Debates
06 Jun 21
07 Jun 21
@divegeester saidShe IS his grandmother.
Lilibet "Lili" Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.
Makes me cringe with embarrassment for them.
Not the Diana link but “Lilibet”. Abandon the establishment and kick it in the teeth, but keep leaching off it.
https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-announce-birth-of-baby-daughter-with-name-to-honour-queen-and-diana-12326401
Say what you want about the monarchy (and many do) but family is family.
@divegeester saidRevealing that the Queen is Harry's grandmother?
Well if you have the time to read up on it you will find that Lilbeth is the shortened version of Elizabeth which our current Queen used to call herself as a child and which became a sort of pet name for her with Philip. Meghan, and it will have been Meghan, using that very personal name for her child is to my way of thinking, quite revealing.
All else aside, let them be a family.
This sort of thing is common in families.
07 Jun 21
@divegeester saidReally? someone naming a baby after it’s grand and great grandmother makes you cringe. You must spend a lot of time in cringe mode.
It’s the cynical use of that particular name which makes me cringe a bit.
@kevcvs57 saidNo, not in the slightest.
Really? someone naming a baby after it’s grand and great grandmother makes you cringe.
Someone naming their baby after the childhood baby-name of the head of a family whom they have recently viciously attacked in a targeted cynical interview having previously resigned from the institution they represent, does make me cringe.
This pair of attention seeking muppets are not the tools you are looking for to attack the British Monarchy.
08 Jun 21
@divegeester saidDo you honestly think they were lying about their grievances with the royal family, or is your position that they should not have aired the royal family's dirty laundry publicly?
Did you even see the Oprah interview!?
@suzianne saidNeither option in your false dichotomy. I don’t expect you to understand principled behaviour, but let me attempt to explain.
Do you honestly think they were lying about their grievances with the royal family, or is your position that they should not have aired the royal family's dirty laundry publicly?
Wether or not their unpleasant but unsubstantiated claims are true or not is irrelevant to the principles in play; they resigned their posts within the Monarch citing issues with privacy from the media (I know, the irony is thick isn’t it), the need to strike up their own financial independence and to break away from the incessant pressures of the Royal exposure.
Since then they have deeply criticised the Monarchy, the family and the institution, smearing the entire immediate family with disgracefully unsubstantiated accusations of racism, bullying and neglect.
Now, when it suits them, they want to name their child after the head of that same family drawing global media attention to themselves and wallowing in it.
08 Jun 21
@divegeester saidI see, so you just hate them for speaking out against a worn out relic of the past (the monarchy). One wonders about your own upbringing to be so consistently hateful of those expressing a different opinion than you. And I might also mention that Harry has lived within it his entire life, and so could be excused for having a different take on the monarchy and the people within it than a spectator all too eager to wave the Union Jack and call it a day.
Neither option in your false dichotomy. I don’t expect you to understand principled behaviour, but let me attempt to explain.
Wether or not their unpleasant but unsubstantiated claims are true or not is irrelevant to the principles in play; they resigned their posts within the Monarch citing issues with privacy from the media (I know, the irony is thick isn’t it), th ...[text shortened]... after the head of that same family drawing global media attention to themselves and wallowing in it.
09 Jun 21
@torunn saidYes I agree.
@divegeester
I don't see Harry and Meghan as royals, just celebrities.