MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Jones, Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience at Aston Business School, Aston University

It is tempting to treat the fallout between Brooklyn Beckham and his A-list parents as mere celebrity gossip. But this story has struck a chord with many families because it disrupts a comforting assumption: that strong bonds, shared history and success protect families from fracture.

The breakdown of even highly visible, seemingly close families raises an uncomfortable question. Why do family relationships, often our longest lasting and most emotionally charged connections, sometimes become so strained that contact is reduced or cut off entirely?

Answering that requires a look at the relational dynamics that shape many families. Family rupture is not an anomaly confined to extreme circumstances or public families under scrutiny. It is part of everyday life for many people.

Large population surveys suggest that around one in four adults are estranged from at least one family member at any given point in time. This may involve a parent, sibling, child or other close relative.

When research focuses specifically on parent–child relationships, roughly one in ten adults report estrangement from a parent or child, with some differences between mothers and fathers. Across studies, estrangement from parents tends to begin in early adulthood, often during the early to mid-20s.

Conflict with family members can often feel more painful and enduring than other relationship breakdowns. The reason why has to do with identity and belonging. From early childhood, family relationships shape how we understand ourselves. In Brooklyn Beckham’s case, his public statements hint at this tension.

Growing up in a highly visible family meant that, for him, roles, expectations and identities were formed under constant public scrutiny. As adulthood brings new partnerships and a desire for autonomy, those early roles can become harder to inhabit, particularly when private family dynamics are played out in public.

Roles, expectations and emotional patterns become deeply embedded over time. When conflict emerges, it rarely challenges behaviour alone. It threatens how we see ourselves in relation to people who have known us longest.

When conflict becomes estrangement

Conflict escalation often follows predictable psychological patterns. Minor disagreements take on symbolic meaning. Old grievances resurface. People move from addressing an issue to defending their identity, values or sense of worth. Once this shift occurs, emotional responses intensify, positions harden and resolution becomes much harder to achieve.

Estrangement, then, is rarely about a single argument. It reflects accumulated disconnection, unmet expectations and unresolved emotional histories that have built up over years.

Research in psychology and family studies consistently highlights a few recurring and interacting dynamics. Over time, people can find themselves locked into family roles that no longer fit, particularly if they feel persistently misunderstood or undervalued. What once felt like shared history can begin to feel restrictive rather than supportive.

At the same time, criticism or dismissal within families is often experienced as an attack on core self-beliefs, not simply a disagreement. When repeated attempts to explain or resolve these tensions fail, many people turn to avoidance or emotional distance as a form of self-protection. Silence, while painful, can feel safer than continued conflict.

None of these dynamics are unique to celebrity families. Seeing them play out publicly simply makes visible what many families manage quietly behind closed doors.

How to cope

Popular advice about family conflict tends to emphasise openness and communication. While well-intentioned, suggestions to “just talk it out” often fail because they ignore emotional safety, timing and boundaries. Conversations entered without shared readiness or clear intent can easily reopen old wounds.

Psychological research points to more realistic approaches.

1. Separate repair from reconciliation

Repair may involve greater understanding or boundary setting rather than restoring closeness. Reconciliation is not always possible or healthy.

2. Manage expectations

Accepting that some conflicts reflect fundamental value differences rather than misunderstandings can reduce guilt and self-blame.

3. Protect wellbeing

Prolonged family conflict is associated with stress, anxiety and poorer mental health. Seeking external support is not a sign of disloyalty but of self-care.

Estrangement is also rarely static. Many relationships fluctuate over time. Some reconnect after years or decades, while others remain distant but emotionally resolved.

Family rifts feel particularly unsettling because they collide with powerful cultural myths. In many western cultures, family life is still framed through powerful ideals of unconditional love, permanence and harmony. These narratives are reinforced through media, popular psychology and social expectations, leaving little room to acknowledge conflict, distance or estrangement as ordinary parts of relational life. When reality fails to match that ideal, people often carry shame alongside grief.

Recognising how common family estrangement is, and understanding the psychological dynamics behind it, helps shift the conversation away from blame. It allows space for compassion, boundaries and healthier coping.

The Beckhams’ situation serves as a reminder of something deeply ordinary. Families are complex systems shaped by history, identity and meaning. Sometimes that complexity holds. Sometimes it fractures. And when it does, the experience is painful, but far from unique.

Paul Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Beckham v Peltz: why families fall out, and how to deal with estrangement – https://theconversation.com/beckham-v-peltz-why-families-fall-out-and-how-to-deal-with-estrangement-274887

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cassie Brummitt, Assistant Professor in Film and Television Studies, University of Nottingham

Have you heard of the writer Brandon Sanderson? If you’ve not, you’re sure to soon as a major deal with AppleTV signals that his writing could be a big new fantasy franchise that everyone will be talking about.

Sanderson is best known for his expansive literary universe, the Cosmere, with books set on various planets that manifest different but interconnected forms of magic. What’s so significant about this AppleTV deal is that Sanderson will possess remarkable control over the production of adaptations of his entire back catalogue. Crucially, it has been reported that he will have approval over any decisions, enabling him to oversee projects as writer, consultant and producer.

It’s a level of creative control over the adaptation process from page to screen which has been described as unprecedented for an author.

Writers are often wheeled out when promoting an adaptation to reassure audiences of how “faithful” it is or to show support for any changes to the source material. But it’s not particularly common for an author to wield significant creative authority over the production process itself, especially for big-budget franchises.

In my book on the Harry Potter franchise I explore, for example, how JK Rowling’s approval (and supposed influence) was frequently invoked in promotion for Harry Potter films to build prestige for the franchise. But, it wasn’t until the Fantastic Beasts series (2016-22) that she actually received a production credit as screenwriter.

There are some exceptions. George RR Martin contributed to script-writing, casting and production in the first few seasons of the Game of Thrones TV show, an adaptation of his novel series A Song of Ice and Fire. Martin has since acknowledged, however, that he had “less and less influence” over the TV show as it progressed, with similar breakdowns in communication during the adaptation of prequel series House of the Dragon.

Authors also sometimes write their own adapted screenplays. Gillian Flynn, for example, wrote both the novel Gone Girl and the screenplay for its film adaptation. Emma Donoghue won a best adapted screenplay Oscar for her work adapting her novel Room.

This process, called “self-adaptation”, has a long history in media and entertainment, even going back to Charles Dickens who adapted his works into stage plays. But authors may, of course, have strong opinions about how their work is adapted or have differing priorities to studio executives. Right now, when big-budget franchise instalments are expected to make hundreds of millions and hopefully attain long-term popularity, it’s a risky strategy to give creative control of a budding franchise to an author.

But that is exactly what’s happened with Sanderson. His literary properties are no doubt attractive to studio heads, having sold more than 50 million copies worldwide and slotting into the science fiction and fantasy niche carved out by mega-franchises like the MCU (Marvel Comic Universe), Game of Thrones and Harry Potter.

He’s also famously productive – publishing more than 50 novels in the last 20 years – which reduces the risk of acquiring a literary property whose overall narrative will never been concluded, something HBO had to navigate with the Game of Thrones TV show. The appeal for AppleTV is also clear, given its strategy to adapt genre fiction such as Foundation, Silo and Murderbot.

But how and why has Sanderson managed to retain so much creative control? I think the key lies in his commercial approach.

Sanderson established his own publishing and entertainment company, Dragonsteel Books, in 2012. As an online storefront it sells merchandise from special-edition books to board games to t-shirts. In 2020, it was reported he raised a record-breaking £30 million through Dragonsteel Books, using Kickstarter to self-publish four “secret projects” he had written during the COVID pandemic.

Since 2021, Dragonsteel Books organises a yearly Brandon Sanderson fan convention. And, in 2024, Sanderson announced that his company had purchased land to build “Dragonsteel Plaza”, which is expected to contain a bookstore, creative hub and company headquarters.

Sanderson challenges our cultural idea of the author as a creative genius who shuns commercial activity: he actively embraces it. He demonstrates the kind of attitude that aligns with the priorities of a global megacorporation such as AppleTV that is looking for ambitious large-scale franchises to launch.

With his Mistborn series touted for film and Stormlight Archive for television, it remains to be seen what Sanderson’s creative direction will look like. But what’s clear is the benefit of Sanderson’s collaboration for AppleTV: a creative figurehead and a commercially strategic ally for a fledgling franchise that has incredible potential for longevity.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Cassie Brummitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Fantasy writer Brandon Sanderson has retained rare control over screen adaptations of his Cosmere universe – https://theconversation.com/fantasy-writer-brandon-sanderson-has-retained-rare-control-over-screen-adaptations-of-his-cosmere-universe-275251

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Barber, Professor of Global Affairs, University of East London

Suggestions that Peter Mandelson may have shared government information with Jeffrey Epstein amid the fallout of the global financial crisis are being investigated by police.

Emails between Mandelson and the disgraced financier, released by the US Department of Justice, are said to include market-sensitive details. This was at a time when Mandelson was in government and ministers around him were scrambling to keep the UK economy afloat.

Now, the 2008 global financial crisis belongs to a different political generation, with almost all of the leading players having left the world stage. But the ripple effect of the credit crunch can still be felt in our politics and in our pockets.

This surely makes the allegations against Mandelson, some of which date to his time as UK business secretary, even more awful. The anaemic UK economy, its weakened public finances and the divisive nature of UK politics can all trace their ways back to the crisis.

This catastrophic event, where developed economies were brought to the brink of collapse, came at the end of a long period of prosperity. It put paid to a belief, embraced by Gordon Brown when he was chancellor, that the UK had achieved a “Goldilocks economy” – not too hot and not too cold. This was supposedly a triumphant end to the boom and bust of the past.

For a time it worked. Britain experienced 16 years of quarter-on-quarter economic growth, emerging from the aftermath of “Black Wednesday” in 1992 when sterling fell out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

The cracks first started to appear in 2007 as US lenders specialising in sub-prime mortgages (typically sold to high-risk borrowers) started to collapse. This was at the heart of what would become a global catastrophe. To meet market demand, lenders bundled together thousands of everyday home loans into “mortgage-backed securities”. These were then sold as low-risk debt to investors.

You can see the attraction: safe and steady repayments over the long term, underpinned by bricks and mortar. Only it was a deception, because that debt was not all safe. As house prices kept rising, banks increasingly agreed loans with customers who did not have the capacity to repay them. And the loans were made against property that had been overvalued.

Then the housing market weakened. Credit markets seized up, since holders of securitised debt found they couldn’t unwind their positions (put simply, they were unable to sell them on) – it was impossible to tell which parts of their holdings were sound and which were toxic. The result was that institutions stopped lending, interest rates on corporate borrowing jumped, investment ground to a near halt and stock markets plummeted.

Banks, big as well as small, started to fail. While the collapse of US giant Lehman Brothers in September 2008 marked the start of the global crisis, in the UK it was the liquidity emergency of Northern Rock that brought things into focus. Savers, having lost confidence, queued up outside branches in September 2007 to withdraw their money, marking the first run on a UK bank since the 19th century. But worse still, banks had lost trust in each other.

Banks are not just any business; they are the arteries of a functioning economy. Policymakers around the world judged that these banks were simply too big to fail. Governments responded with unprecedented interventions, including bank rescues, capital injections, fiscal stimulus and major regulatory reforms.

In Britain, this included nationalising Northern Rock in February 2008, recapitalising Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, and launching wide-ranging guarantee and liquidity schemes. It meant containing the crisis, recapitalising the system, and restructuring the sector – all paid for by government borrowing.

In December 2008, Brown – by now prime minister – claimed he had “saved the world”. But what followed was the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. And that sharp downturn, in contrast to the previous decade, hit the young and the unskilled hardest as unemployment rose. For those in work, pay growth stalled.

It was during this period that Mandelson is suspected of sharing sensitive government information with Epstein. In June 2009, an email appears to show the then-business secretary forwarding details of proposals to sell off UK government assets to raise money for the public purse.

The crisis had blown a hole in the UK’s public finances as the Treasury grappled with falling tax receipts and increased demands on spending on public services and welfare. Added to this, bank rescues had of course piled up public debt.

Meanwhile, other emails in late 2009 appear to show Mandelson and Epstein discussing ways to push back against UK government plans for a “supertax” on bankers’ bonuses. These proposals were a bid to recoup some of the public money pumped into the sector.

For all the successes, perhaps the “Goldilocks economy” wasn’t entirely built on responsible policymaking. While inflation targets were hit, Bank of England experts had all but failed to notice the massive asset bubble. And then there were the “light-touch” banking controls, which even the regulator blamed for its failure to spot the storm brewing.

The long tail of the crisis

While economies eventually stabilised, not least because of Brown’s leadership and that of the subsequent coalition government, the consequences of the crisis play out to this day. In contrast to the optimism of the previous period, the years since the financial crisis have seen weak economic output, derisory productivity growth as well as slow improvements in pay.

Those were the years of austerity policies, with increasing distrust of institutions and a backlash against “elites”. All of this fuelled populism on the left and right.

Many felt left behind by the globalisation that had driven the economy from the mid-1990s, or were hit hard as low-skilled work became more precarious and public services squeezed, or felt taken for granted by the political class. When it came to their vote, Brexit was an opportunity to express their frustration and disrupt a system that they no longer believed worked for them.

And so it is impossible to understand the fractious nature of politics today, or the relatively feeble state of the UK economy, without understanding the huge challenge that the financial crisis posed to a generation of politicians. Although Mandelson is understood to deny any criminality, his alleged betrayal came at the peak of this jeopardy. We are all still paying the cost of bringing the global economy back from the brink.

Stephen Barber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Mandelson and the financial crash: why the Epstein allegations are so shocking – https://theconversation.com/mandelson-and-the-financial-crash-why-the-epstein-allegations-are-so-shocking-275272