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

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I think I'm missing something with this whole thing.  IMO whenever they told the queen the only decent response is that she's honored and awww yay new great grandbaby.  Seriously, if her nose is out of joint about this it just makes her look kind of horrible.  Your beloved grandson names his new baby after you and you're irked at the version of your name they used?  Yikes.

I'm not saying that's her POV, none of us knows, just saying I don't think there is a way to object to this publicly without looking like a hateful shrew. 

I don't get the whole palace source thing.  If this is how they make their feelings known without going on record it's very passive aggressive.  And if it's not them leaking official messaged through an unofficial channel they should find the source of the leak and fire them because true or not why should they let people stay who are anonymously linking confidential info to the press?  

Based on that article it reads to me like H and M told her about the baby and name prior to the public announcement and she didn't object.  Only with the BRF would that be a news story.  

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think I'm missing something with this whole thing.  IMO whenever they told the queen the only decent response is that she's honored and awww yay new great grandbaby.  Seriously, if her nose is out of joint about this it just makes her look kind of horrible.  Your beloved grandson names his new baby after you and you're irked at the version of your name they used?  Yikes.

I'm not saying that's her POV, none of us knows, just saying I don't think there is a way to object to this publicly without looking like a hateful shrew. 

I don't get the whole palace source thing.  If this is how they make their feelings known without going on record it's very passive aggressive.  And if it's not them leaking official messaged through an unofficial channel they should find the source of the leak and fire them because true or not why should they let people stay who are anonymously linking confidential info to the press?  

Based on that article it reads to me like H and M told her about the baby and name prior to the public announcement and she didn't object.  Only with the BRF would that be a news story.  

I think what the BBC story seems to be saying is that either the Queen was told that there was going to be a tribute to her (like Charlotte's middle name) that she agreed to without being aware they were using the highly personal 'Lilibet', or she had it sprung upon her after the birth without being really able to say no. 

Either way, when eyebrows were raised over the use of such a intimate nickname for the Queen (especially in the wake of Philip's death) the Sussexes went rushing out to say that the Queen had personally approved it, when from her point of view, this hadn't happened. This apparently affronted either her or the people around her, hence why a source clarified that she hadn't given any such approval. 

From what British royal journalists are saying on Twitter (which is obviously speculation), given the fact that the Sussexes are very much building their brand, which has already incorporated one child's name (Archwell), there appears to be a lot of feeling that the choice to use the Queen's nickname is less about Harry's close relationship with his grandmother and more about trying to cement a link to the BRF brand. This is particularly given the context of him recently and publicly criticising her and the institution she leads for causing him genetic trauma through her parenting and denying his son a title because of his skin colour. 

In which case, the BRF aren't likely to be gushing over how honoured the Queen is that the Sussexes are once again showing up their close links to the family while simultaneously decrying it. 

You could after all turn the question on its head and say "exactly why would you name your child after someone when you either don't know them or don't care about them enough to know that your choice of name would upset them?" 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Xanariel

[WiseGirl]

To clarify, Archie Bunker from the American TV show All in the Family was racist af.  Archie Andrews from Riverdale, the comic (or the show which is nothing like the comic strip) is not.

I kind of wish they just said they named her Lili after Lily Potter because that's what I think of when I hear that name, not the queen.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

This is particularly given the context of him recently and publicly criticising her and the institution she leads for causing him genetic trauma through her parenting and denying his son a title because of his skin colour. 

I think the use of the phrase genetic trauma was both inaccurate and really tone deaf, so I will never defend him on that point.  But you can have serious issues with the parenting in your family and still love your parents and grandparents deeply.  I could write a book about how adversely affected I was by some aspects of my parents approach to child rearing, but I still love them very much and keep their memories alive for my kids who didn't get a chance to know them.  

The BRF is the ultimate family business and relationships are always messy when trying to parse out the employee/employer and family aspects, but wanting out from the family business or even thinking they are running it badly doesn't mean someone doesn't love their grandma.

Enough people with truly horrific childhoods (that Harry couldn't imagine) still love their parents leads me to assume the family ties are genuine despite the current tension.  But if not?  If they deliberately chose the name to get some kind of benefit from it...well, I am sure Charles and the Queen love Harry as a son and grandson very much but there is no question that a lot of the goodwill toward their family in the 90's and on are due to Will and Harry having the public sympathy for losing their beloved mom much too young.  The sympathy for Diana many still have transferred to the boys.  

So while I doubt it's the case, if they did do it to get some kind of unknown benefit trading on his grandmother's name they certainly got the benefit of goodwill based on his very real childhood grief so it would seem fair to me.  And I don't know how this would even benefit them from a financial or PR standpoint, but if it does it would never, ever benefit them to the level public sympathy for the boys did for the BRF.  

[QuiverFullofBooks]

16 hours ago, omilona said:

Wait until #6 meets his new partner, the IRS. For a person who has never paid a single penny in tax, a 37% tax bracket along with $115,000 per annum property tax on the Chateau at Riven Rock may well give him a nose bleed https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/975-Lilac-Dr_Santa-Barbara_CA_93108_M28526-20698

Are you quite sure that’s the correct house? It was sold in May 2021, well after the Sussexes moved to Santa Barbara.

[Xanariel]

42 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think the use of the phrase genetic trauma was both inaccurate and really tone deaf, so I will never defend him on that point.  But you can have serious issues with the parenting in your family and still love your parents and grandparents deeply.  I could write a book about how adversely affected I was by some aspects of my parents approach to child rearing, but I still love them very much and keep their memories alive for my kids who didn't get a chance to know them.  

The BRF is the ultimate family business and relationships are always messy when trying to parse out the employee/employer and family aspects, but wanting out from the family business or even thinking they are running it badly doesn't mean someone doesn't love their grandma.

Enough people with truly horrific childhoods (that Harry couldn't imagine) still love their parents leads me to assume the family ties are genuine despite the current tension.  But if not?  If they deliberately chose the name to get some kind of benefit from it...well, I am sure Charles and the Queen love Harry as a son and grandson very much but there is no question that a lot of the goodwill toward their family in the 90's and on are due to Will and Harry having the public sympathy for losing their beloved mom much too young.  The sympathy for Diana many still have transferred to the boys.  

So while I doubt it's the case, if they did do it to get some kind of unknown benefit trading on his grandmother's name they certainly got the benefit of goodwill based on his very real childhood grief so it would seem fair to me.  And I don't know how this would even benefit them from a financial or PR standpoint, but if it does it would never, ever benefit them to the level public sympathy for the boys did for the BRF.  

Considering the backlash the BRF got in the wake of Diana's death (some of which was deserved and some of which - like their attempt to keep the boys out of sight in Balmoral - was not) I would not say that the institution as a whole benefited from public sympathy at her loss. Charles definitely did not - there was genuine worry about his physical safety in public at the time and it took a very long time for him to rebuild his image. If anything, it was quite touch and go as the Queen and others fought to steady the ship and work on reestablishing public goodwill. 

Harry and William certainly benefited - the "motherless little boy" thing got brought up quite a lot, especially in Harry's Nazi and racial slur scandals - but it wasn't something that exactly helped the Queen herself, as head of the institution perceived as oppressing the sainted Diana, nor anyone in the family who weren't her tragically bereaved sons. 

I think the issue is that Harry's new life and fortune are based on his status and his ability to sell his history- he's not getting Netflix deals and Oprah interviews because of his qualifications, but because he's Prince Harry, son of Diana, brother to William, grandson to the Queen. He's already milked those links as he publicly dished on them several times and went running to Gayle King the moment they responded. 

So while there is no doubt genuine love and respect there that outsiders can't fathom, there is some side-eye from various quarters over Harry so overtly tying his daughter's name to the most famous member of his family, the woman who is the symbol of the British Crown, while also being happy to disregard that same woman and her rules when she says no to something he wants. 

And the Sussexes are obviously aware of this - hence their scramble to immediately let various press outlets know that the Queen totally knew and approved of Baby Lilibet! They are definitely still so close that she was delighted they called the baby an intensely personal nickname, the approval of which would be seen as a near-unprecedented gesture even for the likes of grandchildren like Beatrice who is so close to the Queen that she got to wear Elizabeth's wedding tiara and private gown!

While the name was fairly presumptuous, it looks like it's the false claims of approval to stave off criticism that really seems to have annoyed either the Queen or her courtiers. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Xanariel

[HerNameIsBuffy]

55 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

To clarify, Archie Bunker from the American TV show All in the Family was racist af.  Archie Andrews from Riverdale, the comic (or the show which is nothing like the comic strip) is not.

I kind of wish they just said they named her Lili after Lily Potter because that's what I think of when I hear that name, not the queen.

Lily Potter was my first thought followed closely by 

Spoiler

I thought a sitcom character from the 60's would be safe to google, but apparently there are plenty of NSFW pics when you google Lily Munster.  Lesson learned and I'm glad I'm IT so I don't need to explain that search to anyone.  (The pic I posted is safe, just commenting on some of the others that came up in google images.)

Edited June 9, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[HerNameIsBuffy]

41 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

So while there is no doubt genuine love and respect there that outsiders can't fathom, there is some side-eye to be had over Harry so overtly tying his daughter's name to the most famous member of his family, the woman who is the symbol of the British Crown, while also being happy to disregard that same woman when she says no to something he wants. 

That's my point.  I don't see an issue with love and respect coexisting with disregard for what they seem to perceive as unfair treatment as employees.  IME nothing brings home the importance of family like the loss of a loved one or a new baby and he's had both in a very short period of time.  Yes, she's the most famous member of the BRF, but she's also his grams and it's pretty common to name kids after parents and grandparents.  If they'd refrained from using the name they liked simply because she was the most famous member that would have been wrong.

 

41 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

Considering the backlash the BRF got in the wake of Diana's death (some of which was deserved and some of which - like their attempt to keep the boys out of sight in Balmoral - was not) I would not say that the institution as a whole benefited from public sympathy at Diana's death. Charles definitely did not - there was genuine worry about his physical safety in public at the time. If anything, it was quite touch and go as the Queen and others fought to steady the ship and work on reestablishing public goodwill. 

I know Charles got a lot of backlash and that which I know about IMO was deserved.  I was referring to the BRF as a whole.  When abolition of the monarchy is discussed many pro-monarchist people cite time and again what an asset they are as public interest which increases tourism and thus the countries coffers.  Never mind that Versailles gets tons of tourists without a current monarchy, the argument is always that due to tourism the BRF brings in more money than it takes to sustain.  Are people travelling there to see Charles and Camilla?  No one is hanging on their every word except as it relates to Harry and Will.  That's what I meant when I said they benefited, not that there was no backlash, but that overall whatever goodwill many people had for the BRF was strictly due to the boys being Diana's sons.  Obviously I'm speaking as an American observer, but when they talk about tourism they're referring to those of us who don't live there.  

I can't name a single member of a royal family outside of the BRF and without the death of Diana shoving the boys into the worldwide press ever since I probably wouldn't be able to name any of them now.  I'm not saying they deliberately did anything to capitalize on the boys grief, but to say they didn't benefit by it with the good will it generated is disingenuous, IMO.  

 

41 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

And the Sussexes are obviously aware of this - hence their scramble to immediately let various press outlets know that the Queen totally knew and approved of Baby Lilibet!

The article I read didn't say that.  It said they had a video call with the queen to introduce her to the baby and told her then, before making a public announcement.  I'll read the other articles posted here and if I'm wrong I'll acknowledge that.  If they overtly lied and said she'd approved it when she hadn't of course that would be wrong.  

ETA I went back last couple pages and read all articles posted and only People says they consulted her before the birth, all the others say she was told about the name in the video call after the birth and before public announcement so I'm not seeing where M and H are telling the world she pre-approved this.  If there is a link could someone point me to it?

Edited June 9, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[viii]

Elizabeth = institution/the firm 

Lilibet = beloved grandmother 

I could see Harry using that distinction. 

[Mama Mia]

We’ll never really know of course, but it could also be something like the Queen, or someone in the family, mentioning at the funeral how sad it was / how she’ll miss hearing her pet name Lilibet, Harry - the soon to be father of a little girl - getting a lightbulb moment and thinking it would be a lovely surprise to his Gran., as well as a very cute name, and then presenting it as a surprise tribute when introducing the baby — that Gran may have loved/hated or had completely mixed feelings about. 
 

The Royal family is so fascinating because these family dynamics are so much like regular family dynamics, but in all bold, all caps and in a size 50 font. 

[Xanariel]

59 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

That's my point.  I don't see an issue with love and respect coexisting with disregard for what they seem to perceive as unfair treatment as employees.  IME nothing brings home the importance of family like the loss of a loved one or a new baby and he's had both in a very short period of time.  Yes, she's the most famous member of the BRF, but she's also his grams and it's pretty common to name kids after parents and grandparents.  If they'd refrained from using the name they liked simply because she was the most famous member that would have been wrong.

 

I know Charles got a lot of backlash and that which I know about IMO was deserved.  I was referring to the BRF as a whole.  When abolition of the monarchy is discussed many pro-monarchist people cite time and again what an asset they are as public interest which increases tourism and thus the countries coffers.  Never mind that Versailles gets tons of tourists without a current monarchy, the argument is always that due to tourism the BRF brings in more money than it takes to sustain.  Are people travelling there to see Charles and Camilla?  No one is hanging on their every word except as it relates to Harry and Will.  That's what I meant when I said they benefited, not that there was no backlash, but that overall whatever goodwill many people had for the BRF was strictly due to the boys being Diana's sons.  Obviously I'm speaking as an American observer, but when they talk about tourism they're referring to those of us who don't live there.  

I can't name a single member of a royal family outside of the BRF and without the death of Diana shoving the boys into the worldwide press ever since I probably wouldn't be able to name any of them now.  I'm not saying they deliberately did anything to capitalize on the boys grief, but to say they didn't benefit by it with the good will it generated is disingenuous, IMO.  

 

The article I read didn't say that.  It said they had a video call with the queen to introduce her to the baby and told her then, before making a public announcement.  I'll read the other articles posted here and if I'm wrong I'll acknowledge that.  If they overtly lied and said she'd approved it when she hadn't of course that would be wrong.  

ETA I went back last couple pages and read all articles posted and only People says they consulted her before the birth, all the others say she was told about the name in the video call after the birth and before public announcement so I'm not seeing where M and H are telling the world she pre-approved this.  If there is a link could someone point me to it?

I think there's a great difference between using the formal name of someone - as indeed William did with his own daughter - and using their personal, private nickname, the most frequent user of which was her recently deceased spouse of 70 years. As the Queen herself didn't appear to want the name 'Lilibet' used, it's not really much of a loving tribute if her feelings were not taken into account. 

I think as well that presuming the ongoing security of the BRF rests on how many Americans have heard of them is not really accurate (and indeed sounds a teeny bit American-centric). Diana's life and death may have catapulted Harry and William to new heights of fame, but the UK isn't basing its constitutional model on magazine covers. The BRF lasted for centuries without 'global fame', as have other monarchies - it's not as if most Americans could pick Princess Victoria or Empress Masako out of a crowd. Princess Anne and the Countess of Wessex are fairly well-regarded in the UK and do a lot of royal work - it doesn't exactly matter if foreign visitors don't know them. 

Diana's death was a massive problem for the BRF because of the perception of the UK public - the people who have the power to vote in a government that could see about doing away with them - that they were cold, unfeeling and had mistreated her. It took a lot of work by the Queen and other senior members to change that perception, and involved a turbulent time where the BRF made a lot of concessions - like paying market rates on Kensington Palace apartments, the Wessex kids not getting titles and Charles increasing focus on the idea of a "slimmed-down monarchy". It did not benefit the family in any material way, only her sons. 

One issue for Harry and Meghan is that they're not seen in the same tragic light as Diana by the UK public - indeed, their popularity has dramatically plunged. That means there's no such pressure for the BRF to satisfy their demands, because there's no clamour from the UK public to right these perceived wrongs. 

As the BBC article rather snarkily points out, following the birth sources quoted as "close friends of the couple" strongly implied that prior permission had been sought - which includes the Sussexes' favoured journalist, Omid Scobie, who insisted the name would never have been used if that Queen hadn't approved. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Xanariel

[Cat Damon]

49 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

I think there's a great difference between using the formal name of someone - as indeed William did with his own daughter - and using their personal, private nickname, the most frequent user of which was her recently deceased spouse of 70 years. As the Queen herself didn't appear to want the name 'Lilibet' used, it's not really much of a loving tribute if her feelings were not taken into account.

I agree with this- as a little personal story, my grandma's nickname (given to her by her brothers) was Monnie. While some of my cousins have part of her name in theirs, I think everyone in my family would have had a large "you named her what? why would you do that?" reaction if anyone had named their daughter Monnie, which wasn't something any of us ever called her. It was a really personal nickname, and only one person is alive now that called her that.

I don't have a public family, but we are all very close and it still would have been really bizarre had someone named their daughter that. As far as her real name, I don't think anyone consulted her when naming a new baby after her, but she was always thrilled to have a new grandbaby regardless of what their name was.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Cat Damon

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Xanariel said:

I think as well that presuming the ongoing security of the BRF rests on how many Americans have heard of them is not really accurate (and indeed sounds a teeny bit American-centric).

I don't think it does and if it came off that way then I didn't communicate it properly.  I was only saying that in places where I've seen discussions about whether or not the monarchy should exist at all the tourism dollars are always brought up as a reason to keep them.  So when talking about international tourism that depends on the interest of people outside the UK.

Of course it's a far more complex issue for those of you living there.  It's history, tradition, and how your head of state and political bodies work together, and I'm sure a million other things I'm missing.  Whether the monarchy is maintained for another thousand years or is dissolved tomorrow is and should be completely decided by those of you living there as it doesn't affect us.  IMO the opinions of Americans should matter as much as comments on a forum, which is to say not at all.

Edited June 9, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[Loveday]

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

The Royal family is so fascinating because these family dynamics are so much like regular family dynamics, but in all bold, all caps and in a size 50 font. 

This should be worked into the next thread title somehow. 

[Kailash]

I’m having trouble with the idea that someone decides who can use what name if they have ever been named or nicknamed that. That’s bizarre. No one owns a name, unless it’s copyrighted. I’m not going to argue about it being an honor or whatnot, because that’s something I know nothing about. Queen Elizabeth is not the only person in the world to go by or be named Lilibet. 
 I didn’t take into account anyone’s opinion about my daughter’s name other than her father, and I don’t expect anyone else to do it differently regardless of fame or history or whatever. 

[viii]

I mean, I have a student at my school named Queen Elizabeth (goes by Queenie). Hopefully they got approval!! 

[EmCatlyn]

16 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 would think in most cases if you just use the person’s name (in its original form) or a well-known nickname (like Beth or Eliza for Elizabeth), and the person whose name you are using doesn’t hate her own name, then you probably don’t need to ask.

The issue here is that this was a very personal, family nickname.  In such a case, it is probably wise to ask first.  We don’t know that H &M didn’t. 

[EmCatlyn]

13 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. 

Archie Bunker differed from Trump in a very important way: Archie could be made to understand and feel for others, and when he did, he often did the right thing.    Archie also had a sense of decency (there were things he would not do) and some loyalty.

I don’t think Trump ever saw someone else as a human being with feelings.  And I doubt he has any loyalty or consideration for others.  If he has a sense of decency (things you do/don’t do) I haven’t seen the signs,

Archie was definitely a loud-mouth, offensive, racist and sexist bigot.  He certainly would have voted for Trump.  IMHO, however, he was a far better person than Trump.
 

 

 

[MamaJunebug]

Jumping in: my favorite aunt was Veronica, called Ronnie. When at age 14 I learned that “Ronnie is a boy’s name,” I scoffed, literally scoffed. I felt so grown-up. 
 

“Lilibet” is cute and also reminds me of “Little Bit,” our family’s go-to pet name for whichever child we’re talking about. 
 

That said, I’ll be curious how many Lilibets start showing up in Pre-K in the next 3, 4 years.  Lilibet …. Schmidt? Johnson? Wu? It doesn’t go with just any old surname. 
 

What is Harry’s family’s surname, again? Sorry to have to ask. My mind’s running out of space for too much new info! 

[SweetJuly]

16 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

What is Harry’s family’s surname, again? Sorry to have to ask. My mind’s running out of space for too much new info! 

Officially he doesn't really have a last name. He and William used 'Wales' as last name when at school and in the army.

However, if a last name is required, it is Mountbatten-Windsor. 

[Anna Bolinas]

9 hours ago, Xanariel said:

I think the issue is that Harry's new life and fortune are based on his status and his ability to sell his history- he's not getting Netflix deals and Oprah interviews because of his qualifications, but because he's Prince Harry, son of Diana, brother to William, grandson to the Queen. He's already milked those links as he publicly dished on them several times and went running to Gayle King the moment they responded. 

 

But none of them are getting fortunes based on their qualifications. The queen is only queen because of her father, who was only king because of his father, who was only king because of his father, who was only king because of his mother, who was only king because of her grandfather, and so on and so forth.

I can never understand why Harry is treated as being some kind of anomaly for thinking he deserves things based on his titles or his birth, as if that isn't the basis of the entire monarchy. Does the queen really deserve to live in Buckingham Palace? No. Are there whole swaths of hard-working British people out there who could live comfortably in the various apartments of the various palaces that the royal family occupies? Yes. But they don't get to live there because their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother wasn't Sophia, Electress of Hanover. The lives of all the immediate members of the BRF are based on promoting their links to the institution and lineage of the monarchy.

Really, I think the issue people have with Harry is that he's going about all this in an American way--because he knows (or Meghan knows or their PR people know) most Americans see the royal family as, basically, British Kardashians. It's one big reality tv show, and I think that's the divide between the American perspective on the Sussexes and the British or Commonwealth perspective. And that's not to say Americans are being completely ignorant about the history of the British monarchy. Some are, definitely, but the grandeur of the history of the BRF doesn't really match with the reality of today. It's a lot easier to treat the modern BRF as British Kardashians than it would be if they still had the power to chop people's heads off. And Americans may enjoy the idea of the BRF as like some quaint, kitschy relic--but not enough to like...actually want a monarchy here. Probably there are some oddballs out there who would agitate for the reunification of the US with England, but it's not like a potent political force in America. I think generally, the BRF comes across to an American perspective in the same way as Paris Hilton or the new generation of Kennedys. Your mom or dad or grandparent was famous or wealthy for whatever reason, ergo, we will pay some attention to your life, especially if you have a lot of messy interpersonal drama that can sell magazines. That's what the Charles/Diana split provided in spades, and that's what the Sussexes provide in spades, and that's what a lot of Americans want--the drama and the scandals, not the ~mystique~.

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, Anna Bolinas said:

But none of them are getting fortunes based on their qualifications. The queen is only queen because of her father, who was only king because of his father, who was only king because of his father, who was only king because of his mother, who was only king because of her grandfather, and so on and so forth.

I can never understand why Harry is treated as being some kind of anomaly for thinking he deserves things based on his titles or his birth, as if that isn't the basis of the entire monarchy. Does the queen really deserve to live in Buckingham Palace? No. Are there whole swaths of hard-working British people out there who could live comfortably in the various apartments of the various palaces that the royal family occupies? Yes. But they don't get to live there because their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother wasn't Sophia, Electress of Hanover. The lives of all the immediate members of the BRF are based on promoting their links to the institution and lineage of the monarchy.

Really, I think the issue people have with Harry is that he's going about all this in an American way--because he knows (or Meghan knows or their PR people know) most Americans see the royal family as, basically, British Kardashians. It's one big reality tv show, and I think that's the divide between the American perspective on the Sussexes and the British or Commonwealth perspective. And that's not to say Americans are being completely ignorant about the history of the British monarchy. Some are, definitely, but the grandeur of the history of the BRF doesn't really match with the reality of today. It's a lot easier to treat the modern BRF as British Kardashians than it would be if they still had the power to chop people's heads off. And Americans may enjoy the idea of the BRF as like some quaint, kitschy relic--but not enough to like...actually want a monarchy here. Probably there are some oddballs out there who would agitate for the reunification of the US with England, but it's not like a potent political force in America. I think generally, the BRF comes across to an American perspective in the same way as Paris Hilton or the new generation of Kennedys. Your mom or dad or grandparent was famous or wealthy for whatever reason, ergo, we will pay some attention to your life, especially if you have a lot of messy interpersonal drama that can sell magazines. That's what the Charles/Diana split provided in spades, and that's what the Sussexes provide in spades, and that's what a lot of Americans want--the drama and the scandals, not the ~mystique~.

Perhaps, but if you're arguing that "Harry only did this as a loving tribute to his grandmother, and she should be falling over herself to say how grateful she is for the honour, even when his PR were falsely claiming she'd officially approved it", then the fact that Harry materially benefits from positioning his family close to the BRF 'brand' is likely to be a factor in how people view it. 

At the end of the day, the Queen and her heirs have an official, albeit mainly ceremonial role in the UK's unwritten constitution. You can argue how useful that role is and if it should be maintained in the modern era, but it exists as a position with legal and constitutional weight behind it and corresponding duties attached. There isn't the same official position for the families of the Prime Minister, but people would still be massively side-eyeing it if a son or wife of a serving head of government were striking deals to complain on camera that they were hard-done by. 

Americans may view them as one way, but they're not mere celebrities who can get away with whatever. In fact, I suspect one issue Meghan may have struggled with is that she initially saw marriage to Harry simply as marrying an A-lister (Amal Clooney if you will) when she'd have been better off looking at the lives of First Ladies and Prime Ministers' wives for a better idea. 

For Harry, I think his main issue has been the slow destruction of his image with the public - the down-to-earth cheeky chappie prince. He used to beat William in popularity polls in the UK quite frequently. Then came the news about staff mistreatment, the hypocrisy over constantly flying private, Meghan's hugely extravagant wardrobe, their petulance over not getting their way, and the gradual shift into more of an 'Airmiles Andy' figure (even before the Epstein thing was public, Andrew was not massively popular). It's actually staggering how quickly his popularity dropped. 

There's also the fact that he's seen as wanting it both ways. He wants to be able to say that it's unfair his kids didn't get the same stuff as William's, that the Palace shouldn't be able to forbid him from doing stuff that he wants to do, and that if he wants to publicly put his family on blast, that's his right. At the same time however, he thinks he should have the rights to claim the benefits of the same system he decries - his kids should get titles when other UK children would not, the taxpayers should fork out for his security when he's not doing the job that merits it, and he's going to keep 'Duke of Sussex' in constant usage, thank you very much. 

None of this would matter if Harry didn't care - he's richer than most people ever will be, and he can sit in his sunny mansion and ignore his critics. But he's so thin-skinned that he keeps getting stung into responding, even when there's no conceivable benefit - such as his sulky letter to the BBC only highlighting that he didn't get permission and things with Grandma aren't quite as rosy as he's tried to portray in his interviews. 

[just_ordinary]

Wow.  That escalated quickly. 
I don’t think parents need to ask permission if they name a child after someone. But this someone also doesn’t have to feel honoured by it or like it. Doesn’t also mean they have explicitly tell the parents not to, as it’s not really in their power to make them re-name the child. 
Looking at the photos of a very small and old looking Queen yesterday, I thought: the Woman is 95. Maybe she just forgot? 

The BBC article is still up and BP refused to comment (which is their normal way. We cannot really draw a conclusion from there. A baby name argument is really not important enough to warrant BP to comment. It’s a personal thing between the BRF, H&M and the BBC. If anything the BBC will get some intel they were wrong but I don’t think BP will use its public account for that).

I do wonder if they had a back up name ready to paste into the announcement for the case HMTQ would have actually expressed unhappiness about it? Because if they asked for permission they should have anticipated both outcomes and had an alternative ready. It would be interesting what it was. 
I cannot help myself but be a bit cynical of their choice. But I do think it will backfire or rather won’t do anything. Lili will be named after two dead relatives (let’s be real- HMTQ could die before she ever gets to see her in real life. Heck the woman could drop dead from old age any second.). The Diana part will carry its weight another 25-50 years but the Lilibet connection won’t. Elizabeth would have been a better reminder. The importance they placed on their connection by naming her this will die with the Queen. If H&M are fine with just having this private element it’s all cool. That’s how it’s supposed to be. 

 

What really does irritate me, is why are they so touchy? Yes, it must suck UK press thinks they actually insulted the Queen. Just as it must suck to have US tabloids calling you a neglectful, racist family. But those headlines are pretty meaningless. Neither their status nor their private relationships have to suffer from it. Neither has the UK abolished the monarchy nor have H&M lost money over this. The opposite is true. The BRF is more popular than in a long time and H&M have benefited from the constant drama (no way Spotify or Netflix would have offered that much without the attention numbers they got through all of this. Same for her book.). They could all relax, have a big Sunday family go&t zoom call, playing “who wrote it” with the newest stupid headline and have a good laugh about it. The sides are pretty firmly rooted, so no matter what happens the mindsets are made up anyway.

[kachuu]

4 hours ago, Xanariel said:

snipped/

For Harry, I think his main issue has been the slow destruction of his image with the public - the down-to-earth cheeky chappie prince. He used to beat William in popularity polls in the UK quite frequently. Then came the news about staff mistreatment, the hypocrisy over constantly flying private, Meghan's hugely extravagant wardrobe, their petulance over not getting their way, and the gradual shift into more of an 'Airmiles Andy' figure (even before the Epstein thing was public, Andrew was not massively popular). It's actually staggering how quickly his popularity dropped. 

\snipped

(Honest question. No snark. because I enjoy your posts @Xanariel although I don't always agree with all of your points)

 

Do you think the royal family actually sits around looking at these polls saying "nananana boo boo, I'm most popular this week" to each other? I honestly feel like it's something that the royals themselves don't obsess with, but maybe their staff do? And it's the staff that always leak to the press. We never know how close the "palace source" is to the actual royals for the leaked information to be anything more than a grain of salt. Unless someone were to announce their name & position (highly unlikely unless they are on the way out the door), I don't feel like you can truly take a "palace source" for anything but a grain of salt. BBC is in the business to make money.

Granted, Harry's upbringing and being a royal has given him "blinders" with how certain real-world things work. (i.e., if a regular on the street person told me they were in financial trouble, I would assume they don't have two pennies to rub together or unable to put food on the table, etc. Not leaning on Tyler Perry's million dollar goodness for security and luxurious housing while they sign million dollar deals behind the scenes).

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, kachuu said:

(Honest question. No snark. because I enjoy your posts @Xanariel although I don't always agree with all of your points)

 

Do you think the royal family actually sits around looking at these polls saying "nananana boo boo, I'm most popular this week" to each other? I honestly feel like it's something that the royals themselves don't obsess with, but maybe their staff do? And it's the staff that always leak to the press. We never know how close the "palace source" is to the actual royals for the leaked information to be anything more than a grain of salt. Unless someone were to announce their name & position (highly unlikely unless they are on the way out the door), I don't feel like you can truly take a "palace source" for anything but a grain of salt. BBC is in the business to make money.

Granted, Harry's upbringing and being a royal has given him "blinders" with how certain real-world things work. (i.e., if a regular on the street person told me they were in financial trouble, I would assume they don't have two pennies to rub together or unable to put food on the table, etc. Not leaning on Tyler Perry's million dollar goodness for security and luxurious housing while they sign million dollar deals behind the scenes).

That is certainly a fair point - actually, I would not normally expect most of the royals to care about their personal rankings (except perhaps for Charles, who has always been very sensitive and prickly about his public image). 

But Harry and Meghan oddly enough apparently did care - Finding Freedom reported that they kept track of their social media likes and followers to argue that they were a major draw for the royal family and therefore deserved greater privileges and control. It also reported Harry obsessively reading online comments about himself and getting upset (which frankly doesn't sound healthy). 

In any case, I was more responding to the other poster's assertion that people's only problem with Harry was that he was trying to do things in an American way. I was trying to explain that the fairly dramatic fall in Harry's popularity over the course of his marriage showcases that there were actually a number of issues that made him drop from being a fairly beloved figure to someone who more of the public dislike than like, and which contribute to people having less patience for his activities. 

The thing about the BBC isn't just that it's a very well-regarded source which isn't exactly taking scoops off the street - it's the national broadcaster (which incidentally actually relies on the licence fee to make its money, which means it can produce a lot of niche content that commercial providers avoid).

They very recently and very publicly got slapped down for their Diana cover-up, to the point that people were worried that the Tories would use it as an excuse to rip further funding away. They are walking on eggshells about the BRF. So if they not only published the story, but kept it up when Harry sent them a letter claiming defamation, it can be taken that they were pretty solidly confident in what was said - and certainly the BRF did not refute it. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Xanariel