This is what everyone's missing about Meghan Markle HRH jam row

I honestly can't get as worked up as some people over the Markles. Their interview with was a pretty unpleasant betrayal of family, and memoir 'Spare' hardly helped matters, but in-family sniping and backbiting is hardly confined to the Montecito Two, is it? This week came in for flak after it appeared that she is continuing to use her HRH title despite agreeing not to. Yawn. So what? It's only to help her flog her jam. The world isn't going to stop turning. Don't we have better things to get angsty about?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am fascinated by She is one of those actresses whose appearance seems to alter, chameleon-like, almost from day to day. No wonder she has had such success in such a vast variety of roles - I reckon she could play anyone, of any age. She was at the screening of her new film Hallow Road this week, looking fabulous and, as usual, DIFFERENT.

Maybe this ceaselessly-changing visage is the reason my husband, one week after interviewing her, failed to recognise her at some red-carpet do or other.

He was mortified, later. 'She must have thought I was ignoring her.' I doubt it. Richard has the worst memory in show business. Word spreads!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How can it be 'colonialist' to stroll across some ice where not a soul lives? Not a soul. Not a single house or dwelling of any kind (apart from the tent you're carrying). The only inhabitants, penguins. Creatures supremely indifferent to your (temporary) presence. I repeat: how is this in any way, shape or form 'colonialist'?

Step forward who this week made the ludicrous claim that exploring Antarctica (when it was one of the world's last great wildernesses) was part of this country's 'colonial story'. Let's open the Oxford Dictionary of Human Geography. It defines colonialism as: 'The control of one territory and its peoples (the italics are mine) by another.'

Not penguins. Peoples. Mind you, Cambridge has form for its, er, challenging re-interpretations of our history. The university's Fitzwilliam Museum, in an exhibition about the history of slavery, claims that the late (author of A Brief History of Time) benefited from slavery-derived funds given to Cambridge... two centuries before he was born.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I studied Hamlet at school, and later at university. It was always my favourite play. The soliloquy is simply one of the finest pieces of writing in the English language.

Along with my fellow students, I appreciated the guidance and interpretation of my tutors in appreciating the finer points of Shakespeare's masterpiece. What I didn't need was a trigger warning. But that's exactly what the National Theatre have slapped on its upcoming production of Hamlet.

It solemnly warns: 'This production contains themes of grief and death, including suicide and the loss of a parent, depictions of madness, violence and coercive behaviour.' Yup, it sure does. It's a feast of violent action, raw emotion and, yes, death. It's Hamlet! It's been wowing audiences since it was first staged 400 years ago. If anyone, anywhere, at any time, has ever been 'triggered' by the play - well, that's yet to be recorded.

Presumably these warnings are a fad and will pass. 'A little brief authority,' indeed.