Meghan and Harry 6: Everything about this Is Kind of Cringe

[Mama Mia]

Love the name. I don’t understand the problem with a special pet name  being used - it’s sweet and lovely on its own - and they didn’t name her Prince Phillip’s special name of Cabbage - so that’s good ?  The name Elizabeth has been kind of done - a lot -famously -  in that family, and the many shortened versions don’t have a special meaning. 
 

I think Harry is tending to come off very clueless and entitled lately — but really, can anyone argue that an institution that encourages parents to leave their tiny children for months at a time , and then send them to boarding school at 6 or 8 — is a healthy system? His critiques are clearly valid. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t love his grandmother deeply. I’ve recently been realizing some of the ways I really screwed up parenting my kids when they were growing up — I know they still love me deeply. Some parenting mistakes I see my kids making - I know their kids still love them. Families fight. I think Harry is coming across badly doing it so publicly- but bottom line he’s made it very clear he loves his Grandmother, if not everything about the  very weird institution they are part of. 
 

 

 

[Lollipopgirl]

Apparently the queen is “surprised” by the name. This is according to the British tabloids so make of it what you will but if it’s true it does indicate to me that they didn’t ask her beforehand.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, Lollipopgirl said:

Apparently the queen is “surprised” by the name. This is according to the British tabloids so make of it what you will but if it’s true it does indicate to me that they didn’t ask her beforehand.

I doubt she's calling up the rags to talk about her feelings or give them quotes so I'd give no credence to that.  

[viii]

26 minutes ago, Lollipopgirl said:

Apparently the queen is “surprised” by the name. This is according to the British tabloids so make of it what you will but if it’s true it does indicate to me that they didn’t ask her beforehand.

I wouldn't believe the British tabloids at all - they're obviously going to try and stir up drama over the name. I think it's unlikely they did it without permission (never say never, though, especially with these two).

[viii]

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-told-queen-elizabeth-birth-daughter-before-public-announcement/

Harry and Meghan told the Queen about the name before the public announcement. I am assuming if she had expressed disapproval, they would have gone with a different name. 

There's also a People article that says by using Lili as a nickname, it honors Doria as well, who called Meghan 'Flower' growing up. 

[Xanariel]

I do think it's a little funny that Harry and Meghan try to draw a line between "Sweet old Granny who gives Archie waffle irons and we would never, ever disrespect" and "mean and cruel institution that spitefully denies us our rights" because...she's the one that heads the whole thing. She's not getting puppeted about by courtiers - all indications from behind the scenes are that she's physically frailer but mentally as sharp as ever. She has the final say. 

She's the one who would have been able to give Archie a title - and by their logic, security. She's the one who would have had final veto over them being part-time royals. We know that she was the one to overrule Charles when he wanted to release a point-by-point rebuttal of the interview (which marks her down as a massive killjoy in my eyes, because can you imagine the drama?) 

I'm sure there is genuine love and respect there, but it does read a little like there's a little calculation in them trying to play up how they've got no issue at all with the one member who holds near-universal public respect and regard, even while claiming she's a powerless puppet (which BP seemed quite affronted by). 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I have a web app for work that requires using IE, when I pulled it up I saw that Piers Morgan has an opinion and no forum to post on so he shared it with the press...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/piers-morgan-calls-the-naming-of-harry-and-meghans-new-baby-after-the-queen-ironic/ar-AAKMJDp?ocid=HPDHP17&li=BBnbfcL

[Spoiler alert, he thinks it's "ironic" that they named her after the queen in light of their complaints, then speculates it was done deliberately to reach out to the family.  Which only proves he doesn't have any idea how the word irony is properly used.]

3 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

the one member who holds near-universal public respect and regard

Are you talking about the Queen?  I don't know anyone here, outside of some who post here, who give a shit about her either way.  She's certainly not universally respected and regarded in America....nor is she typically vilified.  She's completely irrelevant to the vast majority of the world.

[just_ordinary]

4 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think most people understand you can have issues with your family, even very serious ones, and still love them deeply.  People are multi-faceted and family dynamics complex.  And I only read here but I never heard anything from either of them that would lead me to believe they see the Queen as an evil overlord.  

Oh definitely. I am sure the family is probably balancing that line all right. I was talking about their crazy fans that have commented pretty vile things about his family. Lots of assumptions and crazy conspiracy theories. Very much like their crazy haters. I would assume the actual involved people are pretty unhappy about what a lot of hyper invested internet strangers made out of the whole thing. Neither party has given enough material to get a real idea how their private relationships are or what they hope to be. The BRF is mostly silent and H&M have lots of half truths (some lies ) mingled with muddy phrasing and some facts. 
Some stuff their fans wrote about the Queen was really bad and some have quite a problem now, that they chose to prominently honour her. “Doria called M flower and now M has a Lily” (errrrrr no? They literally called her Lili even though Lily would have been considered the default). They wanted to “honour her whatever Aunt Lillie(?)” (errrr no? See above). H forced her to do this… I find those mental gymnastics very amusing. My guess is, they told the Queen about this plan and she was happy or at least didn’t object. If not, she is either happy, doesn’t object or finds it annoying. We will never find out. Whatever their motivation was, the choice certainly kept them in the comment section and will generate lots of engagements with their names, so whatever they do they reach high numbers in search engines. Even if the Queen was upset (which I don’t think she is. At most she will shake her head and think they are sooo extra) it is a massive boost for them. If they are to release something or try to pitch something to someone else.

[just_ordinary]

3 hours ago, viii said:

I wouldn't believe the British tabloids at all - they're obviously going to try and stir up drama over the name. I think it's unlikely they did it without permission (never say never, though, especially with these two).

Are there any reliable tabloids? I mean if they were we would have ten little Cambridges now. Jenifer Anniston and Brad would have married again and had twins. I definitely take everything in such magazines with a massive grain of salt. Under the spoiler some headlines from not UK tabloids. Mean headline or photoshop or just made up headlines. They are all the same everywhere.

Spoiler

You can’t see all the tabloids names because I put them in a collage, but I can provide the full photos if necessary.

[viii]

1 hour ago, Xanariel said:

She's not getting puppeted about by courtiers - all indications from behind the scenes are that she's physically frailer but mentally as sharp as ever. She has the final say. 

Harry referenced in the Oprah interview that she is not calling the shots. I'm wondering what the truth is. At aged 95, I'm curious to how involved she actually is with some stuff. 

9 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

Are there any reliable tabloids?

I'm not sure about Britain, but for North America I'd say People Magazine is rather reputable. They don't seem to release anything without prior approval by PR teams. 

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I have a web app for work that requires using IE, when I pulled it up I saw that Piers Morgan has an opinion and no forum to post on so he shared it with the press...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/piers-morgan-calls-the-naming-of-harry-and-meghans-new-baby-after-the-queen-ironic/ar-AAKMJDp?ocid=HPDHP17&li=BBnbfcL

[Spoiler alert, he thinks it's "ironic" that they named her after the queen in light of their complaints, then speculates it was done deliberately to reach out to the family.  Which only proves he doesn't have any idea how the word irony is properly used.]

Are you talking about the Queen?  I don't know anyone here, outside of some who post here, who give a shit about her either way.  She's certainly not universally respected and regarded in America....nor is she typically vilified.  She's completely irrelevant to the vast majority of the world.

I should be clear - I'm talking about the UK (and certainly some areas of the Commonwealth, of which she's the head) in particular when I mention the Queen being respected across the board. I don't mean that she's a walking deity - more that most people like her and would view it as especially rude for Harry to start unloading on her, and she happens to hold the bulk of the BRF's personal wealth. I think both are significant factors in Harry taking great pains to say she's not at fault in anything while also blasting the institution she leads. 

The BRF are not especially relevant to a lot of the world, but Harry's entire relevance and narrative comes from them, so I do think that the personal status of each person he's talking about does matter when discussing the Sussexes. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

I should be clear - I'm talking about the UK (and certainly some areas of the Commonwealth, of which she's the head) in particular when I mention the Queen being respected across the board. I don't mean that she's a walking deity - more that most people like her and would view it as especially rude for Harry to start unloading on her, and she happens to hold the bulk of the BRF's personal wealth. I think both are significant factors in Harry taking great pains to say she's not at fault in anything while also blasting the institution she leads. 

The BRF are not especially relevant to a lot of the world, but Harry's entire relevance and narrative comes from them, so I do think that the personal status of each person he's talking about does matter when discussing the Sussexes. 

That makes sense.  I took the word universal literally and that was what I was responding to, I defer to those of you living there to know far better than I how she is received.  My knowledge of current British culture is all formed from Russell Howard, Ricky Gervais, and episodes of My Big Fat Quiz so I would never speak to that.

[Xanariel]

22 minutes ago, viii said:

Harry referenced in the Oprah interview that she is not calling the shots. I'm wondering what the truth is. At aged 95, I'm curious to how involved she actually is with some stuff. 

I'm not sure about Britain, but for North America I'd say People Magazine is rather reputable. They don't seem to release anything without prior approval by PR teams. 

I'm sure she's handed more stuff off to Charles as she's aged, but whenever the Palace has faced a crisis in recent years, she's still mentioned as being the focal point of decisions.  Specifically, while William and Charles both spoke their views at the Sandringham summit, all sources about the meeting identified her as the one who pulled things together and specifically as someone who was adamant that the proposed half-in/half-out model would not work.

She's also been cited as the person to have left the window open with the March review, which does seem less in line with how William took the whole thing. 

The leaks from the BRF after the interview certainly seemed to indicate that the notion the Queen wasn't in charge was seen in a pretty dim light. 

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, viii said:

Was it ever confirmed the card said Lilibet? I thought it was signed Elizabeth. 

I could swear I saw a picture of the card/signature.  But maybe it was staged to illustrate the story,  not a picture of the real card.

In any case (real or staged) that was the origin of, “There is no one to call her Lilibet any more,” stuff in the press, and that (mho) is the source of the misconception that this was Phillip’s pet name for her.  (He did call her that, but it was a family nickname.)

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, viii said:

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-told-queen-elizabeth-birth-daughter-before-public-announcement/

Harry and Meghan told the Queen about the name before the public announcement. I am assuming if she had expressed disapproval, they would have gone with a different name. 

There's also a People article that says by using Lili as a nickname, it honors Doria as well, who called Meghan 'Flower' growing up. 

Not to be nitpicky, but I saw it say that they told the Queen about the birth, not the name.  I am sure they mentioned the name, but if that was the first the Queen heard of their using her nickname, they sure didn’t give her much time to express concern.  ?

I can believe that if they hadn’t run the name by her the Queen would have been “surprised” (as some UK tabloids claim), but that’s not the same as annoyed.  I doubt any great-grandma is going to be annoyed that a baby was named after her.  

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, Xanariel said:

She's the one who would have been able to give Archie a title - and by their logic, security. She's the one who would have had final veto over them being part-time royals. We know that she was the one to overrule Charles when he wanted to release a point-by-point rebuttal of the interview (which marks her down as a massive killjoy in my eyes, because can you imagine the drama?) 

I just have to single out the bolded to give it a big ????

Think what fun we would have had tearing apart the rebuttal, breaking into “Team Charles” and “Team HarMeagan,” and fighting the Royal Family Feud right here. ? 

[TeaGrannie]

Here’s a link to People magazine saying the note was signed Lilibet and he was thought to be the last one to call her that.
 

https://people.com/royals/queen-left-handwritten-note-prince-philip-casket-signed-with-sentimental-nickname/

[omilona]

Can we just have a 'point of order'  and fact about "12 year old" #6"? His 13th birthday was 2  1/2 weeks later. Can we agree on him being 13 or shall we refer to him as 12 years 11 months and 2 weeks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex. 

[EmCatlyn]

29 minutes ago, omilona said:

Can we just have a 'point of order'  and fact about "12 year old" #6"? His 13th birthday was 2  1/2 weeks later. Can we agree on him being 13 or shall we refer to him as 12 years 11 months and 2 weeks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex. 

Well, I don’t know. I couldn’t drive, vote or drink two weeks before the birthdays that made me old enough. ?  

However, if it bothers you, go in and change it to, “He was almost 13,” or “not quite 13.”   As far as I know, Wikipedia is open to such corrections. 

[Mama Mia]

57 minutes ago, omilona said:

Can we just have a 'point of order'  and fact about "12 year old" #6"? His 13th birthday was 2  1/2 weeks later. Can we agree on him being 13 or shall we refer to him as 12 years 11 months and 2 weeks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex. 

That’s weird. Do you usually refer to people by the age they aren’t yet? Do you start six months before? A month? 3 months? Why? Unless it’s a relevant context - like “ Prince Harry had to cancel his planned 13th birthday party,  because his mom had just died 2 1/2 weeks prior” - what would be the point? 
 

[SweetJuly]

12 or 13 is not important. Either way Harry was too young to lose his mother. 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, SweetJuly said:

12 or 13 is not important. Either way Harry was too young to lose his mother. 

Yes, I don't see why it matters. He was a young boy. It was a great loss to him. No boy should lose his mother at 12 or 13.

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, SweetJuly said:

12 or 13 is not important. Either way Harry was too young to lose his mother. 

Absolutely. Both were way too young. They were minors and weren’t even close to start building their separate lives from home yet. What I find bothersome is that people act as if H was the poor child while Wiliam the better equipped teen. They are just two years apart (even though it was technically a 3 year span the day she died). I know it looked much more because Wiliam already had hit puberty hard but I would strongly dispute that we should start judging the impact based on physical development. 12 and 15 year olds are teenagers and it must have been the ultimate catastrophe for them. I think both were hurt exactly the same and both struggled intensely- hence both ending up in therapy. 

[Mama Mia]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Absolutely. Both were way too young. They were minors and weren’t even close to start building their separate lives from home yet. What I find bothersome is that people act as if H was the poor child while Wiliam the better equipped teen. They are just two years apart (even though it was technically a 3 year span the day she died). I know it looked much more because Wiliam already had hit puberty hard but I would strongly dispute that we should start judging the impact based on physical development. 12 and 15 year olds are teenagers and it must have been the ultimate catastrophe for them. I think both were hurt exactly the same and both struggled intensely- hence both ending up in therapy. 

I understand what you are trying to say here, but developmentally - between 12 and 15 -  or almost 13 and 15 - there is a huge amount of change and growth in most individuals. The visual of little boy Harry and more grown-up looking William emphasized this - but that’s not an unusual visual during those years of rapid change.  There’s a reason 12 year olds in most places can’t hold down official paid jobs, but a 15 year old can work on summer break. They aren’t the same.
 

They both were obviously too young to lose their mom, but it did likely impact them in different ways - both because of their different ages, but also personalities and their birth order - which usually matters but times 1000 in that family.

Harry seemed to process it more as a young  child would , William more as an older teen.  That’s not to say William had it better. If anything he likely had it worse, as he seems to have been very inappropriately parentified as a confidante for his mother - while also being groomed hard core to be a stoic future King by his dad and grandmother and the institution surrounding them. That’s a ton of pressure on a kid. Plus - pure speculation- he may have been going through completely normal teen emotional separation from his parents - and then felt guilt for not wanting to spend more time with mom, or harsh words or thoughts he’d had. 

Harry because of age, personality, family dynamics - appeared to still be a typical, indulged little boy who lost his mom, who was still his primary attachment. 

 

 

[TN-peach]

12 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

I understand what you are trying to say here, but developmentally - between 12 and 15 -  or almost 13 and 15 - there is a huge amount of change and growth in most individuals. The visual of little boy Harry and more grown-up looking William emphasized this - but that’s not an unusual visual during those years of rapid change.  There’s a reason 12 year olds in most places can’t hold down official paid jobs, but a 15 year old can work on summer break. They aren’t the same.
 

They both were obviously too young to lose their mom, but it did likely impact them in different ways - both because of their different ages, but also personalities and their birth order - which usually matters but times 1000 in that family.

Harry seemed to process it more as a young  child would , William more as an older teen.  That’s not to say William had it better. If anything he likely had it worse, as he seems to have been very inappropriately parentified as a confidante for his mother - while also being groomed hard core to be a stoic future King by his dad and grandmother and the institution surrounding them. That’s a ton of pressure on a kid. Plus - pure speculation- he may have been going through completely normal teen emotional separation from his parents - and then felt guilt for not wanting to spend more time with mom, or harsh words or thoughts he’d had. 

Harry because of age, personality, family dynamics - appeared to still be a typical, indulged little boy who lost his mom, who was still his primary attachment. 

 

 

Also, he probably protected Harry from a lot of the unpleasantness of his parent's divorce/fights and other unhealthy actions.  As an older sibling, I would always try to protest my younger sibling from those arguments.  I would make us go outside so we couldn't hear it or I would find a way to distract the sibling.  I would also try to take the "blame" when it was needed in order to protect the younger sibling because that was what you do as the older sibling.  I imagine that William tried to protect Harry from the extremes of their parents - the fights, Diana's breakdowns and paranoia, etc.