|
Post by tiggertoo on Jun 10, 2021 14:57:13 GMT -4
I didn’t know about the Annabel name. Too bad, I think it’s pretty.
|
|
luckylexie
Blueblood
Sophie Stink Eye Stan
Posts: 1,052
Mar 25, 2005 11:12:51 GMT -4
|
Post by luckylexie on Jun 10, 2021 15:05:43 GMT -4
The name was a choice. It was a strategic choice. It always is with Meghan and Harry. I don’t buy for one second that it was to simply honour TQ. They chose it to flex/reinforce their closeness with Her Majesty despite being in Montecito and to give their child a lifetime association with the TQ, the head of a 70-year-old dynasty, long after she’s gone (and Harry too).
|
|
gremlin45
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,107
Dec 9, 2008 19:29:13 GMT -4
|
Post by gremlin45 on Jun 10, 2021 15:31:01 GMT -4
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. I read it the same way as Fitz, as in: "I don't think the Queen has had any problems with baby names because Fergie wanted to name one of her kids after a nightclub." (So that proves TQ is fine with all names.) You meant it the other way: "I don't think the Queen has had any problems with baby names since then..." Which changes the meaning entirely. It's a shame they didn't use Annabel instead of Eugenie as it's a prettier name.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jun 10, 2021 15:46:21 GMT -4
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. I read it the same way as Fitz, as in: "I don't think the Queen has had any problems with baby names because Fergie wanted to name one of her kids after a nightclub." (So that proves TQ is fine with all names.) You meant it the other way: "I don't think the Queen has had any problems with baby names since then..." Which changes the meaning entirely. It's a shame they didn't use Annabel instead of Eugenie as it's a prettier name. Yes, but you know I did provide a detailed clarification in a follow-up post which, if it had been read, should have foregone the need for yet a THIRD challenge on the exact same point. Just sayin'. I'm happy to clarify, but there's no point if the person arguing with it continues to argue without reading it. And I did not intend to keep this going for so long.
|
|
leigh1983
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 132
Mar 28, 2020 14:29:17 GMT -4
|
Post by leigh1983 on Jun 10, 2021 16:14:58 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. When did being called a racist become worse than being the target of racism? Didn’t it just come out that royal family for years banned people of color from working in the palace until the 1960’s. And they could only work there if they were servants like maids. So this faux outrage people are feeling about the queen or anyone else in the royal family being called racist is ridiculous. Second, not everyone grows up in a good family or has a secure attachment with their parents. People usually raise their children the way they were raised, unless you really work on yourself and educate yourself, people can end up making the same mistakes as your parents. Generation trauma is a real thing no matter if you are rich or poor. Having money can help you live a comfortable life, but it doesn’t automatically make you free from having trauma in life.
|
|
gremlin45
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,107
Dec 9, 2008 19:29:13 GMT -4
|
Post by gremlin45 on Jun 10, 2021 16:45:24 GMT -4
Yes, but you know I did provide a detailed clarification in a follow-up post which, if it had been read, should have foregone the need for yet a THIRD challenge on the exact same point. Just sayin'. I'm happy to clarify, but there's no point if the person arguing with it continues to argue without reading it. And I did not intend to keep this going for so long. I didn't mean it as a challenge, Ginger, more as a "I misread it too because the English language is peculiar." Back to the name Lilibet, I'm sure I saw it used for a character in a 1950s Patricia Wentworth murder mystery. "The Girl in the Cellar", IIRC. I don't think I've come across it otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Lwaxana on Jun 10, 2021 18:04:00 GMT -4
When did being called a racist become worse than being the target of racism? Didn’t it just come out that royal family for years banned people of color from working in the palace until the 1960’s. And they could only work there if they were servants like maids. So this faux outrage people are feeling about the queen or anyone else in the royal family being called racist is ridiculous. Second, not everyone grows up in a good family or has a secure attachment with their parents. People usually raise their children the way they were raised, unless you really work on yourself and educate yourself, people can end up making the same mistakes as your parents. Generation trauma is a real thing no matter if you are rich or poor. Having money can help you live a comfortable life, but it doesn’t automatically make you free from having trauma in life. Normally, I'd agree. But in this case, we're dealing with narcissists who love drama and chaos, manufactured or otherwise. They've already started reacting to TQ's latest response. US Weekly reports that though there has been some backlash after the interviews, Harry and Meghan are simply trying to keep the peace with TQ. (You know how it is, saints dealing with an old bat. *eyeroll*) They have a new baby at home, they need to be quiet and bond with her! Not answer every god damn news report to a news release they sent out in the first place. But in the five days of her life, Lilibet's parents are thriving on the controversy and back and forth with media. This is what they live for. H&M aren't mad or embarrassed by the barbs or scandal, they feed off it. And so do their fans. At midnight, the night they brought their baby home, they were already sending out spokespeople to respond the palace sources who were just responding to all their press. Do these people ever sleep? It's like Trump tweeting from his toilet at 3 am.
|
|
|
Post by ladyboy on Jun 10, 2021 18:44:53 GMT -4
There’s also a difference between racist behavior in the 1960s, and being called a racist right now. I’m not suggesting that the Firm isn’t currently racist, but their actions in the 60s are kind of irrelevant to the current situation. Pretty much all mainstream institutions were racist in the 60s.
|
|
|
Post by lordofthefries on Jun 10, 2021 19:34:42 GMT -4
Also, let's not pretend the Sussex stans are actually decrying the UK's colonial and/or segregationist past. They're mostly focused on boosting the Sussexes vis-à-vis the Cambridges. There's a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics involved in using the fact that the firm was racist in their hiring practices in the 60s to justify calling William and Kate, who were born decades later, racist based on innuendo from Harry, who had a notable incident where he used racist slurs against his colleagues.
|
|
dragonflie
Blueblood
Posts: 1,956
Mar 14, 2005 2:10:14 GMT -4
|
Post by dragonflie on Jun 10, 2021 19:59:04 GMT -4
Well then if the primary concern regarding racism is the Royal families racist policies in the 60's we can surely also cite Harry's racist actions in the 2000's? There are many examples to cite. So; there's something he did that was so bad.
We are, of course, not talking about that though... so what did they do that was so bad? Well, I don't think anyone on here is declaring them evil spawns of Satan who only work to make everyone suffer and die horrible deaths. We are simply saying they seem to be 2 pretty crappy people. What did they do to cause this idea in ppl's minds: Making a tour in Africa all about their own "suffering" (no one even asked how Meghan was!!!) Expecting others to pay for them (to live, eat, their own security) and being really mad when they were told no Lying about some easily verifiable facts to make things seem more malicious (they took away Archie's title because they're all racists- except no- they didn't take it away- he never had it because no one in his situation would) Lying about the lack of supports for a suicidal person- and blaming others for their own inadequacies.
|
|