I can believe it! I mean, if she thought Annabel was too … new money.
I can believe it! I mean, if she thought Annabel was too … new money.I could have sworn it was in the news that for James the Queen discounted the name Archie because it sounded like the cartoon character but can’t I find any evidence of this?! No!!
I would have bet money on it because I was so sure that it was a discussion at the time!
It's my sisters name and I think it's beautiful.I think Annabelle sounds too Disney
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.Wonder what she made of Savannah
This. A thousand times over.I find all of it pretty mental how a family drama that should be sorted privately is being played out in public. Fucking hell what a shambles. It's a bit different when it's fictional storylines or drama made for a reality tv show, but this is real life family matters.
They seem to refer to her just as Lili so not sure why they didn’t just call her that to start with.I actually think Lily/i would have been a much prettier name without the -bet too.
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 balloonThey seem to refer to her just as Lili so not sure why they didn’t just call her that to start with.
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
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.I so much agree with you!
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.
Beatrice was Queen Victoria's youngest daughter and her child was called Victoria Eugenie!For Beatrice apparently. Said it was ‘too yuppy’! I’m not a great fan of ‘Beatrice’ either (the name not the person). Annabelle much prettier than both.
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.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.
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
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.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.
Also the row over the tiara - what meghan wants, meghan getsI 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.
The tiara yes...the bullying investigation came after they'd left though. I meant 2018-2022 coverage.Also the row over the tiara - what meghan wants, meghan gets
The bridesmaid bust up
The bullying investigation
The problem is, DM and the Sun are the most read publications so anything they say I'll have more impact than other newspapersI 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?