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

[Anna Bolinas]

2 hours ago, omilona said:

Both sides of her family of origin have been jettisoned.  True or false? At least one husband prior to #6 was jettisoned with the wedding ring mailed to him. True or false? #6's family has been jettisoned. True or false? Jessica Mulroney was jettisoned. True or false.  The only people she invited to her wedding were complete strangers. True or false? Shall I go on? 

 

Both sides of her family of origin, eh? I guess we all hallucinated her relationship with her mother. And at least one husband? You think there's another one hiding out there that the tabloids haven't found? Or what, did she kill him and hide the body? Is her weapon of choice a molotov cocktail? I suppose also that if you don't remain friends with every single person you have ever met in your life, then you're a horrible bitch. But wait, wasn't Jessica at the wedding? So clearly not all complete strangers. Unless...we hallucinated her too. Curse you, Meghan, and your ability to force collective hallucinations on the general populace!

[FrumperedCat]

Now Palace sources have come out saying the name wasn't something the Queen was asked about. So different messages coming from different sources depending on who they're close to. Personally I find I have less faith in Harry and Meghan to be telling the truth about this. I see the Palace as having less reason to lie, if the source is legit. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57408163

[JustEnough]

14 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I have an older sister who did that for me and I could spend the rest of my life trying to thank her and not even come close.

Protecting younger kids should never be the responsibility of older siblings, but those of you who did it anyway are heroes.  

My earliest memories are of caring for and protecting my younger brother from our parent. I don’t remember a time when making him safe, fed, and loved wasn’t a large part of my reason for being alive during my childhood. I never thought about how he felt about my caregiving (I thought a lot about ways I felt I didn’t do enough/do stuff right though), so when we were adults and I heard him telling a friend that I was his real Mom and he was so grateful for the first time I’ll admit I had to excuse myself so I could have a therapeutic cry. We are only 2 years apart in age but he’ll always be my first baby. It’s a dynamic so different then any of the rest of my siblings (who didn’t live in that house) and not one I find most people understand (thankfully, as I also agree it’s not ideal for kids to be raising their parents kids while they’re still kids.)

[Xanariel]

2 hours ago, FrumperedCat said:

Now Palace sources have come out saying the name wasn't something the Queen was asked about. So different messages coming from different sources depending on who they're close to. Personally I find I have less faith in Harry and Meghan to be telling the truth about this. I see the Palace as having less reason to lie, if the source is legit. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57408163

The BBC is generally pretty reliable (when they're not mocking up false bank statements that is) so I would generally assume that this source is a legitimate Palace source (whether a leak or a "leak"). 

I would assume this is closer to the truth, because I think it lines up with previous Sussex select truths (like claiming they didn't blindside the Queen with their leaving statement, while overlooking that discussing something on a previous occasion and publicly setting out the terms and conditions without verifying first are two very different things). 

I wonder if perhaps they mentioned to the Queen that they were going to include a tribute to her in the name, but didn't elaborate that they were going to choose her very personal nickname? Might explain the discrepancy in how the Sussexes and Palace view it. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Xanariel

[just_ordinary]

The BBC, with all their faults, is still one of the best news agencies out there.
I am sure that is another case where both information contain some truth. H&M will probably have mentioned that that wanted to honour HMTQ or maybe that they just love her name and want to use it. Elizabeth is also a real classic in terms of names. As of now, Anne, Beatrice, Louise, Zara, Isla, Lena and Charlotte all carry it as a second name. So my guess is BP thought they would use Elizabeth on a second hand basis or even as first name. 
I don’t think H&M ever explicitly mentioned that they would use this nickname version and that caught them by surprise. Maybe they talked about using a nickname or shortened version without elaborating? Lilibet is not a common derivative. I have never heard it outside this context but I am sure there are some out there. But it’s definitely not common.

The quotes you get were quite open to interpretation. “They informed” is not the same as asking permission. Their spokesperson has tried to clarify. “Informing in advance of the announcement […]”.  Sharing the hope of naming her so, after the baby is born is putting a lot pressure on TQ. Especially if the announcement is ready to go public. As if anyone would say no, if the baby is already here and the parents have already expressed that wish. That would be kind of cruel. Going about this like that is pressuring her in an ok she might have not given in advance. And I can totally see the glowing newborn bubble parents being actually oblivious to it and not getting they might step on someone’s toe. In the end, it’s just a name. If H&M used it as a comeback that’s badly done on their child. If they just love the name (and TQ) all is well.
I think “recollections may vary” is again a good way to describe the situation. 
 

Whoever coined that phrase should run and merch it. BP won’t but honestly I have started using it a lot. Just like “I don’t sweat” or “I must have been at a Pizza Express in Woking”. This family is so unintentionally shady or funny sometimes it’s unreal. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by just_ordinary

[tabitha2]

I don’t trust Harry and Meghan to give a person the correct time of day. 

They wanted to be on the nose and pointed about naming their baby daughter for whatever reasons they can justify to themselves and at this point I can’t even guess what goes on in those heads they are so contradictory. 
 

I don’t believe the Queen was asked if her private childhood pet name only used by parents, ancient friends/family  from girlhood and maybe her husband was Ok with her use and if she said she would prefer not they would have been respectful enough to use one of the myriad pretty variants of Elizabeth.
After all What Meghan wants Meghan gets and Harry lives to cater to her by all indications. 

Maybe it was something like “We have a really special name picked out but it’s a surprise!” 
 

It’s funny though Archie got nothing of the family on either side in his name but Lili got such a loaded name. 

[FrumperedCat]

My take on it is that they rang the Queen after they'd decided on the name and named her and said something along the lines of "we've just had the baby and named her Lizabet in honour of you. You have no problem with that, right?". Thus it would've made the Queen sound rude if she said no, it's not okay and then they'd have had to change it . So not really asking for permission, more confirming she doesn't object which is harder to oppose. And that fits in with what's been said by their spokesperson and the Palace source. They discussed it with her before they announced it, but didn't exactly ask permission.

Edited June 9, 2021 by FrumperedCat

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, FrumperedCat said:

Now Palace sources have come out saying the name wasn't something the Queen was asked about. So different messages coming from different sources depending on who they're close to. Personally I find I have less faith in Harry and Meghan to be telling the truth about this. I see the Palace as having less reason to lie, if the source is legit. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57408163

I don’t think it needs to be a question of who is lying.  It may just be a matter of different interpretations.

For example: Harry may have called the Queen one day and told her, “By the way, Granny, we have decided to name the kid Lilibet Diana.”

Queen E may have been a bit surprised and, not wanted to make a fuss, said nothing negative.   Harry took absence of negative comment for approval, which in his mind may have turned into enthusiastic approval.

Meanwhile, the Queen remarks to a lady-in-waiting, “Dear me.  These young people don’t even ask if one minds having one’s nickname turned into a name.  I daresay they mean well, but I was most surprised.”

Another courtier maybe overhears this and toddles along to the press to report that Her Majesty was not consulted about the name and is not really thrilled about it.

I have no idea if this or anything like it happened.  It is just an example of how the same event may, with perfect honesty, be reported differently.

As @just_ordinary reminds is, “recollections may vary.” ?   And so will reports.

Edited June 9, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Comment on new post.

[Grandma D]

4 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Both sides of her family of origin, eh? I guess we all hallucinated her relationship with her mother. And at least one husband? You think there's another one hiding out there that the tabloids haven't found? Or what, did she kill him and hide the body? Is her weapon of choice a molotov cocktail? I suppose also that if you don't remain friends with every single person you have ever met in your life, then you're a horrible bitch. But wait, wasn't Jessica at the wedding? So clearly not all complete strangers. Unless...we hallucinated her too. Curse you, Meghan, and your ability to force collective hallucinations on the general populace!

Here we go again. Just when things had settled down.

[formergothardite]

Until this thread I had no idea people would get so offended at naming a child after a relative without asking permission. I used my mom’s nickname for the middle name of my youngest and never even thought to ask. I don’t know anyone who gets permission to use a name or even a nickname. The assumption is that the relative will be honored. 
 

ETA: two months after my grandfather died my cousin named her daughter my grandmother’s nickname(my grandmother’s actual name was often mispronounced). I can’t think of a polite way to ask my cousin if she told my grandmother or got permission to use the nickname. My gut feeling is she didn’t but I haven’t spoken to her in years and I think it would be weird to ask that out of the blue. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by formergothardite

[Xanariel]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Until this thread I had no idea people would get so offended at naming a child after a relative without asking permission. I used my mom’s nickname for the middle name of my youngest and never even thought to ask. I don’t know anyone who gets permission to use a name or even a nickname. The assumption is that the relative will be honored. 
 

ETA: two months after my grandfather died my cousin named her daughter my grandmother’s nickname(my grandmother’s actual name was often mispronounced). I can’t think of a polite way to ask my cousin if she told my grandmother or got permission to use the nickname. My gut feeling is she didn’t but I haven’t spoken to her in years and I think it would be weird to ask that out of the blue. 

I think there are two strands as to why use of this nickname would be side-eyed. 

First of all, it's not a common nickname, but one specific to one person, and generally only used by her close peers and elders. Princess Charlotte bears Elizabeth as a middle name, which isn't seen in the same light. A very stuffy, formal Margaret might not see a reason to object to a grandchild being called Daisy, but if it was instead a unique name used for her by her nearly entirely deceased close family and husband, that might be seen as a bit too personal if you didn't check first. 

Secondly, the context of the name is a factor. Even if the Sussexes had stayed in the BRF, people might have raised an eyebrow at the name. As it stands...If your relative has spent the last few months since quitting the family business publicly blasting on social media it, your son, the customs you live by, the allowance he received and your own parenting, the news that he has chosen to give his kid your personal nickname might be taken less as "what an honour!" and more "I do mind, actually."

[louisa05]

15 hours ago, viii said:

I've never seen that show, I hadn't even heard of it until Archie had been born and that was the first reference some people made. ?

He was a very racist character. With the intention of social commentary.  Really, it was Trump had he been born in  a working class family. 
This is why you investigate associations a name might have.  Google makes it pretty easy. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 hours ago, omilona said:

That's the empirical evidence.

You're not a scientist, are you?

I'm sorry Meghan hurt you so badly, you must've been very close at one point to be so angry.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

I don’t believe the Queen was asked if her private childhood pet name only used by parents, ancient friends/family  from girlhood and maybe her husband was Ok with her use and if she said she would prefer not they would have been respectful enough to use one of the myriad pretty variants of Elizabeth.

Not being snarky, but is asking permission from family to name your baby after them a point of etiquette?  I've never heard of that and as I mentioned, definitely didn't ask before I named my daughter after my mom and ex's grandmother.

Is a royal thing or a normal thing I've never heard of before now.  

If one of my kids wanted to name their kids Buffy I wouldn't think I'd need to give my approval.  It would be odd, but their call.  (Actually my daughter likes her name but did ask me recently why I didn't name her that so it's possible.)

To the bolded...Buffy is a nickname of Elizabeth.  Ahem.   

[kachuu]

Lot of assumptions as to what Granny E thinks. Point is, we'll probably never know. I do think that if she had a problem with it, she'd say it. I don't think she's incapable of having an opinion or even sharing that opinion privately but I honestly think anything that happens (like M&H simply breathing at this point) will be thrown into more tabloid drama. it's just sad.

 

We named our son after both our father's and didn't think to ask permission to use their names because it was honoring our fathers. I just don't see how you can twist that to mean anything else. Why on earth would you name your child after someone you had such a problem with?

[Xanariel]

11 minutes ago, kachuu said:

Lot of assumptions as to what Granny E thinks. Point is, we'll probably never know. I do think that if she had a problem with it, she'd say it. I don't think she's incapable of having an opinion or even sharing that opinion privately but I honestly think anything that happens (like M&H simply breathing at this point) will be thrown into more tabloid drama. it's just sad.

 

We named our son after both our father's and didn't think to ask permission to use their names because it was honoring our fathers. I just don't see how you can twist that to mean anything else. Why on earth would you name your child after someone you had such a problem with?

Well, the BBC quoting a "Palace source" and not backing down in the face of a strongly-worded letter from the Sussexes implies she does have an opinion of the situation and it's not a positive one. 

Given the Queen's status as essentially the face of the BRF brand, a brand that Harry and Meghan seem keen to retain close links to even as they criticise aspects of it (e.g. them kicking off about Archie's title, the monogram at the top of the birth announcement) I think there's a bit of cynicism about the choice - particularly as it seems increasingly clear that the Queen may not see it as an honour, but more as something intrusive and presumptuous. 

[viii]

7 hours ago, Xanariel said:

I wonder if perhaps they mentioned to the Queen that they were going to include a tribute to her in the name, but didn't elaborate that they were going to choose her very personal nickname? Might explain the discrepancy in how the Sussexes and Palace view it. 

I feel like this is a very likely scenario. 

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

It’s funny though Archie got nothing of the family on either side in his name but Lili got such a loaded name. 

I wonder if it's because they were told before his birth that he wouldn't receive the title of prince and security so they decided, fine! We're not going to honor any of you slags with his name! 

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

He was a very racist character. With the intention of social commentary.  Really, it was Trump had he been born in  a working class family. 
This is why you investigate associations a name might have.  Google makes it pretty easy. 

That’s funny, the first think that jumped to my mind as a show reference was Archie from Riverdale, based (in a much less wholesome version) on the comic book character. So you’re saying he was racist was very confusing lol.

[viii]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

He was a very racist character. With the intention of social commentary.  Really, it was Trump had he been born in  a working class family. 
This is why you investigate associations a name might have.  Google makes it pretty easy. 

If it was a very obvious name like Adolf, sure. I think majority of names will have good and bad connotations though. There's plenty of people in the world beside Archie Bunker, so I doubt he's the first thought for some people - especially the younger generation. 

[JustEnough]

It’s a little bit strange to me to hear people say that Archie didn’t get named after either side of their family. His middle name seems to be obviously a tribute to his Dad. I think that is a pretty common person to name a son (especially a first son I’d guess) after. I could see if he was named Archie Ryan or Archie Franklin (I’m just trying to pick names that would be not tied to family so if these are family names I don’t know about insert other name here).

All of William’s kids and most everyone else on that side of the family have 2 (or more!) middle names, which gives more opportunities to honour people, but that’s not the right thing for every person naming a baby. Harry and Meghan were consistent with both kids getting just one middle name and given that they only have one boy him being named “just” after Dad doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Xanariel said:

Well, the BBC quoting a "Palace source" and not backing down in the face of a strongly-worded letter from the Sussexes implies she does have an opinion of the situation and it's not a positive one. 

Given the Queen's status as essentially the face of the BRF brand, a brand that Harry and Meghan seem keen to retain close links to even as they criticise aspects of it (e.g. them kicking off about Archie's title, the monogram at the top of the birth announcement) I think there's a bit of cynicism about the choice - particularly as it seems increasingly clear that the Queen may not see it as an honour, but more as something intrusive and presumptuous. 

That may be what you're inferring from their response, but it doesn't mean they are implying anything of the sort.  It's just reading tea leaves, there is no way to know what the queen is thinking unless she says it.  She's a grown woman and can use her words, or not, as she sees fit.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, louisa05 said:

He was a very racist character. With the intention of social commentary.  Really, it was Trump had he been born in  a working class family. 
This is why you investigate associations a name might have.  Google makes it pretty easy. 

It was my first thought when I heard it, but that doesn't mean it's universally tied to racism.  My first thought when I hear the names Eddie or Alex is Van Halen but I'm sure people have other reasons for using those names.

[Xanariel]

7 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

That may be what you're inferring from their response, but it doesn't mean they are implying anything of the sort.  It's just reading tea leaves, there is no way to know what the queen is thinking unless she says it.  She's a grown woman and can use her words, or not, as she sees fit.  

I think the context does give us a pretty good indication though. 

The BBC is a well-established, well-regarded source in British media. It also very recently got into very hot water over its previous misleading of Diana, prompting a fairly public mea culpa. So if they are quoting a "Palace source", you can be pretty damn certain that someone from the Palace has spoken to them and given them a strong indication that this is her view - strong enough that they're not retracting the article despite Harry's complaints. 

Now, is it possible that the Queen did not authorise this leak? Yes. But if she disagrees with it, she can send her official spokesperson out immediately to deny it - it's not as if she won't be aware of a story concerning her family featuring as a top item on BBC news. 

Harry and Meghan gave their daughter a name that was intimately linked to the Queen. "Sources close to the Sussexes" have spoken to US media outlets to claim that the Queen was either aware of this choice beforehand or approved of it when told. We now have a BBC story saying explicitly that this was not the case. 

If the Palace cares enough to refute that claim the Queen gave her permission, it does strongly suggest she was not happy about the choice. 

[anjulibai]

From what I have read online, Archie is fairly popular in the UK, being a top 20 name in the last decade. So, Meghan and Harry picked a trendy name, essentially. 

[FrumperedCat]

The Palace has already told CNN they won't be putting out a statement. I suppose that makes sense given this is decidedly more a personal issue than a business issue, as such. 

Quote

Buckingham Palace told CNN it would not be making an official statement on the matter.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/06/09/uk/sussex-lilibet-queen-permission-scli-gbr-intl/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Edited June 9, 2021 by FrumperedCat