Harry and Meghan

volchitsa · 11-06-2021 08:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

A good explanation of why the Sussexes use of Lilibet is so wrong.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9674707/JAN-MOIR-not-just-Harry-stolen-Queens-crown-jewel.html

“It's not just a name... Harry has stolen the Queen's crown jewel
During a life devoted to public service and being on almost permanent display, Lilibet was the one thing the Queen had that was entirely her own.

It was hers, and hers alone.

Spoken aloud, it was the affectionate nickname first bestowed upon her by her grandfather, King George V, adopted by her beloved father and mother, and an echo of the past that she must still hear, whispered down the hallways and by the firesides of Balmoral and Sandringham.

It was also a private endearment uttered throughout more than 70 years of marriage by her husband who, may I remind certain parties, is recently deceased.

Elizabeth may Regina, but Lilibet was something more sublime.

No, it does not appear on patents or seals or official documents, but it was her signature on the most personal of correspondences. It was the cipher that spoke of the bonds of family and also of the flesh and blood woman behind the throne, under the crown, beyond the castle moat.

Its use was restricted. It was a tender diminutive spoken only by those who knew and loved her.

Lilibet was as much a part of the Queen’s personal identity as her Sunday hats and buckled shoes, her tweeds in the country and her cornflakes in Tupperware.

And now it is no longer hers, its emotional exclusivity shattered; targeted and then blown apart like a clay pigeon. If we all instinctively understand its importance to HM, if even Noel Gallagher gets it — someone who is hardly a poster boy for the delicacies of family unity himself — why can’t Meghan and Harry understand the enormity of what they have done?”

Yes that puts into words what I intuitively felt but hadn't quite managed to express: these family nicknames are special because they are private, and belong to the family circle. That must be even more valuable for a family whose every public act is widely reported on and dissected.

By making "Lilibet" into just another of the huge number of things about the Royal Family that are in the public gaze, Harry and Meghan seem to have robbed the Queen of some degree of intimacy. Rather like if they'd posted photos of her in a swimsuit on the beach with them - not indecent or anything, but an attack on her privacy all the same.

Neyite · 11-06-2021 09:10AM

lrushe wrote: »

My point is nothing to do with where he died but more with how the queen had to act in the weeks leading to his death. Its not a criticism of her It's to show that they can't just do what they want when they want.

True, but I think that was more to do with Covid than anything.
Even if she wanted to, the whole world has had restrictions on hospital visits. The Queen would have faced immense backlash if she had been granted special treatment given that many many beloved old people died in hospital without family there in their last moment. The public would have been up in arms at that, and rightly so.

Same with the funeral. They stuck to the guidelines because she kind of leads by example. She's (or her courtiers) have always been aware of public perception and flaunting covid rules would be a terrible look for the family and probably would have caused a right headache for the government

Deeec · 11-06-2021 09:11AM

Meg and Harry naively picked the name Lilibet as an attempt to build bridges. As much as I dont like this couple I dont think they meant any harm by it - However it was very poorly thought through and it doesnt look like they discussed their decision with the palace. When they announced they were expecting a baby girl I instantly thought they would call her Diana as a first name. They actually went a step worse by choosing the name 'Lilibet Diana'.

Be right back · 11-06-2021 09:18AM

One rule for them!!

lrushe · 11-06-2021 09:28AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I think Covid was a huge issue to be fair .

Neyite wrote: »

True, but I think that was more to do with Covid than anything.
Even if she wanted to, the whole world has had restrictions on hospital visits. The Queen would have faced immense backlash if she had been granted special treatment given that many many beloved old people died in hospital without family there in their last moment. The public would have been up in arms at that, and rightly so.

Same with the funeral. They stuck to the guidelines because she kind of leads by example. She's (or her courtiers) have always been aware of public perception and flaunting covid rules would be a terrible look for the family and probably would have caused a right headache for the government

It's also to do with security and not wanting to draw attention to a private moment, issues we as ordinary people don't have to take into consideration before we do anything in life.
Philip also requested a small funeral so there was no conflict there with guidelines.

lrushe · 11-06-2021 09:32AM

Be right back wrote: »

One rule for them!!

That was a complete tongue in cheek response, banter between the 2 men.

Neyite · 11-06-2021 09:33AM

lrushe wrote: »

It's also to do with security and not wanting to draw attention to a private moment, issues we as ordinary people don't have to take into consideration before we do anything in life.
Philip also requested a small funeral so there was no conflict there with guidelines.

Yes he did - but small in Royal terms is a lot different from our 'small'.

There were family and friends that were excluded from his funeral due to covid rules that would have otherwise been there.

11-06-2021 09:34AM

lrushe wrote: »

That was a complete tongue in cheek response, banter between the 2 men.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

volchitsa · 11-06-2021 09:35AM

lrushe wrote: »

That was a complete tongue in cheek response, banter between the 2 men.

Doesn't mean the Queen is up for a bit of banter though - it shows that Harry is not as naive about this sort of thing as a poster above suggested.

Be right back · 11-06-2021 09:38AM

lrushe wrote: »

That was a complete tongue in cheek response, banter between the 2 men.

His way of getting his point across in a jovial way.

lrushe · 11-06-2021 09:46AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Doesn't mean the Queen is up for a bit of banter though - it shows that Harry is not as naive about this sort of thing as a poster above suggested.

I've no idea what the queen is up for to be honest.

volchitsa · 11-06-2021 09:48AM

lrushe wrote: »

I've no idea what the queen is up for to be honest.

She's pretty reserved in public, that much is obvious.
Not much given to using private nicknames for instance.

I think she does try to preserve her private family life to the extent that that is possible, and I think this was a breach of that.

lrushe · 11-06-2021 09:49AM

Be right back wrote: »

His way of getting his point across in a jovial way.

Or just 2 men having banter, messing around after singing the theme tune to the fresh prince and taking a wee in the fresh prince's bathroom, I mean come on talk about clutching at straws.

lrushe · 11-06-2021 09:51AM

volchitsa wrote: »

She's pretty reserved in public, that much is obvious.
Not much given to using private nicknames for instance.

I think she does try to preserve her private family life to the extent that that is possible, and I think this was a breach of that.

Like I said I've to idea what she is like personally especially privately but you know who might. Harry.

Be right back · 11-06-2021 10:07AM

lrushe wrote: »

Like I said I've to idea what she is like personally especially privately but you know who might. Harry.

Absolutely and he should know that her pet name was to be used only by those closest to her and not to be used as a name for his daughter. After all the baby is to be called Lily so why not just call her that in the first place?

Sardonicat · 11-06-2021 10:10AM

Be right back wrote: »

Absolutely and he should know that her pet name was to be used only by those closest to her and not to be used as a name for his daughter. After all the baby is to be called Lily so why not just call her that in the first place?

Who says the name cant be used in any other context than as a pet name for the Queen used by her nearest and dearest? He can call his kid what he likes!

MoonUnit75 · 11-06-2021 10:20AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Who says the name cant be used in any other context than as a pet name for the Queen used by her nearest and dearest? He can call his kid what he likes!

Yes, of course he can. But there’s a name for people who do what they like with no consideration for the feelings of others.

lrushe · 11-06-2021 10:20AM

Be right back wrote: »

Absolutely and he should know that her pet name was to be used only by those closest to her and not to be used as a name for his daughter. After all the baby is to be called Lily so why not just call her that in the first place?

Right so we agree that Harry knows her better than anyone here.
The rest is speculation so far, she could just as easily be flattered as disgusted. She could even have been initially taken aback but warmed to it or she may never warm to it who knows.
As I've said my son is named after my dad as a mark of respect but he goes by a shortened version as that's what I like and what seems to suit him better. Those are my reasons, h&m I'm sure have theirs.

Be right back · 11-06-2021 10:21AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Who says the name cant be used in any other context than as a pet name for the Queen used by her nearest and dearest? He can call his kid what he likes!

Yes he can but perhaps she asked people not to use it. Who knows?

Be right back · 11-06-2021 10:25AM

lrushe wrote: »

Right so we agree that Harry knows her better than anyone here.
The rest is speculation so far, she could just as easily be flattered as disgusted. She could even have been initially taken aback but warmed to it or she may never warm to it who knows.
As I've said my son is named after my dad as a mark of respect but he goes by a shortened version as that's what I like and what seems to suit him better. Those are my reasons, h&m I'm sure have theirs.

He criticised the way she raised her children but they decided to call their child after her. Doesn't make sense to me.

Sardonicat · 11-06-2021 10:35AM

Be right back wrote: »

Yes he can but perhaps she asked people not to use it. Who knows?

Perhaps she did, but she can't oblige anyone not to.

Sardonicat · 11-06-2021 10:37AM

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, of course he can. But there’s a name for people who do what they like with no consideration for the feelings of others.

And theres a name for people who get possessive over names, aswell. It's all so ridiculous and petty.

Be right back · 11-06-2021 10:38AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Perhaps she did, but she can't oblige anyone not to.

In that family, I reckon what she says goes!!

Neyite · 11-06-2021 11:02AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Who says the name cant be used in any other context than as a pet name for the Queen used by her nearest and dearest? He can call his kid what he likes!

He can indeed call the kid what he likes - and he did.

He can't compel the person who's nickname he used to be pleased about it though. And he can't stop people thinking it's a cynical ploy of his in their quest to capitalise on his royal connections.

He named her after a woman who, only weeks ago he told millions on TV, that his mental health issues stem from her being a shít mother to his father. I don't know about you but if I had a toxic family who caused me to have years of therapy to unravel it all, I'd not be naming my baby after a single one of them, so it's curious why they did that.

tara73 · 11-06-2021 11:08AM

lrushe wrote: »

I would assume that if you're spouse of 70 odd years were in hospital dying you would be there every waking hour, holding their hand, making last memories etc. after all that is what an ordinary person would do.
How often did the queen visit Philip when he was dying in hospital, not once.

lrushe wrote: »

It's also to do with security and not wanting to draw attention to a private moment, issues we as ordinary people don't have to take into consideration before we do anything in life.
Philip also requested a small funeral so there was no conflict there with guidelines.

are you for real? what's your point here on this thread? stirring up thoughtless controversial stuff and in the next post you're rebutting and giving explanations for your own unfounded allegations?

sometimes I actually think there's some artificial 'intelligence' going on here, testing it, the amount of crap or controversial stuff obviously to just stir posters to engage is becoming unreal here, not only in this thread.

I would recommend to stop answering and ignoring this kind of posts. I will do from now on.

lrushe · 11-06-2021 11:11AM

tara73 wrote: »

are you for real? what's your point here on this thread? stirring up thoughtless controversial stuff and in the next post you're rebutting and giving explanations for your own unfounded allegations?

sometimes I actually think there's some artificial 'intelligence' going on here, testing it, the amount of crap or controversial stuff obviously to just stir posters to engage is becoming unreal here, not only in this thread.

I would recommend to stop answering and ignoring this kind of posts. I will do from now on.

You know where the ignore button is.

Sardonicat · 11-06-2021 12:50PM

Neyite wrote: »

He can indeed call the kid what he likes - and he did.

He can't compel the person who's nickname he used to be pleased about it though. And he can't stop people thinking it's a cynical ploy of his in their quest to capitalise on his royal connections.

He named her after a woman who, only weeks ago he told millions on TV, that his mental health issues stem from her being a shít mother to his father. I don't know about you but if I had a toxic family who caused me to have years of therapy to unravel it all, I'd not be naming my baby after a single one of them, so it's curious why they did that.

I do agree with all you are saying. I do think its cynical, but he's free to do so and the Queen is free to be upset about it. I just think the whole media furore over it all is daft, at best.

Immortal Starlight · 11-06-2021 02:55PM

Meanwhile in California Meghan eyeballs her bank balance with a huge smile.

end of the road · 11-06-2021 04:48PM

JoChervil wrote: »

Not necessarily, if your conclusions are based on lies, contradictions (so only one statement can be true, so another must be untrue) and inconsisnencies

true, but the poster's conclusions aren't based on such, so therefore they can be and are what they say they are.

JoChervil wrote: »

You don't need to be the expert to know, that if someone needs help and reach out for it to you, you should simply help.

yes, however help means many different things, and what may help 1 person may not always help another.
so it's not quite as simple as we would like it to be.

JoChervil wrote: »

So what about the most consequential statements about racist remarks? Meghan claimed there were many, while she was pregnant, while Harry claimed it happened once way before they got married.

could very easily be the case that meghan received more racist remarks and simply didn't tell harry for whatever reason, and harry simply only knew about one incident.
so realistically that can very easily be explained away and both accounts are possible from the point of view of the individuals.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Yes, of course he can. But there’s a name for people who do what they like with no consideration for the feelings of others.

there is indeed, however there isn't a shred of actual credible evidence to show these 2 acted in such a manner.

12-06-2021 09:11PM

Her Majesty isn’t amused. “The Queen will no longer remain silent when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex allow ‘mistruths’ about the Royal Family to circulate in the public domain, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

In a dramatic departure from her longstanding ‘never complain, never explain’ policy, Her Majesty has instructed courtiers to correct any statements which misrepresent her private conversations or those of other senior Royals.

The extraordinary move demonstrates the Queen’s exasperation at the relentless briefings that allies of the couple have been giving to the media and follows the bitter dispute over Harry and Meghan’s choice of name for their new daughter.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680303/Queens-war-Harry-Meghans-LA-spin-machine.html

Harry and Meghan

Comments