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

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote: »

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.

You know it's a bit more complex than that. The granny in question is a monarch, head of state, the head honcho of an institution hundreds of years old that is part family, part corporation.

Also the name - a very personal nickname little known when a very easy homage could have been made by using names like Lily, Beth, and variation on Elizabeth etc.

Finally there's the whole drama about how H&M were suicidal being part of the Queen's "firm". It's not as simple as you make out.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

You know it's a bit more complex than that. The granny in question is a monarch, head of state, the head honcho of an institution hundreds of years old that is part family, part corporation.

Also the name - a very personal nickname little known when a very easy homage could have been made by using names like Lily, Beth, and variation on Elizabeth etc.

Finally there's the whole drama about how H&M were suicidal being part of the Queen's "firm". It's not as simple as you make out.

Spot on..

It’s very clear to me that those defending these two are doing so due to their utter contempt and disdain for the crown/monarch/institution..

hamburgham

Neyite wrote: »

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

Or as Julie Birchall suggested on Twitter, Doria Oprah, then abbreviated to Doprah, but unfortunately “Black names don’t matter” for this pair.

dogbert27

hamburgham wrote: »

Or as Julie Birchall suggested on Twitter, Doria Oprah, then abbreviated to Doprah, but unfortunately “Black names don’t matter” for this pair.

It was a barrister, Joanna Tock who tweeted Doprah and she has been suspended by her firm because of it.

There's an element off giving it but not taking it with the H&M brand.

Larbre34

dogbert27 wrote: »

She also has been suspended from her work for that tweet.

There's an element off giving it but not taking it with the H&M brand.

Not quite. She was sacked altogether from The Telegraph for suggesting "Georgina Floydina".

Free speech isn't what it used to be I guess.

Multipass

Whatever about the row - my instant reaction to that name was that it was a weird thing to do. Nicknames are so personal, even more so a childish mispronunciation. I’m imagining something in my family doing this, and it would feel really inappropriate to use. It would feel a bit like stealing of something intimate, it makes me uncomfortable. I think this was Meghan making sure no-one forgets this child is a royal, especially since the kids didn't get titles - something she desperately seemed to want, despite the family being racist, horrible parents, uncaring about suicidal people etc.
I feel sorry for the kid, already a pawn.

dark crystal

walshb wrote: »

Spot on..

It’s very clear to me that those defending these two are doing so due to their utter contempt and disdain for the crown/monarch/institution..

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, however I'll certainly admit to being completely flummoxed at how revered the British Royal family appear to be on here alright. Well, certain members anyway.

However, I do feel utter contempt and disdain for sustained Piers Morgan style attacks on a young couple for issues as ridiculous as what they named their baby daughter or whether their pre-wedding vows were strictly legal or whether or not they lied about some dust-up at a wedding rehearsal with the saintly Sister-in-Law.
Some of the same people engaging in that type of tabloidesque nonsense would have opined about how awful it was when Caroline Flack took her own life in large part because of the very same kind of sh*t being heaped on her.

I'm not claiming Meghan or Harry are saints, but neither are the Royal family, so the hand wringing about how they've been somehow victimised by two of their own seems utterly bizarre to me.

lrushe

dark crystal wrote: »

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:

Naming your child after a relative is up there with such felonies as not buttoning your coat all the way and not hearing your phone ring in the middle of the night

walshb wrote: »

It’s very clear to me that those defending these two are doing so due to their utter contempt and disdain for the crown/monarch/institution..

I'm not defending anyone, I just see molehill where others seem to see mountain.
I've no problem with the rf, they have no bearing on my life.

dark crystal

lrushe wrote: »

Naming your child after a relative is up there with such felonies as not buttoning your coat all the way and not hearing your phone ring in the middle of the night

It's quite the scandal alright! I do hope the poor Queen recovers from the ignominy of it all!

I mean, it's one thing to have one's son consorting with that dreadful Epstein chap and wanted in questioning by the FBI, but quite another to have a baby named after oneself!

dark crystal

hamburgham wrote: »

Or as Julie Birchall suggested on Twitter, Doria Oprah, then abbreviated to Doprah, but unfortunately “Black names don’t matter” for this pair.

And you got two thanks for quoting Julie Birchall of all people! You couldn't make it up :pac:

Anyone who'd set their moral compass by anything that professional troll has to say has no place criticising Meghan Markle.

end of the road

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

they are linked to the royal family no matter what, regardless of anything, via the fact harry is the grandson of the queen and the son of the first in line to be king and the brother of the second in line to be king, and there isn't anything that can be done to change that reality.
they just aren't tied to the institution any longer, and long term weren't likely to be anyway as charles i believe plans on slimming it right down.
harry would always be known as prince harry regardless though, if only informally perhapse.

dogbert27 wrote: »

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

she got herself sacked by being a dick, whether she should have been or not is a different issue but it was her actions that got her sacked.
now if we were talking about a tweat from years ago or before her employment at that particular publication then i might have a smidgen of sympathy because i believe there should only be a couple of very serious circumstances where your employment should be terminated for actions before that employment began, but that is not what happened here and i believe she was already on thin ice as it is, so i have no sympathy for her.

Tilden Katz

Multipass wrote: »

Whatever about the row - my instant reaction to that name was that it was a weird thing to do. Nicknames are so personal, even more so a childish mispronunciation. I’m imagining something in my family doing this, and it would feel really inappropriate to use. It would feel a bit like stealing of something intimate, it makes me uncomfortable.

This is a good point and something I hadn’t really considered. Yeah, I’m trying to envisage potential newborn children in my extended family being given names that are nicknames of older family members and it would be an odd thing to do.

JoChervil

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

And Harry hasn't lost his sh*t over it by suing BBC? How utterly pathetic!

volchitsa

dark crystal wrote: »

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:

They didn't though, they used a childish mispronunciation that the child's great grandmother used to call herself when she was a baby. Cute but not very dignified for a woman whose dignity and reserve has been her hallmark for decades.

One of my nephews used to call himself "Tiptap". It would be frankly strange if in 50 years' time his estranged grandson called his son that "name" - could be either a way of them trying to make up the rift (but in that case the original name would surely be a less ambiguous way of doing it) or it could be a provocation. I suspect the latter.

Multipass

dark crystal wrote: »

And you got two thanks for quoting Julie Birchall of all people! You couldn't make it up :pac:

Anyone who'd set their moral compass by anything that professional troll has to say has no place criticising Meghan Markle.

I was one - i have no idea who the person is, I’ve never heard of her. I thought the name suggestion was a good one :pac:

dark crystal

JoChervil wrote: »

And Harry hasn't lost his sh*t over it by suing BBC? How utterly pathetic!

His mother should have done that years ago after she was conned into an interview with Martin Bashir, which they've since had to apologise for.

If the BBC are reporting porkies, why shouldn't he sue? Good for him if true.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

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.

look it doesn't matter how the exact conversation went, they will have ultimately asked for permission in some form whichever of those versions happens to be true, so this is an issue over nothing.
them threatening legal action isn't throwing toys out of the pram, it's just threatening legal action, presumably they feel they have a good case to do so based on the advice of their legal team.
oh i do think drama and histrionics always seem to follow any dealings Meghan and Harry Markle have with the royal family, but not on their part or the rf's part, but on the part of elements of the media, those who hang on every word those publications say, and on the part of some who already have issues with them.
firing a warning shot at some parts of the media they very well may be, but to be honest there are a couple of publications which deserve everything they get.

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.

well actually no, they weren't outed as liers.
the inconsistencies were more failures to clarify a bit more on certain things, which does not equal lies, the same as being inconsistent itself doesn't automatically equal to lieing.

Deleted User wrote: »

You know it's a bit more complex than that. The granny in question is a monarch, head of state, the head honcho of an institution hundreds of years old that is part family, part corporation.

Also the name - a very personal nickname little known when a very easy homage could have been made by using names like Lily, Beth, and variation on Elizabeth etc.

Finally there's the whole drama about how H&M were suicidal being part of the Queen's "firm". It's not as simple as you make out.

oh but it is as simple as dc makes out.
their issues while part of the institution which the queen happens to be the head of, does not equate to issues with the queen specifically.
in fact we know harry and meghan have a good relation ship with the queen, meghan stated herself the queen personally made her feel welcome.

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

His mother should have done that years ago after she was conned into an interview with Martin Bashir, which they've since had to apologise for.

If the BBC are reporting porkies, why shouldn't he sue? Good for him if true.

Ah, so now you see that it is not only about a kid name. That it is only a tip of an iceberg...

dark crystal

volchitsa wrote: »

They didn't though, they used a childish mispronunciation that the child's great grandmother used to call herself when she was a baby. Cute but not very dignified for a woman whose dignity and reserve has been her hallmark for decades.

Hopefully she gets over the shock of her grandaughter being named after an affectionate name she used in her youth, or 'Lili' as she'll actually be known. I do hope she can quench the raging inferno of rage she must undoubtedly feel.

One of my nephews used to call himself "Tiptap". It would be frankly strange if in 50 years' time his estranged grandson called his son that "name" - could be either a way of them trying to make up the rift (but in that case the original name would surely be a less ambiguous way of doing it) or it could be a provocation. I suspect the latter.

I quite like the name Tiptap! Sounds puppety!

Yeah, I'd say they were definitely provoking the woman they have expressed nothing but affection for by using the poor baby as a shameless pawn in their machiavellian plan...for shame! Shame!

MoonUnit75

dark crystal wrote: »

Hopefully she gets over the shock of her grandaughter being named after an affectionate name she used in her youth, or 'Lili' as she'll actually be known. I do hope she can quench the raging inferno of rage she must undoubtedly feel.



I quite like the name Tiptap! Sounds puppety!

Yeah, I'd say they were definitely provoking the woman they have expressed nothing but affection for by using the poor baby as a shameless pawn in their machiavellian plan...for shame! Shame!

It’s a dick move.

The ‘rage’ and ‘raging inferno’ are in your own head.

Immortal Starlight

Didn’t Harry say his father was a bad father because he’d learned his ways from his mother the queen.

y0ssar1an22

i'm gonna cynical here...when the queen passes and archie gets a title, they will leave with the titles. once you are a grandkid of the monarch, its for life.

the queen should strip them of all titles.

he's a fool, she's an awful person.

dogbert27

dark crystal wrote: »

Hopefully she gets over the shock of her grandaughter being named after an affectionate name she used in her youth, or 'Lili' as she'll actually be known. I do hope she can quench the raging inferno of rage she must undoubtedly feel.



I quite like the name Tiptap! Sounds puppety!

Yeah, I'd say they were definitely provoking the woman they have expressed nothing but affection for by using the poor baby as a shameless pawn in their machiavellian plan...for shame! Shame!

If they had the affection that you claim for the woman they would have cancelled the airing of the Oprah interview when Phillip was taken in to hospital.

If they had the affection you claim they would have then reconsidered airing it at all when they would have known how gravely Phillip was.

dogbert27

Another thing, would those defending them stop calling them a young couple, they're both nearly 40 for Christ's sake.


They're not Romeo and bloody Juliet.

Lillyfae

dogbert27 wrote: »

Another thing, would those defending them stop calling them a young couple, they're both nearly 40 for Christ's sake.

It's so true

dark crystal

dogbert27 wrote: »

Another thing, would those defending them stop calling them a young couple, they're both nearly 40 for Christ's sake.


They're not Romeo and bloody Juliet.

They're not Macbeth and bloody Lady Macbeth either!

Would those berating them stop implying they're scheming, Machiavellian n'er do wells.

pjohnson

dogbert27 wrote: »

Another thing, would those defending them stop calling them a young couple, they're both nearly 40 for Christ's sake.


They're not Romeo and bloody Juliet.

Those people are just buying up whatever the duo are selling, kinda sad.

dark crystal

pjohnson wrote: »

Those people are just buying up whatever the duo are selling, kinda sad.

Whereas all the much wiser people berating them are buying whatever the Daily Mail/Sun/Telegraph is selling? I find that even sadder tbh.

Love this. Noel Gallagher comparing himself to Prince William!

“Noel Gallagher has branded Prince Harry a 'f*****g woke snowflake' for publicly criticising the Royal Family.

The Oasis frontman, 54, who has a notoriously sour relationship with his own brother Liam, 48, said he sympathises with Prince William for having a brother who is 'shooting his f*****g mouth off'.

Noel didn't hold back in his criticism of the Duke of Sussex, telling The Sun: 'Prince William. I feel that f*****g lad's pain.


'He's got a f*****g younger brother shooting his f*****g mouth off with s*** that is just so unnecessary. I'd like to think I was always the William.'”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9670369/Typical-f-g-woke-snowflake-Noel-Gallagher-SLAMS-Prince-Harry-dissing-family.html

Be right back

dark crystal wrote: »

Whereas all the much wiser people berating them are buying whatever the Daily Mail/Sun/Telegraph is selling? I find that even sadder tbh.

Or the Times!