Prince Harry to attend coronation without Meghan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a missed opportunity for the King to lead.

If I were Chuck, I would have made sure Harry was there with a smile on his face along with his wife and kids.

I would message that family means everything and he is proud of Harry and happy for his new life…which aligns with his scaled back approach to the monarchy and working royals.

Heck, I would throw a birthday party for Archie and leak pics.

Make clear we are over the drama and carry on.

I agree with this, but I think they royal family is "gun shy" by everything that Harry and Meghan have made public, so are afraid to be/say anything around them. Also, even if Charles wants to do this, Harry and Meghan have to agree to do it, too.

[Anonymous]

Oh I’m sure Charles wanted her there. He doesn’t Helen want Kate there unless she dresses in such a way so nobody pays her any attention.

Yeah, I’m just so sure it was her decision not to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

Everyone is happier she is staying home. Less stress on poor Harry.

Less stress on everyone. Her kids are too young to attend anyway. They have no experience participating in those kinds of big formal events, would be overwhelming. Also there will be a lot of patriotism and flag-waving that day. Given the largely negative sentiment toward her in the UK these days, really best for her safety and wellbeing that she not go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason it's crazy to me that people are so critical of Meghan is that her story is part of a long pattern of the BRF being an absolute nightmare to marry into. People are acting like Meghan is some weird outlier but, ahem, what about Diana and Fergie? What about Margaret's mess of a love life?

If you are looking at this situation with the extremely strained relationship between Harry and his family, and Meghan being completely on the outs with them, and thinking "huh, this must be entirely due to Meghan's actions and personality," then you are unbelievably myopic. It's Kate who is the outlier, and she has done it by completely subsuming herself into her role. This is a system that destroys people, and Meghan is just the latest in a long line of people who have been chewed up and spit out by the BRF.

People called Diana a drama queen too. This family is the problem. Meghan might have her flaws (everyone does) but there is too much of a pattern here to blame her for any of it. The problem is the family, the system, the tabloid press and the family's relationship with it, the family's extreme dysfunction due to their very weird lives and roles. It's a cult.

You conveniently forget about Sophie, married happily to Edward, the Queen's youngest son. Is she an outlier too?

Well, she is married o a gay man, so she must really have wanted to have been part of the royal family. If one is willing to enter a sham marriage, letting up with the rest of it is probably just fine. And of course she and Edward have always been out of the limelight and therefore aren’t a threat to Charles or William. Fergie, Diana, and Megan stole the spotlight from the royal family because they are charismatic.

Ha, you have to smear Sophie and Edward to make Meghan look good. Pathetic.

I don’t consider saying someone is gay to be a smear, but it hardly surprised me that you do. Goes along with the racism.

You said a lot more than that about them. Funny that you thought the gay label was a smear. Shame on you.

Just quoting your exact words, so no point in attempting to gaslight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

This. I honestly think that even if she disappeared from the public view indefinitely, there's still be nut jobs in the press and online complaining about how she was even doing THAT for attention, or using it as an opportunity to spread nasty lies about how she's actually a closet shoplifter or how she was spotted sleeping on a park bench or that she and Harry host sex parties with Oprah on the weekends.

People love to hate Meghan Markle, a b-list actress who married a guy whose literal job was as an "extra son, just in case" and then had a nice wedding and has done some reality TV programming. If you find yourself just burning up with anger at MM, ask yourself why you don't feel this way about, like, Tori Spelling or Courtney Kardashian. Like who cares? Even if she's an attention whore with nothing to offer, who is she hurting? Literally no one.

Oh, and if the excuse is that she's harming the British Royal Family? Girl, please. I AM AMERICAN. The British Royal Family is a weird cult that exists because a long time ago some dude convinced the British people that his family is *ordained by god* to lead their weird colonizing empire. It's gross. I think I remain sympathetic to Meghan for no other reason than because she makes weirdo royal cultists so angry, and I think that's funny. Long live the royal $hit-stirrer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably the most drama-free way for Harry to attend.

+1 most sensible approach

But major eye roll at giving the kids the Prince / Princess titles in LA but then they don't even want to go to the most important royal event? Okay then.

Lol. This is the best comment of the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

Is it though? Like, is it?

Like is it really that important for an entire country and the global press to stand around and watch an ancient white guy put on a special hat and hold a special stick and special ball that make him "King" of all his royal subjects. Is that "important" in an actual sense? And like once he has is hat and stick and ball, what will he even do with them? Nothing. That's their whole thing, right? The point of the royal family is simply to exist and endure. They don't actually control policy or make decisions, in fact that studiously do not to the point where it's almost awkward at times. Wasn't that QEII's whole thing?

So really, is a coronation a "way, way bigger deal" than a four year old's birthday? I kind of think they are about the same thing, except the coronation is more embarrassing because everyone is standing around clapping and congratulating a 74 year old man best known for cheating on his wife with his longtime mistress, who he later married, instead of just a cute 4 year old.

I would personally rather attend the kid's birthday party. I bet the food would be better and the conversation would DEFINITELY be better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One reason it's crazy to me that people are so critical of Meghan is that her story is part of a long pattern of the BRF being an absolute nightmare to marry into. People are acting like Meghan is some weird outlier but, ahem, what about Diana and Fergie? What about Margaret's mess of a love life?

If you are looking at this situation with the extremely strained relationship between Harry and his family, and Meghan being completely on the outs with them, and thinking "huh, this must be entirely due to Meghan's actions and personality," then you are unbelievably myopic. It's Kate who is the outlier, and she has done it by completely subsuming herself into her role. This is a system that destroys people, and Meghan is just the latest in a long line of people who have been chewed up and spit out by the BRF.

People called Diana a drama queen too. This family is the problem. Meghan might have her flaws (everyone does) but there is too much of a pattern here to blame her for any of it. The problem is the family, the system, the tabloid press and the family's relationship with it, the family's extreme dysfunction due to their very weird lives and roles. It's a cult.

You conveniently forget about Sophie, married happily to Edward, the Queen's youngest son. Is she an outlier too?

Well, she is married o a gay man, so she must really have wanted to have been part of the royal family. If one is willing to enter a sham marriage, letting up with the rest of it is probably just fine. And of course she and Edward have always been out of the limelight and therefore aren’t a threat to Charles or William. Fergie, Diana, and Megan stole the spotlight from the royal family because they are charismatic.

Ha, you have to smear Sophie and Edward to make Meghan look good. Pathetic.

I don’t consider saying someone is gay to be a smear, but it hardly surprised me that you do. Goes along with the racism.

You said a lot more than that about them. Funny that you thought the gay label was a smear. Shame on you.

Just quoting your exact words, so no point in attempting to gaslight.

Never mentioned the gay, you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably the most drama-free way for Harry to attend.

+1 most sensible approach

But major eye roll at giving the kids the Prince / Princess titles in LA but then they don't even want to go to the most important royal event? Okay then.

Lol. This is the best comment of the thread.

Oh it is? At what age to royal children generally start attending official functions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

I don't have a horse in this fight, but this is such an odd point to keep making about the coronation. We don't always get to have a party on our actual birthday, and yes, we start socializing kids to the reality in preschool ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

Is it though? Like, is it?

Like is it really that important for an entire country and the global press to stand around and watch an ancient white guy put on a special hat and hold a special stick and special ball that make him "King" of all his royal subjects. Is that "important" in an actual sense? And like once he has is hat and stick and ball, what will he even do with them? Nothing. That's their whole thing, right? The point of the royal family is simply to exist and endure. They don't actually control policy or make decisions, in fact that studiously do not to the point where it's almost awkward at times. Wasn't that QEII's whole thing?

So really, is a coronation a "way, way bigger deal" than a four year old's birthday? I kind of think they are about the same thing, except the coronation is more embarrassing because everyone is standing around clapping and congratulating a 74 year old man best known for cheating on his wife with his longtime mistress, who he later married, instead of just a cute 4 year old.

I would personally rather attend the kid's birthday party. I bet the food would be better and the conversation would DEFINITELY be better.

Only the most self centered would think a birthday trumps a coronation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

It's not like "Oh no, we have conflicting plans -- we're hosting the preschool class for Archie's birthday that day. Shoot, we can't make it!" It's the significance of having picked that day. Who knows, maybe this will end up being somehow significant n a positive way for Archie down the road -- the King of England's coronation was on HIS birthday, his special day, of all the other days he could have chosen -- not any other grandchild's birthday, not any other relatives' birthday, not some random day -- but ARCHIE'S day. Maybe that will turn out really great for the little guy. I hope so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor form. She should be there and so should the kids.

The kids weren’t invited and Charles knew full well it was Archie’s bday when selecting the event date. They designed it so she wouldn’t attend. It’s fine, he makes quick appearance then heads straight home. Little to no drama.

They so many family members, the coronation would inevitably fall on someone's bday. Besides, I doubt Archie knows when his birthday is and can wait to celebrate.

Wait, what? Of course he knows when his birthday is. He's almost 4. Do you even have children? Good grief, you are on the wrong website.

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you have an unusually astute 4-year old. My youngest is almost five and he has no idea when his birthday is. He would gleefully celebrate it whenever he's told.

This is true, and so would any reasonable adult. My birthday fell on a Monday this year. We celebrated with family at dinner the following Saturday. Not traumatizing.

Are you really equating your feelings about when to celebrate your birthday to the feelings of a FOUR YEAR OLD?

A four year old, as PP stated, will celebrate on whatever day you tell him to. He's not going to care if the party doesn't happen on THE DAY. In fact it often does not occur on the day, and everyone survives. 4 year olds are unaware. They don't. care.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight: I doubt very much this day was chosen to somehow inconvenience or spite Harry and Meghan.

However, my kid was absolutely obsessed with her birthday around 4/5 and those were the hardest birthdays to do for her. Specifically, she was obsessed with the idea of the birthday being a specific day. She really wanted the party on the day, and I remember on her 5th birthday we did her party with school friends the day before her birthday and she was horribly disappointed even though we did a family party the next day. She was very intense and fixated on it, and I would have been annoyed at that time if my parents scheduled a huge family event on her birthday because it would have made things especially difficult with her. I mean, that's parenting, but kids that age can just be really tough. They aren't like babies, they don't always just go with the flow, and sometimes they know just enough about things to make life really difficult for you.

Not every kid is as rigid as yours. And my kid has autism so I know what that looks like.

Sure, but you miss the point. PPs have repeatedly said that it's no big deal to move a 4 yr olds birthday because "they don't even know." The point is that some kids know, and sometimes it is inconvenient. Not saying they should schedule a coronation around it, just that I think it should be possible to note that Archie's birthday is the same day and think, as a fellow parent, "oh that could be a PITA to deal with because a coronation is like two solid weeks of events and it could be hard to give my kid a normal birthday party in the midst of that."

It's just funny to me that people immediately jump to "oh whatever that's not big deal at all, I'm sure most children would love to celebrate their birthdays at some other time due to a coronation, who cares." My experience with kids is that often, they care. You'd think this would not be so uncommonly understood on a parenting website, but whatevs.

But Archie ISN'T his kid. He is a grandson, one of five, and a remote one. The only grandchild that matters birthday-wise is George. Everyone else just deals.

I also think, with all my kindness, that coronation is a way, way, way bigger deal than a four-year old's birthday. You know, not EVERYONE gets a birthday party every single year, and when your fourth birthday falls on your grandfather's coronation, you know, your parents just put their big-boy diapers on and deal.

Also, I have three kids, and not one of them was aware of their birthday at age four.

Is it though? Like, is it?

Like is it really that important for an entire country and the global press to stand around and watch an ancient white guy put on a special hat and hold a special stick and special ball that make him "King" of all his royal subjects. Is that "important" in an actual sense? And like once he has is hat and stick and ball, what will he even do with them? Nothing. That's their whole thing, right? The point of the royal family is simply to exist and endure. They don't actually control policy or make decisions, in fact that studiously do not to the point where it's almost awkward at times. Wasn't that QEII's whole thing?

So really, is a coronation a "way, way bigger deal" than a four year old's birthday? I kind of think they are about the same thing, except the coronation is more embarrassing because everyone is standing around clapping and congratulating a 74 year old man best known for cheating on his wife with his longtime mistress, who he later married, instead of just a cute 4 year old.

I would personally rather attend the kid's birthday party. I bet the food would be better and the conversation would DEFINITELY be better.

Then go post in the kid's section of the forum where they talk about Birthday parties and not boring ol Coronations. We'll wait...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a complete damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she goes, she's deemed an attention hog when ALL THE PRESS is about her and not boring old King Charles. If she stays home, she's drama llama who can't get along with her bratty inlaws who have served her on a platter to a vicious press corp.

This. I honestly think that even if she disappeared from the public view indefinitely, there's still be nut jobs in the press and online complaining about how she was even doing THAT for attention, or using it as an opportunity to spread nasty lies about how she's actually a closet shoplifter or how she was spotted sleeping on a park bench or that she and Harry host sex parties with Oprah on the weekends.

People love to hate Meghan Markle, a b-list actress who married a guy whose literal job was as an "extra son, just in case" and then had a nice wedding and has done some reality TV programming. If you find yourself just burning up with anger at MM, ask yourself why you don't feel this way about, like, Tori Spelling or Courtney Kardashian. Like who cares? Even if she's an attention whore with nothing to offer, who is she hurting? Literally no one.

Oh, and if the excuse is that she's harming the British Royal Family? Girl, please. I AM AMERICAN. The British Royal Family is a weird cult that exists because a long time ago some dude convinced the British people that his family is *ordained by god* to lead their weird colonizing empire. It's gross. I think I remain sympathetic to Meghan for no other reason than because she makes weirdo royal cultists so angry, and I think that's funny. Long live the royal $hit-stirrer!

I like this post. I'm purring.