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

[HerNameIsBuffy]

6 hours ago, Xanariel said:

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. 

I think I was the only one who even alluded to that she should be honored and it was tongue in cheek when I said that.  I don't think anyone here is saying she has to like it, just that they didn't need permission.  I still have no idea how on earth he can benefit materially from the name of his child.  They could have called her anything and he's still Prince Harry.  It's not like he needed her to remind the world they are part of the brf.

[Mama Mia]

I do think the going on about how appalling it is that they would choose the Queen’s “ private, intimate, special” name is sounding a little like she used it as an alias for her OnlyFans or something ?

[viii]

11 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

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. 

I'm going to guess that we are going to see a surge in it. Guess it won't remain the Queen's private, intimate nickname for long! ?

3 hours ago, kachuu said:

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.

I feel like half the time a palace source is BS, and the other half it's a royal telling a trusted servant/courtier the details because they don't want their actual names in the papers. I think some would be surprised by the amount the actual royals themselves are involved in spreading stories/opinions. 

2 hours ago, Xanariel said:

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. 

Yeah... normally I'd brush it off as idle chatter, but given the precarious position between the BBC and the BRF, I have to agree that they must have some solid evidence with this story. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, viii said:

Yeah... normally I'd brush it off as idle chatter, but given the precarious position between the BBC and the BRF, I have to agree that they must have some solid evidence with this story. 

Are the laws the same there where journalists don't have to reveal their sources?  

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, Xanariel said:

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. 

How in the world could Harry--who certainly doesn't need any name recognition--benefit "materially" from naming his daughter? Does someone give him money or goods based on the name he chooses? I really can't see how this benefits him at all. 

[viii]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Are the laws the same there where journalists don't have to reveal their sources?  

I'm not sure about UK laws. 

I should add that just because they have solid proof through a source, doesn't mean it's true. If I worked for the BRF I could share emails with BBC swearing up and down that I heard Queen Elizabeth telling Princess Anne it was an odd and peculiar choice for Harry to make - doesn't mean it actually happened, though. 

So while I believe BBC has solid evidence that a palace source spoke, I don't agree that it's necessarily true. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

How in the world could Harry--who certainly doesn't need any name recognition--benefit "materially" from naming his daughter? Does someone give him money or goods based on the name he chooses? I really can't see how this benefits him at all. 

I don’t know about benefitting “materially,” but if we assume that it matters to him and Meghan to be seen by the world as loving the Queen, naming a child after her would (presumably) have that effect.

As others have said, what I find oddest about this whole thing is how quickly the Sussexes replied to speculation that the Queen had not approved the name, and then had a lawyer address the BBC about their report.

The Sussexes are really concerned with how they are perceived.

[louisa05]

Someone bought domain names with the baby’s name before it was announced.  That could be construed as planning another foundation to collect money. A portion of which will line their already full pockets. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, louisa05 said:

Someone bought domain names with the baby’s name before it was announced.  That could be construed as planning another foundation to collect money. A portion of which will line their already full pockets. 

Or to keep someone else from grabbing it to do something crappy once the name got out.  We own the domain for almost every variation of our company's name even though we only use a couple of them.  If they did buy it there is nothing nefarious about that, just makes sense.  If they do something nefarious down the road that's a different issue, but it's a huge leap to make based on purchasing a domain name.

[anjulibai]

Buying up potential domain names is pretty standard operating procedure for a lot of celebs when they have kids, It's to protect the kids' interests long term.

[clueliss]

As well as the Instagram handles and the like (hence why, say, CarVan set up a LaylaRae account)

[adidas]

4 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

I do think the going on about how appalling it is that they would choose the Queen’s “ private, intimate, special” name is sounding a little like she used it as an alias for her OnlyFans or something ?

?

And the problem with the horror at them using this very private nickname … is that it was not private. Her Majesty herself wrote this private nickname on the card for her Mum at her funeral and placed it on top of her coffin. It was broadcast worldwide. And before that everyone knew it anyway. It has never been a secret, it has always been a well known tidbit of information.

I am surprised that people didn’t know about it, the same way that I’m surprised when people don’t know that Harry’s name is actually Henry.

[louisa05]

39 minutes ago, adidas said:

?

And the problem with the horror at them using this very private nickname … is that it was not private. Her Majesty herself wrote this private nickname on the card for her Mum at her funeral and placed it on top of her coffin. It was broadcast worldwide. And before that everyone knew it anyway. It has never been a secret, it has always been a well known tidbit of information.

I am surprised that people didn’t know about it, the same way that I’m surprised when people don’t know that Harry’s name is actually Henry.

I don’t think people who are aware of the BRF didn’t know it. The Queen has lived an incredibly public life. Perhaps more so than anyone alive. She has a public persona identifiable by a large portion of the world. Hardly anyone around her calls her by her name; she’s rather “ma’am” or “your majesty” even to people around her on a daily basis.  Her nickname is part of her private life and she doesn’t have much of one. That name is her private not the Queen self.  Meghan and Harry just made it part of the public commodity.  
 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

I don’t think people who are aware of the BRF didn’t know it. The Queen has lived an incredibly public life. Perhaps more so than anyone alive. She has a public persona identifiable by a large portion of the world. Hardly anyone around her calls her by her name; she’s rather “ma’am” or “your majesty” even to people around her on a daily basis.  Her nickname is part of her private life and she doesn’t have much of one. That name is her private not the Queen self.  Meghan and Harry just made it part of the public commodity.  
 

I really can't feel sorry for the Queen for not having a public life. She has stayed in her position as Queen far longer than she needed to. If she really wanted a private life, she could have retired long ago to one of her castles.

She is also one of the richest women in the world, which might be some compensation for life in the public arena. 

If she wanted to keep "Lilibet" a secret, she probably shouldn't have written it on a very public card. The fact that she did indicates that she doesn't really care if others know about it.

[EmCatlyn]

14 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I really can't feel sorry for the Queen for not having a public life. She has stayed in her position as Queen far longer than she needed to. If she really wanted a private life, she could have retired long ago to one of her castles.

She is also one of the richest women in the world, which might be some compensation for life in the public arena. 

If she wanted to keep "Lilibet" a secret, she probably shouldn't have written it on a very public card. The fact that she did indicates that she doesn't really care if others know about it.

I don’t think anyone is saying the queen “wanted to keep ‘Lilibet’ a secret.”  She just may not have considered the possibility that her grandson would name his child ‘Lilibet.’  And she may have been surprised.  (We don’t know that she was displeased or angry. She may have sort of liked it, she may have found it annoying, or she may not have cared one way or the other.)

The people who are upset are those who either feel that using the personal and unusual nickname is disrespectful in itself or those who feel that H &M may have not regarded her feelings about her nickname.

Personally, I think it’s possible that after the first surprise she thought it was sort of sweet.  We are really making too much of this.  

[SoSoNosy]

If, in fact, H&M are down to $5 million, I can see him panicking; he has had access to his dad's almost bottomless well of cash all of his life and apparently fully expected that cash flow to keep running no matter where he went.  $5 million isn't going to go very far with all his expenses, and I don't know (have no idea) how his Netflix and other contracts are going to work when cold, hard cash is involved.   After my husband's death, I discovered that his estate was about 10% of what he had believed, and had told me.  Although the numbers I found were not that I was penniless, it did cause some concern until I could put my working shoes on and get on with life.  And it was scary for a while, but I did know that I had skills.  Harry hasn't needed any skills except being William's wild younger brother.

I am not sympathizing, I think they are whiny brats.  If they are so broke, why was she wearing a $5k dress on Oprah?

Edited June 11, 2021 by SoSoNosy

[anjulibai]

Why would they be broke and who is saying that?

[viii]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

The Sussexes are really concerned with how they are perceived.

Forget 'Finding Freedom' - this is what their tell-all should be called, LOL. 

6 hours ago, clueliss said:

As well as the Instagram handles and the like (hence why, say, CarVan set up a LaylaRae account)

Yes, this is a pretty standard practice for anyone, not even celebrities. Each time my niece/nephew was born, I created an email account for them. I've avoided social media because I don't think IG will be much of a thing in 10-15 years (could be wrong) but at least they'll have non-embarrassing email addresses. 

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I really can't feel sorry for the Queen for not having a public life. She has stayed in her position as Queen far longer than she needed to. If she really wanted a private life, she could have retired long ago to one of her castles.

That's not how this works and she shouldn't be judged for it. 

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

We are really making too much of this.  

Ding, ding, ding! 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, SoSoNosy said:

If, in fact, H&M are down to $5 million, I can see him panicking; he has had access to his dad's almost bottomless well of cash all of his life and apparently fully expected that cash flow to keep running no matter where he went.  $5 million isn't going to go very far with all his expenses, and I don't know (have no idea) how his Netflix and other contracts are going to work when cold, hard cash is involved.   After my husband's death, I discovered that his estate was about 10% of what he had believed, and had told me.  Although the numbers I found were not that I was penniless, it did cause some concern until I could put my working shoes on and get on with life.  And it was scary for a while, but I did know that I had skills.  Harry hasn't needed any skills except being William's wild younger brother.

I am not sympathizing, I think they are whiny brats.  If they are so broke, why was she wearing a $5k dress on Oprah?

There are a lot of different accounts of the Sussex’s finances, but I think $5 million is on the low side.  Where did you hear/read that they are “down to” five mil?  Is there a post about this that I missed?

I do agree that it must be hard for Harry to have to think about money and so forth when he took it for granted that he would have more. However, like you, I am not impressed by his whining.  He has had at least a year to come to terms with his unexpected “poverty,” and I have to wonder why they bought that huge estate in a very pricey area of a very pricey state if they didn’t have the income to support it.  Maybe Harry doesn’t know about money, but surely Meghan was not that kind of rich growing up.

[Anna Bolinas]

21 hours ago, Xanariel said:

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. 

 

Sure, but he's still always been and always going to be a member of the BRF, even if he doesn't have any official capacity anymore. He's still "Prince Harry" in the colloquial sense. He could name his daughter Philadelphia McDuck and she would still be Prince Harry's daughter, the Prince of Wales's granddaughter, and the Queen of England's great-granddaughter. The choice of name may or may not be an attempt to capitalize off the "brand," but they'd be capitalizing off of the brand no matter what because the "brand" is just being born into that family. Making the announcement that she was born at all capitalizes on the brand. The thousands of other babies born on that same day, some of whom may have been named Elizabeth or Lilibet or Diana or whatever, don't get announcements for their births because they don't have the "right" great-grandmother.

21 hours ago, Xanariel said:

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. 

 

16 hours ago, Xanariel said:

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. 

 

Possibly not the only problem but a big part of the problem. Like I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Harry is having a plunge in popularity in the UK at least because of a lot of things--but those things play differently in the UK vs the US (speaking generally, of course). The downgrade in popularity correlates with the uptick in the drama between him and the rest of the family. To the UK, as you've said, since the monarchy has a constitutional role, Harry looks like the asshole employee doing everything wrong, getting fired/quitting, and then continuing to slag the company off on social media. Even worse, he's slagging off his own family. To the US, at least in my opinion, Harry looks like Kim Kardashian having beef with one of her sisters. Where's the juicy gossip? Who is saying what about who else? Who doesn't look who in the family? Prince Charles said what? And so on and so forth. Because we're not seeing them as governmental or political figures (although honestly, during the Trump administration, politics and government increasingly felt like one big reality show too). Just rich people. And rich people do also have a tendency to complain about stupid shit. But sometimes they do so in a way that's entertaining to watch, especially if they have other rich people pushing back on them and complaining about equally stupid shit. And the argument over titles, as one example, seems particularly dumb if you're not from that country and you're starting from the basic premise of, "Isn't anyone born to a prince automatically a prince? Ugh, titles are stupid anyway, they don't mean anything." Not giving Archie a title seems just as dumb of a hill to die on as insisting on Archie getting a title. But obviously the perspective is different if that title means more money and more security coming from your own government.

One final thought: it's very easy to make the BRF out to be the bad guys. It's very easy to paint them as old, stodgy, conservative fuddy-duddies who act like their shit doesn't stink and look down their noses on all the plebs. It's very easy to pull out the usual scandals--the treatment of Diana, Andrew's entire existence, Edward VIII, the stereotypes of the Victorian era, the crimes perpetrated in the name of the British Empire, etc. Not all of the accusations are unfounded, nor are all of the scandals easily dismissed, even if there is a lot of nuance missing from discussions of any of them. I think that's why a lot of people ultimately end up feeling like both sides are acting ridiculous. For myself, even if the Sussexes are cynically exploiting every last bit of their royal connection for maximum money and attention, I can't really bring myself to do anything more than play the world's tiniest violin for the British royal family.

[just_ordinary]

On 6/9/2021 at 5:36 AM, viii said:

Using Jessica Mulroney, a racist fuck, is a poor example. Using Thomas and Samantha Markle as other examples is also a poor choice. It just makes me root for Meghan more ??‍♀️ The rest is just pure speculation. 

For all we know the racist fuck Jessica is still one of her closest friends…..

16 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think I was the only one who even alluded to that she should be honored and it was tongue in cheek when I said that.  I don't think anyone here is saying she has to like it, just that they didn't need permission.  I still have no idea how on earth he can benefit materially from the name of his child.  They could have called her anything and he's still Prince Harry.  It's not like he needed her to remind the world they are part of the brf.

BIB: the drama around the name creates publicity. Publicity measures their worth when it comes to how much they get paid for something. Would she have gotten $500.000 for her book if she wasn’t in the news daily? Certainly not. They don’t benefit from the name itself but from the circumstances around it. 

[Mama Mia]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

For all we know the racist fuck Jessica is still one of her closest friends…..

BIB: the drama around the name creates publicity. Publicity measures their worth when it comes to how much they get paid for something. Would she have gotten $500.000 for her book if she wasn’t in the news daily? Certainly not. They don’t benefit from the name itself but from the circumstances around it. 

There would be drama around her name no matter what they named her. Don’t include anything Royal related? Shows their disrespect for everyone in his family. Include just Diana? Obviously throwing shade at how the firm treated his mom and drove her to death. Named her Elizabeth - some people would have been beyond livid that she was pretending to be Queen! Named her a regular average name like Laura? Probably the name of the surrogate Meghan secretly had. And so on.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

For all we know the racist fuck Jessica is still one of her closest friends…..

BIB: the drama around the name creates publicity. Publicity measures their worth when it comes to how much they get paid for something. Would she have gotten $500.000 for her book if she wasn’t in the news daily? Certainly not. They don’t benefit from the name itself but from the circumstances around it. 

I didn't know anything about these people when Archie was born and I saw shit about his name everywhere and he wasn't named after anyone, unless you count his own father in the Harrison.  Honest to God, they couldn't have named her ANYTHING without people having a million opinions and her birth getting publicity.  There are absolutely people here who would give them shit had they used Elizabeth, or had they not used a family name at all.  Or both names from Meghan's side and that would have been seen as a statement that they've cut Harry's family out.  

It's patently absurd to suggest that there was any name they could have given her that would have been devoid of controversy and publicity.  

[just_ordinary]

Don’t get me wrong. There would have been bad headlines regardless. I don’t deny that. Naming after a family member - but they disrespected them/try to get back into the good books. Naming something else- but it’s such an ugly name/totally unbecoming of a member of the RF. But I would firmly disagree that it wouldn’t have made a difference if her name was Elizabeth or Lilibet. And by releasing quotes that they TOTALLY ASKED FOR APPROVAL and even sue about that, they make damn sure to not let the topic disappear already. Remember the last lawsuit she kind of won? I am actually not to sure and nobody really cared. Wining the lawsuit might have soothed their feeling of being unfairly treated but if nobody else takes notice, you can ask yourself if it was worth it in the long run. Both conclusions are valid. 

[louisa05]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

For all we know the racist fuck Jessica is still one of her closest friends…..

BIB: the drama around the name creates publicity. Publicity measures their worth when it comes to how much they get paid for something. Would she have gotten $500.000 for her book if she wasn’t in the news daily? Certainly not. They don’t benefit from the name itself but from the circumstances around it. 

I read that book in the bookstore Wednesday. It wouldn’t have been published at all were  it not for who she married. You would have to smoke a lot of something and wear your rosiest Meghan is a goddess rose colored glasses to claim that is well written. I’ve seen better rhymes from third graders. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by louisa05