|
|
[BRF] Istana Bawang 16 - Meghan vs Buckingham , still !! ...Lilibet who ?
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Author |
Post time 16-6-2021 09:52 PM
From the mobile phone
|
Show all posts
snazzydaisy replied at 16-6-2021 02:07 PM
More Meghan's vids...
Meghan Markle's Buzzwords: Part 2
Iols cari BP official announcement on Lilibet birth tapi mmg xde ekk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by belilies at 16-6-2021 10:41 PM
adelea replied at 16-6-2021 11:15 AM
Kate on looking forward to meet Lilibet
Kate is always graceful! (Edited, tatau cana boleh spelled grateful.. mabok vaksin mungkin. Hahahah)
Richard thind is crying baby looking for a lawyer. Bodo giler senirik kutuk kate yg xpernah buat salah kat heols, melalak play victim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Post time 16-6-2021 10:54 PM
From the mobile phone
|
Show all posts
belilies replied at 16-6-2021 10:19 PM
Kate is always graceful! (Edited, tatau cana boleh spelled grateful.. mabok vaksin mungkin. Haha ...
Kannnn sheols ni mmg graceful and nampak regal sgt .. wpun from middle class family ...
Gegula meghan still suka kutuk famili kate yg asalnya meniaga party packs ..
Richarde Thind tu mmg play victim...skrg padan la muka dia .. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by delia3003 at 16-6-2021 11:09 PM
adelea replied at 16-6-2021 10:54 PM
Kannnn sheols ni mmg graceful and nampak regal sgt .. wpun from middle class family ...
Gegula ...
Ada hati gegula hangit nak kutuk family Kate, meret tu family lagi kelas bawah dpd Kate dgn family yg huru hara, jauh bertiang ke bawah, family Kate nampak jugak classy. Meret tu pun setakat pelakon sendu yg takde achievement pun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adelea replied at 16-6-2021 09:52 PM
Iols cari BP official announcement on Lilibet birth tapi mmg xde ekk
Memang takde sbb baby bet tu pun lahir luar istana. Lagipun heret meret pun bukan lagi working royals. Patut baby bet tu pun tak boleh masuk dalam line to the throne sbb takde pengesahan dpd royal doctors kan. Tapi lantak diorang ler. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Post time 16-6-2021 11:51 PM
From the mobile phone
|
Show all posts
delia3003 replied at 16-6-2021 11:13 PM
Memang takde sbb baby bet tu pun lahir luar istana. Lagipun heret meret pun bukan lagi working roy ...
Ohh betul la mmg takde ekk .. masa archie pon beranak huru hara ..
Yg ni si bet ni lahir luar negara ... Lagilah huru hara .... Malah kewujudan pon x dapat di pastikan ...
Betul ckp you since x nak jadi working royal bagai ...elok la jadi marhaen je .. x payah nak masuk dlm throne list ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adelea replied at 16-6-2021 11:14 AM
Calling2 semua
@eva
Thanks adelea.. Ya ampun guwe tak tau pula ada thread baru.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Post time 17-6-2021 12:01 AM
From the mobile phone
|
Show all posts
Farnor replied at 16-6-2021 11:59 PM
Thanks adelea.. Ya ampun guwe tak tau pula ada thread baru..
Hahaha ..  . Welkam welkam ... Rumah ni idok ler laju bebenor .. tapi ada je ler ceghitenya ... .. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My pleasure 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ada laa terbaca haritu kat benang mana ntah ada yg ckp acik meg ni classy pandai dressup & bawa diri. ni fans rachel zane kah? dah laa masuk brf makin hauk fashion. patutnya makin better laa kan. iols dgr nama acik meg ni teringat suits je 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mmg takde baby Lili nye official birth announcement, just acknowledgement from the family via socmed, baik tak payah ada coz Archie nye announcement dulu tu memalukan aje, seolah-olah tak layak berada dlm LoS... 
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chip92 replied at 17-6-2021 12:20 AM
ada laa terbaca haritu kat benang mana ntah ada yg ckp acik meg ni classy pandai dressup & bawa di ...
Iols patut tambah pelakon tua sendu
Background dia mmg agak fishy sket, dgn byk sgt rumours yg tak best walaupun cuba ditutup. Gegula hangit pulak mmg suka exaggerate her achievements, yg sebetulnye takde pun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smeg takkan join Diana's statue unveiling event tu, told ya dia takkan berani balik UK after everything she did! 
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hanya yg pernah melalui pengalaman yg sama aje yg akan memahami...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snazzydaisy replied at 17-6-2021 12:34 AM
Smeg takkan join Diana's statue unveiling event tu, told ya dia takkan berani balik UK after everyth ...
Sah ler tak dijemput pun. Buat ler alasan baru lepas 'beranak' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cer tgk kebodohan si Smeg, clueless tak sudah! 
at least si Harry dan Kate ada adab, acknowledging the host masa nak turun tu...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
entah2 Harry pun taknak sheols dtg, boleh laaa heols reunite dgn the "attractive blonde" lagi sekali... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lilibet is a power play many will recognise
Names are personal and the Sussexes’ misappropriation of the Queen’s moniker is manipulative.
Melanie Phillips
Tuesday June 15 2021, 12.01am BST, The Times
Keen supporter as I am of the monarchy, it’s not often that I find the home life of our own dear Queen actually mirrors my own. Yet Her Majesty’s apparent irritation over the gesture of giving baby Sussex the name Lilibet has struck a personal chord. Nicknames or diminutives can be used for very different purposes depending on the context. What is a term of affection in the mouths of some can turn into something less pleasant in the mouths of others.
Our names are personal to us. We may call ourselves what we want; and if others call us by names we don’t want, either because this is inappropriate or disobliging or worse, this is tantamount to treating us with disrespect. It can also be a way of cutting someone down to size, which is a form of aggression.
Such a tactic is sometimes employed by powerful people. The US president George W Bush bestowed endless nicknames on world leaders, politicians and journalists. Thus, the White House correspondents for NBC, Bloomberg News and The Washington Times were, respectively, dubbed “Little Stretch”, “Stretch”, and “Super Stretch”, according to their height. They were put in their place, literally.
I once worked for an editor who used nicknames as a manipulative means of control over his staff. Some of these nicknames or diminutives were his own invention, while others were ones used by the individual’s friends. When this man used them, in meetings or within the earshot of others, this often created a faint but perceptible feeling of unease and discomfort. This was because it felt inappropriate. He was our employer, yet he was presuming a familiarity that did not exist. The nicknames sought to mask that difference in rank and create instead an impression of mateyness, of being one of us. But he wasn’t. Moreover, the jocular way he used these nicknames often had an element of mockery, which felt like malice. All this vaguely disorientated us. Were we his friends or his employees? Was he being affectionate or undermining us? It caught us off balance. And that was the point.
He didn’t throw his weight around by shouting or rows; indeed, he tended to avoid confrontation. A subtle kind of guy, he used more manipulative means of control. Catching us off balance, even mildly, was a way of keeping us guessing about his meaning and motives, and thus preventing us from presenting any challenge to him or disruption of what he wanted to do. Using the terms of address of a close relationship which didn’t exist was a way of owning us. It was a power thing.
To that editor, I was always Mel. Some of my friends called me Mel, but in his mouth it felt as if what was intended by my friends as a sign of affection had been hijacked and used for a different purpose altogether. Subsequently, this nominative hijack developed a life of its own. I am repeatedly addressed as Mel in print by people I have never met but who take issue with my opinions, and who use this presumptuous familiarity as a weapon of insult. Affection has thus been repurposed as aggression, all in the deployment of a name.
So when it was announced that baby Sussex was to be called Lilibet, it felt to me as if the Queen had been punched in the stomach. Lilibet was what she was called by her family as a child — arising from how she had mispronounced her name when very young — and in later life by her husband. It was a nickname borne out of her unique experience and her relationship with those closest to her, and it was particular to her alone. Yet now it had been appropriated for use by someone else, denuded of the personal associations it represented for the Queen. This amounted to the theft of a private part of herself and its redeployment as an exhibit, or trophy, in the public arena.
Of course, it’s possible that the Sussexes believed they were paying the Queen the highest compliment in choosing this name. But it’s hard not to conclude that at least one of them was doing something similar to what my old editor had done — unconsciously and almost reflexively using their baby’s name as a form of manipulative power-play. For by choosing this particular name, which purported to be an act of homage, the Sussexes snatched part of the Queen’s most private self into their own orbit. By this stroke of appropriation, they sought to own the Queen herself and thus effectively wipe out their own loss of status within the royal family.
Except it hasn’t quite worked out like that. The gesture appears instead to embody arrogance, insensitivity and insult in equal measure. After all, true homage would have been to call the baby Elizabeth. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” said Shakespeare’s Juliet. Well actually, not always. Juliet may have wanted Romeo’s identity as a Montague to be irrelevant to their romance, but names matter.
Our names and nicknames anchor our biography. They are markers of our individual personhood and our sense of me-ness. They are how we think of ourselves. If people get them wrong, misspell or mispronounce them, this can make us irritated or angry. We are entitled not to have them weaponised against us. We are entitled not to have their unique significance for our own lives appropriated for someone else. We are entitled to retain a part of ourselves that is entirely personal and protected. Even if one is the Queen.
Link to the article in The Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 16-6-2021 10:19 PM
