsed. I question her judgement sitting down with someone like that and not a respected journalist. Do they still have those there?
Didnt she wonder why she wasnt asked about the other two? And what’s her take on secrets? Because she seems to think H&M should have kept quiet and let the gossip and lies about them
Yeah, choosing to give comments to Richard Eden from the DM is a choice. And not one that I would expect from a trail-blazing feminist historian.
@TikiChika, going by just what she said in this particular interview and what she has said in the past about the Sussexes, people she knows absolutely nothing about, but she nonetheless is judging based on her own prejudiced white woman biases as a British white monarchist with a definitely prejudiced mindset, reading her bio on Wikipedia is a waste of time. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with her saying “look, as a historian who bases my analyses on verifiable written facts, there hasn’t been much written about the Sussexes that I can draw from to give a fair analysis and therefore will not comment on this.” Instead, she goes on to spout falsehoods about how the Sussexes are rumored to be divorcing blah blah blah, all things that have been purported for years by the BM. For that, Beard is now cemented in history as another prejudiced Karen, who will always Karen to get a buck or 2. My $0.02 of course, feel free to refute it.
@taytanish — good points, and what you said here definitely made me think through this whole weird thing again and ponder that yes, Beard is sadly speaking from a position of white, privileged academia 🙁
Also, why are people assuming the Daily Fail is quoting her accurately?
Mary ‘the left is just as bad as the right’ Beard is not as anti-racist and feminist as she would like you to believe.
Please read more interviews with her. She’s the queen of anecdotal evidence and ‘both sides’ (to prove she’s a true independent thinker she obviously has to criticize both sides whenever she critiques the right).
@brighidg says:
Also, why are people assuming the Daily Fail is quoting her accurately? If that’s the case why she let them interview her. I don’t live their but I know the Dailymail is a tabloid. She could have declined the interview. She could have easily said ” I don’t know them what I read or hear is from the newspapers so I will not comment. She didn’t that’s why so many people are calling her a clout chaser trying to sale her book.
Amazing that someone who watched Meghan get repeatedly harassed in the media, as she worked, as she was pregnant and recovered, is parroting the same lies as the media who harassed Meghan. Now this person is getting called a “feminist” and her actions are excused as being the fault of the media who put the words in her mouth and reportedly have too much influence. I agree with those who said that “no comment” is still an option.
I think Mary Beard is neither here nor there, and very much shades of grey – she has said and done some amazing stuff, both as a scholar and as an individual, but I find it (and her) questionable at times when she wades into current debates to promote herself and her work but ends up just sounding out of touch.
Her husband is unfortunately one of the most old-fashioned and sexist individuals in the field (he likes to think about the Roman Empire, aka Byzantium, every day FYI!), who likes to belittle female and early career researchers in particular. I have never been at the receiving end of this (I had the good fortune of not speaking at events that he was attending) but have seen it first hand. Now Mary is not responsible for her husband’s behaviour, but I find it at odds with her feminist stance and it does make me wonder just how much of it is performative.
You would think a Cambridge classicist would have a,more nuanced take… i highly suspect her words are cherrypicked and slanted.
She would also know that royal history derived from documents ranging from personal diaries of royals and courtiers to the court circular to Debrette’s to Shakespearean drama is essentially “tittle tattle.” I suspect that’s the larger context of her point. The gossip is not the accurate historical record of Harry & Meghan, but it is the accurate historical accounting of what was being said about them, which is an historical angle.
That’s exactly what she should say every time the British press sets her up with a question about Harry and Meghan. She could even be funny about it, “that sounds like a Historians of the Future issue.”
Classics is a very conservative field that has been the exclusive domain of white, rigid males. i have only read her SPQR book and seen a few of her video lectures, but it takes very little for Professor Beard to be considered a progressive woman. Her Roman history is more nuanced than her predecessors and that is enough to stir controversy in an extreme right-wing field. She is a royalist and has made several controversial statements about race over the past decade.
The problem is gossip about the working royals is censored. What Harry and Meghan did was correct the record. Let’s hope that this comment pushes Richard Eden to start gossiping about the true state of William and Kate’s marriage.
This is the problem. The UK media heavily self censors about the state of marriage of W and K but feels free to discuss divorce about Harry and Meghan based on nothing. This also says a lot about history but of course the historian doesn’t touch this censorship at all.
An honest assessment would be covering this self censorship of the media as well.
Well said.
I legitimately want to slap everyone who suggests Harry and Meghan (in particular Meghan, they are always angrier with her, even though she didn’t write a book) should shut up.
Is that what they would do, in the Sussexes’ shoes? Shrug and say, “oh well”, even though attacks are happening in the press all day, every day? Never, ever attempt to get the other side of the story out there? Fuck off.
Mary Beard is one of my favorite Roman historians — she wrote SPQR, and did a BBC documentary series about the birth, rise & fall of Rome. She’s very engaging, no matter her position on Meghan and Harry. (A bunch of her stuff is up on youtube, btw!)
I am also not sure she’s negative about them here. Just “Sure, I’ve read gossip about them,” that is then taken way out of context.
She’s also had things to say, obliquely, about Trump — likening him to populist rulers in Rome like Nero.
She can be all those things and yet still hold a white centric view of British royalty and culture in general. It is sad sometimes to discover writers or scientist I respected for their work turn out to be racist or sexist. You can respect their work and realize they are shitty people in their personal life. And also take into account how their world views affect their work (many examples in the medical field).
I do suspect though that her words are cherry picked since they didn’t give the full interview and just snippets.
If Mary Beard really does have this kind of opinion, then the British press won the war of public perception, and it’s a damned shame.
LOL. She is one of the scholars getting all sorts of fury for pointing out that the Roman Empire was not “white.” The “Romans” all the racist Brits claim to be descended from were in fact mostly Polish, French, and North African.
Having worked in academia around professors for decades, she undoubtedly knows little more about Harry and Meghan than the headlines and gossip she’s heard. Yes, she’s not getting the nuances of their story correct, but that doesn’t mean that her work isn’t strongly feminist and anti-racist.
There are quite a few of her specials on YouTube. I’d really recommend checking them out.
For a certain segment of tabloid-reading Brits, yeah the BM has won the war. If most of her gossip is being consumed through the uk tabloid press then it would not be surprising that she’s taken this view. What’s disappointing is if she lacks the awareness to see outside that bubble. Especially if she’s a history researcher. Don’t we study history so we can apply it to the present?
If she’s “anti-racist” why is she spouting off views that were shaped by RACISTS?
The fact that she’s literally unable to understand this is supposed to make me think she’s a credible historian? If she can’t parse what’s happening in the ACTUAL PRESENT how could she ever be able to bring nuance to the past?
Sonia — yeah, she really did spout views shaped by racists, and the fact that she doesn’t care to have a better understanding of the present really IS sus.
I am pretty disappointed in her, especially for the second comment.
You guys are seeing my seven stages of grief in real time lol — I hate it when white people that I respected show their stripes.
It’s super weird when two worlds that are entirely unrelated in my brain coincide — like the Mary Beard documentary part has NOTHING to do at all, in my head, with the Meghan and Harry part.
I love them all for different reasons, and I am really struggling to figure out why Mary Beard would need to have anything to say about Meghan.
My gut reaction is that Beard really doesn’t dig too deeply into the Meghan and Harry issues — Beard is a historian and spends her time researching Rome. I bet she just reads a few headlines and thinks no more of it — and here I will put the blame squarely on the press for not reporting fairly enough to educate a random reader.
EH! I think my brain is done for the day. Thinking too hard about this is gonna give me a migraine, lol.
Acha – I understand how you are feeling. I loved the work of Alison Weir and Antonia Fraser since my adolescence and in particular I always thought Antonia Fraser was perceptive to the struggles of women. So the terrible comments both women have made about Meghan were hurtful to me personally as well as being disappointing. I mean, it’s one thing to make a criticism of something the Sussexes might say about unconscious bias or something, but the things these two women had to say were just garbage rooted in the same tabloid nonsense, rooted in racism (well, and it uncovered how Antonia Fraser and Camilla are very close).
I don’t think it means the Palace or the tabloids won the war of perception but it shows to a very uncomfortable degree how certain people in British academia will uphold the narrow-minded and racist views of the monarchy and status quo.
Do what I do with the historians I once loved and buy the books secondhand from now on, lol.
Well, luckily my SPQR is years old by now, I guess.
It’s just sad to scratch a successful white lady and get someone with bad opinions (and sadly, as you point out, this isn’t uncommon).
Well maybe she should stick to comments about Rome and not Harry and Meghan something she obviously know nothing about. She could have easily clarified her answer by saying all gossip on Royals not just Harry and Meghan. If she had done her research regarding the interviewer she would have found out how bias that Dailymail guy is and declined to comment. I am just getting she is no different than any other clout chaser trying to make a buck off of Harry and Meghan’s name to sale her book. Is she really that naïve about how the Dailymail twist people words or she just doesn’t care? Like I said another clout chaser.
I just…Mary Beard absolutely doesn’t need to chase any clout, is the biggest weird thing about this whole story. She’s legitimately famous in her own right.
I do think the context matters. Ancient Rome was a gossipy place either to boost people up or knock then down (hey Messalina). Historians like Mary read that gossip to try and understand the politics at play and the culture.
A things got censored then too, the emperors didn’t want people to know everything they did or said
@acha anytime someone is asked about H&M people here accuse them of clout chasing. It is sometimes true but not always.
My take is that she has said shady things in the past, let’s consider that too. And her work as a historian doesn’t necessarily negate the fact that she can be a Karen too, both can be true at the same time. MB might not necessarily be a clout chaser but that doesn’t mean she isn’t trying to sell her book off of spouting racist and biased information that she can’t verify as facts. She can be a renowned wealthy and famous historian AND a racist Karen too, c’mon now!! And she compared them to Medusa? Ha!!Again, what’s wrong with saying, I don’t have any verifiable facts that will go down in history so I can’t comment? Just because famous educated and wealthy Republicans are trying to impeach the POTUS based off of made up lies doesn’t make them any less wealthy, famous and very, very educated AND RACISTS too.
@taytanish — yes, agree with you here, you helped me rethink this whole sus episode and I don’t like how Beard is acting. 🙁
@Taytanish — she compared them to the story of Medea, not Medusa. Medea is known in most stories as a sorceress, but also as a witch, and is often depicted as a priestess of the goddess Hecate. Medea plays the archetypal role of helper-maiden, aiding Jason in his search for the Golden Fleece by using her magic to save his life, and killing her brother to allow him to escape.
The implied comparison of Meghan to Medea, who killed her children in revenge for Jason’s desertion, is doubly horrifying when you consider how Meghan was treated when she revealed her miscarriage.
Sorry Jaded that was my computer trying to autocorrect. But yeah, by point still stands. Beard comparing Meghan to Medea is tantamount to those that compare Meghan to Trump and bleat on and on about how both are equally divisive people and certainly the same as those that continue to put the Sussexes and pedoAndrew on the same level of how equally terrible and damaging to the BRF both parties are.
How many more books, can I sell, sure they will go down in history books, because Harry walked away from being King of the British Empire, oops no more Empire.
In her quote — “because they go further than we can, because we can’t have our own Netflix series, it makes us think about how you want to be and how you want to behave” — who is the “we”? Is she implying that she is part of the royals or that the entire country is out to get H&M?
It’s a weird quote and it sounds whiny. pretending that the poor royals couldn’t have a netflix series while they apparently buy every media loser in the UK is rich.
It is whiny and it’s a very warped viewpoint because she says that “we” can’t have our own Netflix series, but this is coming from someone who is being interviewed and whose thoughts will be published in newspapers, someone who I assume has been interviewed on tv before, and whose books are published as well, so for her to pretend to have no access to media is disingenuous at best. And it’s always easy to tell someone’s values when they were absolutely silent at that columnist who wrote that he wanted to see Meghan stripped naked and marched down the street (or something to that effect), but this person dares to say that Meghan of all people went too far. Yeah, right. You can keep that kind of feminism.
Why is she comparing them to a mythological character who killed her children? This woman can go shove it also.
@Equality, you’re right about the Medusa comment. That was very telling, wasn’t it?
It’s not Medusa Mary referred to, it’s Medea who, as well as killing her brother to save her jailed lover Jason, later killed her two children in a fit of revenge because he dumped her for a younger royal bride. I suppose Mary is referring to when Medea helps Jason in his search for the Golden Fleece by using her magic to save his life, then killing her brother to allow Jason to escape at which point they run away and marry. But it’s a weird metaphor to use for H&M, they ran away because THEY were being threatened both by the BaRF and the crazed tabloids and their racist readers, and had to literally run for their lives. I think she’s mixed her metaphors and a better reference would have been to Artemis, the goddess of hunting, the wilderness and wild animals. She was also a goddess of childbirth, and the protectress of female children up to the age of marriage.
^^ Yes @Jaded! Thanks for your explication of these Greek characters. Artemis, the Goddess of Hunting, is very apt! Why? Because she is the equivalent to the Roman Goddess of Hunting, Diana! 🏹 🦸♀️ ✨️
“Artemis and Diana constitute a multifaceted divinity.”
So, what others say about H&M is historical record, but what H&M say about themselves is “too far?” As opposed to saying it provides us insight into what H&M want to say and that is also of historical value, just like the Roman aristocracy responded to the graffiti about themselves! I know the remarks were made at two different times, but her different reactions are telling of the way white academics will discuss a Black woman- and by extension this white man who loves her.
And like Kaiser says, there’s so much left out of this quote that it’s rendered nearly meaningless. But what are we to make of a historian who would give a quote to a member of the rota? She knows they do this.
I don’t think she should have said,”I’ve been reading that they’re going to get a divorce.” That’s obviously false and planted gossip. No wonder Eden was so happy with her response. She just put an historian’s imprimatur on British media’s propaganda. Even acknowledging it could be false doesn’t take the sting out.
Liking your comment, ad infinitum. That first sentence, on point.
Yes. When she was quoted as worrying about how H&M were damaging the RF, but silent on the RF/media damaging M to the point of suicide that said it all about her monarchist opinions to me.
Thank you, OnThisDay! This, right here, exactly.
The fact that it’s not just one person, here or there, telling Harry and Meghan to sit down and shut up, it’s a full on press agenda, is all the reason I need for it being MORE important that they didn’t remain mute.
There a difference between gossip and a sustained smear campaign filled with lies and misinformation.
I just love how her answer tried back into the book she was promoting “. . . as in Roman times.” That’s right lady sell that book!
Well, agree about the gossip being important part. Other than that though, she’s not showing herself to be able to discern much about actual gossip. Propaganda and misinformation is a powerful part of gossip too. Is she aware of the tabloid bubble of lies in which she lives? Bc her comments lack awareness. Maybe an unedited version would sound better but I’m not sure.
This👆. Well said, Jais.
This is kind of where I’m scratching my head a bit. And its hard because her comments were so clearly edited by Eden to make a point.
Gossip IS important from a historical perspective. And so is propaganda honestly. But its also important to distinguish the two and here it sounds like she isn’t doing that with H&M.
Had she not said the line about “I’m reading they’re getting a divorce” or whatever I think these comments would have gone over very differently.
Since we know the Mail likes to attribute false quotes to people, I question whether she said that at all.
If she didn’t say it at all, then she should get lawyers involved. Or make a statement. All which could have been avoided if she’d chosen not to speak to the DM of all papers about gossip🙄
Agreed.
On the subject of Meghan and Harry , some British people lose their marbles including the Historian Dame Mary Beard. This Cambridge educated historian is saying that gossips about Harry and Meghan are of historical importance.
Yeah, I agree @Noor — it’s their actual story that’s of historical importance, not some highly untrue bit of tabloid-generated slander. To equate the Sussex story to an allegorical narrative of a goddess who murdered her brother to save her husband’s life, then murdered her 2 sons out of jealous rage when he dumped her for a younger, prettier royal, does not make sense.
Yeah, no matter her accomplishments she’s obviously trying to sell her book, and she knows H&M sell, period. She’s also clearly critical of them specifically, not just all Royals; she singled out their Netflix series and talks about “how to behave” (clear implication: Harry and Meghan are not behaving properly) and the comparison to Medea (!!)…I mean, just keep them out of your mouth professor, please and thank you.
Also extremely ironic given the recent coverage of the lack of historian access to QEII’s and Philip’s papers and wills, and how the Royal Family has form for burning all correspondence related to Diana. No concern from this historian lady? But, hey, tabloid gossip is important folks!
Absolutely agree, Lady Esther. The royals literally control all information, including gossip, about them. This is very disappointing from Mary Beard who is supposed to be a brilliant historian.
Agree Lady Esther — and her comment about “how to behave” sounds distinctly like a racist dog-whistle at Meghan. This is a white historian’s dig at the “divorced American actress” and another example of the “uppity black woman” trope. I loved her shows but this is not good.
Agreed! FFS, the British media lets the Windsors edit historical ceremonies, like a coronation and the funeral of the longest reigning monarch in English history, just off the top of my head. It happened in front of cameras, and they are allowed to “correct” the footage. What in the actual hell is happening in England?
She has a white centrist view of Roman history, Europe and the UK. Not so white back then. Pale Red heads and blondes were shocking to Romans.
How odd, then, that she’s been rather famously attacked for saying the exact opposite.
https://theconversation.com/mary-beard-is-right-roman-britain-was-multi-ethnic-so-why-does-this-upset-people-so-much-82269
She has a white centrist view of Roman history,
There lies the problem. I’m finding as I’ve gotten older. History is being written to protect those in power which are white. and speak poorly of those they deem other. This historian may be intelligent but it doesn’t mean she doesn’t hold racist tendencies. I personally believe those responsible for recording royal history in the UK, view H&M love story unfavorable. Especially an majority of the older white royalist who believe It should
have never been. If that’s the case why should any of us believe they will tell the truth about H&M love story and why they really had to leave the UK/royal family.Even now in the 21st century we’re still debating the color of Queen Charlottes nationality. Harry was right to tell his truth for these historians are showing us who they favor and it’s not H&M.
How a woman in 2023 doesn’t know the gossip industry can be used as a powerful propaganda tool? We all read that Weinstein made sure any woman rejecting him was labeled as “diva”, “hard to work with” in tabloids. If you still don’t know the disinformation disseminated through it, you are a dumbass. I don’t care if you are the smartest person in the world.
“They’re going too far with their interviews and because they go further than we can, because we can’t have our own Netflix series, it makes us think about how you want to be and how you want to behave. Is Medea a hero? She gives you a lens on to what it would be like to be the kind of person who killed.”
Like I said, a dumbass.
Please don’t call Mary Beard a dumbass.
No, @sevenblue spelled “dumbass” correctly.
I’ve enjoyed what I’ve seen/read of Dr. Beard’s work. She’s intelligent, insightful, and engaging. So I’m disappointed that she has what appear to be some shallow and uninformed opinions about Harry and Meghan. I’m hesitant to hold it against her without more context, but the undeniable fact remains that the BRF have an awful lot of people willing to carry water for them, and unfortunately, Dr. Beard may be just another one of them. Whether these negative views of the Sussexes come from genuine hate or resentfulness, or from simple misinformation, is pretty irrelevant. Either way, it perpetuates harmful attitudes.
It does perpetuate dangerous attitudes and well-said. She is inserting herself into what will be historical record too. I wonder what future historians will write about her driving narratives? She allowed herself to be interviewed by a tabloid “reporter” and I’m hesitant on a fuller pov, because I want to like her honestly. They got their clicks and call her a “television historian” and she stepped right in for sales. I doubt she’s naive.
The fact that she sat down with Eden at all is what’s confusing me here.
@Lilly – What will future historians think of her? An indication may be the filter that historians give the work of ancient historian Josephus. He carried water for the new dynasty of Roman emperors and wrote a propaganda tinged narrative pertaining to the war in Judea. Modern historians factor this in when evaluating the truthfulness of his work.
No doubt the fact that she is Dame Mary Beard, DBE (Dame of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) may have left an outsized impression upon her and how she depicts her “status benefactors”, that is the royal establishment.
The Fail has a history of chopping up and changing context of what people say in order to sell their bullshit. The number of people here who are assuming she said exactly what they wrote with exactly the context the DF wrote it in is surprising and unfortunate.
Come on, now.
Also, gossip is valuable from an historical perspective. You can glean a lot about a society and their time from their gossip. With gossip about H&M, you can glean what racist assholes a lot of people are. It’s not an automatic hate statement against them to say gossip in a society has historical value.
Sure, if all she said is that gossip in a society has historical value that would hold true. But she said more than that. To the daily mail. If she was misrepresented, then maybe she’ll choose to clarify her thoughts. But as a historical researcher, I’d assume she would know that there was a very good chance that the daily mail would chop up and change the context as they have a history of doing that.
@Jais
Precisely!
As old as she is, a born and bred brit who should know by now of her country’s incestuous, corrupt relationship between the moneyed, the powerful and the media; a supposedly respected HISTORIAN, to boot; how come she wasnt aware that her comments would be deliberately misconstrued, decontextualized and twisted to suit some other agenda than her own?
Unless, of course, its also her own?
Because lets agree, she KNOWS about the shidtrag media’s vendetta against the Sussexes. She KNOWS that mentioning H&M is a lightening rod for the lowest of the low in britain. Yet she deliberately mentioned them……..because if it was the little rotarat who mentioned them first, which is highly likely, then she should know better than to take that bait in the manner in which she did.
So clearly, she harbors negative feelings about H&M, just as every other racist monarchist does. She may be brilliant in her profession, but bottomline she’s just another lowlife hateful racist karen. With typical nasty brown-stained snaggle teeth.
Agreed!!!
He first comments about how Harry and Meghan were talking to much in their Netflix docuseries and how they should be quiet because of their effect on the BRF were not an edit by the Fail though? These are things she said with her whole chest. This is just in addition so let’s hold her accountable too, no? Both the Fail and this Beard woman can be racists, not just the Fail.
@Taytanish, I totally agree. I’ve been struggling to think of what “context” would make her comments about H&M acceptable. Maybe if she went on to praise Meghan’s fashion? Or something something Harry Inviticus? That would make what she said all OK?
It reminds me of the excuses people (not on CB) tried to give for Susan Hussey to touch the hair of Ngozi Fulani, that she was old, that she didn’t mean any harm etc…
Their so-called talking too much will be a great contribution to the historical record in the future. Because they have talked so much, and own the rights to it, it will be less likely to be distorted by mere gossip. Maybe parts of this conversation is out of context but how can she say ridiculous gossip about Harry and Meghan, say nothing of the other royals, then get annoyed about their actual words and perspective? I’m sure as a historian, she would love to see more of the direct words of the people she studies. She needs to get over herself and her own pretensions.
If this was said a few weeks ago I probably would have had a slightly different feel, but having learned they was curating the Queens papers . It begs the Question important historical record for who? They this feud is going I’m afraid whatever is written into history, is most likely to be skewed to shine a positive light the those that reign. It’s not very often that the other offspring get a look in unless when it comes to family trees or there is power struggle or the spare ascends the throne. Besides is Kate and Willy’s story not more important?
Having read the book Mary Beard is promoting, I suspect that she’s connecting it to something she discusses in it at length: that much of what we know (or think we know) about the emperors of Rome is actually rooted in contemporaneous gossip that was frequently recycled and reapplied to other emperors after their reigns in an effort to taint their reputations and bolster that of the new emperor.
So wouldn’t she therefore know how important a first-person source document is, like a whole ass documentary? Yet she said that was “too far”????? This woman seems like a typical white old British Karen.
Sonia, why are you taking something from the Daily Mail at face value? You read the posts here, you know perfectly well that they manipulate everything they publish so that it fits their narrative, to the point that Prince Harry is SUING THEM for it. Come on now.
As for “white old British Karen”, I implore you — do just the barest bit of research into who she is, and how she got dragged through the mud several years back for pointing out that Rome wasn’t pure white.
Yes, we know the DM manipulates. So why is this historian even talking to the disgustingly misogynistic DM tabloid? Don’t talk to the DM. That’s what I’m side-eying.
Why is this woman’s mountain high accomplishments being touted as if they negate her Karen-ness in some way? Are all racists uneducated, poor and/or unknown people? Beard can be an educated, wealthy, famous, self-proclaimed feminist and still be a Karen. She is on record telling Harry to stop talking (re: Harry and Meghan the Netflix docuseries) because he is damaging their precious BRF!! She is a well-educated famous historian who also happens to be a big Karen; a Karen that is tapping into her privileged white woman prejudices to sell her book. Her being dragged at some point isn’t proof that she is not racists too.
Kaiser — is this quote from you? ‘“Gossip” is just a catch-all term for “information-gathering, informal reporting and early warning systems.”’ or are you quoting someone else? (I teach sometimes about female gossip in religious communities and this is a powerful way of describing the overlooked value of gossip. I’d like to use it in my teaching)
I just made that up, sure you can use it
@Kaiser, It’s a terrific description.
@Octonoberg
That may have been part of the original meaning of gossip. But its gone waaaaaay beyond that now. Even long before this age of the internet and SM, gossip has been a source of deliberate falsehood/misinformation. Now its also a weapon of disinformation, used not only to destroy individuals to the point of murder or suicide, but also to provoke civil unrest within entire societies and war between peoples.
I wish one of us had a TARDIS, so Kaiser could go to the future and see how much of her thorough cataloging of the current Windsors’ plights ends up being used in the historic record.
It oftentimes feels like spitting in the wind, being the only solidly supportive site for all things Harry and Meghan, but you just know many of her quotes, and the greater points she makes about the royals, are going to get used. It’s a bit of a bummer, not getting to stick around long enough to see it.
Anbother day, another karen with an opinion about the Sussex marriage
If the professor has an X or Instagram account she’s about to learn a lesson to keep Meghan’s name out of her mouth.
No matter how educated she is after all a white middle age British woman who takes it as a personal affront that a mix race woman walked away from the toxic British royal family and took her prince with her.
Not sure I get the Medea reference. In Medea, Jason the prince left Medea for the fair haired child of wealth and power. Is is her wish that Harry leaves Meghan
I’ve always wondered about how this era of churnalism and PR-driven media will affect what is later remembered as history, since the media is the source material for all of the biographies. The real history is kept quiet in favor of PR. Later history books will be no better than printed, summarized, fictional TV episodes.
Your comment made me think of two things I’ve come across. The first is that for the first few centuries in early Christian history, the vast, vast majority of documents pertaining to the subject have been lost and only scant sources remain. The second, I read in my text book on computer science published in 2019, that in this age of very big data, 90% of the data (including things like social media, websites, etc.) has been generated in the last 2 years and the rate is increasing. So barring some catastrophe, future historians won’t be wanting for historical sources!
Mary Beard may be great with explaining Roman history, but she’s part of the white British establishment in academic circles and they have a huge blind spot when it comes to covering the royal family. It is an institutional blind spot that starts from early days of schooling. And she’s even ascended and accepted the title of Dame. There is clear bias on this issue.
An American historian would come at this from a different angle because they don’t start school with the basis that the monarchy is something normal and placating them is required to move up in one’s career.
The quotes may be chopped up and distorted, but what are the chances a Dame is going to say anything negative about the royal establishment? Her career would be at risk.
It’s hard to have an opinion here because her comments seem to be so edited. Is gossip important from a historical perspective? Yes. But the value of that also depends on how historians look at that gossip. If someone in 2000 years or whatever is looking at gossip about H&M and how their marriage was on the rocks for 50 years, that’s not really a good use of evaluating gossip. The better evaluation is “why did these reporters keep talking about a marriage being on the rocks when it was the future king of england whose marriage imploded after 13 years?”
I think many on here are concerned because her comments make it sound like she’s accepting the gossip about H&M as truth.
Perfectly stated, @Becks1.
It seems that some of us are forgetting that TRUTH and FALSEHOD are STILL there, within gossip, to be evaluated. And basic human decency demands that those of us with said basic human decency, accept the former and reject the latter.
Unless, of course, we’re cloutchasers or hate-for-profiteers.
Eden has cropped his question and her answer before he put it into print. He couldn’t get anything specifically anti Harry and Megan from her, no snidy nasty digs, so as usual he twists it to his own narrative, just like the rest of the Royal rota. Remember how so many people called out Tom Bowel about the so called “quotes” he published in his book? This is more of the same. Me I would have liked her answer to be “, but Harry and Megan are not the subject of my book, so why that question?
Ancient gossip is about dead people and additional research can reveal if the gossip was true or not. Either way, dead people can no longer be hurt. But H&M are real live people right now and gossip about them, especially the briefings by the RF and lies by the tabloids are incredibly hurtful and damaging.
Mary Beard being a Cambridge historian does not make her immune to racist thinking and behaviour. Look up her tweets about Haiti and the aid worker scandal and Prayamvada Gopal’s response.
I referred to the same thing above before I read your comment. I got the distinct feeling that at the heart of her comment, she doesn’t approve of the biracial American actress and to refer to the plight H&M went through that forced them to flee England as mere gossip is entirely missing the point.
Word.
‘I’ve been reading that they are going to get a divorce,’ the Cambridge classicist says.
Look, I respect her work … but she needs to be smarter than to serve up a sentence like that one. She seems like one of those academics who are brilliant but not very street-smart.
Or another way to put it …. plenty of book sense but no common sense.
Eh, I don’t want to judge her for anything but taking The Fail seriously- think I get what she’s probably talking about, which is how public opinion is shaped by intentional parties and that reported gossip may or may not reflect reality, but it’s what gets remembered in public consciousness, and that becomes the historical record. Literally the most famous and well known ancient historians from whom we glean most of our knowledge of the Roman empire were propagandists and not aiming to be factual at all, and what we think we know as a result is probably not nearly how it was at all, yet it’s the enduring history that has shaped our understanding.
Yes, I think that’s exactly what she’s thinking, but academics (or at least those that I know) tend to be dispassionate and removed when considering an issue. They don’t look at things from an emotional point of view. But she’s talking to a person who is a propagandist and has no interest in the nuances of history – he just wants to make money by hurting H&M today.
Wannabe farmer
I agree 100%. Choosing Eden, instead of a legitimate journalist, says quite a bit.
Also, as soon as I saw that she’s DAME whatever whatever, I knew she was a member of the bootlicking brigade
Why are people rushing to take anything The Fail says at face value? I can almost guarantee her comments were edited or are missing context.
A lot of people are commenting about how we shouldn’t take this as face value bc it’s coming from the DM. Absolutely, her words could be misconstrued and lacking context. It’s the daily mail!!! But for a smart historian, why is she choosing to talk about Harry and Meghan with the daily mail in the first place? It’s hard to take any historian seriously that is talking to the tabloid press. I’m happy for her to go on record with how this was misrepresented and call the DM out. Any day now. But then add to that the fact that she’s already said words about Harry and Meghan before…. Given all this, I don’t think it’s fair to pithily say well why are you believing the DM. She chose to speak to them. She can choose to correct or clarify anything she’s ever said in regards to Harry and Meghan. She can choose the outlets she speaks with and which ones she wants her name associated with.
Well said, Jais.
If one read any of the old “Student’s Companion(s) that my parents and grandparents had to read in school in colonial times would be shocked how crass and vulgar the current tabloid culture is.
One was not allowed to speak about other people’s clothes, one’s financial, religion nor politics.
Even one knew the basis of democracy, they wanted a critical-thinking mass that adored the monarchy.
The people were expected to self-govern and hand over the money to the colonizer. After independence and republic, we became aware of the real governing in the UK via immigration and policies like ‘grading on the curve’…
Since some of these policies remain in tact because they were sound, one can use them to judge the current post-Brexit situation..
Gossip cannot replace accurate and factual information necessary to help make good decision-making that is the lifeblood of a proper functioning democracy….
But observing the source, I am not surprised….
Eden!!! Who’s next ?? Goebbels??
When it comes to Harry and Meghan people who take themselves seriously should learn to say no comment. How many are going to be burn by the press misquoting them before they learn.
This is why is was so important for Harry to write a book, and why Meghan should do so as well. The facts from the parties involved and not from propagandists and gossips.
We should send her a copy of ” Spare”. That should clear up her misconceptions in a hurry.
I want somebody to get combative and say ‘why do you ask, we’re talking about my book on the Roman Empire’ or some such.
Exactly why M. Beard is disappointing.
As an educator, you’d think she’d have a few Roman snippets to share with the tabloid reading masses to aid their critical thinking. But no.
Gossip is one thing, what’s happening to the Sussexes is another. Maybe she was set up by the question and dodgy editing of an answer but honestly, people don’t have to answer these stupid questions. But as they do, they deserve any blowback.
Lainey would argue that what we gossip about tells us a lot about our society.
Seems like Lainey has abandoned royal gossip because the current UK ones aren’t doing much worthwhile, seem so mean spirited, and are so local edition. Her royal tab is gone from her website and she was commenting less and less on them. Her last royal post was on Invictus and how well received the Sussexes were. However, she’s always been ambivalent about them, and had some issues with Meghan, some of it lingering from Meghan’s Toronto days.
Lainey commented on her newsletter The Squawk about why she isn’t doing as much royal coverage and she basically said because there is nothing to say about the ones left.
Y’all do know Mary beard is a jk Rowling supporting terf right? Mary beard is just another typical example of her class no matter how good she may be at her actual job. Also, typically in academic circles its considered at best a bad look to give interviews to the tabloid press.
Just want to say that it’s a bit ironic to bring up Medea this way because Euripides was writing about the most dangerous, frightening concept possible to Greek male hegemony – a woman who acted to avenge her shitty treatment by men. “What if women actually tried to fight back using the only means available – their position at the core of family life and the source of future generations.” Medea’s actions are of course indefensible but she is the embodiment of the same kind of anxiety people have about Meghan. What if a woman didn’t shut up and take it? What if she told everyone what you did to her?
This.
Oh, the gossip absolutely DOES have historical value — it will be future proof of the rampant racism and misogyny of British society in general, and the royal family in particular, of the 21st century.
Way to put a nail in it Mrs. Krabapple!
I’ve enjoyed a lot of the comments on this post, especially #18, #20, #28 and responses; as well as any critiquing M. Beard for equating Meghan to Medea!
As for Dame Mary Beard, DBE, FSA, FBA, FRSL, Trustee of the British Musem (etc ad nauseum), I recalled being blown away by Women & Power years ago. Then BRFCo and britmedia began their assault on Meghan and then Harry. Since then, I’ve seriously questioned all the alphabets behind UK historian’s (& classicist’s) names and came to the realization that they absolutely do need BRFCo imprimatur to be taken seriously in britsociety. And I started paying more attention to people without BE after their name. I might actually go back and read Women & power someday. But after finishing Caroline Elkins’ “Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire,” it might be a few years. Considering M. Beard didn’t say anything about Meghan death threats it might be more than a few years.
It’s scary that this is where we are with historians. That said, sure, report the “gossip” but do so within context. Any halfway decent historian would feel compelled to report it to include the racism and sexism that underpins all of the chatter. They would also note the day’s clickbait driven media. This is basic stuff, sheesh.
I’ve heard interviews with Mary Beard before, and she is entertaining and very knowledgeable and informative on her specialty of ancient history. However, I think the late Hilary Mantel had a much more accurate and astute take on the royals, whether gossip or on the record facts. Her analysis of Princess Kate is one for the ages and incredibly accurate. These quotes by Beard seem incomplete or lacking nuance, or maybe she genuinely thinks like this, which seems a bit close- minded for a historian.
Ugh. I admire Mary Beard. Please don’t tell me she’s just a basic White b——. I hope she’s being misquoted. But, why is she talking to Maureen? Does she not understand the nature of tabloids in her own country, in her own era?
Sorry but this lady is an absolute loser and looks like she smells like mothballs. Get in the bin.
Currently being repeated on BBC Radio 4 Extra is ‘Whispers’ a quiz in which celebrity gossip is categorised as ‘true’ ‘false’ or a ‘whisper’ the latter being a falsehood so often repeated it is taken as the truth (the actual meaning of a factoid).
Surely a historian should value the truth over lies, facts over falsehoods? Ms Beard demeans her profession if she thinks otherwise. Of course she could be being misquoted here (almost a given with this source) but as she seems to favour catchpenny statements to garner attention to her current efforts I can’t be sure.
Best to stick to the Romans I say.