Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,091
I can't see BP or the Queen wading into a legal battle the Sussexes pick with the BBC. Not especially since all of the press releases have been so carefully worded to leave a lot of room for interpretation.

Not actively participating, just being ready to submit a statement if it becomes necessary. I would hope that H&M lawyers warned them in advance that just them saying "That's not what happened" is not going to be sufficient to back up allegations of libel.

The Queen has indirectly participated in other court proceedings involving the Royal Family: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/01/monarchy
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,361
I think there's a real racial undertone to the BBC report. A mixed race child carrying Elizabeth's name is not something people are "ready" for.
:rolleyes: Because, obviously, Harry and Meghan's child is the only mixed race child in the world carrying that name. Did they check how many mixed race children are actually named Elizabeth in the UK? I bet there are quite a few and the world is still turning.

But "palace sources" is really vague. It could be anyone from the private secretaries to the garbageman.
Generally, I would hope that the BB checks the credibility of their sources but who knows.

By the way, I hope they are fine - I love the image of the Queen making funny faces at her great-granddaughter over Facetime.
She's always so stoic in public, so it's hard for me to imagine what that would look like (though I'd love to see it). It's hard for me to imagine her like the rest of us anyway because of how she always appears in public but I'm sure that's due to the fact that she was and to a degree still is, a woman in a man's job and the time she became Queen.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,878
She's always so stoic in public, so it's hard for me to imagine what that would look like (though I'd love to see it). It's hard for me to imagine her like the rest of us anyway because of how she always appears in public but I'm sure that's due to the fact that she was and to a degree still is, a woman in a man's job and the time she became Queen.

When she became queen royals weren't even supposed to show their teeth when smiling:

 

ErikWilliam

Well-Known Member
Messages
548
Angus is a popular boys name where I live.

Haven’t heard of Agnes yet.

I personally find “Ang” and “Ag” names hard to pronounce even though English is my mother language. :lol:
Angus.... lol. Reminds me of that old SNL skit where it was set in the Civil War South and these two suhthuhn belles were going on and on about how wonderful Colonel Angus is. When she's done with Col. Angus she would just tap him on the head and tell him she's had enough.... LOL. I never thought Angus was a name. Also Col. Angus' first name Enol. Mah how ah luhve Suthuhn accents.... hehe

ETA: How funny, it's on YT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2oi-X8P38
 
Last edited:

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,221
My mother's name was Hazel and one of our sons always wanted to name his daughter that. I thought he would probably change his mind and choose a more modern name but - no - Hazel she is. My mother would have been so pleased. Surprisingly, lots of people tell them how much they love her name.
 

ErikWilliam

Well-Known Member
Messages
548
I know of someone who named their daughter, get this, GERTRUDE. I can't think of a more dated name that should never return. Well, maybe my grandmother's name which is Myrtle, and even SHE hated it her whole life (all 102 years of it). Sometimes there are names that should just never be used again. It's not that I don't like "old" names either. My good friend who for whatever reason thinks I have good taste asked me what to name her daughter. PRESSURE! I was so over the Britneys, Tiffanys, Madisons, McKaylas and all their different spellings. I suggested the names Lilian and Vivien. She loved both, and Lilian it was. Goes by Lily. Which is now my pug's name! (Lily Frances, my adorable baby girl...). I like 'old' names obviously. But some are just well, unpleasant and unfortunate.
 
Last edited:

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,706
My good friend who for whatever reason thinks I have good taste asked me what to name her daughter. PRESSURE! I was so over the Britneys, Tiffanys, Madisons, McKaylas and all their different spellings. I suggested the names Lilian and Vivien. She loved both, and Lilian it was. Goes by Lily. Which is now my pug's name! (Lily Frances, my adorable baby girl...). I like 'old' names obviously. But some are just well, unpleasant and unfortunate.
Tiffany is actually an old name, and may even predate Lilian.
 

quartz

scratching at the light
Messages
15,336
I had a friend in grade school named Gertrude but went by Trudy, which I think is pretty cute.
I know a woman named Hazel who is about 40, and it so happens that her eyes are hazel, so it works for her. I just lost a friend a couple of weeks ago named Angus, its not an uncommon name around here but we have a lot of people of Scottish descent.
 

Simone411

Do stand. Do stand six. Do stand six feet from me.
Messages
17,353
I'm sorry but "Much ado about nothing". Lilibet Diana was born in the U.S. making her also an American citizen. Also, Lilibet is an English and American name.

One of my best friends named her baby Lilibet which was in the 80's. The baby's nickname was Lili and that's what everyone of Lilibet's friends call her. My BFF didn't contact the Queen or anyone else in the 80's to get permission to use that name.

I have two second cousins on my dad's side of the family named Stephanie. They're both about the same age (in their 40's now), and I know my first cousin, Steve, did not call my first cousin, Gregg, to get permission to use the name Stephanie or vice-versa.

There was a little confusion between Stephanie and Stephanie sometimes whenever we had family reunions. Whenever we would call out Stephanie, both would answer which was pretty understandable with the situation.

I was named after an English actress, and my mom didn't call the actress to get permission to use that name. I'm sure most older Americans (people in the US) saw the series, Murder She Wrote, and that's who I was named after.

In high school there was five us with that name. We all had the nickname, Angie. We all sat in the school lunchroom together. There was Angie B, Angie D, Angie E, Angie R, and of course me, Angie M.

Whenever someone would say "Hi Angie!" We would all answer with "Hi there!" And I don't believe any of our parents called the famous actress to get permission to use that name.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
25,763
Not actively participating, just being ready to submit a statement if it becomes necessary. I would hope that H&M lawyers warned them in advance that just them saying "That's not what happened" is not going to be sufficient to back up allegations of libel.

The Queen has indirectly participated in other court proceedings involving the Royal Family: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/01/monarchy
Oh joy, the Queen cleared Diana's butler but she can't be bothered to support H&M. If she doesn't want to directly refute the BBC she could simply let it be known that the "palace source" had been fired. Instead she lets H&M be bullied. Sheesh!
 

once_upon

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,642
Some of you (and the press) are going on about a name like it will result in World War 3. It's a NAME! Not an atomic bomb.

If the Queen chooses to be offended by what Harry/Meghan consider honoring Queen, then that's truly on her. But I suspect it is more the effing press and the Meghan haters who are trying to make it out as the BIGGEST insult ever.

Trying to determine motive is senseless.

My mother's family called her Laurie as a nickname. She hated it, and dad always called her Delores. One of the girls names we had picked out was Lauren, and we would have used Lauri as a nickname. Mom was so relieved when we had boys because she hated that nickname. But you know what? That would have been on mom - not us and not any baby girl.

Now I know that mom was not the Queen. But also was not the parent.

And a child's name - even a Royal child - is in the scheme of world problems doesn't rank high.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
41,360
Oh joy, the Queen cleared Diana's butler but she can't be bothered to support H&M. If she doesn't want to directly refute the BBC she could simply let it be known that the "palace source" had been fired. Instead she lets H&M be bullied. Sheesh!
The butler was possibly going to jail for theft. That's a lot more serious than people writing sh1t about you on the internet and press.

Also, I don't think she issued a press release or anything. IIRC from the article I read, she gave the information to the authorities and it came out when they announced they were not going to pursue the matter anymore.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,091
Oh joy, the Queen cleared Diana's butler but she can't be bothered to support H&M. If she doesn't want to directly refute the BBC she could simply let it be known that the "palace source" had been fired. Instead she lets H&M be bullied. Sheesh!

That whole business with Burrell was very suspicious. He lied to the police more than once about having items in his house that had belonged to Diana. But it wasn't until 11 days into a very high-profile trial that the Queen suddenly "had a recollection" that he had told her five years ago that he had the items, and she said that was okay.

The Daily Mail is a sleazy tabloid, but this article about the trial is by a Royal biographer (not a tabloid reporter) who usually has good sources. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
 

ErikWilliam

Well-Known Member
Messages
548
I'm sorry but "Much ado about nothing". Lilibet Diana was born in the U.S. making her also an American citizen. Also, Lilibet is an English and American name.
One of my best friends named her baby Lilibet which was in the 80's. The baby's nickname was Lili and that's what everyone of Lilibet's friends call her. My BFF didn't contact the Queen or anyone else in the 80's to get permission to use that name.
I was named after an English actress, and my mom didn't call the actress to get permission to use that name. I'm sure most older Americans (people in the US) saw the series, Murder She Wrote, and that's who I was named after.
Whenever someone would say "Hi Angie!" We would all answer with "Hi there!" And I don't believe any of our parents called the famous actress to get permission to use that name.
I'm sorry but this irritates me. In fact many of these posts do. I have no skin in this game. I am NOT an anglophile nor anglophobe. I think the monarchy is unnecessary, but don't have any strong opinions about it either way. I was happy to see Harry settle down. I've rooted for him to pull his life together and was happy that he found someone to marry. So there are no preconceived prejudices against the Markles. What I have noticed over the last couple years with Rachel Megs is not positive. Her behavior at Wimbledon for instance. She was told how to dress and she ignored protocol. Then complained about it. Then more complaints. And more complaints. I understand why many people have the opinion that she is a conniving, manipulative, and toxic person. I see it, but like I said, I really don't G.A.S. about it. But one thing I do understand is the traditions of the royal family. Megs knew it when she entered into it. She decided to just do her own thing, and then whine to others (OPRAH) about her woe be gone lot in life. Puh-lease.

Okay. About this name. I completely see how the family would be appalled at the name Lilibet. Some/most of you don't, but I do. But frankly, IDGAS one way or the other. But what IS bothering me, especially reading this thread, is that so many of these posts sound like I'm on Newsmax reading comments about a Trump article. Switch Megs/Harry from Trump, and you people sound just like those Trump fanatics. Fake news! Lamestream media! Don't believe ANYTHING negative about Megs!!! It's all a grand conspiracy!!! Grow the F up. It is TRADITION in the royal family to have the Queen's blessing and approval of her grandkids' and great-grandkids' names. Andrew and Fergie chose the name Annabel for their first, but the Queen said NO, so they welcomed Beatrice into the world. Thats just how it's done. But people here and otherwhere are like "I named my daughter Elizabeth and I didn't need the Queen's permission, blah blah blah nanny nanny boo boo!!". It really sounds so "Newsmaxy". Totally missing the POINT of WHY people are upset. But nope, to some of you it's just fake news, lame stream media. GMAB.

It's okay for you to have a near Trumpian-level attraction to Megs and defend her constantly. But I've been around toxic manipulators and I see those signs in Megs. I don't know her, or really read much on her, and would just give her the benefit of the doubt. But when one thing after another (and another, and another, etc) she does just reinforces that budding opinion. It's hard to ignore.

Uggh, now I'm going to get flamed and banned, and I really don't care about that family one way or another. But can't you people see how Trumpian in your devotion to the Markles you appear? This is not meant to inflame, but maybe possibly give you a reality check in your comments and behavior.

Peace.
 
Last edited:

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,878
I'm sorry but this irritates me. In fact many of these posts do. I have no skin in this game. I am NOT an anglophile nor anglophobe. I think the monarchy is unnecessary, but don't have any strong opinions about it either way. I was happy to see Harry settle down. I've rooted for him to pull his life together and was happy that he found someone to marry. So there are no preconceived prejudices against the Markles. What I have noticed over the last couple years with Rachel Megs is not positive.
Her name is NOT "the Markles." She's Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. It's very microaggressive for people to refer to Harry and Meghan as the "Markles" like Harry is just Meghan's bitch. And her name is not "Megs" either. Again, that's the sort of thing only POC have to deal with -- people not respecting your actual name.

Also her complaints aren't just "bitching" -- the BRF denied her mental health care, wondered how black her baby would be, and was racist towards her.
 

ErikWilliam

Well-Known Member
Messages
548
Her name is NOT "the Markles." She's Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. It's very microaggressive for people to refer to Harry and Meghan as the "Markles" like Harry is just Meghan's bitch. And her name is not "Megs" either. Again, that's the sort of thing only POC have to deal with -- people not respecting your actual name.

Also her complaints aren't just "bitching" -- the BRF denied her mental health care, wondered how black her baby would be, and was racist towards her.
Of COURSE that's the ONLY thing you got out of it. I call her Megs for short because it's just easier when people can never seem to get her name straight and it's Megan, Meagan, Meghan, Meggin, etc. It's not micro-aggressive. And calling them the Markles is also just easier than typing in the Mountbatton-Windsors all the damn time. It's lazy as all hell of me, but whatever. But I think you know this. Instead of addressing the core of my point, you fixate on peripheral and meaningless points to discredit my point of view. You are being just like I made my point acting like a Newsmaxer. In my opinion. I'm not here to fight. But did the royals actually admit to denying poor Megs mental health care? And what is so wrong with wondering what the offspring off a fair skinned ginger and a half-white/half black might look like???? It's the same to me as wondering/asking what people think someone's kids' coloring would be when the parents are blonde/fair and jet-black/easy to tan, like my parents. So stop. I don't want to argue how awfully the royals did or did not treat them. I really don't follow this. Maybe you are an expert Anglophile and have inside information on the royal family. If so, I will defer to you. But if your opinion of poor Megs is what she whines about on Oprah and just take it as the gospel truth, well then, you sound like a Trumper typing away on Newsmax.

Not meant to start a war. Just take a deep breath, and check yourself. You don't know everything that went down. And to only believe someone who demonstrably shows traits of a manipulative, controlling, narcissist just makes you look lesser than you really are, hopefully.

Peace.
 
Last edited:

Karen-W

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,233
Her name is NOT "the Markles." She's Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. It's very microaggressive for people to refer to Harry and Meghan as the "Markles" like Harry is just Meghan's bitch. And her name is not "Megs" either. Again, that's the sort of thing only POC have to deal with -- people not respecting your actual name.

Also her complaints aren't just "bitching" -- the BRF denied her mental health care, wondered how black her baby would be, and was racist towards her.
Oh, grow the %&×) up about your perceived racial micro-aggressions! POC are hardly the only people who are given nicknames they don't like that they then are saddled with for significant chunks of their lives! I know of at least two white women who were given nicknames they loathed - one was a Mackenzie who wound up being called Kenz or Kenzie by some of her peers in spite of the fact that all of these peers were around her parents frequently and she was ALWAYS called by her full name by both parents; and another was an Elizabeth who wound up being a Buffy from childhood through HS because one of her siblings couldn't pronounce Beth/Bethy correctly, she only successfully changed her nickname to Beth after she moved away for college and introduced herself to her new peer group as Beth rather than Buffy.

Being given nicknames is NOT some micro-aggression against POC, no matter what you choose to believe. And it is NOT the same as calling an adult black man "boy" or any other word that subordinates one person to another.
 

once_upon

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,642
And we really don't know if the Queen approved the name or not. I believe the only thing we know for certain - the littlest one's name.

We don't know motive, we don't know if great-grandmother did or did not approve of the name, we do not know if Harry spoke to his grandmother about the name or anything else in the past months (or really his entire life).

We have speculation on all sides. We have royal gossipers, probably royal staffers willing to talk under annoyminity for $$$$ ,(which may or may not be credible), we have the haters, we have the defenders.

But none of those have the actual personal data and even if they do, only people involved (Harry, Meghan, Queen) know tbeir truth.. we should also know from studies on perceptions of real events that the Queen, Harry and Meghan will have his or her own truth about the decision.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,221
Her name is NOT "the Markles." She's Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. It's very microaggressive for people to refer to Harry and Meghan as the "Markles" like Harry is just Meghan's bitch. And her name is not "Megs" either. Again, that's the sort of thing only POC have to deal with -- people not respecting your actual name.

Also her complaints aren't just "bitching" -- the BRF denied her mental health care, wondered how black her baby would be, and was racist towards her.
So - here is the disconnect for me that I struggle to understand. If the BRF truly are guilty of all the things you state then what role are we to understand the Queen played in this? She is still very much the monarch, not a doddering old woman. She has dedicated her life to her family and the monarchy, which she inherited at the tender age of 27. Are we to believe all of this happened under her nose but she was unaware of it? Harry has stated they had no alternative but to take the course they have. Are we to believe that he did not go to his grandmother at all about these very serious allegations that left them no alternative but to leave? I believe they can name their daughter whatever they want but if he did not go to her then I, at least, wonder how close they truly are.
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
7,816
So - here is the disconnect for me that I struggle to understand. If the BRF truly are guilty of all the things you state then what role are we to understand the Queen played in this? She is still very much the monarch, not a doddering old woman. She has dedicated her life to her family and the monarchy, which she inherited at the tender age of 27. Are we to believe all of this happened under her nose but she was unaware of it? Harry has stated they had no alternative but to take the course they have. Are we to believe that he did not go to his grandmother at all about these very serious allegations that left them no alternative but to leave? I believe they can name their daughter whatever they want but if he did not go to her then I, at least, wonder how close they truly are.
Harry says he did go to his family with his concerns but was told to basically keep a stiff upper lip and learn to deal with it.
 

ErikWilliam

Well-Known Member
Messages
548
Lame excuses, IMO.
I admit it. But it's really just that besides being a naturally lazy AF person, I'm also on a small laptop and constantly mistype and have to correct. I really like to keep things short. You can call it "lame". I call it "deal with it". At least I don't type in all lowercase letters and never put punctuation in. It could be worse, no?

ETA: I'm done responding to these silly personal attacks. You are only proving my point. I will continue in this thread with my opinions on Meghan and Harry Mountbatten-Windsor. Try to keep the personal insults on me and other posters in check, mmkay? I knew I shouldn't have expressed my opinion, but I'm also not feeling all martyr-ish or picked on. I have thick skin. It's just more sad and annoying to see some people ignore the topic and just criticize the poster. But hey, it's the internet. I'm good. You do you. Let's see how this thread continues.
 
Last edited:

once_upon

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,642
I call her Megs for short because it's just easier when people can never seem to get her name straight and it's Megan, Meagan, Meghan, Meggin, etc. It's not micro-aggressive.
iMO it is microaggressive - even if you can't remember how her name is spelled - I dont think using a nickname that you made up is appropriate and does sound like you view her negatively
And calling them the Markles is also just easier than typing in the Mountbatton-Windsors all the damn time. It's lazy as all hell of me In my opinion.
This also IMO displays a lot of micro aggression. Men who take their wife's last name tend to be view negatively by society or manipulated by their wife. You indicate that Meghan is manipulative and your use of Markles, IMO reinforces your belief

I'm not here to fight.
I admit, I was fooled

"Poor Megs. " "But if your opinion of poor Megs."
Not meant to start a war.
Could have fooled me
 

ErikWilliam

Well-Known Member
Messages
548
Wow, all kinds of good stuff in here today. :rolleyes:
Do you have ANYTHING meaningful to contribute regarding M and H? Why don't you focus on that, hmm?

If the BBC is considered fake news and lame stream media, where else or what other British news organization can we rely on to give a more fair and less biased accounting of the royals and M/H? And please don't say the Fox News version of "news" in Britain. I mean, if the BBC is considered fake and lame stream, what is a better source? I've always thought that BBC was the solid and less tabloid news source.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information