Royalty Thread #8.....A Pregnant Pause

[attyfan]

They can definitely adopt Tessa and Scott's three babies who are presumably still living in Scott and Tessa's basement.

If the Princess Royal can compete in the Oly equestrian events (and her daughter medal in such an event), then Harry and Meghan's (adopted) child should be able to compete in figure skating.

 

[aftershocks]

ETA: now the speculation is that Meghan is faking her pregnancy because her face isn't fat. The poor girl can't catch a break.

Tee hee, Meghan's face is noticeably chubbier, but she still looks fairly gorgeous and blooming. The trolls and haters were saying that pregnancy was being faked even before the Sussexes were married, so I would try to filter out that nonsense, which unfortunately is pretty epidemic surrounding Meghan & Harry.

This Vanity Fair entertainment & celebrity podcast is hilarious, but also fairly obsessed with Meghan and Meghan vs Kate speculation and tabloid stories over the past four months about Brit royalty (especially re M&H) over the past year or so:
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/panoply/in-the-limelight

This delightful and fair 'So Many Thoughts' Blogger loves Meghan's 'stems' and 'elegant' thin ankles, which she accurately predicted would not thicken during Meghan's pregnancy: https://www.instagram.com/eholmes/?hl=en
Follow her 'So Many Thoughts' Instagram stories via Instagram logon.
https://www.manrepeller.com/2018/10/elizabeth-holmes-so-many-thoughts-instagram.html

It's cool and unsurprising that Queen Elizabeth appreciates Meghan's work ethic:
https://www.instyle.com/news/queen-elizabeth-meghan-markle-work-ethic-letter
http://www.politicallore.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-impressed-with-meghan-markles-work-ethic/19118

 

[aftershocks]

I think some of it stems from the contract she apparently had in her first marriage that dealt a lot with body image in the event of pregnancy

What??? Never heard of such, and I seriously doubt there's any truth to such a 'contract.' ETA: Okay, if it was a contract with her former show, that makes a bit more sense, but it's sexist. I thought the story was referencing a speculative 'marriage contract.' Meghan dated her first husband for about six years before they were engaged in 2010 right after she landed a role in the Suits pilot. The pilot was filmed in NYC in the fall of 2010 and picked up by USA network in January 2011. Meghan married Trevor Engelson later that year in Jamaica. I question her decision to marry while knowing she would be filming (first in NYC, later in Toronto). I think it was likely being young and apparently in love without realizing how distance and new life experiences would test their relationship. Engelson was a bit older and probably genuinely wanted to hold onto Meghan. After being together that long, it's either break-up or commit. They committed without thinking through the fact that their life situations would be significantly changing. Unsurprisingly, they broke up and divorced less than two years later in 2013. Their career trajectories and life prospects were going in different directions.

Meghan struggled and learned a lot during her early years auditioning in Hollywood. After landing Suits and moving to Toronto, she came into her own literally and figuratively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6llUEn9678
Meghan: "I think the point is to enjoy this silly life ride that we're all on..."
The link is an October 2016 interview at the Create & Cultivate women's conference in Atlanta -- the interview took place when Meghan had been dating Prince Harry for nearly 4 months, but before news they were dating had broken wide open. It's very insightful because Meghan is so articulate and outspoken in this interview about how she achieved her success, and how she was giving back. At that point, I doubt Meghan fully realized how much her life would be changing. Now, we don't get too many opportunities to see Meghan speak this freely and openly, though she is still quite articulate and thoughtful in her speeches and in her humanitarian work as the Duchess of Sussex. She was going to be a break-out success in everything she pursued whether or not she married Prince Harry. He was lucky to meet her and win her heart.

I'm glad there are some views of Meghan's well-curated Instagram still available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-FRur6hUJA (the singer is Dragonette's Martina Sorbara, a Meghan friend who ended up becoming the romantic partner of Meghan's former boyfriend, chef, Cory Vitiello).
Faster version of Meghan's former Instagram pic captures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXlZtmZ8F6k

The In the Limelight podcast noted that Harry took this photo of Meghan during their walk through the Redwoods Treewalk Forest in Rotorua, New Zealand:
https://s.abcnews.com/images/GMA/markle-ht-ml-181102_hpMain_12x5_992.jpg
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-borrows-prince-harry-jacket-new-zealand-forest-walk/
Meghan was wearing Harry's jacket, and she captioned the photo with the bolded part of this quote by New Zealander women's suffragist, Kate Sheppard:
"Do not think your single vote does not matter much. The rain that refreshes the parched ground is made up of single drops. All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman and must be overcome."

https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1101448809945722880

 

[Japanfan]

Skittl1321 - not sure I understand what you are alluding to. But, I do know this. My son in law is an attorney for a group that handles re-insurance for actors. And, yes, they do have contracts that Actors sign to not get pregnant, gain 1,000 lbs, cut their long, long hair, etc. The contracts are negotiated. Don't know what Meghan's deal was during Suits, but I assume it was standard for her role, and her show.

People could break contracts like that without intending do. For example, a person might have mental or physical health issues that cause them to gain a lot of weight.

And people get pregnant without intending to all the time. Sure, people who sign contracts to not get pregnancy probably use birth control, but birth control can fail. And the pregnant person might not want to terminate.

In those cases, I guess their is a consequence to violating the contract?

 

[Skittl1321]

What??? Never heard of such, and I seriously doubt there's any truth to such a 'contract.' ETA: Okay, if it was a contract with her former show, that makes a bit more sense, but it's sexist.

No, I am not talking about a contract with her show. I am talking about the contract that was rumored with her first husband; that in the event she got pregnant, he would fund a nutritionist and personal trainer throughout the pregnancy. Certainly not an unreasonable request (though an odd "demand") and a weird thing to require a signature on. (One of the articles insists these contracts are becoming 'more common' in the US. Certainly not among 'normal' people...)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10...with-first-husband-to-preserve-her-tv-figure/
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a24424270/meghan-markle-pregnancy-contract/

 

[aftershocks]

^^ Thanks for clarifying @Skittl1321. As the Cosmo article advised: "
"One of Meghan Markle's old friends' has once again emerged to spill details on her life pre-royal family, and the newest claim—which we should all take with a thousands grains of salt—is that Meghan forced her ex-husband Trevor Engelson to sign a 'pregnancy contract.'"

This 'friend' sounds like the former best friend from childhood, Ninaki Priddy, who has been making a ton of money off of Meghan over the past two years, with old photos, videos, and 'made-up' negative stories. Nothing positive, all negative. Priddy looks and acts like a leech, and not a 'best friend' of any kind. Priddy herself said that she sided with Trevor when Meghan & Trevor broke up. So it looks to me as if Priddy has made her bed and must lie in it forevermore.

Who knows for sure re the so-called 'pregnancy contract.' What has been made to sound sinister and demanding might be something else entirely. From the little I have read about the Engelson/Markle relationship, I doubt that Meghan was ever able to 'force' her first husband to do anything, and even if she could I sincerely doubt that would be her modus operandi.

As we can see from her relationship with Prince Harry, it appears that Meghan prefers to suggest and to lead by example. Harry surely made the decision to stop smoking and drinking on his own rather than from any continual 'nagging' by Meghan. Recent reports are that Harry works out regularly and that he's been eating healthy with assistance from a nutritionist, and that he's even been trying out yoga, and getting up early like Meghan does, and drinking green juices. Seemingly, these healthier choices by Harry are largely a result of his seeing how such choices have benefited Meghan, and thus wishing to join her in practicing a more healthy lifestyle. It appears that they encourage and support each other in a good way. It seems to be working for them both, as in a strong partnership, not a co-dependency.

Hopefully, those around Harry appreciate the positive changes, which seem to be very much for the better. Prince Charles has been quoted as saying that "Meghan is the best thing to have happened to Harry..."
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...kle-best-thing-that-happened-to-prince-harry/

I already gleaned from researching Meghan's Instagram and from reading quotes from her true friends (past and current) that Meghan is a positive person who enjoys supporting and encouraging others. Of course, that doesn't make her perfect, but she's good at accentuating the positive it seems. Meghan once wrote on her Tig website: "Thoughts become things, so it's important to stay as positive as possible. It's crazy how it trickles into everything in your life."

One thing Meghan apparently doesn't appear to want to be strictly perfect about is how she dresses. She's very quirky, edgy, laid-back, casual and 'untailored' most of the time. A lot of fashion observers wish she would employ a tailor and seek more counsel with her professional wardrobe. Sometimes, her choices are hit and miss. But I do like that she's being a bit less 'royally' safe than she was immediately after the wedding. She seems to be trying to assert more of her own aesthetic, though sartorially it's all still a work-in-progress.
The Sussexes at Prince Charles' 50th anniversary investiture celebration today:
http://www.meghansmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PA-41595293-768x1173.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/03/05/12/10599346-6772677-image-a-42_1551788876749.jpg
http://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/

That's a very pretty dress on Meghan; the cream coat is a repeat from a number of recent outings.

 

[attyfan]

More pictures from the party:

http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/theque...re-of-the-prince-of-wales-first-photos-117023

 

[ballettmaus]

Kate's dress looks like it's from The Little House on the Prairie


I love Meghan's dress, and more than I love that, I love the coat. But she does look fancier than the rest of the family.

 

[Lorac]

More pictures from the party:

http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/theque...re-of-the-prince-of-wales-first-photos-117023

I love Kate's dress - it is so elegant and an ideal dress for an afternoon engagement. I would have rather seen Meghan without the coat - the dress is hidden and I wanted to see it fully. It does seem a tad dressy for the event - usually the rest of the ladies in the family follow the Queens lead and she was certainly more dressed down than usual.

Talking of QEII - some one forgot to send Theresa May the colour memo - her outfit is identical in colour to the Queen's jacket - and the smile and look from the Queen seems to indicate she finds it quite funny!!!

 

[MacMadame]

Its one of the top 10 baby names in the US, so it's quite common.

This is a pretty recent phenomena. And on a lot of lists it's still not quite top 10. It's certainly no Jennifer or Susan.

 

[oleada]

This is a pretty recent phenomena. And on a lot of lists it's still not quite top 10. It's certainly no Jennifer or Susan.

It’s on the top 10 on the social security administration list which is the only list that really matters

 

[Jenny]

Agree with above assessments on both Kate's and Meghan's dresses. And now, Prince George weighs in

 

[Skittl1321]

^^ Thanks for clarifying @Skittl1321. As the Cosmo article advised: "
"One of Meghan Markle's old friends' has once again emerged to spill details on her life pre-royal family, and the newest claim—which we should all take with a thousands grains of salt—is that Meghan forced her ex-husband Trevor Engelson to sign a 'pregnancy contract.'"

I would take anything people who are peddling the idea of a fake bump on internet forums say with a grain of salt. My original post even said "assuming this is even a real document ".

Recall this conversation came up based on people who seem to think they are using a surrogate and she isn't really pregnant.

So, internet crazies.

This is a pretty recent phenomena. And on a lot of lists it's still not quite top 10. It's certainly no Jennifer or Susan.

Charlotte has been in the top 300 names, according to the social security database, since 1900 though, much of that time in the top 100. That's a LONG time for a name to have popularity. Jennifer only hit top 300 in the 1940s, and has since falled out of it; though that name clearly commanded the top spot for a long time. Susan had a very high achieving run in the 50s and 60s, but otherwise seems pretty similiar to Charlotte over the past 120 years.

Charlotte has certainly been a common name long enough that the statement "it isn't a common name in the US" just doesn't seem true at all. Almost any American has run across the name Charlotte, multiple times in their life- whether it be people or book characters. The name is out there.

(My grandmother was a Charlotte, but went by Jane since she hated the name. I was going to use it for my daughter, as I love the name, with a nickname Charlie, but then William and Catherine used it, so I didn't.)

The social security data doesn't tell us anything about the nickname Lottie though. It isn't surprising diminutives would be different in different countries though. Also that, since they come across very traditional, Catherine wants a feminine nickname instead of something like "Charlie"

 

[clairecloutier]

I have never met a Lottie here in the U.S. I think that must be a mainly British nickname. I do know some kids who are named either Charlotte or Charlie or Charly. I assume the Charlie/Charlys are short for Charlotte. I have never been a fan of the name myself, in any of its variations.

ETA: A look at the name's popularity in different countries and over time: https://www.behindthename.com/name/charlotte/top

 

[skatesindreams]

I have never met a Lottie here in the U.S.

You have; even if you didn't know it!

 

[aftershocks]

Agree with above assessments on both Kate's and Meghan's dresses. And now, Prince George weighs in

Janetti's humor is spot-on, even though he gets close to crossing a line on occasion. Still, his sharp wit is directed toward all the major British royals, and even some of the Middletons. The Meghan haters apparently don't recognize that the 'mean George' quips directed at Meghan are flat-out parody and deadpan humor -- such trolls are too dense.

This one is hilarious too, particularly the way everyone (especially Meghan) appear to be indulgently looking directly at George going through yoga poses on the floor.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BuotaR0nvBw/

 

[taf2002]

(My grandmother was a Charlotte, but went by Jane since she hated the name. I was going to use it for my daughter, as I love the name, with a nickname Charlie, but then William and Catherine used it, so I didn't.)

Why would that affect your decision? Do you socialize in W&K's group of friends? [/QUOTE]

 

[Skittl1321]

Why would that affect your decision? Do you socialize in W&K's group of friends?

[/QUOTE]

No, but having had a name everyone had, I anticipated the popularity would rise quite a bit based on their use. They are trend setters.

Being one of five people with my name on my dance team sucked.

 

[taf2002]

No, but having had a name everyone had, I anticipated the popularity would rise quite a bit based on their use. They are trend setters.

Being one of five people with my name on my dance team sucked.[/QUOTE]

That may happen but I haven't noticed it yet. No one I know have used George or Charlotte yet.

 

[Skittl1321]

No, but having had a name everyone had, I anticipated the popularity would rise quite a bit based on their use. They are trend setters.

Being one of five people with my name on my dance team sucked.

That may happen but I haven't noticed it yet. No one I know have used George or Charlotte yet.[/QUOTE]

There are 4 Charlotte's under 3 at my daughter's small daycare center. My husband has 2 cousins who named their kids Charlotte, both are under age 2.


Charlotte Cambridge was born in 2015, when the name was 9th most popular in the US. In 2016 and 2017, the name rose to 7th most popular. It may have nothing to do with W&K.

 

[Lorac]

Agree with above assessments on both Kate's and Meghan's dresses. And now, Prince George weighs in

Gary Janetti doesn't half push it to the edge on occasion . I must admit I do regret Spitting Image no longer being around as they would have gone to town with Wills, Harry , Kate and Meghan - and it would have been hilarious!!

Royal Family

They already were having fun with Donald Trump back in the day - now - well now they would have too much material!!

 

[quartz]

I have little twin nieces born in 2012 named Adalyn and Charlotte - they go by Ady and Char.
I know only two other Charlottes, one is in her 60's and goes by her full name, the other is in her 40's and goes by Char.
I love the name and all it's nicknames.

 

[taf2002]

There are 4 Charlotte's under 3 at my daughter's small daycare center. My husband has 2 cousins who named their kids Charlotte, both are under age 2.

Charlotte Cambridge was born in 2015, when the name was 9th most popular in the US. In 2016 and 2017, the name rose to 7th most popular. It may have nothing to do with W&K.

I was really wrong. You obviously made a good decision not to name your daughter Charlotte. She would have been Charlotte #5 at the daycare. Wow!

 

[Skittl1321]

I was really wrong. You obviously made a good decision not to name your daughter Charlotte. She would have been Charlotte #5 at the daycare. Wow!

To be fair, I still messed up a bit. We call her by a diminuitive of her name, and there are 2 of them (where they have the nickname as their actual name...) Oh well.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I was really wrong. You obviously made a good decision not to name your daughter Charlotte. She would have been Charlotte #5 at the daycare. Wow!

There were 5 kids with my name in 4th grade. All Mr. Sharpe had to say was to say D....and all 5 of us perked up. I think it was all an ode to Debbie Reynolds.

 

[Jenny]

Looked it up and it sounds like Charlotte is back in fashion in recent years (perhaps Kate and William were influenced by the trend, and it already being a royal name sealed the deal?), but for many years I think it was an older person's name for the most part. I imagine parents who great up in the 50s-70s (and later maybe) might not have wanted to name their daughter after a spider

If I met two Charlottes and one went by Char (pronounced shar) and one went by Lotte, I'd assume the first was Canadian or American and the second was British.

 

[MacMadame]

Charlotte has been in the top 300 names,

Top 300 doesn't mean it's popular. Top 300 is pretty much all the names except for one-offs!

To be popular it has to be in the Top 25 at least IMO. Even top 100 just means it's a recognizable name. My name has been in the top 100 for decades but I am usually the only person in my company or in my school with the name. Maybe there is one other if the company or school is really big (i.e., has thousands of people). Being the only one in an entire school is not a sign of a popular name!

I agree with Jenny that it used to be considered an old person's name but has recently become more popular. A lot of names that used to be considered old-fashioned are coming back so it makes sense that Charlotte would be coming back too.

 

[MsZem]

The Social Security list of popular names can be viewed by decade going back to the 1880s. As far as I can tall, there is one girls' name that has been on the top 25th in every single decade: Elizabeth. The high point was in the 19th century, but it's been trending up again in recent decades. Yet the Marys still vastly outnumber the Elizabeths over the past one hundred years.

Charlotte is certainly not an unusual name these days, but the diminutive probably differs by culture.

 

[Skittl1321]

Top 300 doesn't mean it's popular. Top 300 is pretty much all the names except for one-offs!

To be popular it has to be in the Top 25 at least IMO. Even top 100 just means it's a recognizable name. My name has been in the top 100 for decades but I am usually the only person in my company or in my school with the name. Maybe there is one other if the company or school is really big (i.e., has thousands of people). Being the only one in an entire school is not a sign of a popular name!

I agree with Jenny that it used to be considered an old person's name but has recently become more popular. A lot of names that used to be considered old-fashioned are coming back so it makes sense that Charlotte would be coming back too.

I disagree it doesn't mean it is popular, or that it means everything but the one offs. In 2016, to be in the top 300 names, you needed at least 1,000 births with that name, not exactly everything but a one-off. Top 100, is more than 3,000. To be in the top 1000 names, you needed over 250. (For girls)

This is a name people have been consistently using for over a hundred years. To me, that's a popular name. Maybe it isn't a "trendy" name. (Although, now in the top 10, I'd say it is.)

Social Security Administration actually labels their top 1000 by year as "popular baby names".

 

[Vagabond]

Charlotte was a popular name for baby girls in the U.K. when William and Kate were themselves very young. (I particularly remember this because I was living there at about that time and had an aunt named Charlotte.) They have probably known quite a few Charlottes in their own age group over the years.