The Royal Family #37

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Order Thread by Most Liked Posts
N

neroli

travelbug20 said:
Reading the part of the official statement that says "The Duchess of Sussex will stay in California with Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet"...just made me think how the names Archie and Lilibet really don't suit titles šŸ˜‚ I think they're nice names (well Archie, I wouldn't personally opt for Lilibet but I like "Lili") but I don't know what it is, they just don't suit a title in front of them. I do feel that when naming a royal child who may or may not have a Prince or Princess title someday, you've got to think about this. Maybe it's just me but they seem like such a clash. "Prince James, Prince Oliver, Prince Theo, Princess Amelia, Princess Martha, Princess Eliza" they all have a nice ring to them Prince Archie just sounds odd?...sorry I've gone totally off topic but does anyone know what I mean??
Click to expand...

I suppose the names could be worse....Like Prince Apollo and Princess Bambi? I know what you mean though...Lillibet is a strange choice in view of their view of the Royal Family with the Queen as Head and Matriarch and therefore complicit in the racism slurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
B

Boring Monday

neroli said:
I suppose the names could be worse....Like Prince Apollo and Princess Bambi? I know what you mean though...Lillibet is a strange choice in view of their view of the Royal Family with the Queen as Head and Matriarch and therefore complicit in the racism slurs.
Click to expand...
Itā€™s not that for me ā€¦ itā€™s that they named her with a nickname and are now calling her a derivative of the nickname. Seems a long way round. Just name her Elizabeth and call her any of the many derivatives of Elizabeth.
But, Iā€™m old fashioned :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
T

travelbug20

I think this whole saga has highlighted how the heir to throne needs to have more than 2 kids tbh šŸ˜‚

The Queen had 4 which gave her an heir and 3 "spares" meaning there were arguably 3 who were treated differently to 1 (the less said about how Andrew turned out of course the better)
Will and Kate have had 3 which means Charlotte and Louis will always be in the same camp, compared to George who will be treated differently

I think the big issue is that it was JUST Harry and William. Had there been a third sibling, Harry would have had an ally treated in the same way as him and the difference wouldn't have been so stark.

I hope I've explained myself well enough here
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 25
thegirlscout

thegirlscout

I wonder why Meghan isnā€™t going.
---
ChatChar said:
I donā€™t know how Harry has the front to turn up after all the interviews/ book šŸ˜‚. Iā€™m pleased Meghan isnā€™t going though as all the headlines would have been all about her.
Click to expand...
I wanted to see what Meghan would be wearing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Scarlett O' Hara

Scarlett O' Hara

thegirlscout said:
I wonder why Meghan isnā€™t going.
Click to expand...
Well I'll hazard a guess here, perhaps she is afraid of the reception (boos) and / or silence she would encounter after all the monumental proven lies she has told about the Royal Family.

She will not be missed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13
B

Boring Monday

travelbug20 said:
I think this whole saga has highlighted how the heir to throne needs to have more than 2 kids tbh šŸ˜‚

The Queen had 4 which gave her an heir and 3 "spares" meaning there were arguably 3 who were treated differently to 1 (the less said about how Andrew turned out of course the better)
Will and Kate have had 3 which means Charlotte and Louis will always be in the same camp, compared to George who will be treated differently

I think the big issue is that it was JUST Harry and William. Had there been a third sibling, Harry would have had an ally treated in the same way as him and the difference wouldn't have been so stark.

I hope I've explained myself well enough here
Click to expand...
the thing with The Queenā€™s 4 was that Anne really couldnā€™t give one hoot let alone 2 (and the whole being a girl thing). Andrew is 10 years younger than Charles so really the whole over the top Heir thing was ridiculous ā€¦ but thatā€™s the way the system works. Edward seems about as bothered about it as Anne - but then he was only 19 when William was born. Harry was cracking on for 30 when he was de-spared and I think that makes a difference as much as anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
E

Em_gardener

Maybe Harry going without Meghan is their pr strategy.
If they both turn up they look like complete hypocrites - it's not that long since Harry kind of implied he needed an apology before he'd come to the coronation and we all know that hasn't happened.
If neither of them turn up they don't get the chance to top up their royal credentials and the perception of them as royal fades even further - that's bad for their brand.
This way we all get to see Harry being a prince again and associating with the RF but Meghan hasn't gone because the RF are still mean and racist. It's the best they could do in the circumstances and it's probably the RF's preferred option as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
E

Eugenie

Really
travelbug20 said:
I think this whole saga has highlighted how the heir to throne needs to have more than 2 kids tbh šŸ˜‚

The Queen had 4 which gave her an heir and 3 "spares" meaning there were arguably 3 who were treated differently to 1 (the less said about how Andrew turned out of course the better)
Will and Kate have had 3 which means Charlotte and Louis will always be in the same camp, compared to George who will be treated differently

I think the big issue is that it was JUST Harry and William. Had there been a third sibling, Harry would have had an ally treated in the same way as him and the difference wouldn't have been so stark.

I hope I've explained myself well enough here
Click to expand...
well and totally agree
---
Really
travelbug20 said:
I think this whole saga has highlighted how the heir to throne needs to have more than 2 kids tbh šŸ˜‚

The Queen had 4 which gave her an heir and 3 "spares" meaning there were arguably 3 who were treated differently to 1 (the less said about how Andrew turned out of course the better)
Will and Kate have had 3 which means Charlotte and Louis will always be in the same camp, compared to George who will be treated differently

I think the big issue is that it was JUST Harry and William. Had there been a third sibling, Harry would have had an ally treated in the same way as him and the difference wouldn't have been so stark.

I hope I've explained myself well enough here
Click to expand...
well and totally agree


Baby Giraffe said:
To be fair, that's not that unusual. Friend of mine has a younger brother who has complained on more than on occasion that he wasn't allowed the top bunk as a kid. He's over 60 now, he really needs to get over it.
Click to expand...
I guess we could say these things are insignificant but psychologically they arenā€™t - the message is that you are ā€œlesserā€ especially if it happens continually. Small and petty things taken out of context but in the bigger picture they have significance
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
50sGirl

50sGirl

Em_gardener said:
Maybe Harry going without Meghan is their pr strategy.
If they both turn up they look like complete hypocrites - it's not that long since Harry kind of implied he needed an apology before he'd come to the coronation and we all know that hasn't happened.
If neither of them turn up they don't get the chance to top up their royal credentials and the perception of them as royal fades even further - that's bad for their brand.
This way we all get to see Harry being a prince again and associating with the RF but Meghan hasn't gone because the RF are still mean and racist. It's the best they could do in the circumstances and it's probably the RF's preferred option as well.
Click to expand...
Harry knew he had to come. If he declined heā€™d have burnt the final bridge with his father.
He is a hypocrite but still needs his Royal Family safety net.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18
H

Honeystar

The reality is that after the coronation the next time Harry will be at a major royal event itā€™s likely to be his fathers funeral. I imagine that sobering thought has to have played a part in his decision to go. If he didnā€™t, he would likely always regret it deep down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11
elliebee27

elliebee27

Honeystar said:
The reality is that after the coronation the next time Harry will be at a major royal event itā€™s likely to be his fathers funeral. I imagine that sobering thought has to have played a part in his decision to go. If he didnā€™t, he would likely always regret it deep down.
Click to expand...
Considering the way he treated his grandmother I doubt he really cares about his father much either. imo he is there for Netflix content and press.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Sad
Reactions: 15
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.