romanova
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 207
Jan 2, 2011 20:03:33 GMT -4
|
Post by romanova on Jun 10, 2021 13:07:40 GMT -4
I truly hope the two of them love each other very much and stay together forever, because it seems like they don't have anyone else. They've been united in (and in some ways consumed with) fighting external forces since the engagement interview. I really wonder if they have much in common beyond being a married version of brothers in arms in the heat of battle. Of course having two children will bind the Sussexes to one another forever, but it won't be enough to save them in the long run.
|
|
boxofrocks
Blueblood
Posts: 1,738
Aug 25, 2007 11:01:39 GMT -4
|
Post by boxofrocks on Jun 10, 2021 14:01:16 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? .... 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. .... 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. I excerpted the quote above to emphasize the most serious ones IMO. By doing the half-in, half-out scenario, where the Sussexes represent the head of state in some instances yet also pursue commercial deals, they open themselves to ethical risks. Similar to Prince Michael of Kent and Sarah, Duchess of York, there is the risk of getting entangled in a money for access quandary. To the second point, if you're not going to dedicate yourselves to work supporting taxpayers, then yeah, taxpayers are going to be upset about paying your security. That goes double if you're in another country, not working on behalf of your home country while in the second country, and expect said second country's taxpayers to cover your expenses.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jun 10, 2021 14:01:57 GMT -4
I don’t know if there is actually some process where all the grandchildren present a name and she says yay or nay, I’m sure it’s more like “here it is!” and she says lovely, great. But that process assumes that your grandchildren aren’t huge entitled a-holes who are broadcasting their identity crisis through the media and are actively exploiting your “close relationship” to gain points against their own family. Normally, the Queen's grandchildren don't have a direct line to her, they always have to go through her aides. So I think the normal order of events is a notification of the baby's birth and intended name are sent to the Queen and then a personal phone call follows later in which the Queen says "What a lovely name you have chosen." I don't think the Queen has had any problems with baby names since Fergie wanted to name one of her kids after a nightclub. Since Harry and Meghan take pride in the fact that they now get to call the Queen directly on her private line, she got no advance notice and was put on the spot, with no actual formal or informal right of approval over the name anymore. Harry and Meghan keep talking about their "great respect" for Her Majesty, but also brag that they get to flout the rules, which are there because that's how her Majesty wants things done. To the second point, if you're not going to dedicate yourselves to work supporting taxpayers, then yeah, taxpayers are going to be upset about paying your security. That goes double if you're in another country, not working on behalf of your home country while in the second country, and expect said second country's taxpayers to cover your expenses. Harry claims he was prevented from leaving - I don't believe that. The royal family issued several statements in 2019 saying they supported Harry and Meghan carving out their own role (pending them deciding what that would be) and wanted them to be happy. I fully believe that. I don't think their goal was ever to strip Harry and Meghan of anything. But I also think The Firm wanted to manage Meghan and Harry's transition so it would be done the smart way. Perhaps an extended sabbatical abroad followed by a low-key transition into a different role. No big, sudden, irrevocable announcements of an official status change. Never would The Firm have been so incredibly stupid as to put the security issue up for public debate on a website because OF COURSE the public wasn't going to go for that. Harry and Meghan 100% made their own bed on the security issue.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 3:09:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 14:19:20 GMT -4
If as you say, you don’t think the Queen has had any problems with baby names since Fergie wanted to name one of her kids after a nightclub, then why wasn’t one them called Annabel which was the night club in question, it didn’t even make the middle name cut for either.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jun 10, 2021 14:25:20 GMT -4
If as you say, you don’t think the Queen has had any problems with baby names since Fergie wanted to name one of her kids after a nightclub, then why wasn’t one them called Annabel which was the night club in question, it didn’t even make the middle name cut for either. I'm not understanding this line of thinking. The Queen rejected Annabel. That's why the baby's name wasn't announced for two weeks while the Yorks settled on something else. I'm not aware of the Queen being ok with a nightclub middle name either. I believe she just rejected the name, period. It's believed that since then, the Queen has been fine with all of the subsequent royal baby names that have passed by her for approval - up to Lilibet, which was no longer under her domain to officially approve or reject.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 3:09:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 14:29:26 GMT -4
You said she didn’t have a problems with names, she clearly had a problem with Annabel which is why it wasn’t used in any capacity.
|
|
|
Post by bloodredcherries on Jun 10, 2021 14:29:47 GMT -4
Is this statue just for the back garden in Kensington Palace or will it be seen by the public? I hate statues of relatively recent dead people we know what they look like and it rarely does them any justice. Edit Terry Wogans statue was one I was thinking of. If he comes I’m sure it will be Harry escalates feud by insisting on being there in person rather than zoom only weeks after birth of daughter. If he doesn’t it will Harry escalates feud by insisting on staying with wife and new daughter and using a zoom call instead of being there in person. That's meant to be Terry Wogan??? That??? Signed, an American who knows who Terry Wogan is and thinks that is a terrible representation. How did they get it so wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jun 10, 2021 14:33:43 GMT -4
You said she didn’t have a problems with names, she clearly had a problem with Annabel which is why it wasn’t used in any capacity. Which is exactly what I wrote. It's believed that she hasn't had a problem with any subsequent names after she rejected Annabel for Beatrice. Please, if you aren't going to take a minute to actually read what I wrote, why argue?
|
|
royalwave
Landed Gentry
Posts: 843
Oct 24, 2019 13:25:06 GMT -4
|
Post by royalwave on Jun 10, 2021 14:36:55 GMT -4
I honestly don’t think there would have been as big of a kerfuffle about it if they had named her Elizabeth. Or one of the many other variants on Elizabeth that wouldn't have been so "on the nose" as choosing the Queen's own personal nickname. Archie & Elisa would have been cute together. Or how about Liza. Just a few: Lizzy Beth Betsy Betty Lizbeth Elise Lisette Lisa Libby Elsie Some of these are more old fashioned than others, but there are some cute, semi-trendy options here that would have gone over much better. They were always going to get questions about naming their daughter after the Queen given their conflicting views about her and the family, but I don't think anyone would have thought they required the Queen's approval on "Elisa" to the degree she probably should have been given the chance to weigh in on "Lilibet." Lilibet is just so very intimate and personal. And just because she may not have liked "Lilibet" doesn't mean that was a personal dig at Harry & Meghan. My mother-in-law has a very unique first name that my sister-in-law wanted to use as a middle name for her daughter. Mother-in-law nixed the idea. In her view, there could be only one. It didn't mean she doesn't love her daughter or new granddaughter. She just didn't want to share the name, and she has the right to her own feelings about it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 3:09:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2021 14:37:01 GMT -4
You said she didn’t have a problems with names, she clearly had a problem with Annabel which is why it wasn’t used in any capacity. Which is exactly what I wrote. It's believed that she hasn't had a problem with any subsequent names after she rejected Annabel for Beatrice. Please, if you aren't going to take a minute to actually read what I wrote, why argue? I read it and understood it as I said, the use of subsequent does change things, ok. Edit Yeah, that’s supposed to be Poor ol Terry.
|
|