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

cnocbui

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's a very upsetting and unpleasant situation for a recently widowed 95 year old to have to be dealing with this media nonsense about her great grandaugher's name. The child's arrival into the world should be news that's bringing her a bit of joy and comfort during a sad time. If you disregard the fact that she is Queen for a minute and reflect on the fact that she us a 95 year old widow, this really is a nasty, trashy business to be reporting on it at all and the Sussexes would do well to rise above it out of respect for the woman.

I have not one iota of sympathy for the Queen. She contimues to place staff above family. She could bypass the staff, for once, and issue a direct statement clarifying the matter, but she clings to that stupid 'never comment' nonsense, so she can reap the rewards of it.

MoonUnit75

cnocbui wrote: »

I have not one iota of sympathy for the Queen. She contimues to place staff above family. She could bypass the staff, for once, and issue a direct statement clarifying the matter, but she clings to that stupid 'never comment' nonsense, so she can reap the rewards of it.

That would be giving Meghan exactly what she wants: a statement from the Queen of England to say she is delighted with the name and people should stop being critical of Meghan and Harry, who are wonderful and flawless in every imaginable way and even in ways most people can't even imagine.

Do it once, you have to do it again. And again. Every single time Meghan creates more drama for the family.

Sardonicat

cnocbui wrote: »

I have not one iota of sympathy for the Queen. She contimues to place staff above family. She could bypass the staff, for once, and issue a direct statement clarifying the matter, but she clings to that stupid 'never comment' nonsense, so she can reap the rewards of it.

The Queen is head of State. That us her role. She has no obligation to comment on private, family matters publicly.

Sardonicat

PhoenixParker wrote: »

We don't know whether the Queen is impressed or not.

But if she was impressed and happy with the name, the source could have said nothing or simply said something non-commital like "the queen is delighted that Harry's daughter is healthy and named in her honour".

My money is on her being pissed.

Or maybe the BBC just quoted the bit that said "No, her permission wasn't sought' to make it look like an issue when it isn't.

lrushe

Neyite wrote: »

I'd say so. This is the Palace's way of commenting without saying anything.

I'd believe the version the palace source told a BBC reporter over the Sussex's pet biographer. And to be honest, after all the inconsistencies and backtracking and downright untruths the Sussex's have come out with, I'm even more inclined to believe the Palace source. At least the palace source is actually in the palace and compared to the other side, the palace sources typically word their statements very carefully.

But if the source has to seek the royal seal from the palace how is that any different from the palace commenting directly?

I posted a link a few days ago about Eugenie being team h&m according to a source but was told it wasn't believable.
How does one differentiate between sources?

Neyite

By suing it's going to drag out into the open exactly what was said and how it was worded so there will be clarity there at least.

But they are now dragging the Queen into a legal battle between the state broadcaster of the UK and a member of her direct family. And she's not going to like that one bit. I expect it will end up under a rug like the time that butler was on trial for theft and she 'remembered' a pretty key detail rather than have someone who was prepared to sing like an absolute canary in open court about certain royal matters.

They've known for months they were having a girl. At any stage they could have spoken to anyone in the family and said "do you think granny would be ok with us using the name Lilibet?" or even...you know..asked her themselves? I mean, saying to Elizabeth Alexander Mary Windsor "we will name her in your honour" could have meant any number of names or any number of variants of any of those names..

cnocbui

Neyite wrote: »

By suing it's going to drag out into the open exactly what was said and how it was worded so there will be clarity there at least.

But they are now dragging the Queen into a legal battle between the state broadcaster of the UK and a member of her direct family. And she's not going to like that one bit. I expect it will end up under a rug like the time that butler was on trial for theft and she 'remembered' a pretty key detail rather than have someone who was prepared to sing like an absolute canary in open court about certain royal matters.

They've known for months they were having a girl. At any stage they could have spoken to anyone in the family and said "do you think granny would be ok with us using the name Lilibet?" or even...you know..asked her themselves? I mean, saying to Elizabeth Alexander Mary Windsor "we will name her in your honour" could have meant any number of names or any number of variants of any of those names..

The Queen has made her own bed and can lie in it. She is an absolutely appalling example as a parent and grandparent. It is beyond any definition of cold to allow strangers to be speaking on your behalf about what should be personal family matters. I agree, I think it's good and appropriate that Harry should be taking this legal, since it's the only way for the truth to come out. He shouldn't have to, but his grandmother is the one defining the ground rules.

Neyite

lrushe wrote: »

But if the source has to seek the royal seal from the palace how is that any different from the palace commenting directly?

I posted a link a few days ago about Eugenie being team h&m according to a source but was told it wasn't believable.
How does one differentiate between sources?

Your source wasn't cited as a palace source anywhere in the article though. It was also reported to a tabloid paper. I'm not doubting that it could very well be true but it's a big difference between the Mirror saying that Beatrice and Eugenie clashed over the pregnancy announcement and a BBC reporter quoting a palace official directly in the employment of the Queen, off the record.

lrushe

Neyite wrote: »

Your source wasn't cited as a palace source anywhere in the article though. It was also reported to a tabloid paper. I'm not doubting that it could very well be true but it's a big difference between the Mirror saying that Beatrice and Eugenie clashed over the pregnancy announcement and a BBC reporter quoting a palace official directly in the employment of the Queen, off the record.

I think the BBC has had a bit of a fall from grace since the faked documents in the Diana interview, bit weird that that is the outlet the rf would use.
I personally think all news outlets would sell their own mother for a story and are not above embellishment where needed.
Again if the source is so reliable because they would have needed the ok from the queen/palace why would the queen/palace not just comment directly, I don't understand hiding behind a source if its common knowledge that permission would have needed to be sought and granted.

Neyite

They should have called the baby Suzanne, or Sue for short.

tara73

retro:electro wrote: »

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”..

at this stage I think this is most likely. they are on a revenge and bully trip of the highest order for the last weeks and this fits the picture best imo. disgrace again. whatever this 95 year old women has done to him, Harry, or he thinks she has done to him, doesn't justifies anything he's doing now.

Immortal Starlight

Neyite wrote: »

They should have called the baby Suzanne, or Sue for short.

Ah no it had to be after the queen and Diana. Much more ka-ching value there than suing:pac:

giles lynchwood

cnocbui wrote: »

I have not one iota of sympathy for the Queen. She contimues to place staff above family. She could bypass the staff, for once, and issue a direct statement clarifying the matter, but she clings to that stupid 'never comment' nonsense, so she can reap the rewards of it.

She is a 95 year old women who is steeped in tradition and set in her way's who just buried her husband and does not deserve the grief those two generate.If it's not one thing it's another with them.

dark crystal

Imagine naming your baby after your mother/grandmother. How spiteful!

The amount of people losing their sh*t over a baby name would be hilarious if it wasn't so utterly pathetic

end of the road

giles lynchwood wrote: »

She is a 95 year old women who is steeped in tradition and set in her way's who just buried her husband and does not deserve the grief those two generate.If it's not one thing it's another with them.

it's not these 2 generating the drama, it's the institution via it's nonsense, and the gutter element of the media, that is generating the drama.

Be right back

dark crystal wrote: »

Imagine naming your baby after your mother/grandmother. How spiteful!

The amount of people losing their sh*t over a baby name would be hilarious if it wasn't so utterly pathetic

They say they consulted the Queen about the name but apparently she didn't want to be called that anymore so would she agree to their baby name? Harry and Meghan are causing the main issue over the name.

end of the road

Be right back wrote: »

They say they consulted the Queen about the name but apparently she didn't want to be called that anymore so would she agree to their baby name? Harry and Meghan are causing the main issue over the name.

it's really not.
they just named their baby, and some engaged in what looks really to me to be fo/fake outrage on behalf of the queen over it.
there is no actual drama here only generated drama out of nothing.

dogbert27

The naming of Lilibet is clearly a move to keep them linked to the Royal Family in case they do lose their titles.

Even if they are just Harry and Meghan in future their daughter will he known for being named after the Queen of England.

It helps keep their "brand" in the spotlight

dogbert27

Within 24 hours Scobie gets a journalist fired for a "racist" comment. There is such a thing as satire in journalism but satire is something that would go over Scobie's head.

The tweet would have probably not been seen by many but he retweeted to his 69000 followers first, had twitter cancel her account and then called out her boss to take action.

The lovely and compassionate team H&M at work.

http://https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9667543/Meghans-friend-Omid-Scobie-gloats-sacking-Julie-Burchill.html

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

it's really not.
they just named their baby, and some engaged in what looks really to me to be fo/fake outrage on behalf of the queen over it.
there is no actual drama here only generated drama out of nothing.

From my reading of the situation Meghan and Harry first claimed they had asked the queen if she was comfortable with them using the family's personal nickname for the queen to name their daughter, even though she apparently will be called 'Lilli' for all practical purposes.

The BBC asked their palace source was this true and the source said no. Meghan and Harry then throw the toys out of the pram and threaten to sue the BBC and any other media organisations that dare say they didn't ask the queen.

Their statement, however, does not claim they asked the queen, it reads like they told the queen and would not have used it if she objected. That's not the same thing as asking if she was ok with it.

Do you not think drama and histrionics always seem to follow any dealings Meghan and Harry Markle have with the royal family? They are basically firing a warning shot at all UK media organisations, if you report the palace's version events when it conflicts with ours, we will sue you.

lrushe

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They are basically firing a warning shot at all UK media organisations, if you report the palace's version events when it conflicts with ours, we will sue you.

Is that not a good thing? If they sue they can only win if they are telling the truth, if they are liars that will soon be uncovered.

valoren

Interestingly, the report is still available on the BBC web site. Looks like they're standing over it. Omid Scobie's Twitter comment about "aides within the institution" being out of the Sussex news loop is telling. The idea being that the Queen et al are all trapped, that the people actually in charge are the suits and advisors. It is really those aides who are the bad actors in all this, right? I guess the legal threat was deliberate and presumably wanted the report to be taken down because it isn't some biased tabloid outlet engaging in tittle tattle. It is a formal report from the major broadcaster which is already on thin ice after the Bashir interview. Why threaten legal action? It's likely a gambit because if the BBC relented and took it down to verify the accuracy of the source's information then it would be a win for Harry and Meghan as it would be framed as the aides telling lies, up to no good as usual. Now wouldn't that be brilliant to have in their arsenal when the findings from the bullying investigation come around. A bully? Yeah right, you're stupid enough to believe a bunch of biased liars who were caught making stuff up with the BBC? etc. It seems like that gambit back fired and the BBC are sticking with their story.

MoonUnit75

lrushe wrote: »

Is that not a good thing? If they sue they can only win if they are telling the truth, if they are liars that will soon be uncovered.

The queen is not going to 'take the stand' in a defamation case about a private conversation she had with her own family. The Markles are trying to exercise control over the media to create a chill effect on reporting anything they don't like.

lrushe

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The queen is not going to 'take the stand' in a defamation case about a private conversation she had with her own family. The Markles are trying to exercise control over the media to create a chill effect on reporting anything they don't like.

She doesn't have to take the stand, at least she didn't have to in the Paul Burrell case. If she can do that for a former employee I'm sure she'd do it for her grandson.

dogbert27

lrushe wrote: »

Is that not a good thing? If they sue they can only win if they are telling the truth, if they are liars that will soon be uncovered.

They were already outed as liars with 17 inconsistencies in their Oprah interview.

Harry doubled down weeks later with his own personal attacks on his family.

It really beggars belief the apologists that are on here for them.

tara73

dogbert27 wrote: »

The naming of Lilibet is clearly a move to keep them linked to the Royal Family in case they do lose their titles.

Even if they are just Harry and Meghan in future their daughter will he known for being named after the Queen of England.

It helps keep their "brand" in the spotlight

but then up until a few days ago since the name was announced, almost nobody knew that this name was the pet name of the queen. Only people who are really intensely into the details of the royal family might have known it.

And nobody from the 'normal' poeple around the world who don't follow the stuff from H+M like posters here do, still don't have a clue, it's just some name for the majority and not automatically linked to the name Elizabeth either.

So I think first and foremost it's some dig at the queen herself. Disgusting, but I already said that.

retro:electro

Interesting

https://twitter.com/byEmilyAndrews/status/1402581284057190402?s=20

Larbre34

They are some pair of classless charlatans all the same.

iamwhoiam

tara73 wrote: »

but then up until a few days ago since the name was announced, almost nobody knew that this name was the pet name of the queen. Only people who are really intensely into the details of the royal family might have known it.

And nobody from the 'normal' poeple around the world who don't follow the stuff from H+M like posters here do, still don't have a clue, it's just some name for the majority and not automatically linked to the name Elizabeth either.

So I think first and foremost it's some dig at the queen herself. Disgusting, but I already said that.

Anyone who watched The Crown would have known !!

dark crystal

dogbert27 wrote: »

They were already outed as liars with 17 inconsistencies in their Oprah interview.

Harry doubled down weeks later with his own personal attacks on his family.

It really beggars belief the apologists that are on here for them.

Apologists for what? They named their daughter after her granny/great-granny - what's there to apologise for? Their kid, their business, nothing to do with anyone else ffs.

Bit rich to be castigating them for 'personal attacks' when this thread is full of them! :rolleyes: