Harry and Meghan’s Christmas card

[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:Harry recently went on a ski trip with his friend and then they participated in a Snow Polo competition. He was introduced at the competition as Harry Wales. But Meghan was clear she is a Sussex so curious as to why they are using different names.

Harry Wales and Meghan Sussex

He's been Harry Wales since childhood because his dad was Prince of Wales then. He used that last name at school and in the military. He got the Sussex title as a wedding gift. So his wife is Duchess of Sussex. She is not a Princess of Wales OR THE Princess of Wales. I guess she was never made a Princess. Technically, I think Kate was not until William became THE Prince of Wales. There was much remark over how William put "princess of the UK" as Kate's occupation on (George's?) birth certificate. At that point she could have gone by Kate Cambridge. And was a royal duchess. At that time, she could also have been called Princess William.

Actually, Meghan is a princess. She is Princess Henry of Wales.

Meghan is not a princess of wales.

I thought they were all over and done with the titles. Not a Princess. I think her daughter is though. But again thought they wanted no titles?

No - they want the titles and the security but not to do any of the royal 'work'.

The Queen called Will and Kate “Won’t and Can’t”.

They all seem to be over the “work” part, whatever that was.

They are out doing Royal things every week and living by Royal rules and all of that. Fine. So they can have the titles and pomp and represent the country.

Meghan and Harry aren't doing any of the Royal things or living by Royal rules. Yet they want the royal titles and apparently are upset they don't have the security. I think people would have more respect for them, or at least the respect they seem to want, if they would stop trying to be royal Americans, a la Countess Luann, and just be normal people.

Harry’s titles (and his wife’s by marriage) are his birthright. That’s kind of the whole point of the monarchy, that certain people in one specific family are the head of a nation.

There’s no halfway about it.

Either you accept the premise that the members of a certain family deserve titles by birth or you don’t believe in a monarchy.

Pick a lane.

Harry and Meghan did pick a lane. They moved across the ocean to another country and trashed the royal family. Buh bye monarchy.

Do you not understand what monarchy is? He doesn’t stop being a prince because he moved.

It’s his birthright. Just like being the future king is William’s.

Pick a lane. Either you support the idea that one family is so special they should have taxpayer funded estates and titles and money or you don’t. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.

Totally understand: but if you reject being a part of it, then you don't get the benefits.

That’s not how birthright works.

Harry’s still a prince even if he lives on the beach. Charles is still king even after writing love letters to tampons. William is still a prince even if he does zero work.

Agree. It’s hysterical to watch these people who believe someone is special because of their genetic linage try to claim Harry is now not special and undeserving.

The entire basis of monarchy is that some DNA is more special than others. He still has the same linage and DNA in California as in he did in London.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The lighting on their bodies does not match the lighting on the landscape.

The angles of the lighting are different in all 3 parts, dad/son, mom/daughter and bridge/nature.

The person saying the Wales photo is photoshopped and the sussex photo is oh so natural needs to look at the lighting.

Megans lighting is coming from behind (look at her dress and her daughter's hair)

Harry's lighting is coming from a front angle from the left side of the shot (look at his hair and his shirt at his shoulder)

The landscape lighting is coming from the right side (look at the light and shadows on the plant leaves an ground)

The photo is fine, but very staged and photoshopped.

Harry

They’re all backlit by the bit of sun coming through the trees. That’s called “hair light”.

No, they aren't all backlit.

Only the girls are backlit.

Loot at Harry's white shirt. He is lit from the front of his shoulder, from the left front corner of the photo.

The little bit around the boys' heads is not backlighting. It is a photoshop edging you can put around cropped images when you stick them on top of the background.

Good catch.

But PP is wrong.

The softer light on Harry’s back is from the overhead and left side openings of light. They are not in total shade.

The hair light on his son is backlight from the wide opening of bright sun.

I live in Lightroom and Photoshop all day every day. Hate these photos all you want but there’s nothing weird about the light.

Sorry no. We can see the issues with our eyes.

More evidence that Meghan haters are MAGA and MAGA of England. Despite a professional who does this all day, every day explaining that you’re wrong, you double down. Classic. You just want to hate them and you have zero curiosity for anything outside your existing knowledge or lack of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lillibet's hair is not brushed.

As someone with curly hair, I will posit that brushing Lilibet's hair could make it very frizzy. Or it could be that humidity makes her hair freak out a bit.

Or maybe she hates having it brushed. I did when I was her age, and I have a vivid memory of having my hair brushed and squirming around so much trying to get away that my mom whacked me with the brush. It's OK with me if Megan prefers unbrushed hair on a preschooler to that.

But regardless: You are criticizing the hair of a preschooler.

You don't think Meghan, who straightens her curly hair to the point of flatness, wouldn't know how to handle her daughter's curly hair?

What parent wants to do that to a 4 year old. Seriously my kid had hair like this and I just left her natural hair until SHE cared enough to change it - around 12 years old. I say she’s a child - let her be a natural child and not conform to your social media standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disappointed with all the cynicism, derision, and yes, even hate, expressed in this thread!

Fact is:

- they are good-hearted philanthropists and in many ways, just an ordinary couple facing all the hurdles and many daunting challenges of raising two Black children in today’s America.[/quote]


FFS, their kids are not black. Saying this is doing a disservice to those of us that are actually black and don't get to choose what we feel like presenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair looks fine. She's a child. It's a little frizzy, but not unbrushed.

That said, I think it's so strange they insist on doing holiday cards with a family photo while refusing to show their kid's faces. I don't need to see their kid's faces, that's fine. But if you want to protect their privacy, why do the holiday card with them in it? Or why not just send a holiday car to family and close friends with a real family photo, and not do a public card at all? If they wanted to express holiday wishes publicly, they could do so without a photo.

It's just such a strange choice.

I think maybe they do it because Archie may have the same problem with his eyes that Lady Louise had? I remember when he was born and seeing some pics/reading that he might have strabismus. I have known kids who had early surgery for this, but I know that Lady Louise didn't have her surgery until she was much older, so who knows.

Strabismes in a toddler can be corrected with a certain kind of glasses without surgery.

But the kid has to wear the glasses from time they are 2-3 until they are around 16/17.

The glasses are very thick, like grandma coke bottle glasses.

I am surprised that parents would choose surgery over trying the glasses option.

Well, looking at how many of Lady Louise's formative years were spent with the condition, and assuming that she was trying the glasses when not being photographed, I don't know why any parent would NOT choose surgery when the child is young. I had a college friend who had had the surgery as a baby, and her eyes were perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair looks fine. She's a child. It's a little frizzy, but not unbrushed.

That said, I think it's so strange they insist on doing holiday cards with a family photo while refusing to show their kid's faces. I don't need to see their kid's faces, that's fine. But if you want to protect their privacy, why do the holiday card with them in it? Or why not just send a holiday car to family and close friends with a real family photo, and not do a public card at all? If they wanted to express holiday wishes publicly, they could do so without a photo.

It's just such a strange choice.

I think maybe they do it because Archie may have the same problem with his eyes that Lady Louise had? I remember when he was born and seeing some pics/reading that he might have strabismus. I have known kids who had early surgery for this, but I know that Lady Louise didn't have her surgery until she was much older, so who knows.

Or they do it because like many parents, they want to keep their kids faces off the internet as much as they can. Especially since their are so many weird people who hate them for a hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disappointed with all the cynicism, derision, and yes, even hate, expressed in this thread!

Fact is:

- they are good-hearted philanthropists and in many ways, just an ordinary couple facing all the hurdles and many daunting challenges of raising two Black children in today’s America.

lol

lol x 100. They’re not raising two black children, no matter Harry’s “little Africa child” declaration. Their kids will not have the childhood that most black kids have. They won’t have a childhood similar to any kids of any race, but it’s especially ridiculous to suggest they’ll fae “daunting challenges” domino being 1/8th black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lillibet's hair is not brushed.

As someone with curly hair, I will posit that brushing Lilibet's hair could make it very frizzy. Or it could be that humidity makes her hair freak out a bit.

Or maybe she hates having it brushed. I did when I was her age, and I have a vivid memory of having my hair brushed and squirming around so much trying to get away that my mom whacked me with the brush. It's OK with me if Megan prefers unbrushed hair on a preschooler to that.

But regardless: You are criticizing the hair of a preschooler.

You don't think Meghan, who straightens her curly hair to the point of flatness, wouldn't know how to handle her daughter's curly hair?

I have curly hair (which I wear sometimes straight and sometimes curly and am very good with) and I am still figuring out what to do with my 8 yo DD's hair, which like Lillibet's is also curly but with a looser curl pattern and is very fine and not as thick. It's a really tricky hairstyle because it can't handle the product you'd use on thicker, curlier hair to make it look good curly, but it's also very breakage prone which makes heat styling and relaxing a hard no, especially on a young kid.

My DD's hair looks just like Lillibet's as sometimes. Humidity is especially hard to deal with.

Yes, her hair is fine thin European white person wavy hair, which is very flyaway. It is different from mixed race or darker thicker curly hair or silky mixed race hair.

The products that fine wavy caucasian hair needs is different than what thicker curly mixed race or biracial hair needs.

Yes and would never use chemicals or very many products at all on a small child’s hair. The suggestions to do so are totally crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The lighting on their bodies does not match the lighting on the landscape.

The angles of the lighting are different in all 3 parts, dad/son, mom/daughter and bridge/nature.

The person saying the Wales photo is photoshopped and the sussex photo is oh so natural needs to look at the lighting.

Megans lighting is coming from behind (look at her dress and her daughter's hair)

Harry's lighting is coming from a front angle from the left side of the shot (look at his hair and his shirt at his shoulder)

The landscape lighting is coming from the right side (look at the light and shadows on the plant leaves an ground)

The photo is fine, but very staged and photoshopped.

Harry

They’re all backlit by the bit of sun coming through the trees. That’s called “hair light”.

No, they aren't all backlit.

Only the girls are backlit.

Loot at Harry's white shirt. He is lit from the front of his shoulder, from the left front corner of the photo.

The little bit around the boys' heads is not backlighting. It is a photoshop edging you can put around cropped images when you stick them on top of the background.

Good catch.

But PP is wrong.

The softer light on Harry’s back is from the overhead and left side openings of light. They are not in total shade.

The hair light on his son is backlight from the wide opening of bright sun.

I live in Lightroom and Photoshop all day every day. Hate these photos all you want but there’s nothing weird about the light.

Sorry no. We can see the issues with our eyes.

More evidence that Meghan haters are MAGA and MAGA of England. Despite a professional who does this all day, every day explaining that you’re wrong, you double down. Classic. You just want to hate them and you have zero curiosity for anything outside your existing knowledge or lack of it.

Yassss kweeen! Call out the salty!

Harry would never associate with MAGA let alone party with the American oligarchs benefiting from MAGA!!

The discernment. Chefs 😘

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry recently went on a ski trip with his friend and then they participated in a Snow Polo competition. He was introduced at the competition as Harry Wales. But Meghan was clear she is a Sussex so curious as to why they are using different names.

Harry Wales and Meghan Sussex

He's been Harry Wales since childhood because his dad was Prince of Wales then. He used that last name at school and in the military. He got the Sussex title as a wedding gift. So his wife is Duchess of Sussex. She is not a Princess of Wales OR THE Princess of Wales. I guess she was never made a Princess. Technically, I think Kate was not until William became THE Prince of Wales. There was much remark over how William put "princess of the UK" as Kate's occupation on (George's?) birth certificate. At that point she could have gone by Kate Cambridge. And was a royal duchess. At that time, she could also have been called Princess William.

Actually, Meghan is a princess. She is Princess Henry of Wales.

Meghan is not a princess of wales.

I thought they were all over and done with the titles. Not a Princess. I think her daughter is though. But again thought they wanted no titles?

No - they want the titles and the security but not to do any of the royal 'work'.

The Queen called Will and Kate “Won’t and Can’t”.

They all seem to be over the “work” part, whatever that was.

They are out doing Royal things every week and living by Royal rules and all of that. Fine. So they can have the titles and pomp and represent the country.

Meghan and Harry aren't doing any of the Royal things or living by Royal rules. Yet they want the royal titles and apparently are upset they don't have the security. I think people would have more respect for them, or at least the respect they seem to want, if they would stop trying to be royal Americans, a la Countess Luann, and just be normal people.

The reason she called the Won’t and Can’t is because that was their response to her requests for them to “do royal work”. So, no. They are not “out there every week”. For years they’ve done as little as possible only increasing slightly when dad was sick and it looked like becoming King might be close.

To people who don’t look at them with rose colored glasses or think they’re superior humans, it’s pretty obvious they’re slackers too.

And not providing them with security was a giant flag of the narcissistic abuse within that family. They’re seriously dysfunctional and nothing to admire.

OK well whatever. My point was that W and C are doing royal things and living by the royal rules and not trashing their family so they get the royal benefits. Seems simple enough to me.

DP - so for clarification they live by the rules, so it is ok to not listen to their family members and to publicly lack empathy and be totally unforgiving - not inviting them to Christmas etc?

Isn’t that the problem in society today? The royal family embodies everything that’s wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry recently went on a ski trip with his friend and then they participated in a Snow Polo competition. He was introduced at the competition as Harry Wales. But Meghan was clear she is a Sussex so curious as to why they are using different names.

Harry Wales and Meghan Sussex

He's been Harry Wales since childhood because his dad was Prince of Wales then. He used that last name at school and in the military. He got the Sussex title as a wedding gift. So his wife is Duchess of Sussex. She is not a Princess of Wales OR THE Princess of Wales. I guess she was never made a Princess. Technically, I think Kate was not until William became THE Prince of Wales. There was much remark over how William put "princess of the UK" as Kate's occupation on (George's?) birth certificate. At that point she could have gone by Kate Cambridge. And was a royal duchess. At that time, she could also have been called Princess William.

Actually, Meghan is a princess. She is Princess Henry of Wales.

Meghan is not a princess of wales.

I thought they were all over and done with the titles. Not a Princess. I think her daughter is though. But again thought they wanted no titles?

No - they want the titles and the security but not to do any of the royal 'work'.

The Queen called Will and Kate “Won’t and Can’t”.

They all seem to be over the “work” part, whatever that was.

They are out doing Royal things every week and living by Royal rules and all of that. Fine. So they can have the titles and pomp and represent the country.

Meghan and Harry aren't doing any of the Royal things or living by Royal rules. Yet they want the royal titles and apparently are upset they don't have the security. I think people would have more respect for them, or at least the respect they seem to want, if they would stop trying to be royal Americans, a la Countess Luann, and just be normal people.

The reason she called the Won’t and Can’t is because that was their response to her requests for them to “do royal work”. So, no. They are not “out there every week”. For years they’ve done as little as possible only increasing slightly when dad was sick and it looked like becoming King might be close.

To people who don’t look at them with rose colored glasses or think they’re superior humans, it’s pretty obvious they’re slackers too.

And not providing them with security was a giant flag of the narcissistic abuse within that family. They’re seriously dysfunctional and nothing to admire.

OK well whatever. My point was that W and C are doing royal things and living by the royal rules and not trashing their family so they get the royal benefits. Seems simple enough to me.

+1 Of course, it is. No one wants to be around family members who publicly (on national television, no less) trash them. I would never give someone more than a polite greeting and nod of the head if I thought they would quote me in magazines, books, and other media.

If they were my family seriously I would respond just as publicly “I’m so sorry they feel this way. We are here for them to discuss their problems in private and are working towards a resolution. This is a private family matter and the public should know we love and support them.” That isn’t hard to do. Instead they cut them off. They don’t have a happy family or even know why that looks like - seriously centuries of dysfunctional family relationships - much of that is public too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry recently went on a ski trip with his friend and then they participated in a Snow Polo competition. He was introduced at the competition as Harry Wales. But Meghan was clear she is a Sussex so curious as to why they are using different names.

Harry Wales and Meghan Sussex

He's been Harry Wales since childhood because his dad was Prince of Wales then. He used that last name at school and in the military. He got the Sussex title as a wedding gift. So his wife is Duchess of Sussex. She is not a Princess of Wales OR THE Princess of Wales. I guess she was never made a Princess. Technically, I think Kate was not until William became THE Prince of Wales. There was much remark over how William put "princess of the UK" as Kate's occupation on (George's?) birth certificate. At that point she could have gone by Kate Cambridge. And was a royal duchess. At that time, she could also have been called Princess William.

Actually, Meghan is a princess. She is Princess Henry of Wales.

Meghan is not a princess of wales.

I thought they were all over and done with the titles. Not a Princess. I think her daughter is though. But again thought they wanted no titles?

No - they want the titles and the security but not to do any of the royal 'work'.

The Queen called Will and Kate “Won’t and Can’t”.

They all seem to be over the “work” part, whatever that was.

They are out doing Royal things every week and living by Royal rules and all of that. Fine. So they can have the titles and pomp and represent the country.

Meghan and Harry aren't doing any of the Royal things or living by Royal rules. Yet they want the royal titles and apparently are upset they don't have the security. I think people would have more respect for them, or at least the respect they seem to want, if they would stop trying to be royal Americans, a la Countess Luann, and just be normal people.

Harry’s titles (and his wife’s by marriage) are his birthright. That’s kind of the whole point of the monarchy, that certain people in one specific family are the head of a nation.

There’s no halfway about it.

Either you accept the premise that the members of a certain family deserve titles by birth or you don’t believe in a monarchy.

Pick a lane.

Harry and Meghan did pick a lane. They moved across the ocean to another country and trashed the royal family. Buh bye monarchy.

Do you not understand what monarchy is? He doesn’t stop being a prince because he moved.

It’s his birthright. Just like being the future king is William’s.

Pick a lane. Either you support the idea that one family is so special they should have taxpayer funded estates and titles and money or you don’t. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.

The British monarchy is headed in the same direction at other European monarchs - no power, little publicity, no one really cares, and outside their own country few would even recognize them. These people are really useless to society

[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:Harry recently went on a ski trip with his friend and then they participated in a Snow Polo competition. He was introduced at the competition as Harry Wales. But Meghan was clear she is a Sussex so curious as to why they are using different names.

Harry Wales and Meghan Sussex

He's been Harry Wales since childhood because his dad was Prince of Wales then. He used that last name at school and in the military. He got the Sussex title as a wedding gift. So his wife is Duchess of Sussex. She is not a Princess of Wales OR THE Princess of Wales. I guess she was never made a Princess. Technically, I think Kate was not until William became THE Prince of Wales. There was much remark over how William put "princess of the UK" as Kate's occupation on (George's?) birth certificate. At that point she could have gone by Kate Cambridge. And was a royal duchess. At that time, she could also have been called Princess William.

Actually, Meghan is a princess. She is Princess Henry of Wales.

Meghan is not a princess of wales.

I thought they were all over and done with the titles. Not a Princess. I think her daughter is though. But again thought they wanted no titles?

No - they want the titles and the security but not to do any of the royal 'work'.

The Queen called Will and Kate “Won’t and Can’t”.

They all seem to be over the “work” part, whatever that was.

They are out doing Royal things every week and living by Royal rules and all of that. Fine. So they can have the titles and pomp and represent the country.

Meghan and Harry aren't doing any of the Royal things or living by Royal rules. Yet they want the royal titles and apparently are upset they don't have the security. I think people would have more respect for them, or at least the respect they seem to want, if they would stop trying to be royal Americans, a la Countess Luann, and just be normal people.

The reason she called the Won’t and Can’t is because that was their response to her requests for them to “do royal work”. So, no. They are not “out there every week”. For years they’ve done as little as possible only increasing slightly when dad was sick and it looked like becoming King might be close.

To people who don’t look at them with rose colored glasses or think they’re superior humans, it’s pretty obvious they’re slackers too.

And not providing them with security was a giant flag of the narcissistic abuse within that family. They’re seriously dysfunctional and nothing to admire.

OK well whatever. My point was that W and C are doing royal things and living by the royal rules and not trashing their family so they get the royal benefits. Seems simple enough to me.

+1 Of course, it is. No one wants to be around family members who publicly (on national television, no less) trash them. I would never give someone more than a polite greeting and nod of the head if I thought they would quote me in magazines, books, and other media.

If they were my family seriously I would respond just as publicly “I’m so sorry they feel this way. We are here for them to discuss their problems in private and are working towards a resolution. This is a private family matter and the public should know we love and support them.” That isn’t hard to do. Instead they cut them off. They don’t have a happy family or even know why that looks like - seriously centuries of dysfunctional family relationships - much of that is public too

+1 They were so childish and narcissistic about this. Truly, such an outrageously dysfunctional and cruel family. Harry might be the only genuinely kind one in the bunch and I’m happy for him that he got out. He is what therapists call “the identified patient”, aka the scapegoat for family dysfunction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lillibet's hair is not brushed.

As someone with curly hair, I will posit that brushing Lilibet's hair could make it very frizzy. Or it could be that humidity makes her hair freak out a bit.

Or maybe she hates having it brushed. I did when I was her age, and I have a vivid memory of having my hair brushed and squirming around so much trying to get away that my mom whacked me with the brush. It's OK with me if Megan prefers unbrushed hair on a preschooler to that.

But regardless: You are criticizing the hair of a preschooler.

You don't think Meghan, who straightens her curly hair to the point of flatness, wouldn't know how to handle her daughter's curly hair?

I have curly hair (which I wear sometimes straight and sometimes curly and am very good with) and I am still figuring out what to do with my 8 yo DD's hair, which like Lillibet's is also curly but with a looser curl pattern and is very fine and not as thick. It's a really tricky hairstyle because it can't handle the product you'd use on thicker, curlier hair to make it look good curly, but it's also very breakage prone which makes heat styling and relaxing a hard no, especially on a young kid.

My DD's hair looks just like Lillibet's as sometimes. Humidity is especially hard to deal with.

Yes, her hair is fine thin European white person wavy hair, which is very flyaway. It is different from mixed race or darker thicker curly hair or silky mixed race hair.

The products that fine wavy caucasian hair needs is different than what thicker curly mixed race or biracial hair needs.

Yes and would never use chemicals or very many products at all on a small child’s hair. The suggestions to do so are totally crazy!

I think the suggestion is that she knows something about hair and might be able to figure out how to care for it. Lots of parents have kids with different hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair looks fine. She's a child. It's a little frizzy, but not unbrushed.

That said, I think it's so strange they insist on doing holiday cards with a family photo while refusing to show their kid's faces. I don't need to see their kid's faces, that's fine. But if you want to protect their privacy, why do the holiday card with them in it? Or why not just send a holiday car to family and close friends with a real family photo, and not do a public card at all? If they wanted to express holiday wishes publicly, they could do so without a photo.

It's just such a strange choice.

I think maybe they do it because Archie may have the same problem with his eyes that Lady Louise had? I remember when he was born and seeing some pics/reading that he might have strabismus. I have known kids who had early surgery for this, but I know that Lady Louise didn't have her surgery until she was much older, so who knows.

I had surgery at 3. This is really not a big deal at all! Nothing to be embarrassed about either.