Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 20:30:57 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 8:30:09 GMT -4
I think it’s been forgotten by the Royal Family, the aides, reporters, media and internet that it’s an actual real life baby they named not a a boat, goat, horse or cat! It’s almost as tho as she hasn’t been seen( now probably never will be) she doesnt really matter or exist in this row, like she won’t grow up and learn to read or anything like that.
Maybe it’s that the Royals wanted the name reserved for the gazzillon pound yacht(( HMS Royal Yacht Lillibet) that’s been commissioned or for a one of her maj’s horses( Gold Cup Winner Lillibet’s Dream) or something.
|
|
cancan
Blueblood
Posts: 1,362
Apr 21, 2006 13:01:02 GMT -4
|
Post by cancan on Jun 10, 2021 8:57:01 GMT -4
I think it’s been forgotten by the Royal Family, the aides, reporters, media and internet that it’s an actual real life baby they named not a a boat, goat, horse or cat! It’s almost as tho as she hasn’t been seen( now probably never will be) she doesnt really matter or exist in this row, like she won’t grow up and learn to read or anything like that. Maybe it’s that the Royals wanted the name reserved for the gazzillon pound yacht(( HMS Royal Yacht Lillibet) that’s been commissioned or for a one of her maj’s horses( Gold Cup Winner Lillibet’s Dream) or something. I don't think there were any plans to use her beloved, personal, private nickname for anything -- that's why it's so galling. On the one hand, H&M trash the Royal Family/Firm continuously, but then usurp this personal name and try to pass it off as a symbol of their close bond and respect. Bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 20:30:57 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 9:12:02 GMT -4
I wasn’t really suggesting they were, I was kidding about that. Tho I was serious that human baby Lili has been forgotten and the row comes across to me as you swear they used the name for a lump of rock so to speak.
I do wonder had anyone else thought to use the nick name ( hypothetically) say Beatrice*or Zara who doesn’t have run names passed her grandmother would there have been any uproar most liking by thought as adorable and a sweet tribute or is uproar just reserved for The Sussexes.
. * not sure if Bea has run past names with granny as she’s further down the line now
|
|
royalwave
Landed Gentry
Posts: 843
Oct 24, 2019 13:25:06 GMT -4
|
Post by royalwave on Jun 10, 2021 9:38:55 GMT -4
Thinking it over, The Queen was kind of a stone cold bitch this week and I'm not sure how I feel about it. H&M have ragged on her life's work, her parenting, her official decisions, her use of the word royal, the word service, said her dying husband's hospitalization was a ploy to shut them up, called them racist, name dropped her constantly for their own gain, and all because they thought she'd remain silent. Then their baby is born, H&M name it after TQ, and for a split second it looks like a happy, positive move forward. Until the Queen says, "I'm not okay with that kid's name and Harry and Meghan aren't as close to me as they think." Damn. That's globally humiliating. It's almost cruel how much she ruined this happy moment in their lives and destroyed any perception that H&M are close to royalty. And they can't attack her for it because that would be treasonous. Not that they'd be executed, but they'd absolutely lose the titles. For once, H&M actually have to swallow the pill and take it. You can't just keep poking the bear forever and think it will continue to sit back and take it . The palace may not be able to openly fight back, but they can certainly use silence and refusal to acknowledge certain versions of events as their "official" answer. Perhaps this business about the name Lilibet was a bridge too far, and it was finally time to put the Sussexes on notice that the Queen is done letting them get away with saying whatever they want about her and their relationship. I agree that it is humiliating on a global scale, but they have also humiliated the family on a global scale to a much larger degree. Which is worse: being accused of refusing to help a suicidal family member, or being accused of lying about your granny approving of your baby's name? Which is worse: being accused of failing to provide security to your family members in the face of death threats, or being accused of lying about your granny approving of your baby's name? In my opinion, it's not even close. At the end of the day, Harry and Meghan can name the baby whatever they want. The Queen doesn't have to like it (though why you would name someone after a living person if that person doesn't feel honored is beyond me). They may lose the public perception that they are anywhere near as close to the Queen as they want people to think they are. But the Queen and her family still have an accusation hanging over their heads that they were fine with basically leaving Meghan, or possibly the whole Sussex family, to die. There are several video interviews blasting them for even more than that, and these will live on in perpetuity. There is still an open question, probably never to be answered, of who in the family made potentially racist comments about Archie. None of this can be undone. I don't feel bad for Meghan and Harry at all. I do agree with those who feel for the child, because her name is now a source of bemusement rather than a "sweet tribute." But I already felt bad for the Sussex kids just because I think they are missing out on what would have been a loving family. It looks to me like most everyone gets along and the cousins are close. Plus, it's such a unique opportunity. How many people in this world can say they are the child or grandchild of a Head of State and get to experience what that is like? Granted, the Sussex kids will lead lives of unique privilege no matter what, but I think they may someday resent that there is a whole world they are missing out on and grandparents/great grandparents they may never get to spend time with.
|
|
hellsbells
Landed Gentry
Posts: 748
Jun 9, 2007 10:03:44 GMT -4
|
Post by hellsbells on Jun 10, 2021 9:41:26 GMT -4
I still don't get what it is that they did that was so bad. The name? Moving away from the UK? Saying that they didn't like living the royal lifestyle? Calling someone in the family racist but refusing to say who it was, leaving everyone open to suspicion. Criticising the family's parenting and accusing them of causing "genetic pain", whatever that is. Publishing their manifesto before clearing it with anyone, then throwing hissy fits when most of it was crossed out by the Queen because it was clearly never going to be possible to be half-in, half-out. Telling the world that the rest of the family is "trapped". Accusing the family of not being willing to help someone who was suicidal, when it actually appears that they were never told that person was suicidal as the person's spouse was too embarrassed to talk about it. Assuming that the UK and/or the family would be happy to carry on paying security costs as they were "internationally protected persons". They are not, and can pay for their own security. Continuing to use their Duke and Duchess titles while living in a country that supposedly doesn't recognise said titles. I guess as far as things royals have done throughout the years, I just don't see any of this as that big a deal. They weren't happy. They moved. They opened their big mouths. They're messier than the other royals. (Except for Prince Andrew and the people protecting him.)
|
|
|
Post by eclair on Jun 10, 2021 9:43:49 GMT -4
I expect to see The Queen wearing a bench brooch, and wearing it upside down. That's how she rolls.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jun 10, 2021 9:52:09 GMT -4
I do wonder had anyone else thought to use the nick name ( hypothetically) say Beatrice*or Zara who doesn’t have run names passed her grandmother would there have been any uproar most liking by thought as adorable and a sweet tribute or is uproar just reserved for The Sussexes. This hypothetical doesn't work when so many of Harry's cousins and his sibling had babies recently and DIDN'T do what Harry and Meghan did. They used "Philip" "Elizabeth" and "Diana" as middle names, which is the standard and traditional way for royal family members to use the names of loved ones from previous generations as a way to honor them. Nobody did anything unusual to create an uncomfortable situation the way Harry and Meghan did. When Beatrice declares war on the royal family, spends 18 months trashing everyone publicly, then picks somebody she's attacked and co-opts their meaningful personal nickname - which they are still using - for her baby's first name without checking in any meaningful way about how the nickname's owner feels....then let's talk about the double standard. I don't envision Beatrice engaging in any of that crappy behavior. Perhaps this business about the name Lilibet was a bridge too far, and it was finally time to put the Sussexes on notice that the Queen is done letting them get away with saying whatever they want about her and their relationship. It's the Queen telling Harry and Meghan to get her name out of their mouth. There's no doubt they have consistently and repeatedly reported their interactions with the Queen to the media as a way to rehab their personal reputations - from the wafflemaker to reporting every single Zoom call (up to and including their calls from the past couple of days). The Queen doesn't exist to make Harry and Meghan look good, and they are exploiting her and the relationship.
|
|
royalwave
Landed Gentry
Posts: 843
Oct 24, 2019 13:25:06 GMT -4
|
Post by royalwave on Jun 10, 2021 10:06:04 GMT -4
I guess as far as things royals have done throughout the years, I just don't see any of this as that big a deal. They weren't happy. They moved. They opened their big mouths. They're messier than the other royals. (Except for Prince Andrew and the people protecting him.) I mean, they haven't beheaded anybody. But then, neither is anyone is condemning the Sussexes to the dungeon. They are being judged by the court of public opinion, which seems appropriate when they have chosen to make so many things public. I think what they've done over the past year or so is worthy of some level of ridicule, because I feel they have been ridiculous. On a personal level, if one of my estranged family members continued telling anyone who would give them the time of day that I was enabling a racist family, that I was a terrible mother who had caused pain across several generations, that I expected my grandson's wife to suck it up rather than get help when she was suicidal, that I didn't want to support my new granddaughter-in-law in any way, I think I would have a hard time biting my tongue when that same family member decided to give his daughter my pet name and insist I was thrilled about it when in reality I was never given a choice. On a professional level, I think if I was running a business and a rogue executive decided to try to leave, but still expected to represent me and the firm part-time while also working for competing interests on the side, and then also didn't abide by any of my corporate policies I would feel a need to make it clear that he was no longer in my employ and that I hadn't approved of his actions and he wasn't in a position to speak for me. And when that executive then decided to go public with comments about how everyone working for me was "trapped" and he had been overworked and wasn't provided benefits like healthcare and security that he should have been entitled to at his level I also don't think I would be able to let those remarks go unchecked, particularly if it was a public company and I had shareholders to answer to. Those shareholders would expect to be assured that things were still running smoothly, and I think the British people are like the shareholders in this case. They have a vested interest in whether the House of Windsor is falling apart at the seams, so whether or not what the Sussexes have done is a "big deal" by historical standards, they have certainly done enough running of their mouths that it needs to be addressed to avoid damages. Many senior executives leaving a firm would have some sort of non-compete clause for several years. They would also likely be under some sort of contract where they would not be allowed to publicly disparage their former employer. Lucky Harry doesn't have that, so he's been free to do whatever he pleases and say whatever he pleases. In my view the firm needs to have some available form of recourse to protect themselves from it.
|
|
|
Post by tiggertoo on Jun 10, 2021 10:28:36 GMT -4
I don’t usually comment on people’s looks and I generally think Harry is attractive, but that little video clip he just put out for Invictus is not a good look for him. I don’t know if it’s the camera angle or maybe he’s sleep deprived with the new baby or my personal opinion of him is colouring my view. He doesn’t look great. And I was just reading an article that included a continuous loop of the clip. Annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Ladybug on Jun 10, 2021 10:44:25 GMT -4
I do wonder had anyone else thought to use the nick name ( hypothetically) say Beatrice*or Zara who doesn’t have run names passed her grandmother would there have been any uproar most liking by thought as adorable and a sweet tribute or is uproar just reserved for The Sussexes. . * not sure if Bea has run past names with granny as she’s further down the line now Bea and Zara don't run to the press after every phone call with their grandmother. I doubt it would’ve even occurred to them to use her nickname for their children. It’s known within the family that the name is reserved for the Queen and her alone. I guess things can be a bit murky when your grandmother is a Queen, and this has been an advantageous relationship for all her descendants, but H&M are making their so-called status as “the Queen’s favorites” part of their brand and PR messaging in a way that none of the other grandchildren have. Not even William and he’s the heir. No other grandchild has publicly called out the family then turns around and says “but we talk to the Queen all the time and we love her and she wants to talk to us all the time!” They don’t go public with their issues because they love their grandmother and do not want to embarrass her.
|
|