I can believe it! I mean, if she thought Annabel was too … new money.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
There was a well-known sloaney nightclub called Annabelle's. The name might otherwise have made the grade
It's my sisters name and I think it's beautiful.
Savannah, like Zara, although not traditional names are at least both visually and audially pleasing, unlike Beatrice and esp Eugenie. But I get that you’re trying to follow Her Maj’s train of thought after she’d vetoed Anabelle and allowed the others.
I actually think Lily/i would have been a much prettier name without the -bet too.
This. A thousand times over.
They seem to refer to her just as Lili so not sure why they didn’t just call her that to start with.
I have the feeling it was an afterthought by Harry. Should have just stuck with the name that Meghan chose to reflect her maternal background, as well as Diana as a middle name. Elizabeth too if they wanted to pay tribute to the Queen. It was obvious that Lilibet would go down like a lead balloon
I so much agree with you!@Popcorn&Peanuts
After some thinking, I will say I am a bit sad they are not shedding more light and facts on the Empire 2.0 argument. It’s not completely off base and the fact that Europe is maintaining structures that ensure its own benefit over the success of others is often overlooked. And while that’s an obvious given, because the success, safety, welfare and benefit of its citizens should be its main goal and all our systems are build on exploitation, hierarchy and creating needs (hello Kapitalism. I wonder if there ever will anything new come along. Communism hasn’t worked out well so far in praxis). We are only willing to pursue fairer partnerships with other countries as long as it doesn’t hurt us. So the argument the Commonwealth is build on the same incentive is an interesting point. And looking into works of it today and who benefits is also a worthwhile project. I think it’s clear that W won’t ever be Head of the Commonwealth. It will probably an elected position. I wonder if Canada and Australia will stay and if the UK will shrink in its importance in this group.
This would have been an incredible interesting documentary. But using those questions to give your person story a hint of more importance is not working. At least for me. Maybe for an audience that isn’t aware of all those things? If you have never thought critically about past and present and how history and our current institutions, morals, economics and societies are connected this might be all new and shocking. Blind activism to change something is rather easy. Alternatives that will be accepted by a majority- that’s what we need to end resentments and bring real change.
Sorry for the derail
Meghan and Harr'y haters are toxic but people adoring them are a big mystery to me too. One must be blind to not see how much energy they are putting to craft the image they want their audience to have from them. I am reading things like they didn't do that documentary for money. Like what? They said themselves during their interview with Oprah they had to make deals with Netflix and Spotify to afford their lifestyle. Some people are taking their side because they dislike the RF and the tabloids, which is absolutely fine, but they don't see that both of them are using the RF and the tabloids to make a living and never take responsabilities for anything that has happened. I don't like anyway the idea of having to take a side. Why a Hollywood narrative should be more convincing than the tabloids narrative? In both cases, it's all about pushing an image that doesn't correspond to the reality.
Also agree. Like so many I thought Meghan was a great addition to the RF and watched the wedding even though I really don't care too much about royalty. Some of the stuff written about her by the extreme haters is quite mad: the fake kids, the surrogates, the prostitution etc.
The fairest way to judge somebody is on what they say and what they do. And Harry and Meghan have both behaved pretty appallingly. I'm not influenced by tabloids or tell-all books...I've formed an opinion based only on how they've conducted themselves.
Beatrice was Queen Victoria's youngest daughter and her child was called Victoria Eugenie!
I think Lilibet is a horrible name too! Why call her such an ugly name knowing it would cause ructions then call her Lilli? Lilibet is a stupid name for an adult, and there are so many variations of Elizabeth they could have used! However, I don't think it was the ultimate insult to The Queen by 'taking the one thing that the richest woman in the world has for herself' or whatever the tabloids narrative was.
Is Meghan’s grandmother called Lili? They could have also said something like they wanted to do a tribute to the Queen but not an obvious one (Elizabeth) so they chose the first part of her nickname.I have the feeling it was an afterthought by Harry. Should have just stuck with the name that Meghan chose to reflect her maternal background, as well as Diana as a middle name. Elizabeth too if they wanted to pay tribute to the Queen. It was obvious that Lilibet would go down like a lead balloon
There are (according to this article) 85 nicknames for Elizabeth, though some are…very unusual https://www.momjunction.com/articles/short-names-nicknames-for-elizabeth-with-meanings_00747237/
Referring back to the documentary, why does Harry’s friend only appear with his first name, his surname is never mentioned? This hasn’t happened with anyone else.
Last edited:
I have no doubt that there have been lies issued to protect William but I don't think it's surrounding the alleged affair (which I'm still firmly on the fence over). I think it's more that the palace were willing to push back on more stuff regarding William, and probably Kate, even if there was an element of truth in it. Stuff that we will probably know about seeing as they managed to stop it being published. Harry has decided that the palace weren't willing to push back on as much stuff for him and Meghan.
I do have to ask however, about the whole she was thrown to the wolves thing etc. I remember the "straight outta comptom" and "extoic blood" articles, but was the press treatment of Meghan during her time as a working royal really that bad? I feel like she was positioned as the glowing, glamourous new princess who was modernising the monarchy for a long time. In my memory, the negative stuff was regarding her treatment of staff....
The key negative press pieces I recall were:
-5am emails
- high staff turnover
- cost of renovations for Frogmore
- debacle over Archie's birth and the tight secrecy around his christening
I never really understood the idea that she was treated any worse than the others. I'm not saying just because it happened to one it should happen to all but Kate was hounded too, I can remember plenty of negative coverage: waity kaity, workshy, 2 kitchens Kate etc.... I'm not sure it was reason to throw your toys out of the pram and quit.
I do have to ask however, about the whole she was thrown to the wolves thing etc. I remember the "straight outta comptom" and "extoic blood" articles, but was the press treatment of Meghan during her time as a working royal really that bad? I feel like she was positioned as the glowing, glamourous new princess who was modernising the monarchy for a long time. In my memory, the negative stuff was regarding her treatment of staff....
The key negative press pieces I recall were:
-5am emails
- high staff turnover
- cost of renovations for Frogmore
- debacle over Archie's birth and the tight secrecy around his christening
I never really understood the idea that she was treated any worse than the others. I'm not saying just because it happened to one it should happen to all but Kate was hounded too, I can remember plenty of negative coverage: waity kaity, workshy, 2 kitchens Kate etc.... I'm not sure it was reason to throw your toys out of the pram and quit.
I feel like a lot of the negative reports came from the Daily Mail and the Sun in terms of newspapers. But then again they are always like that. A lot of articles I read not from those publications was very positive.
Also the row over the tiara - what meghan wants, meghan gets
The bridesmaid bust up
The bullying investigation
The tiara yes...the bullying investigation came after they'd left though. I meant 2018-2022 coverage.
The problem is, DM and the Sun are the most read publications so anything they say I'll have more impact than other newspapers
From the Palace perspective it makes more sense to protect Eill and Kate because ultimately they will be king and queen, plus they had been married for years. Meghan and harry have delusions of grandeur about their position thinking that the RF would protect them as much. Considering the fall out of the breakdown of Di Charles and Andrew fergie, the RF couldn't risk the media gossiping about Kate and William
I think the fed to the wolves mean the palace wouldn't put a stop to the negative press Meghan received.
I can't get my head around why anybody would believe a word out of H&M's mouth.
They have appeared on camera, telling blatant lies. Watching their Netflix reality show, one can see how out of touch with reality they are.
It's bizarre how many people they have fooled. They are laughing all the way to the bank and couldn't care less who they damage on their way.
They have appeared on camera, telling blatant lies. Watching their Netflix reality show, one can see how out of touch with reality they are.
It's bizarre how many people they have fooled. They are laughing all the way to the bank and couldn't care less who they damage on their way.
- Status