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

pjohnson

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.

Sure why buy any paper. They contradict themselves so often you just need to listen to them :pac:

Captain_Crash

Might have been mentioned earlier on the thread but I think I remember reading years ago that it’s against protocol to give a royal baby the same name as a sitting monarch??

lazygal

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Might have been mentioned earlier on the thread but I think I remember reading years ago that it’s against protocol to give a royal baby the same name as a sitting monarch??

Someone tell Henry VII.

Interesting read here. Edward was asked about Mexit. https://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/rift-between-harry-and-meghan-and-rest-of-royals-very-sad-says-edward-1139556.html

Neyite

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Might have been mentioned earlier on the thread but I think I remember reading years ago that it’s against protocol to give a royal baby the same name as a sitting monarch??

I'm not sure of the protocol but for thousands of years babies have been named in honour of a monarch so that bit is fine.

The part that's a stickier issue is the use of a private family nickname as an official real name. The Queen is a public figure, a head of state. Every move in in the public eye to be scrutinised as she's funded by the tax-payer.

The nickname was her off-duty persona. There's lots of actors and writers who use a stage name or nom-de-plume and use their real names in real life - maybe as a way of keeping work and family separate. I know plenty of women who are known by their maiden name professionally and their married name in private life, or go by Irish names on facebook. Harry himself used a fake name for his private social media - they probably all do.

It's further complicated by the fact that even in private, royal protocol means she's not ever just "Lilibet" to anyone else except the Grandfather who coined the nickname, her father and recently deceased husband that used it for her - and they are all dead, so it's an emotionally-connected nickname now, connected to memories of hers. The last time she signed that name was on the wreath for her husband funeral.

And it was taken by two people who she has gone above and beyond for. They themselves say that she was always wonderful to them. Yet they trashed her parenting mere weeks ago on TV, the latest of a series of interviews where they blame everything to do with the family she is head of for their lives, and their track record suggests that they will probably monetise the name as much as they can.

It's interesting that despite the threat of suing, the BBC have not removed the article, that shows they are doubling down on it, and must be pretty certain of their source, especially in the wake of the Bashir stuff recently. They cited a senior palace official so they are pretty much confirming that the source spoke with the tacit approval of the Queen.

Ms. Newbie18

Edward seems like a decent sort. Now if they could throw Andy to the FBI and get rid of the other two (H&M) the RF would be doing way better PR wise.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting read here. Edward was asked about Mexit. https://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/rift-between-harry-and-meghan-and-rest-of-royals-very-sad-says-edward-1139556.html

He's smart to stay the hell out of it.

And he's also right that they've all had excessive intrusion into their lives. It was widely alluded to in his younger years that he was gay, and not in a "Yay for diversity and inclusion in the Royal family" way. He was subjected to horrendous gay slurs and allegations for decades.

Neyite

Ms. Newbie18 wrote: »

Edward seems like a decent sort. Now if they could throw Andy to the FBI and get rid of the other two (H&M) the RF would be doing way better PR wise.

I reckon Charles would be happy to hand Andy over when Mummy stops protecting him. There's no love lost between the two brothers.

Captain_Crash

lazygal wrote: »

Someone tell Henry VII.

Obviously a sitting monarch would be excluded if such a protocol is in place! Although looking online I can’t find anything referencing it, but I definitely heard it mentioned before, maybe it’s just the “done thing”

HildaOgdenx

Neyite wrote: »

It's further complicated by the fact that even in private, royal protocol means she's not ever just "Lilibet" to anyone else except the Grandfather who coined the nickname, her father and recently deceased husband that used it for her - and they are all dead, so it's an emotionally-connected nickname now, connected to memories of hers. The last time she signed that name was on the wreath for her husband funeral.

And it was taken by two people who she has gone above and beyond for. They themselves say that she was always wonderful to them. Yet they trashed her parenting mere weeks ago on TV, the latest of a series of interviews where they blame everything to do with the family she is head of for their lives, and their track record suggests that they will probably monetise the name as much as they can.

It's interesting that despite the threat of suing, the BBC have not removed the article, that shows they are doubling down on it, and must be pretty certain of their source, especially in the wake of the Bashir stuff recently. They cited a senior palace official so they are pretty much confirming that the source spoke with the tacit approval of the Queen.

Yes, I was thinking the same, especially the fact that it was a family nickname, used only by specific people.
It seems very insensitive, to me, to say the least.

They could easily have named the child Lili and then 'leak' to the media (as it seems they must :rolleyes:) that it was a nod to the queen's nickname.

Honestly, I think they are so publicity hungry, they would do anything to stay in the headlines. And this is just another example of it.

silverharp

Neyite wrote: »

He's smart to stay the hell out of it.

And he's also right that they've all had excessive intrusion into their lives. It was widely alluded to in his younger years that he was gay, and not in a "Yay for diversity and inclusion in the Royal family" way. He was subjected to horrendous gay slurs and allegations for decades.

didnt the Pink News declare William's son as a gay icon , not a good look btw, despicable and pervy

giles lynchwood

end of the road wrote: »

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.

Did you miss the interview with Oprah they gave,even Oprah said after"i did not think she would go all the way there (baby colour)i asked her are you sure you want to go there and she did".

Neyite

HildaOgdenx wrote: »

Yes, I was thinking the same, especially the fact that it was a family nickname, used only by specific people.
It seems very insensitive, to me, to say the least.

They could easily have named the child Lili and then 'leak' to the media (as it seems they must :rolleyes:) that it was a nod to the queen's nickname.

Honestly, I think they are so publicity hungry, they would do anything to stay in the headlines. And this is just another example of it.

I've a nickname given to me by an aunt I'm very close to. Everyone knows she calls me it, but nobody else uses it for me. It's our thing. She's in her 90s so I know that after she's gone, that affectionate nickname will have different connotations for me. And if someone in my life who's been consistently selfish, financially grabby and caused ructions in my family and hurt people did a faux "Oh we named our baby Nickname in honour of you" I think I'd be on the warpath because it's empty lip service.

Be right back

Neyite wrote: »

He's smart to stay the hell out of it.

And he's also right that they've all had excessive intrusion into their lives. It was widely alluded to in his younger years that he was gay, and not in a "Yay for diversity and inclusion in the Royal family" way. He was subjected to horrendous gay slurs and allegations for decades.

But poor Meghan was the only one to be given such a hard time by the press, or so she would want you to think.

JoChervil

dark crystal wrote: »

They're not Macbeth and bloody Lady Macbeth either!

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

Their age is a fact, so not disputable.

While their scheming may or may not be true, so is disputable.

JoChervil

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.

It seems it never occurred to you, that people might use their own brains and have conclussions based on H&M interviews...

Be right back

JoChervil wrote: »

It seems it never occurred to you, that people might use their own brains and have conclussions based on H&M interviews...

No, we are easily swayed by what the tabloids say and not by what Meghan and Harry say and do. Make up our own minds? Never!!

lrushe

So is it just people who are anti m&h that have the luxury of examing the evidence and making there own mind up?
Is that privilege only held if you think one way.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It’s a dick move.

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

oh no, it's not in anyone's head, it actually exists.
dick move my backside, it's only a dick move because it's another thing to use to have a go at these 2 over more or less nothing.
it's the naming of a baby after the child's great grandmother, get over it, its something of nothing being made into a mountain and they are unlikely to change it.

pjohnson wrote: »

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

some outside the thread may be, but realistically it's more a case of those of us bringing a bit of balance to the thread simply don't buy what the likes of the sun and daily mail sell more then anything.

giles lynchwood wrote: »

Did you miss the interview with Oprah they gave,even Oprah said after"i did not think she would go all the way there (baby colour)i asked her are you sure you want to go there and she did".

no, i watched it.
lets be real, they didn't give any big things away (which i wasn't expecting that they would anyway) a lot of what they said was stuff we already knew or suspected.

end of the road

dogbert27 wrote: »

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.

none of us know that they didn't try get it canceled, the fact it went ahead is not proof they may not have looked for it to be canceled, as i said before.
even then, an interview that was going to bring in millions of viewers was not something a television channel would give up airing easily.
them canceling or not canceling, depending on what ability they actually had to do it, has no baring on whether they have affection for the queen or not in reality.

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.

more mucha do about nothing here.
i certainly never claimed them to be Romeo and Juliet nor ever would.

NSAman

Well she is set now for the divorce, two kids, a nice house and lots of publicity. When it comes, Mummies inheritance will pale into insignificance to the "ex"-wife demands.

dark crystal

Be right back wrote: »

No, we are easily swayed by what the tabloids say and not by what Meghan and Harry say and do. Make up our own minds? Never!!

Good Jesus! Did either of you notice the post I was replying to, no? In it, a poster suggested that those of us who haven't jumped on the hate wagon must have been taken in by these two people we have never met.

I then retorted that those who are being rather mean about these two people they have never met may have, in turn, been taken in by the sleazy British tabloid media.

The post I replied to suggested only one side possess the mental capacity to make up their own minds. Ye missed the point of my reply entirely, but that's ok. The indignation is rather amusing.
Earlier, another poster took, quite literally, a glib reply I made about the Queen being enraged by a baby name as a serious point and contended it was all in my head. Yes, yes it was. I don't actually know the Queen, nor do I actually think she is enraged by something so trivial. She lived through a World War for goodness sakes!

But yeah, Lilibet wha? Off with their heads!

Leg End Reject

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.

I don't read the tabloids, my opinion of them is based on the interview and their subsequent behaviour.

A whirlwind romance after she arranged to meet him, and his apparent personality transplant, it doesn't bode well at all.

dark crystal

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I don't read the tabloids, my opinion of them is based on the interview and their subsequent behaviour.

A whirlwind romance after she arranged to meet him, and his apparent personality transplant, it doesn't bode well at all.

"Whirlwind romance after 'she arranged' to meet him" Hmmm. Now where did you garner that particular nugget from?

Leg End Reject

dark crystal wrote: »

"Whirlwind romance after 'she arranged' to meet him" Hmmm. Now where did you garner that particular nugget from?

Not the tabloids I can assure you.

ceadaoin.

NSAman wrote: »

Well she is set now for the divorce, two kids, a nice house and lots of publicity. When it comes, Mummies inheritance will pale into insignificance to the "ex"-wife demands.

And a husband who has been led to believe its great to put all his issues out there for everyone to see. I'm sure none of that would ever be used against him in a possible custody battle. Nope.

lrushe

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And a husband who has been led to believe its great to put all his issues out there for everyone to see. I'm sure none of that would ever be used against him in a possible custody battle. Nope.

Probably as much as her suicidal ideation can be used against her.

dark crystal

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Not the tabloids I can assure you.

Really? Sounds like it was ripped straight from a Daily Mail story and about as accurate. No idea where you would have got the idea it was Markle who arranged the meeting...

lrushe wrote: »

Probably as much as her suicidal ideation can be used against her.

And don't forget she's a bone fide narcissistic stage 2 histrionic!

JoChervil

lrushe wrote: »

Probably as much as her suicidal ideation can be used against her.

Actually this can be stronger used against Harry, because he was aware of her state and didn't help her.

lrushe

dark crystal wrote: »

And don't forget she's a bone fide narcissistic stage 2 histrionic!

Oh yeah I forgot about that, he could use the Boards experts to testify!