Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[viii]

I always thought they decided to pretend they always loved the word after so many people roasted them for their kids terrible name and they’re back pedalling. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, viii said:

I always thought they decided to pretend they always loved the word after so many people roasted them for their kids terrible name and they’re back pedalling. 

I don’t know.   My memory is they originally said that they chose Archie because it meant “truly brave” or something like that.  Then, in connection with Archewell, they started talking about “arche” as a word for “source.”

As I said in my previous message, (which seems to have annoyed some people for reasons unclear to me) Meghan and Harry seem to be overlooking there are different meanings possible. (My googling tells me Archie’s name is Germanic.  Archetype is Greek.  There are lots of different definitions of “archetype” besides the one they seem to be pushing.)  

You may be right that the connection between Archewell and the name “Archie” was made after the kid had been named.  That may explain a lot.

 

 

 

[LilaMae]

18 hours ago, viii said:

I always thought they decided to pretend they always loved the word after so many people roasted them for their kids terrible name and they’re back pedalling. 

Did they? Archie isn't an unusual name in the UK. A bit unusual for a Royal child perhaps, but the Queen's great grandkids definitely diverge from the more traditional Royal names (other than William's kids). His middle name, Harrison, did get a bit of an eyeroll.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, LilaMae said:

Did they? Archie isn't an unusual name in the UK. A bit unusual for a Royal child perhaps, but the Queen's great grandkids definitely diverge from the more traditional Royal names (other than William's kids). His middle name, Harrison, did get a bit of an eyeroll.

In the US there were jokes.  The name lost popularity in the 1970s.  What I found odd was that I thought Archie was a diminutive of Archibald, not a stand-alone name.  Of course, when they named the second child Lilibet, I saw they just like nicknames as names.

[Manda]

Tabloid fodder, but I don't think it's too far off the mark.  They feed each other ideas like using nicknames instead of more formal names, using the queen's nickname while refusing to visit, trying to play cute with versions of Arch, doing performative works, and the continual press issues among other things.  

https://www.geo.tv/latest/410487-prince-harry-meghan-markles-marriage-a-disaster-waiting-to-end-report

 

Quote

There she was quoted saying, “Harry decided to absolutely not capitulate to any dialogue with the press who he believes killed his mother, ruined his life and ruined Meghan’s life.

“That’s his view. And he’s not entirely wrong," the biographer went on to say.

She added: “But doing battle with the British media is a lost cause. And, unfortunately, Meghan is as combative about it as he is.”

“William and Kate calm each other down a lot; their marriage works very well in that way." but “In the Sussex marriage, they wind each other up and it’s Us Against the World, and that’s a disaster.”

 

[Topaz]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

In the US there were jokes.  The name lost popularity in the 1970s.  What I found odd was that I thought Archie was a diminutive of Archibald, not a stand-alone name.  Of course, when they named the second child Lilibet, I saw they just like nicknames as names.

Archie is one of many nicknames that have become mainstream names in their own right. And it’s one of the ‘old people’ names that have cycled back around. People here were a bit surprised by the name because it’s not traditionally royal. If I named a kid Archie no one would bat an eyelid. Unless it turned out to be short for Archibald which has not cycled round.

[EmCatlyn]

59 minutes ago, Topaz said:

Archie is one of many nicknames that have become mainstream names in their own right. And it’s one of the ‘old people’ names that have cycled back around. People here were a bit surprised by the name because it’s not traditionally royal. If I named a kid Archie no one would bat an eyelid. Unless it turned out to be short for Archibald which has not cycled round.

Makes sense.  I wouldn’t saddle a kid with Archibald as a name either. 😉

[prayawaythefundie]

16 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

What I found odd was that I thought Archie was a diminutive of Archibald, not a stand-alone name.  Of course, when they named the second child Lilibet, I saw they just like nicknames as names.

There was a tabloid story about Prince George having used „Archie“ as a nickname for himself a few months before baby Archie was born: 

https://amp.heart.co.uk/news/royals/prince-george/answer-asked-name-archie-dog-walker/ 

It‘s unconfirmed but would fit right in with how they came up with Lilibet. 

 

 

[viii]

3 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

There was a tabloid story about Prince George having used „Archie“ as a nickname for himself a few months before baby Archie was born: 

https://amp.heart.co.uk/news/royals/prince-george/answer-asked-name-archie-dog-walker/ 

It‘s unconfirmed but would fit right in with how they came up with Lilibet. 

Still such a weird, weird situation. I’d love to get the honest truth around his name but that’s unlikely with these two. 

[WiseGirl]

They can't go to his grandfather's memorial nut they can go to the Invictus Games. Who's paying for their security?

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-to-join-prince-harry-at-invictus-games-netherlands/

[viii]

11 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

They can't go to his grandfather's memorial nut they can go to the Invictus Games. Who's paying for their security?

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-to-join-prince-harry-at-invictus-games-netherlands/

I'm going to guess that their entire trip will be filmed for their documentary or whatever they're making, so I'm guessing perhaps Netflix will pay for it. 

[mama4cor]

27 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

They can't go to his grandfather's memorial nut they can go to the Invictus Games. Who's paying for their security?

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-to-join-prince-harry-at-invictus-games-netherlands/

Ridiculous

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

They can't go to his grandfather's memorial nut they can go to the Invictus Games. Who's paying for their security?

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-to-join-prince-harry-at-invictus-games-netherlands/

I think their argument is that they need “police security” in England but no where else.  The issue may be that their private security isn’t allowed to carry guns in the Uk.  Maybe private security in the Netherlands is allowed to carry guns, or they can hire police protection (in some countries it’s pretty standard).  

I am still not sure whether Harry really believes that he and Meghan and the kids are significantly less safe in England without police protection or if this is just another way to insist that they are “special.”  In any case, I would guess Harry may have been advised against going to Phillip’s memorial because he is waiting for an answer to his appeal of the Home Office decision to not let him have security even if he pays for it.

Who knows?  

Edited April 11, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Major typo

[EmCatlyn]

According to this article, Meghan may be talking about how she was treated by the Royals in her new podcast, Archetypes.

Quote

“She wants to speak about the things that are important to her and correct the wrongs that she feels have been done against her. She’s proven over the past few years that she’s not afraid to upset those in power and that won’t change. Being popular is not her main aim – she knows she’ll get criticism for whatever she says, so she wants her truth out there, even if means ruffling more feathers, especially in royal circles.”

….

Meghan still feels angry about the way Kate is treated by the British public and media, compared to the criticism she gets,” our source explains.

“It’s like Kate can do no wrong and, although Meghan has addressed some of their issues, she still feels hurt and let down by Kate – and the rest of the royal family. She feels she wasn’t given enough support by everyone when she first met Harry, and it’s something that still upsets her to this day. She regrets not speaking out earlier and has vowed that she will never be silenced again.” 
 

Meghan Markle Planning to Get Back at Kate Middleton.

[WiseGirl]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

According to this article, Meghan may be talking about how she was treated by the Royals in her new podcast, Archetypes.

Quote

Oh for Rufus sake, is she 12? Are they ever going to move on? She married Harry not Kate. Talk about burning bridges. She can say whatever she wants because the royals won't respond. 

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

She feels she wasn’t given enough support by everyone when she first met Harry, and it’s something that still upsets her to this day.

Did it ever occur to her maybe they don't like her and now they really don't like her? How long are they going to play thus US vs THEM game? Or worse continue to get paid for playing this game? Have they been trotting out this poor us narrative longer than their marriage or the time they lived together in the UK or does it just feel that way? They seem either terribly toxic or terribly dysfunctional IMO in their inability to move on past this narrative. They really shouldn't make this narrative their main focus, again IMO, if they want a long game. Eventually folks will tire of it. At least I hope they will.

[prayawaythefundie]

41 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

Oh for Rufus sake, is she 12? Are they ever going to move on? She married Harry not Kate. Talk about burning bridges. She can say whatever she wants because the royals won't respond. 

IF she continues with the whining I will agree with you but for now it‘s just „a source“ again. Let‘s wait and see - or hear.

[DalmatianCat]

4 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

According to this article, Meghan may be talking about how she was treated by the Royals in her new podcast, Archetypes.

I’m really hoping that article is inaccurate. Meghan has already talked about her version of what the royals did to her. No one is trying to silence her. She’s lived in the US doing what she pleased for the majority of her marriage. A lot of people have in-law issues. It’s life, you deal with it in a healthy way (moving away is healthy…talking to the press multiple times is not).

At this point it’s hard to believe she’s not doing it for attention or trying to goad the royal family into finally responding to her. Or she’s doing it because she *knows* her “truth”/version of events will always be the one on record because the royals won’t respond.

I was really excited when Meghan married Harry; I’m a fan of both of them. But by claiming that she’s been mistreated and silenced while simultaneously attacking another woman (who is not going to respond), and is just a bad look.

If Meghan wants to be a champion for female royals who are *genuinely* trapped, why not speak out in favor of Princess Haya or Princess Latifa who have been trying to escape from their husband/dad the Sheik of Dubai??? Or Princess Shamsa who hasn’t been seen in years after a failed escape attempt. They could use a strong voice advocating for them. They do need help. Or women in Afghanistan? Or Ukraine? Those are the kinds of women’s causes I thought Meghan would get behind.

Edited April 12, 2022 by DalmatianCat
Typo

[viii]

@DalmatianCat this is really well said. 

Does Meghan not remember the YEARS of abuse that Kate received from the British media? They were ruthless towards her for ages. I do think there is a difference between how they treated Kate and Meghan, but I also think that even if Meghan wasn't a WOC, there would have been comparisons. Meghan was fresh meat and they would have eventually found somebody else to attack, should she have stayed. Not saying that makes it right and that there weren't racist attacks (because there 100% was), but Meghan was destined to receive shit no matter what, unfortunately. 

So instead of talking about Kate Middleton and how the royal family harmed you, perhaps focus more of your attention on the media itself and how damaging it is. 

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

Oh for Rufus sake, is she 12? Are they ever going to move on? She married Harry not Kate. Talk about burning bridges. She can say whatever she wants because the royals won't respond. 

Did it ever occur to her maybe they don't like her and now they really don't like her? How long are they going to play thus US vs THEM game? Or worse continue to get paid for playing this game? Have they been trotting out this poor us narrative longer than their marriage or the time they lived together in the UK or does it just feel that way? They seem either terribly toxic or terribly dysfunctional IMO in their inability to move on past this narrative. They really shouldn't make this narrative their main focus, again IMO, if they want a long game. Eventually folks will tire of it. At least I hope they will.

Many people don’t get along with in-laws.  You would think that with how dysfunctional her family of origin is, Meghan would not have been surprised that Kate didn’t become her instant bestie.

The whole thing seems driven by jealousy more than anything else. And yes, it is childish and undignified.  

5 hours ago, viii said:

@DalmatianCat this is really well said. 

Does Meghan not remember the YEARS of abuse that Kate received from the British media? They were ruthless towards her for ages. I do think there is a difference between how they treated Kate and Meghan, but I also think that even if Meghan wasn't a WOC, there would have been comparisons. Meghan was fresh meat and they would have eventually found somebody else to attack, should she have stayed. Not saying that makes it right and that there weren't racist attacks (because there 100% was), but Meghan was destined to receive shit no matter what, unfortunately. 

So instead of talking about Kate Middleton and how the royal family harmed you, perhaps focus more of your attention on the media itself and how damaging it is. 

I agree.  Of course, we don’t know how accurate the report is— we don’t know who this “source” is and it may just be exaggerated/made up.

[MomJeans]

If the source is correct, then Meghan has an unhealthy obsession with her sister in law.  And if it’s correct, then I’m starting to believe that life is California isn’t as wonderful as the Sussexes are trying to project, because they appear consumed with their pasts.

 

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, MomJeans said:

If the source is correct, then Meghan has an unhealthy obsession with her sister in law.  And if it’s correct, then I’m starting to believe that life is California isn’t as wonderful as the Sussexes are trying to project, because they appear consumed with their pasts.

Could be Meghan won’t really be talking about the royals in her podcast, and the whole story is just a way to get people interested in the podcast.  Or maybe the “Source” has exaggerated, and Meghan is not really nursing a grudge.

However, if the story is true, it does seem that Meghan just can’t let go of the need to hit out at the royals and particularly Kate and William.

I don’t think Meghan is as happy as she claims to be. There is always such a preoccupation with appearances and with controlling her “story” that I suspect she can enjoy things but not really be happy.

As for Harry, who knows?  I think those two are always going to be chasing but never quite catching happiness, but that’s just an impression.

[WiseGirl]

13 hours ago, MomJeans said:

because they appear consumed with their pasts.

Excellent observation.

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

those two are always going to be chasing but never quite catching happiness, but that’s just an impression.

This makes me wonder what happiness means to them.

[Coconut Flan]

It's the DailyFail so get out the salt shaker:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10712271/Harry-Meghan-NOT-offered-room-royal-palace-Invictus-Games-visit.html

The part I found interesting was that the Invictis games could be a bigger terrorist target due to the military connection.  I think the big clue as to why both Meghan and Harry would be there is that a film crew will be also.  I think film crew access is more their issue than security.  

[tabitha2]

Even though it is the Daily Fail  Harry and Meghan have to be even more out of touch  with reality and entitled than I thought if they were actually thinking King WA and Queen Maxima would cater to them or even assist them in anyway like that. Given the ties and huge respect the European monarchs have for QEII  as well as the drama that follows in their wake these two will have made themselves blackballed in the small tight related Clique that is senior royalty.

Edited April 13, 2022 by tabitha2

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

It's the DailyFail so get out the salt shaker:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10712271/Harry-Meghan-NOT-offered-room-royal-palace-Invictus-Games-visit.html

The part I found interesting was that the Invictis games could be a bigger terrorist target due to the military connection.  I think the big clue as to why both Meghan and Harry would be there is that a film crew will be also.  I think film crew access is more their issue than security.  

I loved the quote: “Former MP Norman Baker, who is a critic of royal spending and secrecy, said: 'It looks petulant. It seems they have Dutch courage but not the British variety'.” 😉  Such a nice, snarky play on words. 😉

It really baffles me that Harry couldn’t have made the trip to Phillip’s memorial by himself for just a couple of days, to see his grandmother.  He did  it for the funeral and for the statue unveiling.  He would have been fully protected at the memorial and going to and from the event, and the rest of the time he would have been at some royal estate or other.  It just seemed petty.