Search

Edwina Bartholomew reveals the truth behind her unconventional marriage

Edwina Bartholomew has shared why she doesn't live with her husband full time, and why the unconventional arrangement works for their family. The Sunrise star first spoke about her unusual situation with husband Neil Varcoe in 2023, when she admitted the married couple no longer slept in the same room. Now, speaking candidly to <a href="https://www.nowtolove.com.au/celebrity/sunrise-edwina-bartholomew-career-family/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Now to Love</a>, Bartholomew has share more insight into their marriage arrangement and how it first began. “Strangely, it works,” Edwina said. “We were never ‘date night’ people, but now we’re apart, we go to that extra effort when we’re together to go out for dinner, lunch or to a movie.” The Sunrise presenter went on to share that the reason Neil first moved out of the city was so he could recover from chronic fatigue syndrome, which he’s been battling for six years. Neil now lives in the Central West of NSW, three hours from where Edwina lives in Sydney. “I think he’s the best he’s been for a number of years just by virtue of having that space to recover – eating healthily, exercising, having a really regimented routine,” she said. “He’s actually really good, which is fantastic, because for a while he definitely wasn’t and it was challenging for both of us. As a wife, it’s hard to see your husband go through that, and hard for him to miss out on things because he can’t physically be there.” Unsure how long the arrangement will last, Edwina hasn't ruled out moving to the country in the future to be with her husband. "I think I'd miss the adrenaline of all the back-and-forth, and the excitement,” she admitted. “But sure, one day, it would be lovely to be able to have a family life that’s based in the country – in the distant future.” Image credits: Instagram

Relationships

The truth about Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Diana’s relationship

The Queen and Diana Queen Elizabeth II and her daughter-in-law, Princess Diana, were more alike than you may realise: They both gave their lives to public service, they were strong in their own ways, and both were devoted to their families and subjects alike. But Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana were also very different. The Queen is silent and traditional; Diana was modern and outspoken. Lady Diana Spencer, an aristocrat with many links to the royal family tree, married the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, in July 1981. They had two sons, Princes William and Harry, who are Queen Elizabeth’s grandchildren. After several publicly tumultuous years in their marriage, Charles and Diana divorced in 1996, and Princess Diana died the following year. What was the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana really like, though? Much of the information that’s been used to form the narrative is a bit lopsided. “There’s a fundamental asymmetry in what we know about this relationship,” says Arianne Chernock, an associate professor of history at Boston University focusing on modern British history and the monarchy. “Diana perhaps told too much – she disclosed quite a bit about her life and her private feelings and emotions to the press. The Queen throughout her reign has had a very different, much more careful, choreographed approach. And so we don’t know what the Queen thought of the relationship. In a way, Diana gets to narrate the story for us.” And although much hearsay has been written about how the two royals felt about each other, this is what we know from the women themselves about their complicated relationship. When did Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana meet? The Queen had known Diana Spencer – or at least known of her – for most of the younger woman’s life. “The Spencers were a prominent family with close royal ties,” Chernock says. Diana’s father was an equerry, or personal attendant, to the Queen’s father, King George VI, and then to the Queen herself; her grandmother was a lady-in-waiting to Elizabeth’s mother. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip attended Diana’s parents’ wedding, and the Queen is the godmother of Diana’s younger brother, Charles. Princess Diana was born and spent her childhood at Park House, on the grounds of the royal estate in Sandringham, Norfolk. The royal family’s official website notes that, as neighbours, the families had known each other for many years. “In fact, Diana’s older sister [Lady Sarah] briefly dated Prince Charles before he met Diana,” Chernock says. As her royal biography notes, Diana first encountered Prince Charles in 1977. He’d been invited to the Spencer estate at Althorp, where the family had moved after Diana’s father became Earl Spencer in 1975. When they began dating, a marriage between Charles and Diana was hardly a given. So when was Diana introduced to the Queen as a potential partner for Charles? “The most sustained early interaction with the royal family came when she was invited to [royal Scottish country estate] Balmoral,” Chernock says. Viewers of Netflix’s The Crown will remember the 1980 meeting as the infamous “Balmoral test.” The Queen thought Diana quite suitable for Charles. “She was very much a hit with the royal family – they really warmed to her,” Chernock says. “Diana worked very, very hard to ingratiate herself and to model what she thought being a princess would entail, and she did it very successfully.” But this success would later come to backfire on Diana. “In retrospect, many would argue that she was not her authentic self during that visit, so she was more performing a role that she aspired to as opposed to being herself,” Chernock says. “She was working very hard to fit in. She was a city girl, and she pretended to love the country. She went out shooting. She did all of the things that she was supposed to do but that she actually did not enjoy.” What was the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana like? At first, everything went smoothly between the Queen and Diana. “We do know that both she and Philip thought that Diana, based on that experience in Scotland, was very acceptable,” Chernock says. “They encouraged this union.” Although they were not exactly close, the Queen approved of Charles’s choice – or rather, she approved of the woman she believed Diana to be. If she hadn’t given her stamp of approval, the relationship wouldn’t have moved forward. “The Queen has never left a recorded impression,” Chernock says. “She’s very tight-lipped. So we don’t know. We can’t access her diaries or her private thoughts. We can look at her actions and her behaviours; those are the clues we have.” As for Diana, she may have started to get the sense that she bit off more than she could chew. “I think after her initial romance in Scotland, she began to realise just how tricky the royal family would be and how ill-prepared she was to really be a full-fledged member of the family,” Chernock says. How did Queen Elizabeth feel about Diana's engagement to Prince Charles? The Queen had a sense that Diana could handle royal life, and not just because of her success at Balmoral. Additional proof came, ironically, in the way Diana was able to weather the storm of press and photographers who soon descended upon her, according to a 1981 Time magazine article announcing her engagement. The Queen had begun pressing Charles to propose, due in part to all the media attention, giving him an ultimatum to marry Diana by the summer of 1981 or not at all. “The idea of this romance going on for another year is intolerable to everyone concerned,” the Queen said, according to Time. And when the public announcement happened, Elizabeth was “beaming.” But things would take a darker turn for Diana as she moved into the royal apartments at Buckingham Palace in preparation for the wedding. “Diana was wanting more guidance and felt that the Queen could have offered that to her,” Chernock says. “So it’s a fishbowl kind of experience, very few people on the inside, and I think Diana did describe her experience as a profoundly lonely one and wished that especially women in the royal family had been more accessible, more available to her.” The Queen, though, might have seen things differently. “She may think she was very accessible – she may think she did what she could, given her role and given her commitments and constraints,” Chernock says. “Again, Diana gets to tell the story about the Queen.” We do have a glimpse of the Queen’s feelings on the matter. According to royal expert Ingrid Seward’s 2002 book The Queen & Di, in March 1981, Elizabeth wrote a letter to a friend in which she said, “I trust that Diana will find living here less of a burden than is expected.” Of course, that’s not what happened – at least from Diana’s point of view. “She described the royal family as cold, heartless and unfeeling; unsympathetic,” Chernock says. “I don’t think she was ever singling out the Queen specifically, but certainly that was how she framed her encounters with the family, the firm.” (The firm is an informal title for the institution of the monarchy, of which the Queen is the head.) What happened between Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana after the wedding? After Charles and Diana’s wedding on July 29, 1981, the Queen began to entrust Diana with royal responsibilities, showing that she had confidence in the new Princess’s ability to carry out her official duties. Diana’s first solo task was to represent the royal family at the funeral of Princess Grace of Monaco, which the Queen allowed her to take on even though Charles didn’t think it was a good idea. According to Andrew Morton’s 1992 book, Diana: Her True Story – In Her Own Words, the Princess recalled, “I went to the Queen, and I said, ‘You know, I’d like to do this,’ and she said, ‘I don’t see why not. If you want to do this, you can.’” The success at that event led to many more, and even the Queen could see that the Princess had a way with people that could buoy the monarchy’s popularity. “She was an asset, to a point, until she stole the show,” Chernock says. “Part of the challenge, though, for the Queen and especially for Charles, was that Diana, she shined so brightly that she really – not necessary intentionally – eclipsed those around her.” Diana’s star power affected Charles the most when they toured, but it impacted Elizabeth as well. “There was a bit of, I suspect, tension there because she’s the Queen,” Chernock says. “There was a complicated little dance they probably had to play with each other.” How did the women's relationship change as the royal marriage declined? Prince Charles and Princess Diana were mismatched from the start, and with their marriage crumbling, the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana was also headed for the rocks. In tapes from 1993, which were made public in 2004 and rereleased with the 2017 documentary, Diana: In Her Own Words that aired in the United Kingdom, the Princess said she was not given the support she needed when she went “sobbing” to ask the Queen for help with the marriage. “So I went to the top lady and said, ‘I don’t know what I should do,’” Diana said. “She said, ‘I don’t know what you should do.’ And that was it. That was ‘help.’” According to Seward in The Queen & Di, although Elizabeth was initially sympathetic to Diana, eventually the stoic monarch felt that the emotional Princess was simply too much to handle. “A footman said, ‘The Princess cried three times in a half an hour while she was waiting to see you.’ The Queen replied, ‘I had her for an hour – and she cried nonstop.’” Unsatisfied, that’s when Diana turned to the press; specifically, the Morton book in 1992 (although Diana’s participation was kept a secret until after her death) and Diana’s 1995 BBC Panorama interview with Martin Bashir (who recently apologised for using deceitful tactics to get the interview). The royals, including the Queen, “thought she talked too much – they did not see that as in keeping with royal protocol; how much she disclosed,” Chernock says. Although Elizabeth was “stunned” that Diana revealed so much publicly, according to Seward, she had to keep quiet and couldn’t respond in turn with her own feelings. Elizabeth’s silence on the matter didn’t help her cause, however. “The Queen’s interior or inner life is often a mystery, which works well for her on some occasions and less so on others because it can lead to this more unsympathetic portrayal of her becoming the dominant one; when we really don’t know what was going on,” Chernock says. How did Queen Elizabeth feel about Charles and Diana's separation and divorce? As you’ve no doubt guessed, Queen Elizabeth wasn’t thrilled that the royal marriage was dissolving. “I think we can assume, based on many related conversations others had, that [the Queen] did not want a separation; that this was seen as dangerous to the throne, not in keeping with this moral platform the family tries to uphold or project,” says Chernock. “So I think they certainly felt this was unfortunate.” Princess Diana and Prince Charles separated in 1992, but as their separation dragged on for several years, Elizabeth thought it was time to put a formal end to things. In 1995, Buckingham Palace released a statement to the press: “After considering the present situation, the Queen wrote to both the Prince and Princess earlier this week and gave them her view, supported by the Duke of Edinburgh, that an early divorce is desirable. The Prince of Wales also takes this view and has made this known to the Princess of Wales. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will continue to do all they can to help and support the Prince and Princess of Wales, and most particularly their children, in this difficult period.” The Queen’s thinking on the topic of divorce had evolved over time – after all, it was her uncle’s inability to marry divorcée Wallis Simpson that caused him to abdicate the throne to his brother. And then there was her lack of support for her sister, Margaret, who had wished to marry divorcé Peter Townsend in the 1950s. “When you look back at Queen Elizabeth’s strong reaction to her sister Margaret’s desire to marry a divorcé and her opposition to Margaret’s marriage to Townsend, we can see the Queen has certainly evolved in her thinking, and I suspect she has come to prioritise the happiness of her family members over time,” Chernock says, pointing to the fact that other royals have divorced and Prince Harry has married divorcée Meghan Markle. “I think she has become much less rigid in her approach to thinking about marriage and the royal family, and [in] recognising that the royal family serves its constituents most effectively when its members are fulfilled emotionally as well as in other capacities.” Charles and Diana divorced in 1996. How did Queen Elizabeth react to Princess Diana's death? Perhaps the lowest point for the Queen throughout her 70-year-reign was after Diana was killed in the car crash, just one year after her divorce from Prince Charles. Instead of immediately rushing back to London from Balmoral to comfort her people, Elizabeth chose to stay in Scotland to attend to her grieving grandchildren, William and Harry, who had just lost their mother. The fact that Elizabeth remained in seclusion angered her subjects and fuelled conspiracy theories about Diana’s death. “I think in private she probably was a much more supportive anchor for that family in their period of turmoil than she’s given credit for,” Chernock says. “This is just what I surmise, but how telling is it that Meghan and Harry named their daughter [Lilibet] after the Queen? Clearly, there’s a really strong bond and love there, and she must have been a support to Harry during that really difficult period around his mother’s death.” Prince William echoed this in the BBC documentary, Diana, 7 Days. “At the time, you know, my grandmother wanted to protect her two grandsons, and my father as well,” he said, recalling being grateful to have had “the privacy to mourn, to collect our thoughts, and to just have that space away from everybody.” William also said that Elizabeth “felt very torn between being a grandmother to William and Harry and her Queen role.” A letter from Elizabeth to one of her aides recently resurfaced, revealing the Queen’s personal feelings about Diana’s passing. “It was indeed dreadfully sad, and she is a huge loss to the country. But the public reaction to her death and the service in the Abbey seem to have united people around the world in a rather inspiring way. William and Harry have been so brave, and I am very proud of them,” the Queen wrote. “I think your letter was one of the first I opened – emotions are still so mixed up, but we have all been through a very bad experience!” A week after her death and the night before Diana’s funeral, the Queen came back to Buckingham Palace and made a rare live television speech about the Princess; a landmark moment for her reign. Her broadcast, though, was “much at the urging of Tony Blair, prime minister at the time,” Chernock says. “I think she was counselled, but she was receptive to it, and saw that that was the wise move, and she relented.” How did Princess Diana impact Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy? Diana’s death was a turning point for the monarchy – and for Queen Elizabeth herself, who subsequently developed a renewed connection with her people. “These are all lessons learned from the challenges of managing ‘the Diana affair’ and the fallout from that,” Chernock says. “I think it was a very challenging moment for the crown but also indicative of the crown’s resilience that they, and the Queen specifically, were able to weather that and gain new levels of popularity in the years after, when many were predicting the end of monarchy in the late 1990s.” The Queen herself has changed as well, at least a bit. She’s “trying to inject a little bit more spontaneity, a little bit more emotion, a little bit more connection into her delivery,” Chernock says. “She has a very different style from Diana – and I don’t think anyone would want her to be Diana – but she’s become more willing to bring some of her own personality into public.” In addition, “I think she has developed a much finer appreciation for messaging, for showing that she’s emotionally connected to her people and in touch, and trying to incorporate some informality, even though scripted, into her role,” Chernock says. Case in point: the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics, in which the Queen performed in a James Bond skit. “That has Diana written all over it,” Chernock says. While her famous British “keep calm and carry on” attitude has helped the country withstand recent challenges – namely, a global pandemic – the Queen has also learned to adapt, even growing the royal family’s presence on social media. “I think the whole royal family, including Queen Elizabeth, took a lesson from Diana’s formula that works,” Chernock says. “The royal family is always trying to balance tradition and innovation in a way that makes sense. In large part, I think this has to do with Diana and the fact that she was able to show that informality works.” Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/the-truth-about-queen-elizabeth-ii-and-princess-dianas-relationship" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.

Relationships

‘Why didn’t we know?’ is no excuse. Non-Indigenous Australians must listen to the difficult historical truths told by First Nations people

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-maree-payne-440459">Anne Maree Payne</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Big things are being asked of history in 2023. Later this year, we will vote in the referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative body – the <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament-answered-by-the-experts-207014">Voice to Parliament</a> – in the Australian constitution. The Voice was introduced through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which outlines reforms to advance treaty and truth, in that order. And it calls for “truth telling about our history”. Truth-telling has been key to restoring trust and repairing relationships in post-conflict settings around the world. Historical truth-telling is increasingly seen as an important part of restorative justice in settler-colonial contexts. The UN recognises the “<a href="https://www.un.org/en/observances/right-to-truth-day">right to truth</a>”. It’s important to restore dignity to victims of human rights violations – and to ensure such violations never happen again. But there’s also a collective right to understand historical oppression. The Uluru Statement, too, <a href="https://theconversation.com/first-nations-people-have-made-a-plea-for-truth-telling-by-reckoning-with-its-past-australia-can-finally-help-improve-our-future-202137">sees truth-telling</a> as essential for achieving justice for Australia’s First Nations people. A successful “Yes” referendum outcome has the potential to make history. The Voice will structure a more effective relationship between Aboriginal nations or peoples and government. It will better represent Indigenous interests and rights in Australia’s policy development and service delivery. However modest this reform, the Voice is outstanding business for the nation. But the Uluru statement’s call for “truth-telling about our history” will prove more difficult. <h2>Barriers to ‘truth hearing’</h2> “Why didn’t we know?” non-Indigenous Australians still lament when confronted with accounts of past violence and injustice against Indigenous Australians, despite decades of curriculum reform. Our current research reflects on the barriers to “truth hearing”. The barriers are not just structural. Negative attitudes need to be overcome, too. Researchers have noted <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340480495_NEW_Preface">the levels of</a> “disaffection, disinterest and denial of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history”. They’ve also lamented the piecemeal nature of current educational approaches. <a href="https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/historys-children_history-wars-in-the-classroom/">Anna Clark’s research</a> on attitudes in schools towards learning Australia history – particularly Indigenous history – shows that students experience Australian history as both repetitive and incomplete, “taught to death but not in-depth”. Bain Attwood has <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/48554763">convincingly argued</a> that early settler denial of the violence of Indigenous dispossession was followed by a century of historical denial. History as a discipline, he argues, needs to reckon with the truth about its own role in supporting <a href="https://theconversation.com/truth-telling-and-giving-back-how-settler-colonials-are-coming-to-terms-with-painful-family-histories-145165">settler colonialism</a>. <h2>50+ years of Aboriginal history</h2> For more than 50 years, historians have produced an enormous body of work that’s brought Aboriginal perspectives and experiences into most areas of Australian history – including gender, class, race, <a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-when-did-australias-human-history-begin-87251">deep history</a> and global histories. Until the late 1970s, academic interest in Aboriginal worlds was led by mostly white anthropologists and their gaze was set to the traditional north. But historians were then challenged to address the “silence” of their profession when it came to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. They needed to write them into history. This meant “restoring” the Aboriginal worlds omitted in the Australian history texts of the 20th century. This called for new ways of doing research: oral history, re-evaluating the archive, drawing on a wider range of sources than the official and written text. Today, some historians work with scientists and traditional knowledge holders to tell stories over much longer time periods. For example, Australian National University’s <a href="https://re.anu.edu.au/">Centre for Deep History</a> is exploring Australia’s deep past, with the aim of expanding history’s time, scale and scope. And the <a href="https://www.monash.edu/arts/monash-indigenous-studies/global-encounters-and-first-nations-peoples">Global Encounters and First Nations Peoples</a> Monash project, led by Lynette Russell, applies interdisciplinary approaches to consider a range of encounters by First Nations peoples over the past millennium, challenging the view that the Australian history “began” with British colonisation. On the other side of the sandstone gates, an incredible flourishing of historically informed Aboriginal creative works has taken centre stage in Australian cultural life. This includes biographies, memoirs, literature, painting, documentary and performance: often with large audiences and readerships. They are all forms of truth-telling. In <a href="https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/black-words-white-page">Black Words, White Page</a> (2004), Adam Shoemaker details the extent of Aboriginal writing focused on Australian history from 1929 to 1988: writers like <a href="https://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/noonuccal-oodgeroo-18057">Oodgeroo Noonuccal</a>, <a href="https://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/davis-jack-17788">Jack Davis</a>, <a href="https://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/gilbert-kevin-john-18569">Kevin Gilbert</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/charles-perkins-forced-australia-to-confront-its-racist-past-his-fight-for-justice-continues-today-139303">Charles Perkins</a>. This body of work – and much more since – conveys an Aboriginal interpretation of past events, through oral history and veneration of leaders and heroes, drawing together the past and future. Some early examples include Wiradjuri man Robert (Bobby) Merritt’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-australian-plays-the-cake-man-and-the-indigenous-mission-experience-88854">The Cake Man</a> (1975), set on a rural mission, which explores causes of despair, particularly for Aboriginal men. It was performed by the then newly formed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Black_Theatre_(Australia)">Black Theatre</a> in Redfern in the same year it was published. Indigenous autobiographies, like Ruby Langford Ginibi’s <a href="https://www.uqp.com.au/books/dont-take-your-love-to-town-2">Don’t Take Your Love to Town</a> (1988), just reissued in UQP’s First Nations Classics series, and Rita Huggins’ biography <a href="https://shop.aiatsis.gov.au/products/auntie-rita-revised-edition">Auntie Rita</a> (1994) are realist accounts of Aboriginal lives, devoid of moralism or victimology. Many more have followed, including Tara June Winch’s novel <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-yield-wins-the-miles-franklin-a-powerful-story-of-violence-and-forms-of-resistance-142284">The Yield</a> (2019), winner of the 2020 Stella prize for literature. Through Wiradjuri language, she gathers the history of invasion and loss – and survival in the present. Indigenous artists are exploring ways to represent the past in the present: overlaid, but still present and continuous. Jonathon Jones’ 2020 <a href="https://mhnsw.au/whats-on/exhibitions/untitled-maraong-manaouwi/">artwork</a> to commemorate the reopening of the Sydney Hyde Park Barracks, built originally in 1817 to house convicts, is one example. Jones <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=374269496789482">explained</a> the installation’s interchangeable use of the broad arrow and maraong manaóuwi (emu footprint) as a matter of perspective: one observer will see the emu print, another the broad arrow. Each marker, within its own sphere of significance, served similar purposes. The emu print is known to be engraved into the sandstone ledges of the Sydney basin and marked a people and their place. The broad arrow inscribed institutional place and direction. Jones wants to show how the landscape can be written over – but never lost – to those who hold its memory. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WPGcFDw5c_s?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Jonathan Jones’ artwork is part of an incredible flourishing of historically informed Aboriginal creative works.</figcaption></figure> <a href="https://www.uapcompany.com/projects/the-eyes-of-the-land-and-the-sea">The Eyes of the Land and the Sea</a>, by artists Alison Page and Nik Lachajczak, commemorates the 250th anniversary of the 1770 encounter between Aboriginal Australians and Lt James Cook’s crew of the HMB Endeavour at Kamay Botany Bay National Park. This work, too, represents the duality of interpretation and meaning. The monumental bronze sculpture takes the form of the rib bones of a whale – and simultaneously, the hull of the HMB Endeavour. This body of work by dedicated educators, researchers, artists and families has been highly contested. <h2>Truth-telling, healing and restorative justice</h2> Many non-Indigenous Australians are interested in – but anxious about – truth-telling, our early research findings suggest. They don’t know how to get involved and are unsure about their role. Indigenous respondents are deeply committed to truth-telling. But they have anxieties about the process, too. Only 6% of non-Indigenous respondents to Reconciliation Australia’s most recent <a href="https://www.reconciliation.org.au/publication/2022-australian-reconciliation-barometer/">Reconciliation Barometer report</a> had participated in a truth-telling activity (processes that seek to engage with a fuller account of Australian history and its ongoing legacy for First Nations peoples) in the previous 12 months. However, 43% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents had participated in truth-telling. Truth-telling is seen as an important part of healing, but there is uncertainty about its potential to deliver a more just future for First Nations peoples. And it’s acknowledged that <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-is-promising-truth-telling-in-our-australian-education-system-heres-what-needs-to-happen-191420">truth-telling</a> might emphasise divisions and differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. There are also concerns about <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-half-of-australians-will-experience-trauma-most-before-they-turn-17-we-need-to-talk-about-it-159801">trauma</a> and issues of cultural safety. But during the regional dialogues that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the demand for truth-telling was unanimous from the Indigenous community representatives. Constitutional reform should only proceed if it “tells the truth of history”, they agreed. This was a key guiding principle that emerged from the process. Why does truth-telling remain a central demand? The final report of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition">Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples</a> described its multiple dimensions. Truth-telling is a foundational requirement for healing and reconciliation. It’s also a form of restorative justice – and a process for Indigenous people to share their culture and history with the broader community. It builds wider understanding of the intergenerational trauma experienced by Indigenous Australians. And it creates awareness of the relationship between past injustices and contemporary issues. “Truth-telling cannot be just a massacre narrative in which First Nations peoples are yet again dispossessed of agency and identity,” <a href="https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q6316/teaching-as-truth-telling-a-demythologising-pedagogy-for-the-australian-frontier-wars">argue</a> Indigenous educators Alison Bedford and Vince Wall. Indigenous agency and the long struggle for Indigenous rights need to be recognised. And there is an ongoing need to deconstruct Australia’s national foundational myths. A focus on military engagements overseas has obscured the violent dispossession of First Nations Australians at home. As Ann Curthoys argued more than two decades ago, white Australians positioned themselves as heroic strugglers to cement their moral claim to the land. This myth overlooked their role in dispossessing First Nations people. <h2>Makarrata Commission</h2> The Uluru Statement called for <a href="https://theconversation.com/response-to-referendum-council-report-suggests-a-narrow-path-forward-on-indigenous-constitutional-reform-80315">a Makarrata Commission</a> to be established to oversee “agreement-making” and “truth-telling” processes between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As part of its commitment to the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the current federal government committed $5.8 million in funding in 2022 to start the work of establishing the Commission. Yet few details have been provided so far about the form truth-telling mechanisms might adopt. And there’s been little acknowledgement that the desire to “tell the truth” about the past runs counter to the contemporary study of history, which sees history as a complex and ongoing process – rather than a set of fixed “facts” or “truths”. Worimi historian <a href="https://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/john-maynard">John Maynard</a> describes Aboriginal history research as generative: the work reinforces and sustains Aboriginal worlds – and it reflects a yearning for truth by Aboriginal people that was denied. The impact of colonisation not only targeted the fracturing of Aboriginal people but, as Maynard says, “a state of forgetting and detachment from our past”. Wiradjuri historian <a href="https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/bamblett-l">Lawrence Bamblett</a> develops a similar theme. “Our stories are our survival,” <a href="https://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=61SLQ_INST:SLQ&search_scope=Everything&tab=All&docid=alma9915551944702061&lang=en&context=L&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&query=sub,exact,Australia%20--%20Race%20relations%20--%20History,AND&mode=advanced&offset=10">he says</a>, in his account of Aboriginal approaches to history. Consider the dedicated labour to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/heidi-norman-bob-weatherall-weve-got-to-bring-them-home/13962068">return Ancestral Remains to their country</a>. Consider the the work of Aboriginal people to restore the graves of their family and community on the old missions. And the work to document sites, such as <a href="https://youtu.be/gTh2rV_VuwQ">Tulladunna cotton chipping Aboriginal camp</a>, on the plains country of north west New South Wales. Some of this dedicated labour to care for the past is made possible by the recognition of Aboriginal land rights. Aboriginal communities are documenting their history in order to communicate across generations – and to create belonging, sustain community futures and know themselves. These processes of documenting and remembering Aboriginal stories of the past are less concerned with the state, and settler hostility. They are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-dark-emu-debate-limits-representation-of-aboriginal-people-in-australia-163006">unburdened by categorising time</a>. The “old people” or “1788” appear irrelevant in the enthusiasm for living social and cultural history. That history is not confined to the “fixed in time” histories called upon in Native Title litigation, or the debates among historians and their detractors over method and evidence. Nor is it confined to the moral weight of such accounts in the national story. <h2>History and political questions</h2> When discussing Aboriginal history, there is an unbreakable link between the history being studied and the present. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)">Presentism</a> – the concern that the past is interpreted through the lens of the present – and the concept of the “activist historian” can both impact on the way Aboriginal history is perceived or judged. Disdain for “presentism” has leaked into contemporary discussions recently. A <a href="https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/september-2022/is-history-history-identity-politics-and-teleologies-of-the-present">widely criticised column</a> by the president of the American Historical Association – James Sweet, a historian of Africa and the African diaspora – is a recent example. He argued that the increasing tendency to interpret the past through the lens of the present, plummeting enrolments in undergraduate history courses and a greater focus on the 20th and 21st centuries all put history at risk of being mobilised “to justify rather than inform contemporary political positions”. These are not new debates. They have taken place within and outside the academy across the world, including in Australia. But the realities of the histories of <a href="https://theconversation.com/eliza-batman-the-irish-convict-reinvented-as-melbournes-founding-mother-was-both-colonised-and-coloniser-on-two-violent-frontiers-206189">colonisation</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/unpapering-the-cracks-sugar-slavery-and-the-sydney-morning-herald-202828">slavery</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/empire-of-delusion-the-sun-sets-on-british-imperial-credibility-89309">imperialism</a> mean they continue to have an impact in the present. Reparations and apologies happen because of the work of historians and others. They are real-world, present impacts of the work being undertaken. It’s the role of historians to understand the past on its own terms – and to produce work relevant to contemporary political questions. Applied (or public) history produces this work. In this work, particularly historical work that sits outside the academy, we do often find “truth telling”. For example, in the important work done for the <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/bringing-them-home-report-1997">Bringing them Home</a> Commission, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/indigenous-deaths-in-custody-inquests-can-be-sites-of-justice-or-administrative-violence-158126">Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission</a> and Native Title claims in courts. But somehow, these efforts at truth-telling – and other historical research conducted since colonisation – seem not to have impacted on the overall “history” of Australia. <h2>Forgetting and resistance</h2> As the referendum vote edges closer, Australians are being asked to make provisions for the First Peoples to have a role in the political process – and the decisions that impact them. The challenge to address the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-great-australian-silence-50-years-on-100737">Great Australian Silence</a>” – to include First Peoples in the stories of the nation, where they were otherwise omitted – has been largely addressed by the significant body of historical work added over the last 50 or more years. That work, and the correction it has delivered, has generated discomfort and hostility. Yet Australians’ appreciation – and even awareness – of the history of its First Nations people remains deeply unsatisfactory. There is now little justification for the laments Why weren’t we told? or How come we didn’t know?. Our undergraduate students continue to ask these questions, though. Australia has a difficult relationship – a kind of historical amnesia; a forgetting and resistance – to hearing those First Nations stories. That resistance is much deeper than simply being told. The current focus on truth-telling will once again draw our attention to dealing with difficult history. This time, different questions need to be asked. Not why didn’t I know? But how can I find out? <hr /> Heidi Norman and Anne Maree Payne will be presenting their research at the upcoming 50th Milestones Anniversary of the Australian Historical Association. Heidi will deliver the keynote address, <a href="https://web-eur.cvent.com/event/f99aac02-b195-46e5-b1d9-bf5183aea6fc/websitePage:150e8a3c-395b-4de3-bf2b-98ac8be5929e">The End of Aboriginal History?</a><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208780/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, Professor, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-maree-payne-440459">Anne Maree Payne</a>, Senior Lecturer, Centre for the Advancement of Indigenous Knowledges, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-didnt-we-know-is-no-excuse-non-indigenous-australians-must-listen-to-the-difficult-historical-truths-told-by-first-nations-people-208780">original article</a>.

Caring

1983 vs 2023: Truth of Australia’s housing crisis exposed

Australian filmmaker Jack Toohey has painted a bleak picture of the reality of the nation’s housing crisis, with four decades of comparison to back up his case. As Toohey himself proclaims in the caption to his video, the “market is broken”, and there’s far more to the story than older Aussies - many of whom believe earlier generations had it much harder in life - might expect. To begin, Toohey throws himself “back in time to 1983 to buy a house”, where he goes on to explain that he’s only “an average person looking to buy an average house”. According to Toohey, the average cost of a house in 1983 was $64,039, while the average annual income was $19,188, and an average university degree cost nothing. Average taxes and rents were $4,377 and $2,494, and the average disposable income for Aussies was $12,315. And for anyone who managed to save 50% of what was left of their income to put towards a mortgage, they could expect to have enough in their account within two years to put towards a 20% deposit. “Remember that as we head back to 2023,” Toohey said, “and I’m still an average person looking to buy an average house.” It was then that things took a turn for the worst, with Toohey sharing just how much things had changed over the course of 40 years. In comparison to 1983, Australians in 2023 could expect to have to fork out - on average - $920,100 for a home. And their savings were set to take a bigger hit, too, with the cost of a degree rising from the low price of “free” to an average HECS debt of $23,685, and wages at an annual average of $90,896. Taxes and rent had taken a hit, too, coming in at $20,008 and $28,600 - with the added problem of $5,453 HECS repayments. And the new average disposable income was $36,835, leaving hopeful Aussies with $18,417 after their repayments and taxes, and 10 whole years before they could even consider putting down a house deposit. <div><iframe title="tiktok embed" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Fembed%2Fv2%2F7240732571313638664&display_name=tiktok&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2F%40jack_toohey%2Fvideo%2F7240732571313638664&image=https%3A%2F%2Fp16-sign-sg.tiktokcdn.com%2Ftos-alisg-p-0037%2Fd8c1512dcd27459288fba5180051cbff_1685864431%7Etplv-dmt-logom%3Atos-alisg-i-0068%2F23958d0b68604bf7ba312a5dce455671.image%3Fx-expires%3D1686117600%26x-signature%3DJt8ZF65d8EGFALqjAbYSYOeu0Do%253D&key=59e3ae3acaa649a5a98672932445e203&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=tiktok" width="340" height="700" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div> As Toohey noted, it was no surprise that many were feeling the pressure, and that “clearly it’s not just lazy layabout young people sipping lattes, indulging, that’s the problem”. It would, he pointed out, take him 84 years to save up if he started skipping his one daily takeaway coffee. To simplify, he explained that the average house price had increased by 14 times in four decades, while the average yearly salary had only increased by 4.7 times - information he stressed had been drawn from both the ABS and ATO. “Houses used to cost three times your salary,” he said, “and now they cost 10 times.” Images: TikTok

Real Estate

A win for the press, a big loss for Ben Roberts-Smith: what does this judgment tell us about defamation law?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-rolph-118815">David Rolph</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> At the heart of the spectacular defamation trial brought by decorated Australian soldier Ben Roberts-Smith were two key questions. Had the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times damaged his reputation when they published in 2018 a series of explosive stories accusing him of murder and other crimes while in Afghanistan? And could the newspapers successfully defend their reporting as true? Today, in Sydney, Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko found the newspapers were indeed able to establish the “substantial truth” of key allegations around killing of unarmed Afghan male prisoners. An <a href="https://twitter.com/Kate_McClymont/status/1664130451869663232">appeal</a> may still be on the cards, but this is a high-profile loss for a very prominent person. The costs will be substantial. The usual rule is that the losing party pays their own costs and those of the winning party. So, even though people say defamation law in Australia has a reputation for favouring plaintiffs, this case shows even plaintiffs do sometimes lose defamation cases in Australia. More broadly, this case shows how hard it is to use defamation law to repair any perceived damage to your reputation. Once a case begins, you never can control what will be said in court. <h2>What was this case about?</h2> The case centred on several defamatory meanings (or, as they’re known in defamation law, “<a href="https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/ben-roberts-smith">imputations</a>”) that Roberts-Smith said the papers had made against him. Among these were that he’d <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/110-days-41-witnesses-and-15-key-questions-to-answer-what-the-ben-roberts-smith-case-was-about-20230209-p5cjdp.html">killed</a> unarmed Afghan male prisoners and ordered junior soldiers to execute others in Afghanistan between 2006 and 2012. Roberts-Smith denied wrongdoing, but the newspapers had pleaded a defence of truth. That means to win this case, they needed to prove the meanings conveyed by their reporting – even if those meanings were unintended – were true. Besanko, reading a summary judgment today, said the newspapers were able to establish the substantial truth of some of the most serious imputations in the case. For other imputations, Besanko found the newspapers were able to establish “contextual truth”. Substantial truth means what is sounds like – that the allegation published was, in substance, true. Defamation law does not require strict, complete or absolute accuracy. Minor or inconsequential errors of detail are irrelevant. What matters is: has the publisher established what they published was, in substance, true? Contextual truth is a fallback defence. The court has to weigh what has been found to be true against what has been found to be unproven. If the true statements about the plaintiff were worse than the unproven statements, then the plaintiff’s reputation was not overall damaged by the unproven statements, and the publisher has a complete defence. In other words, Besanko found most of the imputations to be true. And, when considered against those which were not proven to be true, the remaining unproven imputations did not damage Roberts-Smith’s reputation. <h2>What does this case tell us about defamation in Australia?</h2> The court heard several explosive claims during the course of this trial, including that evidence on USB sticks had been put into a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/13/court-hears-ben-roberts-smiths-ex-wife-dug-up-usb-sticks-from-family-backyard">lunchbox and buried</a> in a backyard and that Roberts-Smith had allegedly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/13/woman-who-says-ben-roberts-smith-punched-her-sustained-an-injury-in-a-fall-earlier-on-same-night-defamation-trial-hears">punched a woman</a> in their hotel room. Roberts-Smith said he didn’t bury the USBs or withhold information from a war crimes inquiry and denied that he had punched the woman. But the fact this widely scrutinised case yielded such astonishing testimony, day in and day out, shows how risky it is to use defamation law to restore perceived injury to one’s reputation. Defamation law is seeking to correct people’s views about the plaintiff. But it’s open to doubt that defamation law is actually any good at securing its own stated purpose of changing people’s minds about the plaintiff. The problem is the law is a very blunt instrument. It’s very hard to get people to change their minds about what they think of you. All litigation involves risk and defamation trials are even riskier. You never can control what can come out in court, as this litigation demonstrates so clearly. Roberts-Smith has sued to protect his reputation, but in doing so, a range of adverse things have been said in court. And whatever is said in court is covered by the defence of absolute privilege; you can’t sue for defamation for anything said in court that is reported accurately and fairly. <h2>The 2021 defamation law reforms</h2> The law that applies in the Roberts-Smith case is the defamation law we had before major reforms introduced in July 2021 across most of Australia. These reforms introduced a new defence known as the public interest defence. To use this defence, a publisher has to demonstrate that they reasonably believed the matter covered in their published material is in the public interest. As this defence didn’t exist prior to 2021, the publishers in the Roberts-Smith case used the defence of truth. If a case like this were litigated today following these reforms, it is highly likely the publisher would use the new public interest defence. Given the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lachlan-murdoch-could-well-have-won-his-crikey-lawsuit-so-why-did-he-drop-it-204279">Murdoch versus Crikey</a> case was settled, we may yet wait some time to see what’s required to satisfy the public interest test in a defamation case. But as today’s decision demonstrates, sometimes the truth alone will prevail.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206759/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-rolph-118815">David Rolph</a>, Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-win-for-the-press-a-big-loss-for-ben-roberts-smith-what-does-this-judgment-tell-us-about-defamation-law-206759">original article</a>. Images: Getty

Legal

With so many people speaking ‘their truth’, how do we know what the truth really is?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeremy-wyatt-1429400">Jeremy Wyatt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joseph-ulatowski-1439138">Joseph Ulatowski</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</a> When Academy Awards boss Bill Kramer recently <a href="https://nz.news.yahoo.com/oscars-boss-bill-kramer-applauds-150147102.html">applauded comedian Chris Rock</a> for speaking “his truth” about being slapped by Will Smith at the 2022 Oscars ceremony, he used a turn of phrase that is fast becoming a part of everyday speech around the world. Take <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/06/harry-meghan-oprah-interview">Oprah Winfrey’s interview</a> with Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle, for example. Oprah asked, “How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today?” Or consider Samantha Imrie, a juror in the civil lawsuit over Gwyneth Paltrow’s role in a 2016 ski accident with Terry Sanderson. Asked about Sanderson’s testimony, <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/gwyneth-paltrow-utah-ski-collision-trial-juror-samantha-imrie-reveals-why-actress-won/AV5O32FOYZAXTD4DY6ECWUCCQY/">Imrie replied</a>, “He was telling his truth […] I do think he did not intend to tell a truth that wasn’t his truth.” But what does it mean for someone to speak “their truth”? Perhaps it’s time to reconsider how we use this expression, given it can be easily misinterpreted as endorsing a problematic view of what it takes for a claim to be true. <h2>Truth relativism</h2> On its face, speaking about “my truth” or “your truth” suggests that <a href="https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-think-about-truth-in-a-philosophically-informed-way">truth is relative</a> to an individual. Philosophers call this view “truth relativism”. It says that when someone makes a claim, that claim is made true or false by what they believe or how they feel, rather than by the way the world actually is. A problem with relativism is that it seems to leave reasoned debate without any clear goal. Suppose, for example, we are discussing whether the New Zealand government’s <a href="https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme">Three Waters Reform Programme</a> will “maintain and improve the water service infrastructure”. Presumably our goal is to determine whether it’s true that the reform will maintain and improve the water service infrastructure. However, if there is no truth to identify here – only “your truth” and “my truth” – then it isn’t clear why we should have this discussion at all. What’s the alternative to truth relativism, then? To reject relativism is to grant that at least some of our claims are true or false because the world – which exists independently of our minds, languages and cultures – is a particular way. For instance, because lemons are more acidic than milk chocolate, the claim that lemons are more acidic than milk chocolate is true, and the claim that milk chocolate is more acidic than lemons is false. Likewise, since <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-vaccine-opponents-think-they-know-more-than-medical-experts-99278">vaccines don’t cause autism</a>, the claim that vaccines cause autism is false, and the claim they don’t cause autism is true. <h2>Truth and respect</h2> You can stick with this straightforward view about truth and still recognise that everyone deserves to be heard and respected. As John Stuart Mill <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#LibeFreeSpee">pointed out in his book</a> On Liberty (1859), if we fail to consider a wide range of perspectives, even those views that may ultimately turn out to be false, it is more likely we will be unable to discover important truths about the world. This means that valuing truth should actually encourage you to engage with points of view that differ from yours. It’s also worth noting that, in some cases, people who claim to speak “their truth” may not actually be endorsing relativism. This might be said of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3pJBurhbZM">announcement</a> by Meka Whaitiri that she intended to join Te Pāti Māori. Offering a heartfelt explanation of her reasons for the decision, she concluded by directly addressing her Ikaroa-Rāwhiti constituents: “I have spoken my truth.” But she also explained: "The point here, whanau, is Māori political activism. It’s part of being Māori. It comes from our whakapapa. And we as Māori have a responsibility to it. Not others — we. Today, I’m acknowledging that whakapapa. I’m acknowledging my responsibility to it, and it’s calling me home." This suggests that in speaking “her truth”, Whaitiri was in fact outlining her reasons for joining Te Pāti Māori. Her main objective was to underscore the significance of whakapapa, rather than to defend truth relativism. Whaitiri’s reasons are certainly strong ones, though framing them in terms of “my truth” could lead others to misinterpret them. Moreover, if Pākehā responded to Whaitiri by saying “this is her truth, not our truth”, then we would be back again with the problem of relativism. We need to value people’s unique identities, experiences and reasons for doing things, and we also need to value truth. Truth is a central goal of reasoned debate, and that’s something we will certainly need when addressing the many pressing issues currently facing Aotearoa New Zealand and the world.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205388/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeremy-wyatt-1429400">Jeremy Wyatt</a>, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joseph-ulatowski-1439138">Joseph Ulatowski</a>, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-so-many-people-speaking-their-truth-how-do-we-know-what-the-truth-really-is-205388">original article</a>.

Caring

Unlocking the Silver Revolution: The Truth About Grey Hair and the Empowering Journey to Embrace the Grey

In a recent poll by midlife connection organisation, Connected Women reveals that two-thirds of women over the age of 50 haven’t embraced their grey hair (67%). With hair starting to go grey in our 30s and 40s, that’s a long time to hide those pesky greys! What causes grey hair? According to Harvard Health, hair doesn’t ‘turn’ grey. Once a strand of hair is a particular colour, it will stay that way unless it is dyed. After the age of 35, hair follicles produce less colour, so when that strand of hair falls out it will be more likely to grow back grey. Can stress cause grey hair? There is very little evidence to indicate that this is true, however, research shows that in mice, in response to a fight or flight situation, hair follicles are impacted and the pigmentation-producing stem cells can be lost. Without stem cells available to produce pigment cells, the hair will go grey. So, can we now legitimately blame our grey hairs on our kids, or our husbands. What happens when you pluck your grey hairs out? Don’t do it! Not only will it simply grow back grey, but according to Trey Gillen, hairstylist and creative director of education at SACHAJUAN, doing so can also traumatise the follicles which could mean NO hair grows back. When is the right time to go grey? This is something that only you can decide. If your hair is dark brown or black, your greys will be more noticeable, so you’ll need to have regular (two to four weekly) trips to the hairdresser to cover them up. At some point you will most likely grow weary of trying to stem the tide and it will be time to just embrace the grey. You will know when you’ve had enough! If you have lighter hair, then your greys will be much less noticeable. Lighter hair gives you a much longer window between coloring appointments in the initial stages of going grey, and later you can use the greys as ‘herringbone highlights’ as per Sarah Jessica Parker’s beautiful mane, which is wonderful way to gracefully embrace going grey. <img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2023/05/Phoebe-headshot-EDITED.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /> <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bolder; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;">Phoebe Adams is the founder of Connected Women, an organisation providing a community for women over 50 to connect with each other and build meaningful friendships. With a rapidly growing community in Perth, Sydney, Wollongong, and Melbourne, Connected Women provides a safe and welcoming space for women to come together and share experiences. To learn more about the organisation and how you can get involved, visit <a style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #258440; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out 0s;" href="https://www.connectedwomen.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">connectedwomen.net</a>. <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bolder; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;">Image credits: Getty Images

Beauty & Style

The truth about cruise ship crew bars exposed

Everyone who has been on a cruise ship has a favourite spot onboard, and for many, that place is the bar. Whether they’re in search of a refreshing lemonade or an extravagant cocktail concoction, there’s a lot to take in, with no few liners opting to deck their bars out in all the glitz and glamour they have to offer. Celebrity Cruises, for example, have recently collaborated with designer Nate Berkus for their new Sunset Bar, and two separate spaces reserved for the ship’s crew. For years avid cruise goers have wondered what goes on in these forbidden realms, and now, thanks to David Smiedt’s vast onboard experiences, curious souls can put their questions to rest - though the answers may not be quite as exciting, or things quite as dramatic, as they’d hoped. As he explained for Escape, it isn’t - under any circumstances - possible for passengers to hop back into the crew bars for a look around, and especially not for a drink. And contrary to popular belief, they aren’t particularly lavishly decorated, so there isn’t much to see back there anyway. Typically, David said, they are “furnished in stuff from the cruise boat deemed a bit too out of fashion for modern paying guests. “As a result, the aesthetic is a bit of a hodge podge with mismatched couches, chairs and - oftentimes - a video jukebox.” But rest assured, despite the lacklustre decor, the crew make sure there’s room for a well-loved dance floor. And forget finding a four-course meal hidden away in there, as “unless you’ve made previous arrangements with the mess for a special occasion like a birthday, there ain’t a lot to eat.” Employees can secure themselves a drink though, at a “heavily subsidised” rate no less. “It would hardly be fair to begrudge your hard working crew a drink at the end of the day,” David pointed out. “It would be even more unfair to charge them the same as the passengers who make cruising the profitable venture it is.” And while things can be a little on the quiet side during the day, the crew find their own ways to entertain themselves - with a large portion of them turning to FIFA in their downtime. “The competition is intense and the skill level [is] off the charts,” David noted. “The matches are seriously some of the best entertainment on board.” It’s a whole new world - or ocean - at nighttime, however. As David explained, anyone who’s been out on the open ocean on the cruise of a lifetime will have “noticed that the crew tends to divide into two main categories”. “The first is those who have been on the sea for decades and are often sending money home for families,” he said. “They are often a bit older and fiercely disciplined about maintaining their budget. “The second are the freshly scrubbed young folk in their 20s who are living a life of adventure on the ocean. Not long out of home, they work and play hard. And so they should.” David assured that they have their fun - within reason and regulation - but that, at the end of the day, it’s still a crew-only affair. Or as David put it, “once again, sorry, you're not allowed.” Images: Getty

Cruising

Awkward truth behind the "Kate shuffle"

While royal visits are usually the picture of poise and control, it turns out not even the royals are immune to the occasional awkward encounter. A video clip of Kate Middleton's meeting with Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has gone viral, with one eagle-eyed royal fan pointing out the Princess of Wales' awkward body language. The royal women met at Copenhagen's Christian IX's Palace in February 2022, with the clip of their photo opportunity appearing to show Kate shuffling her way closer to Margrethe. From the looks of it, Kate was trying her best to get closer to Margrethe for the photocall without calling too much attention to herself. The creator of the TikTok, a user named The Royal Watcher, dubbed her move the "princess shuffle" in a caption overlaying the clip. <div class="embed" style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; outline: none !important;"><iframe class="embedly-embed" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 610px; max-width: 100%; outline: none !important;" title="tiktok embed" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Fembed%2Fv2%2F7224879027796856069&display_name=tiktok&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2F%40l0velycatherine%2Fvideo%2F7224879027796856069%3Fq%3Dprincess%2520shuffle%2520kate%26t%3D1682646320804&image=https%3A%2F%2Fp16-sign-va.tiktokcdn.com%2Fobj%2Ftos-maliva-p-0068%2F6b111c9a9e324bb080e1019c0b462902_1682173251%3Fx-expires%3D1682665200%26x-signature%3DXThPcF0FgDOfxoNwZLSE0qcVYfo%253D&key=59e3ae3acaa649a5a98672932445e203&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=tiktok" width="340" height="700" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div> However, according to royal fan and commentator Amanda Matta, Kate's shuffle may have shown a crack in her usually collected public appearance. "I can honestly say that I haven't seen Kate do this move before. To me, it demonstrates the high level of consideration (to the point of overthinking) that she puts into her appearances. On that photocall with Queen Margarethe and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, she seemed slightly nervous," Matta said. "While a bolder move would have been to simply take a step to the right, Kate instead chose to try to make the shift towards the Queen as surreptitious as possible," she added. "She was able to keep her eyes on the camera at all times as a result." "Normally I don't like so-called 'body-language analysis,' but the signals that Kate may have been feeling a bit daunted by the Queen's presence were overwhelming on this day! And who wouldn't be?" Matta added. Image credits: Getty Images

Beauty & Style

“I went through hell and back”: Jelena Dokic reveals tragic truth behind old photo

Former tennis star Jelena Dokic has revealed the tragic truth behind her physical transformation. Dokic shared an old photo on Instagram of herself during the peak of her tennis career next to a current photo, revealing the extent of the abuse she suffered at the hands of her father. “What is the most common comment I see when it comes to my body, size and weight? ‘What happened to her? I can barely recognise her’,” Dokic started in the caption. “Really? What happened? You can’t recognise me? Let me tell you what happened. “I survived being a refugee twice, I was bullied, I lived in a domestic violence filled home for 15 years and I was beaten unconscious, I was abused physically and emotionally and got beaten for the first time when I was six years, I was called a whore and a cow since I was as young as 11. I had to escape home, I battled anxiety, depression, PTSD and trauma and I almost committed suicide,” she shared. The 39-year-old has always been open about her struggles with depression, online abuse, body shaming, and the family violence she suffered throughout her career. In the photo, Dokic has a visible bruise on her leg, and added that despite everything she’s been through and achieved, the most important thing to her was that she survived. “I still managed to do pretty well, I managed to be top five in the world as a tennis player and a grand slam finalist, I am a best-selling author, commentator and speaker but most importantly I survived”. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CrLAQi8pKo0/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CrLAQi8pKo0/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by JELENA DOKIC 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺 (@dokic_jelena)</a> </div> </blockquote> She slammed body shamers who only saw “weight and size change” by sharing that she is much happier being a size 16 compared to a size 4. “I will tell you the difference between these two images. The one on the left is a size four, scared to death, beaten unconscious and that bulge on my shins is from being kicked all night,” she wrote. “The one on the right is me at size 16, I have survived it all and I am here healing from my trauma and thriving. “I will take the size 16 over the size 4 any day if it means I am happy. “If it means I turned to food to try and survive, then so be it. But I am here, I am happy and most importantly I made it through. “So, there is the answer, once and for all. I went through hell and back and I survived and today I try to help others. That’s what happened. And for those that still don’t get the point, well that says everything about you,” Dokic concluded in her post. Many have shared their support for Dokic and her courage to tell her story. “You’re so inspiring Jelena 👏🙌 Keep up the great work!!” commented one follower. “You don’t need to justify anything to anyone. Most of us know a warrior when we see one. I’m so glad you’ve made it through and continue to stand up for yourself time and time again ❤️” wrote another. “Thank you, Jelena 💙 We are all worth so much more than our bodies 🦋” chimed a third. Images: Getty, Instagram

Body

The truth about ‘illegal’ car snacks revealed

Be it a long haul trip between towns, a coastal getaway, or an early morning Saturday sports run to the local oval, drivers all across Australia have found themselves steering to the drive-through or reaching in the Esky for a much-needed snack. And while rumours have swirled for years that such an act could put hungry drivers behind bars, they don’t have to fear any longer. Road rules may differ from state to state, but at the end of the drive, the answer remains the same: it isn’t illegal to eat while driving in Australia. There are, of course, various conditions that come along with the ruling, and most circle back to whether or not a driver is in complete control over their vehicle at the time of snacking. For example, in New South Wales, if you are found to have lost control of your vehicle due to eating, police officers have the power to impose a fine of $481 and three demerit points. In Victoria, there is no specific rule that prevents drivers from digging in on their drive. However, they can still receive a careless driving charge if eating is found to have a negative impact on either their concentration or their control over their vehicle. This charge comes with a penalty of $444 and - like New South Wales - three demerit points, as well as a maximum of 12 court penalty units if the driver is found guilty by a magistrate. The state of Queensland follows suit - it isn’t illegal there either, though “distracted driving” remains a real threat, with research even determining that eating can be just as dangerous as texting while behind the wheel. And drivers found to be travelling without control over their vehicles can face a fine of up to $575. While this is larger than either New South Wales or Victoria’s financial penalty, the demerit point cost remains the same at three. As a spokesperson for Queensland Transport and Main Roads told Drive, “a driver must always have proper control of their vehicle and drive with care and attention for the safety of other road users. "While there are no specific laws prohibiting a driver from eating while driving, it is up to the driver to ensure they remain in proper control of their vehicle and sufficiently alert to the road environment." And for drivers in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, Western Australia, and South Australia, Drive have reported that the message essentially remains the same. While there are no rules that specifically prohibit behind-the-wheel snacking, a driver can - and will - face penalties if they are found to be demonstrating poor control of their vehicle. Images: Getty

Travel Trouble

The truth about video games in aged care homes

Video games sound like a great way to bring senior community homes together, but are they really? A recent study decided to test this theory, based on past studies that have found positive effects as a result of introducing video games into senior homes. Dr. Kathrin Gerling led the project with Dr Regan Mandryk and Dr Conor Linehan. The study implemented a weekly gaming session in two care facilities over a three-month period of time. The games introduced included motion-based games like those of Nintendo Wii and Xbox 360. According to Dr. Gerling, "We were interested in the potential of games to engage older adults in long-term care in group activities. We looked at how people approached video games, to see if they stuck with it and found it enjoyable, and also to find out if this stimulated group activities and resulted in friendships.” The senior users caught on quickly, as Gerling expanded: “Players at the senior residence quickly understood how the games worked and it became an actual group activity. People formed relationships, took more ownership and adapted games to fit in with how they wanted to play.” Still, the experiment brought forth the reality of difficulties the games presented: “We found it more difficult to bring people together at the care home, mostly because of different age-related impairments. In some cases, players needed a lot of support from staff, and depended on them being able to attend gaming sessions." Gerling proposed that while the games benefited some seniors, others may have found more negative results: "You always have a split of people who like playing video games and those who don't, no matter what age. But older people learning to play new games in public may feel particularly uncomfortable if they are experiencing vulnerability over their age-related changes and impairments. Some older adults require extensive support, both to gain access to gaming sessions and throughout play.” Gerling outlined the necessary means for all community members to receive benefit from playing video games: "We need to make sure that video games created for older adults in long-term care are adaptive – there's a fine line between challenging people and giving them something meaningful to accomplish, as opposed to doing harm. To be successful games need to engage players of all abilities and be tailored towards specific groups. It's really important to be mindful of the context in which games will be played and be understanding of the individual abilities of the player. This is particularly important when evaluating the value of games for improving the quality of life, and when creating games with a purpose beyond entertainment, such as therapy and rehabilitation." Related links: <a href="../health/wellbeing/2015/08/start-exercising-when-youre-older/">Start exercising at any age</a> <a href="../health/wellbeing/2015/07/dementia-phone-screening/">Would you consider being screened for dementia over the phone?</a> <a href="../health/wellbeing/2015/07/top-health-worries-of-60-year-olds/">Top 10 health worries when you’re 60-plus (and how to beat them)</a> Image credit: Shutterstock

Mind

The truth about the effects of stress on the mind and body

Worried. Anxious. Disheartened. Busy. If any of these are familiar to you, it’s likely you are also familiar with stress. By now it’s no secret that stress does more harm than good. Work/retirement, family life, finances, personal and societal pressures... there are a million reasons why we all get frazzled, and they all can take a toll. In an effort to better understand how this unease can affect our mind and body, Popular Science magazine took a closer look at the science behind worrying in this month’s issue. Here we’ve rounded up the key learnings and statistics about how stress can shape our lives – and what to do about it. Stress runs deep Unfortunately the emotions associated with stress don’t just affect us on the outside. Stress can actually influence us on a <a href="http://www.popsci.com/chronic-stress-it-could-be-killing-you" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cellular level and even mess with our biological systems</a>. Amy Cuddy, a Harvard University social psychologist, explains it like this: “Our bodies change our minds, and our minds can change our behavior, and our behavior can change outcomes." Cortisol, also known as the stress hormone, <a href="http://www.popsci.com/chronic-stress-it-could-be-killing-you" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can negatively affect our cardiovascular system, cells, metabolic system, nervous system and digestive system</a>. Chronic worry may also increase our risk for heart attack, contribute to irritable bowl syndrome or could lead to changes in the brain. It’s a matter of the mind, too <a href="http://www.popsci.com/chronic-stress-it-could-be-killing-you" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to Popular Science magazine, </a>30 percent of US adults say stress affects their physical health and 33 percent say it has an impact on their mental health. To lighten the heavy mental load, aim to have a good laugh – and often! Research shows a little giggle <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/stress-management/in-depth/stress-relief/art-20044456" target="_blank" rel="noopener">releases endorphins from the brain and can improve your mood</a>. It can be sleep saboteur Coritsol tends to follow its own natural rhythm, spiking in the morning and then again overnight. This can be a particularly problematic for those who have stress-related mental health disorders. According to the National Institutes of Health, people with depression have abnormally high levels of cortisol in the body, which may negatively impact body cycles – including sleep, Popular Science magazine reported. Don’t worry, you’re not alone A <a href="http://www.popsci.com/whos-most-high-strung-data-visualization" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University</a> found that our stress levels have steadily increased over the years – but the good news is, our worry tends to decrease with age. Financial concerns are also a major influence on how stressed we feel. Tips for managing stress These statistics may sound gloomy, but there is a bright side: Managing these emotions is entirely in our control. In fact, easing your stress may be as simple as tweaking your perspective. Columbia University researchers found that those who sat in expansive positions with their arms and legs spread out for two minutes saw lower levels of the stress hormone than those in more tighter poses, <a href="http://www.popsci.com/strategies-battling-stress" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to Popular Science</a>. You may also want to ensure you add some regular exercise, meditation and socialising to your schedule. Research shows that these activities can also help ease tension. Acute stress is one thing, but chronic worrying could be a sign of bigger health issues, so if you’re feeling overwhelmed you should speak to your doctor. Related links: <a href="../health/wellbeing/2015/03/qualities-of-happy-people/">The 4 qualities of happy people</a> <a href="../health/wellbeing/2014/12/what-to-do-when-you-feel-stuck/">How to reboot when you’re feeling stuck</a> <a href="../health/wellbeing/2014/10/yoga-–-the-perfect-exercise-for-over-60s/">Yoga – the perfect exercise for over-60s</a> Image credit: Shutterstock

Mind

"I didn't want to do this": The truth behind Erin Molan’s surprise solo wedding

TV and radio presenter Erin Molan has made her way down the aisle in lavish style to marry herself. Escorted by her four-year-old daughter, Erin took the plunge as part of a radio event for her 2DAY FM show Hughesy, Ed and Erin. And although Erin was the most highly publicised bride present, she wasn’t the only one to vow forever to herself, with a whole host of other solo brides 'marrying’ right alongside her. And although Erin was all smiles on the day - and in every picture to come out of the event - she hadn’t always been so thrilled about the whole spectacle. Sharing a video of her ‘wedding day’ to social media, Erin used her caption to explain the heartache that had been weighing on her, and how her young daughter’s enthusiasm helped her put her best foot forward. “I’m going to be completely honest… I didn’t want to do this… at all,” she wrote. “We came up with this concept late last year because so many of our listeners were single mums/unmarried/unlucky in love/unhappy in their relationships and we just thought WHY wait until you’ve met the one… just marry yourself.” Erin went on to explain that she’d never believed in “self love and all of that” before, and she “didn’t know what was to come when I agreed… and then we lost dad… and one of the million things that broke my heart about that was the realisation that he’d never be able to walk me down the aisle… “I’ve never dreamt of a wedding and it’s never really been that important to me… but the thought of even doing it for a radio segment, without him, made me feel sick… and I nearly pulled out so many times. “I didn’t want to be emotional and ruin it for all the beautiful and excited listeners who were doing the same thing and are so far ahead of me in realising that the greatest love of all has to be the love you have for yourself.” She admitted to feeling “a bit embarrassed”, as she had never expected to be a 39-year-old single mum. “It was actually my 4 year old who got me over the line,” she noted. “I told her about it and she was more excited than I’ve ever seen her… and that helped me immensely. “I actually had a ball, [and I] am so grateful for my radio family and the beautiful listeners who inspire me every single morning. I love you all”. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CqU4YEbJTXZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CqU4YEbJTXZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Erin Molan (@erin_molan)</a> </div> </blockquote> And as with celebration of love, Erin’s friends and fans wanted to join in, stopping by her comment’s section to share their support for her bold move. “Very moving. Your honesty is beautiful,” wrote fellow TV presenter Kate Langbroek. “Wow….this has me thinking….Axel would love this…,” shared Michelle Bridges. And one fan had only the most heartfelt intentions when they told her, “you didn’t need your dad to walk you down the aisle to be proud of you. You gave him thousands of reasons to be proud without that. And your love for one another is so strong that should you ever decide to marry you’ll know he is right there beside you.” Images: Instagram

Beauty & Style

Karl’s daughter reveals heartbreaking truth of parents' divorce

Karl Stefanovic’s daughter, Willow, has opened up about her parents’ divorce and the state of their non-existent relationship since. Willow - whose full name is Ava Willow - is the eldest of three children shared between Karl and ex-wife, Cassandra Thorburn. Willow is 18, while her brothers Jackson and River are 23 and 16 respectively. Karl also has a daughter with his new wife, two-year-old Harper. While Karl and Cassandra split in 2016 and divorced in 2017 after a 21 year marriage, it seems the situation between them remains tense, with Willow telling Woman’s Day that the pair haven’t so much as been in the same room as each other for years. Her hope, however, is that they might overcome any lingering resentment towards each other and make space for a new, positive family dynamic in the future. She’d like to have them both there when she walks down the aisle, or to celebrate her 21st with her. “That’s something I’ve always wanted,” Willow admitted, “to bring them together for special occasions, but I’ve had to distance myself from it because it’s not my issue. “It’s their business if they choose not to be friendly. Of course, I wish it wasn’t like this, but I won’t be forcing them. “I hope one day we can all be together again.” Of the experience of witnessing the marriage breakdown, and the consequent divorce, Willow was open, sharing that although it had been seven years and that she was only 11 at the time, “like a lot of modern families who’ve experienced a break-up, it’s been tough. “But in my mindset now I believe that everything has happened for a reason, and this result is the best for everyone.” She went on to share that her mum, Cassandra, “has never been happier” and enjoying her new chapter in life as a dental nurse and receptionist. And she only had love and praise in her heart for her brothers, describing them as “good people with beautiful hearts” Willow went on to share her belief that if their upbringing had been any different, and had their parents remained together, “the outcome might not have been good for everyone, so thankfully those earlier struggles have made us all stronger than ever." And when it came to the somewhat-new additions to Karl’s side of their family, Willow was all positivity again, telling Woman’s Day that Harper is “the best little sister.” “Jasmine is like my second mum,” she added, “and has become more like a friend to me … and for the record, Jasmine is much stricter than Dad! When I stay with them, and when it comes to curfews, I dare not be late - she often gets up in the middle of the night to make sure I'm home safe and tucked in." Images: Getty

Family & Pets

The truth about house swaps

Swapping your humble home on a quiet street for a house that’s a stone’s throw from Regent’s Park in London’s prestigious north. It’s a romantic notion isn’t? As house swaps become more popular, it appears not everyone is sold on the concept. For some, the idea of house swapping has raised questions about security and safety. Over60 sat down with Nick Faud, the founder of Aussie House Swap Australia, to find out the truth about house swapping. What are the common misconceptions about house swaps? Some homeowners worry about having someone in their home. The key to house swapping is that this is a mutual agreement between two parties as you are staying in each other’s homes. Swappers treat their each other’s home with care and respect, knowing that they’re in their home and this is what they would expect from them. Also some people worry about their insurance. In fact, you'll find most insurance companies prefer that there is going to be someone in the home rather than leaving it empty and vulnerable. Check with your insurance company and inform them that you have someone looking after your home while you are away. What measures are in place to ensure the safety of the houses? House swap holidays are a mutual agreement based on trust. Both members are in each other’s homes and so they treat them as well as they would their own. Having someone in your home while you are in theirs ensures a level of trust and respect from house swappers. Many swappers will have a lockable cupboard in their home where they can store any valuables away while the swap partner is staying in their home. This can also include personal items or photos that you do not feel comfortable leaving out for others to look at. The more open communication you have before commencing the swap, the better your swap holiday will be. If there are any rooms you don’t want your swappers to go in, you can make this clear at the outset and they will respect this. Be open about any concerns at the beginning and address them so they will not come up during the swap and become an issue. Do swappers ever maintain contact after a swap? Many swap members will swap again with a swap partner if they like the house and area. They can almost become each other’s holiday homes! We have heard of many swappers who go on to find that they have a lot in common and become friends. Some even holiday together at times. The house swap community is a great group of people. To be open to the idea of letting someone stay in your home while you holiday in theirs, is an open and trusting attitude so many swappers make positive and lasting friendships in the swap community. What are the rules around pets? Some swappers think they cannot swap if they have pets. This is not the case. Many house swap members love to spend some time taking care of their swap partner’s animal. As long as it’s not a big commitment then most swappers are happy to swap house with someone who has a family pet. If you have a treasured canine friend who you travel with, then this is usually also fine as many swappers are happy for you to bring your own pet with you. You just need to check at the beginning that the swap partner is happy for this, and if so, whether the animal is allowed inside or has to stay outside. Some homes are not set up for animals so in this case you cannot bring your pet with you, however, there are many pet-friendly swappers out there. How long on average do people swap houses for? People swap their houses for all different lengths of time. Some will swap of a weekend, a week, a month, a few months or even a year! Swappers travelling closer to home may want to swap only for a short length of time, but those who are travelling further away may want to swap houses for a longer time. Image: @aussiehouseswap (Instagram)

Real Estate

The truth to long-lasting relationships

Scientists have made a discovery in the field of love. After years of research or what those in happy marriages already know, the secret to a successful relationship relies on two important traits: kindness and generosity. In a world where only three out of ten marriages turn out to be happily ever after, with the majority ending in bitterness or divorce, psychologist John Gottman wanted to find out what makes a relationship work, scientifically. Gottman, who runs The Gottman Institute which helps couples maintain healthy relationships, has been studying relationships since the 1970s. In the past 40 years, he has observed thousands of couples interact and even hooked them up to machines to measure their bodily responses to each other and followed up in six years. Gottman found couples could be split into two groups – the “masters”, those who were still happy and the “disasters” those whose relationships had broken down. While the “disasters” seemed calm during interviews, they had elevated heart rates and more active sweat glands than the “masters.” What does this have to do with love? Well, Gottman found that the “disasters” were constantly in a state of “fight or flight” even when talking pleasantries with their spouse, they were essentially ready to attack or be attacked. Gottman wanted to know more though. In another study, he observed 130 newlyweds and found happier couples would make requests for connection. These “bids” for each other’s attention could be a minor statement such as, “Isn’t the weather great today?” but the partners who responded in support and interest ended up in happy lasting relationships. Gottman found divorced couples rarely respond or responded minimally (such as a head nod) to the bids. These quests for intimacy have profound effects on marriages with these traits of kindness and generosity leaving both people in the relationship feeling cared for, understood and validated. If kindness and generosity are the secrets to success, the opposite can tear a relationship apart. Gottman found contempt was the number one cause in the destruction of marriages. Not only did couples who criticise each other miss half of the positive aspects of their partner and relationships but saw negativity when it wasn’t there. Gottman explains, “there’s a habit of mind that the masters have which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.” It’s relationship advice to keep in mind as Gottman and his scientist have a 94% success rate in determining whether a couple will last the distance or not. So how does this science translate to the real world? Simple. Kindness and generosity need to be practised just like a relationship needs nurturing and work for it to flourish and grow. Image: Shutterstock

Relationships

Scientist shares the confronting truth about using sunscreen

A pharmaceutical scientist has shared the confronting truth about what happens to your skin over time if you don’t apply sunscreen past the face. Hannah English shared the eye-opening reality of a 92-year-old woman with serious sun damage on her neck after she used UV protective moisturisers exclusively on her face for 40 years. The photographs of the elderly woman show her neck noticeably covered in wrinkles, sunspots and discoloration, while her face appeared flawless with hardly any damage. Hannah shared the photos as a warning to start wearing SPF everywhere that is exposed to the sun, including the easy-to-miss neck area. “It’s not too late to start wearing SPF daily,” Hannah said on Instagram. “Don’t forget your neck and chest. And probably hands.” “This is a real photo of a real person who used sunscreen on the face but not the neck for 40 years or more,” Hannah went on. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CiMkSYuvG4X/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CiMkSYuvG4X/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Hannah English (@ms_hannah_e)</a> </div> </blockquote> “Do you see the difference?” Hannah said she believed the woman only started applying sunscreen on her face 40 years ago. “She was in her 50s so there’s plenty of time for you to start wearing sunscreen every day,” she said. Doctor Avi Bitterman, a dermatologist from New York, originally shared the photograph on social media to show the consequences of not using sunscreen on the commonly-neglected area. “Cheek and neck of a 92-year-old female, who used UV-protective moisturisers on her face but not on the neck for more than 40 years,” Dr Bitterman said on Twitter. The picture was published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology to show the benefits of daily thorough UV protection. Image credits: Instagram

Beauty & Style

The truth about computers and your eyesight

Do you ever find that at the end of the day your eyes are bloodshot, dry or fuzzy? It could be because you are your addicted to you digital devices. Here’s what you need to know. An increasing reliance on technology including laptops, tablets, smart phones and so on has given rise to a new health condition called computer vision syndrome (or CVS), which is effecting many Australians of all ages. Including a number of eye and vision-related problems, CVS is a result of prolonged use of digital devices. While they’re not thought to be permanent, symptoms of CVS are generally unpleasant and can cause some discomfort. Furthermore, CVS is also thought to be having an impact on the incidence of myopia (short-sightedness) with a study conducted by the National Eye Institute in the USA reporting the prevalence of near-sightedness increasing by around 66 per cent over the past 30 years in America. Whether for work or pleasure, the dramatic rise in ownership of smartphones and tablets coupled with modern day trends that involve doing more and more things from these devices (paying bills, shopping, research), is causing our eye muscles to work harder and for longer periods. There are ways to can prevent or at least limit any problems created by a digital device obsession. Keep an eye out for… You’ve probably experienced at least one of the common symptoms of computer vision syndrome which include: <ul> <li>Eyestrain</li> <li>Headaches</li> <li>Blurred vision</li> <li>Dry eyes</li> <li>Neck and shoulder pain</li> </ul> These symptoms may be caused by other factors such as uncorrected vision needs, glare, poor lighting, improper posture, etc. You should always consult an eye care professional who will be able to diagnose computer vision syndrome through an eye exam. What you can do to save your sight… With these simple practices, you can reduce, or even prevent the effects of computer vision syndrome: <ul> <li>Make sure the lighting in the room is comfortable on the eyes, and prevents you from staring into glare on the computer screen</li> <li>Position the computer screen so that your head is in a naturally comfortable position while working</li> <li>Take breaks. A few minutes away from the computer can go a long way when it comes to your eyes. Think of it similarly to the way you take stretch breaks for your arms and back.</li> <li>Make sure your seat is comfortable. A comfortable chair with support for your neck and back will help you avoid neck and shoulder strain commonly associated with computer vision syndrome.</li> </ul> Image: Getty

Body

The truth behind the healing power of music

If you’ve suffered anything from a bad day to a devastating loss, you probably know that one of the first and best places to turn to is music. According to recent studies, there’s a reason for that: it’s scientifically proven to be healing and cathartic. According to a study performed by the University of Missouri, people are actually able to lift themselves out of a low emotional state by playing contrastingly cheerful music if they consciously attempt to feel happier while doing so. Significantly, study participants who were instructed to attempt to raise their moods while listening to upbeat music were able to achieve this in the immediate short term period and even increased their overall happiness over the course of two weeks. On the other end of the spectrum, another study, conducted by the University of California and Berkely, found that even sad songs can help to heal a “broken” heart. According to the researchers, "Under certain circumstances, consumers in negative moods might choose aesthetic experiences consistent with their mood even when more pleasant alternatives are also available." So basically, music can be a self-indulgent means of experiencing and working through our emotions. So whether your choice of music is The Rolling Stones’ melancholy Out of Tears, Zeppelin’s heart breaking, Baby Come on Home, The Beatles’ optimistic Getting Better, or Clapton’s rebellious Cocaine, your impulse to turn to music in hard times is actually backed up by science. Image credits: Getty Images

Music

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Edwina Bartholomew reveals the truth behind her unconventional marriage

The truth about Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Diana’s relationship

‘Why didn’t we know?’ is no excuse. Non-Indigenous Australians must listen to the difficult historical truths told by First Nations people

1983 vs 2023: Truth of Australia’s housing crisis exposed

A win for the press, a big loss for Ben Roberts-Smith: what does this judgment tell us about defamation law?

With so many people speaking ‘their truth’, how do we know what the truth really is?

Unlocking the Silver Revolution: The Truth About Grey Hair and the Empowering Journey to Embrace the Grey