Mixture - depended on the venue. The more low key weddings the children were in fairly normal clothes. The more traditional ones usually they were in their Sunday best!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It's annual Bad Maths Day!
Starting with Patreon, which is the one we can be most accurate with (and I acknowledge that it's not accurate enough!):
Today, she has 988 patrons. At the lowest rate of £3 per month, that's £2,964 a month, £35,568 a year. At the highest rate of £8.50 per month, that's £8,398 a month or £100,776 a year. I know the real rate is somewhere in between and also Patreon will take a bunch of that but it's the best I have for a starting point for Bad Maths.
Patreon is 23.4% of her income.
That means 1% is minimum £1,520 and maximum £3,406.67.
Brand deals 45% = £68,400 / £193,800
Adsense 21.9% = £33,288 / £94,316
Patron 23.4% = £35,568 / £100,776
Affiliates 6.6% = £10,032 / £28,424
Podcast 0.8% £1,216 / £3,445
Merch 2% £3.040 / £8,613
Writing 0.2% £304 / £861.33
Total £151,848 / £430,236
Last year worked out at £203,626 / £576,942 so "lost one third of my income" is surprisingly accurate for the higher figure - a little out on the lower one but close enough.
If anyone wants to check my maths, I won't take offence and I'll point out again that I'm in the wrong job.
Starting with Patreon, which is the one we can be most accurate with (and I acknowledge that it's not accurate enough!):
Today, she has 988 patrons. At the lowest rate of £3 per month, that's £2,964 a month, £35,568 a year. At the highest rate of £8.50 per month, that's £8,398 a month or £100,776 a year. I know the real rate is somewhere in between and also Patreon will take a bunch of that but it's the best I have for a starting point for Bad Maths.
Patreon is 23.4% of her income.
That means 1% is minimum £1,520 and maximum £3,406.67.
Brand deals 45% = £68,400 / £193,800
Adsense 21.9% = £33,288 / £94,316
Patron 23.4% = £35,568 / £100,776
Affiliates 6.6% = £10,032 / £28,424
Podcast 0.8% £1,216 / £3,445
Merch 2% £3.040 / £8,613
Writing 0.2% £304 / £861.33
Total £151,848 / £430,236
Last year worked out at £203,626 / £576,942 so "lost one third of my income" is surprisingly accurate for the higher figure - a little out on the lower one but close enough.
If anyone wants to check my maths, I won't take offence and I'll point out again that I'm in the wrong job.
I love you for this 🫶
I don't know why she is so surprised that her more Hannah channel is popping after having Rowan? I don't know about everyone on here, but I don't seem to care for her main channel with all the guests she has on
I don’t really watch her main channel anymore, but I enjoy hearing updates about Rowan (which goes against everything I believe in with using children in content, but she does it better than others at least!)
So...I know people are going to disagree with me or someone's probably going to call me "ableist" or something, but I'm going to say it anyway because I think it's important:
In my opinion, it was incredibly irresponsible of her to intentionally get pregnant while having a stoma and all of the major health issues she has (which she's been hospitalized for and had surgeries for). Her body is a wreck and she put herself (and the kid) at serious risk.
And I know what people are going to say: "Oh but nothing happened! You're just being mean, she and the baby turned out perfectly fine!" Yeah, luckily. It still doesn't mean it was a good decision, and there was a huge chance of things not going well.
And not only did she personally take the risk, but she's like constantly marketing herself as the success poster child of "I had a baby with a stoma/major health issues, now you can too!" It's more problematic than empowering, in my opinion.
Look, I know it's kind of a moot point now that the decision has already been made and the baby is already here. They're a cute family and I wish them well. I just...really disagree with the route they took to become parents.
In my opinion, it was incredibly irresponsible of her to intentionally get pregnant while having a stoma and all of the major health issues she has (which she's been hospitalized for and had surgeries for). Her body is a wreck and she put herself (and the kid) at serious risk.
And I know what people are going to say: "Oh but nothing happened! You're just being mean, she and the baby turned out perfectly fine!" Yeah, luckily. It still doesn't mean it was a good decision, and there was a huge chance of things not going well.
And not only did she personally take the risk, but she's like constantly marketing herself as the success poster child of "I had a baby with a stoma/major health issues, now you can too!" It's more problematic than empowering, in my opinion.
Look, I know it's kind of a moot point now that the decision has already been made and the baby is already here. They're a cute family and I wish them well. I just...really disagree with the route they took to become parents.
Why do you have the opinion that having a baby with a stoma is irresponsible and putting the baby at risk?! Do you, or have you had, a stoma?
I have an ileostomy, the same as Hannah, but for different reasons. Mine is permanent, I literally cannot get rid of it, and I believe Hannah's is also permanent. So for women like us we have to get pregnant with a stoma, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's no medical reason while pregnancy with a stoma is not advised and it doesn't place any undue risk! Yes there can be some issues with getting the right bag size because your stoma can get bigger in size, this may mean some leaks happen which can be embarrassing. Some women find they have some blockages due to the pressure inside the abdomen but this all resolves once the baby is born. It really isn't a huge risk at all, in fact I've been discussing pregnancy with my surgeon and stoma nurses as I am also trying to conceive and they're extremely encouraging. No issues raised whatsoever.
I think it's such a reach to call her body a wreck, when all she has is a stoma! She's said her IBD was essentially cured when she had her colon removed and she is now healthy.
I think she once said she’ll need some kind of recital stump surgery in the not-too-distant future and in that event, it’s risky enough that the medical advice was to get babies out of the way before she has it - I suspect she might have waited a little longer otherwise.
Yeah she's talked about it a few times saying she'll need another surgery (possibly getting the ileostomy reversed?) and it was advised that she gets pregnant before that time. She definitely did her research, spoke to consultants, checked it was safe etc before deciding to try and get pregnant. Having a stoma doesn't mean her body is a 'wreck' and most people with stomas are able to carry a baby and give birth with no major issues. Just like people with lots of other health conditions and disabilities can.....
Woof, the disablism. I can’t even write a coherent reply right now, I’m too shocked 🥲
Makes sense, if she has surgery on her rectum (particularly if it is going to be removed completely aka barbie butt surgery) this has an increased risk of causing infertility due to how deep inside the pelvis the surgery goes, really quite close to the ovaries and fallopian tubes. I need this surgery but I've been told to have children first, and only then will my surgeon consider doing it
I’ve never written in this thread before but I’ve been compelled to. As someone who also has ‘invisible’ chronic health issues, some of which are very similar to Hannah, I think it’s important to state that - from what she has posted online - Hannah did not rush into pregnancy after the stoma surgery. She’s had the stoma surgery in 2018 and got pregnant in 2021, so clearly enough time had passed before she got pregnant. She clearly did her research and spoke a lot with her doctors and nurses about it. Whilst there is the argument that the pregnancy could have been risky, that’s essentially every pregnancy. Every pregnancy can be risky, regardless of if you have a stoma or not. Hannah’s body isn’t a wreck because she has a stoma. I personally think Hannah was well-informed and had a lot of medical support. I’m very happy for her. Apologies for the essay. Have a good day.
Last edited:
haven't been able to stop thinking of that post all day ... why is hannah having a stoma any different / worse than her suffering with ulcerative colitis, especially in a flare up? because it's suddenly on the outside of her body? spare me from the ableism PLEASE!!!
Seriously, people with stomas have babies all the time. Imagine, some people even have stomas from a very very young age!
And if anything with all of her health issues/time around medical professionals she has definitely thought about the consequences of having a child more than most I would imagine
I think you have very significantly overestimated the risks associated with pregnancy in women with stomas and/or autoimmune problems. Things are overwhelmingly statistically more likely to be fine than not be fine. There really wasn’t a “huge” chance of things not going well.
This is off topic but just seen her post about the newsletter talking about keeping Rowan’s face offline and I will read this and am open to having my mind changed but is it only me that finds it kinda hypocritical that influencers (also Melanie) make a huge point of keeping their kids private but then use them for sponsorship deals and also keep sharing about when they are fed, what they are doing, life stages, big milestones etc etc
I don’t care about seeing your toddlers face but that’s not keeping them offline and private in my opinion
I don’t care about seeing your toddlers face but that’s not keeping them offline and private in my opinion
I agree. Keeping them offline and and private is not uploading any photos with them in it!! I detest influencers who put emoji’s over their kids faces. Like people are skilful enough to remove them… you’re not protecting themThis is off topic but just seen her post about the newsletter talking about keeping Rowan’s face offline and I will read this and am open to having my mind changed but is it only me that finds it kinda hypocritical that influencers (also Melanie) make a huge point of keeping their kids private but then use them for sponsorship deals and also keep sharing about when they are fed, what they are doing, life stages, big milestones etc etc
I don’t care about seeing your toddlers face but that’s not keeping them offline and private in my opinion
I think Hannah protects his privacy better than a lot of others, I remember when talking about her birth story she mentioned Rowan having some extra care in hospital but didn't talk about it because it's his health stuff and not hers (words to that effect). I guess everyone is different when it comes to boundaries and sharing milestone moments. It does seem exploitative when influencers use their children for ADs, regardless of whether or not their face is shown. The emoji thing is a weird one, most of the time it would be better to not upload the photo at all, especially if it's a selfie or a photo just of someone holding the kid.
- Status