Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

ceadaoin.

dogbert27 wrote: »

Going back to parental leave:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9660061/Archie-excited-arrival-Lilibet-royal-watchers-say-Queen-surprised-name.html

: 'We're so used to seeing senior royals going back to work but Harry and Meghan are leading by example they offer up to 20 weeks parental leave at Archewell - it'll be several months off work for the pair of them'. He added in an interview with Good Morning America

Is that not another dig at the RF and probably in particular William and Kate?!

I mean WTF, "They offer up 20 weeks parental leave". Offer up to who?! Edit that I just saw they offer up to Archwell. Assuming it's Archwell staff. I wonder if it's paid leave???

In the US parental leave is 12 weeks and non paid:

most new parents are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a newborn or a newly adopted child. But there are conditions: they need to have worked for their employer for at least 12 months, have worked at least 1250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles.

My God they are martyrs offering up 20 weeks of parental leave. :rolleyes:

Yeah the magic words there are "up to" 20 weeks. Highly doubtful any of their staff would qualify for that much time off. But sure the standard 12 weeks leave is also covered in the "up to" part so they aren't lying. Saints the two of them, lol

JoChervil

end of the road wrote: »

ultimately no, they didn't gang up against the rf.
the "vitrial" in their interviews is more people seeing what they want to see rather then actual vitrial, whereas some of what is contained within the thread could legitimately be called vitrial.

well no, yee aren't really when we look at the thread.

more siding with the 3 because it's a way to attack the 2 you are against is the more likely.

Well you too are seeing what you want to see...

Itssoeasy

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

I couldn’t give a toss about the British royal family. I think it’s ridiculous being expected to bow down to a bunch of pampered twits and being called a “subject” or “common”. However I do believe Meghan is totally fake and a liar. She seems to love all the drama while all the time protesting she wants to be left alone. Harry has really shown himself to be a solid gold twit and I think he should have kept well away from Oprah and sorted out any problems with his family at home in England. He would not have made so much money but maybe wouldn’t look as foolish as he does now.

Exactly. Those of us who are apparently defending the British royal family aren’t actually defending them as an institution, more as people who on vague claims of racist comments in which there is significant differences between the recollections of both Harry and Meghan have been labelled racists and that includes people who are innocent. I’d have had more time for them if they just came out and named the person, because I’ve no time for racists and they shouldn’t be protected if there’s proof. I certainly think when going on worldwide TV, you should have more than just vague and inconsistent recollections, but that’s just me.

Neyite

dogbert27 wrote: »

Going back to parental leave:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9660061/Archie-excited-arrival-Lilibet-royal-watchers-say-Queen-surprised-name.html

: 'We're so used to seeing senior royals going back to work but Harry and Meghan are leading by example they offer up to 20 weeks parental leave at Archewell - it'll be several months off work for the pair of them'. He added in an interview with Good Morning America

Is that not another dig at the RF and probably in particular William and Kate?!

I mean WTF, "They offer up 20 weeks parental leave". Offer up to who?! Edit that I just saw they offer up to Archwell. Assuming it's Archwell staff. I wonder if it's paid leave???

In the US parental leave is 12 weeks and non paid:

most new parents are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a newborn or a newly adopted child. But there are conditions: they need to have worked for their employer for at least 12 months, have worked at least 1250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles.

My God they are martyrs offering up 20 weeks of parental leave. :rolleyes:

Maternity leave & paternity leave in the US is appalling, particularly if you are a lower paid worker. I'd love it if ordinary people look at this parental leave and consider that as something they should lobby for themselves but I suspect it will only further highlight the disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

Yep

It has nothing to do with hatred.

It is simply calling out two people who have conducted themselves like out and out toerags the past while..

out and out toerags? nope not really.
way OTT description for these 2.

walshb wrote: »

Yeh yeh...

But they’ve nothing against the Queen..

She’s sound!

that's correct.
the queen is harry's grandmother after all and from everything we know he has a good relationship with her and did with his grandfather.

RabbleRouser2k

Neyite wrote: »

Maternity leave & paternity leave in the US is appalling, particularly if you are a lower paid worker. I'd love it if ordinary people look at this parental leave and consider that as something they should lobby for themselves but I suspect it will only further highlight the disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

It's appalling because it's not mandatory. Companies aren't legally bound to provide maternity leave or paternity leave to employees.

Apparently, America and Australia are the only two countries (allegedly) to not be required by law to provide mandatory maternity leave (and in turn, paternity leave).

It's up to the company's discretion if they want to do so. If they don't...tough. Plenty of desperate people who need work who'll take that job.

cnocbui

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It's appalling because it's not mandatory. Companies aren't legally bound to provide maternity leave or paternity leave to employees.

Apparently, America and Australia are the only two countries (allegedly) to not be required by law to provide mandatory maternity leave (and in turn, paternity leave).

It's up to the company's discretion if they want to do so. If they don't...tough. Plenty of desperate people who need work who'll take that job.

All employees in Australia are entitled to 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave after 12 months of employment. It isn't cumpulsory for an employer to offer paid maternity leave.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

that's correct.
the queen is harry's grandmother after all and from everything we know he has a good relationship with her and did with his grandfather.

But, weren’t they awful parents to Charles, who treated his children as he was treated?

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

But, weren’t they awful parents to Charles, who treated his children as he was treated?

Awful by our standards I suppose. Children of gentry were reared by nannies in the nursery and trotted out after afternoon tea for a quick meet with their parents. Not a lot of nurturing there by parents. The queen is on record as realising with the two youngest that she didn't spend time with her older two that she should have so insisted on doing bath time with Andrew and Edward.

I don't know if we can say that the way Charles reared his kids is down to the Queen and Philip, because Anne was reared the same way, and turned out pretty sound, as did her kids by the looks of it. Conversely, Andrew was doted on and look at what a tosser he turned out to be. It's not always nurture.

Charles had a dysfunctional upbringing, but so did Diana. And they both did do things differently to their parents when they were parents themselves. Up until a few years ago, the two spoke glowingly about Charles as a dad, and their joking around with him suggested that they had an easygoing, comfortable relationship with him.

lrushe

Looks like Princess Eugenie is team H&M, she seems like a nice person, seemed to be less annoyed over H&M stealing her wedding limelight than the general public was on her behalf.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/princess-eugenie-clashes-beatrice-over-24272342

JoChervil

lrushe wrote: »

Looks like Princess Eugenie is team H&M, she seems like a nice person, seemed to be less annoyed over H&M stealing her wedding limelight than the general public was on her behalf.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/princess-eugenie-clashes-beatrice-over-24272342

For me it looks like Princess Eugenie is team "do the right thing", than team H&M. She still thinks it is wrong to announce such thing on the wedding third anniversary (so even more wrong on a wedding day and it is allegedly her opinion on it). I think she didn't want to lower herself (and her family) to Meghan's doings. But I don't believe this story anyway.

But I agree, she looks like a very nice person.

walshb

end of the road wrote: »

out and out toerags? nope not really.
way OTT description for these 2.
.

No, their behaviour and their calculated methods and deviousness is toerag behaviour!

lrushe

JoChervil wrote: »

For me it looks like Princess Eugenie is team "do the right thing", than team H&M. She still thinks it is wrong to announce such thing on the wedding third anniversary (so even more wrong on a wedding day and it is allegedly her opinion on it). I think she didn't want to lower herself (and her family) to Meghan's doings. But I don't believe this story anyway.

But I agree, she looks like a very nice person.

I believe this story as much as I believe any of the stories in the paper to be honest, the only thing that makes it more believable for me is the lovely, warm, genuine message she sent for the baby's birth, it really seemed to show a closeness and affection for her cousin.
I think if anything comes out of this whole thing for me is how much more I like her.

end of the road

walshb wrote: »

No, their behaviour and their calculated methods and deviousness is toerag behaviour!

calculated methods and deviousness? yeah right.


in the unlikely event it was what they were at they are so crap at it that it would be harder for anyone else to be even more rubbish at it.

Ms. Newbie18

Did Megs say she knew Eugenie before meeting Harry? Any way I agree Eugenie does seem to be a nice person.

Ms. Newbie18

Another he said she said scenario:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9667207/Harry-Meghan-NEVER-asked-Queen-naming-daughter-Lilibet-source-says.html

Ms. Newbie18

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Another he said she said scenario:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9667207/Harry-Meghan-NEVER-asked-Queen-naming-daughter-Lilibet-source-says.html

Maybe he did tell the Queen that he’d call a daughter after her, but did he tell her that he’d be using her pet name rather than Elizabeth?

Lillyfae

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe he did tell the Queen that he’d call a daughter after her, but did he tell her that he’d be using her pet name rather than Elizabeth?

Seriously though, who cares? She doesn't own any names and it's ludicrous to think that parents would need to seek permission to name their child.

As stated above, I'm not a fan of the Sussexes or the Royal Family. It's just a soap opera, a circus. It's totally alien to me that I would have to curtsy or call someone your majesty just because they were born. They're all as bad as each other.

lrushe

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe he did tell the Queen that he’d call a daughter after her, but did he tell her that he’d be using her pet name rather than Elizabeth?

I think he'd said long before he had kids that if he had a daughter he'd name her after the queen, but the name he said he'd use is unknown. As with most things in the media its really just heresy though.

Be right back

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe he did tell the Queen that he’d call a daughter after her, but did he tell her that he’d be using her pet name rather than Elizabeth?

I read somewhere that Philip used to call her by that pet name and when he died, apparently she said that she didn't want to be called by that name anymore.

Ms. Newbie18

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe he did tell the Queen that he’d call a daughter after her, but did he tell her that he’d be using her pet name rather than Elizabeth?

My gran is the same age as the queen, and while she would be delighted to have a great grandchild name after her, if I told her it would be name after her nickname, she would think it was ridiculous. So my guess would be she thought the Baby would be called Elizabeth - Beth or Liz for short.

Leg End Reject

lrushe wrote: »

I think he'd said long before he had kids that if he had a daughter he'd name her after the queen, but the name he said he'd use is unknown. As with most things in the media its really just heresy though.

Heresy? They're the royal family, not gods!

lrushe

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Heresy? They're the royal family, not gods!

Hearsay...autocorrect, jayus :rolleyes:

Neyite

Lillyfae wrote: »

Seriously though, who cares? She doesn't own any names and it's ludicrous to think that parents would need to seek permission to name their child.

You are right, nobody 'owns' a name. But if someone who has been blowing up my life with allegations, causing disrepute to my family business, being critical of my parenting, and blaming me for stuff that's out of my hands publicly all while my husband was dying, then call their baby by the nickname only my husband uses privately for me I'd be telling them they can go fcuk themselves if they think naming their baby after me makes up for the crap they've pulled. I'm not very regal though.

My cousin nicked my baby name. It doesn't bother me. It's an Irish name and they aren't Irish or living in Ireland so it's a bit wanky of them. And they clearly didn't bother to check out the translation or they wouldn't have put it with the middle name that they did. Oh well.

lrushe

My son is named after my Dad, 2 of his cousins on my husbands side have the same name as middle names. It was just a coincidence that it was a sentimental name in both families.
My Dad goes by the long version of the name, my son by a shortened version, I think it's fairly common in families.

retro:electro

lrushe wrote: »

My son is named after my Dad, 2 of his cousins on my husbands side have the same name as middle names. It was just a coincidence that it was a sentimental name in both families.
My Dad goes by the long version of the name, my son by a shortened version, I think it's fairly common in families.

I think you’re missing the point. Had they named the child Elizabeth, Beth, Eliza or even Lily I’m sure that would have been appropriate and fair because it’s predictable. It would still be a little odd that they would choose to name their daughter after the head of what they feel is such a toxic and racist institution but, nonetheless, it wouldn’t have caused as much of a stir. But they have co-opted a personal nickname and, it seems, did so without permission. The only person really who has any entitlement to feel upset is The Queen and if she is fine with it then it’s much ado about nothing really. Still a strange choice for a couple who wish to cleanse themselves (very publicly) from the practicalities and toxicities of Royal life (unless it’s where titles are concerned) but sure look, stranger things have happened.

But if they didn’t tell her, and it came as a huge surprise to her to have her personal pet name released to the world like that and commented on globally, well that’s kind of shltty of them, and more evidence of their sense of entitlement that they can take take take all they want without actually being worthy of it. And wanting all of the perks of Royal life without working for them. It smacks of “you think you can take our titles, well we can take your name”.. I guess the jury is still out on the ins and outs on whether she actually gave explicit permission for them to use a personal nickname, or whether they said “we might name her after you”, and she said something like “oh how lovely”, under the impression that it would be Elizabeth or a derivative of that, and not something as personal and sentimental as a childhood nickname. Also, it’s highly likely that The Queen will have absolutely no relationship with the child so it seems kind of pointless and performative to name her after her.

Purple Mountain

^ Even if they had called her Elizabeth, it would have been odd because no other grandchild or great grandchild was called Elizabeth, only as a middle name.

Ms. Newbie18

retro:electro wrote: »

I think you’re missing the point. Had they named the child Elizabeth, Beth, Eliza or even Lily I’m sure that would have been appropriate and fair because it’s predictable. It would still be a little odd that they would choose to name their daughter after the head of what they feel is such a toxic and racist institution but, nonetheless, it wouldn’t have caused as much of a stir. But they have co-opted a personal nickname and, it seems, did so without permission. The only person really who has any entitlement to feel upset is The Queen and if she is fine with it then it’s much ado about nothing really. Still a strange choice for a couple who wish to cleanse themselves (very publicly) from the practicalities and toxicities of Royal life (unless it’s where titles are concerned) but sure look, stranger things have happened.

But if they didn’t tell her, and it came as a huge surprise to her to have her personal pet name released to the world like that and commented on globally, well that’s kind of shltty of them, and more evidence of their sense of entitlement that they can take take take all they want without actually being worthy of it. And wanting all of the perks of Royal life without working for them. It smacks of “you think you can take our titles, well we can take your name”.. I guess the jury is still out on the ins and outs on whether she actually gave explicit permission for them to use a personal nickname, or whether they said “we might name her after you”, and she said something like “oh how lovely”, under the impression that it would be Elizabeth or a derivative of that, and not something as personal and sentimental as a childhood nickname. Also, it’s highly likely that The Queen will have absolutely no relationship with the child so it seems kind of pointless and performative to name her after her.

The bits in bold aligned with how I was thinking.

deise08

Is it more of a...... she has your name so you have to be involved?

And not just your name, but your most private, intimate name.

You'll have to have more of an affiliation, special bond, tie and how crappy would it look if you don't.

JoChervil

I think it is all inter related. If they have cut their ties with RF entirely, so they could do whatever they wished and the Queen hasn't registered her right to her pet name in USA. But if they still want to be Sussexes, so they should follow some rules and contact the Queen about it. Even out of simple decency.

Still for me, what is cute for a child or lovers, is not so for a real person. Imagine 40 years old Lilibet!