Harry and Meghan’s Christmas card

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And one of the PPs is telling you that she has curly hair and even so her curly-haired DD is 8 years-old and she's still trying to figure out what to do with her hair.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s performative when people pose pictures of their kids with kid faces obscured. They’re just trying to get clicks. There is nothing wrong with showing a few nice photos of your kids and still maintaining a private life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s performative when people pose pictures of their kids with kid faces obscured. They’re just trying to get clicks. There is nothing wrong with showing a few nice photos of your kids and still maintaining a private life.

I disagree. People online are not rationale and so many people get absolutely foul comments and threats made about them and their children when they are public figures. While most will never act on these, just reading these viole things about yourself or your family is terrible. I think they are doing the right thing by keeping their children as private as possible. I wish more people would do this. I hate all the family influencers who put their kids online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And one of the PPs is telling you that she has curly hair and even so her curly-haired DD is 8 years-old and she's still trying to figure out what to do with her hair.

One slow learner doesn't mean much of anything. Lilibet's hair is stringy and wavy. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s performative when people pose pictures of their kids with kid faces obscured. They’re just trying to get clicks. There is nothing wrong with showing a few nice photos of your kids and still maintaining a private life.

I disagree. People online are not rationale and so many people get absolutely foul comments and threats made about them and their children when they are public figures. While most will never act on these, just reading these viole things about yourself or your family is terrible. I think they are doing the right thing by keeping their children as private as possible. I wish more people would do this. I hate all the family influencers who put their kids online.

We're commenting on a photo shared with the public. They could keep their kids private but they don't. Nobody asked them to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heirs to the throne matter if the King / Queen is actually ruling the country.

The British monarchy is symbolic. They are not running Britain. They are not the government or the decision makers.

Titles are pretty meaningless.

Heirs matter only to the extent there is something to inherit. 2nd born and on down the line are SOL.

They are only SOL if they act terrible and entitled. Look at Andrew vs. Anne and Edward who are doing just fine and somehow able to manage living on a few million dollar allowance per year.

You completely misunderstand. Charles inherits it all. The others are hoping he'll extend their leases on properties they don't own. It's an inherently unfair system.

America was settled by second sons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s performative when people pose pictures of their kids with kid faces obscured. They’re just trying to get clicks. There is nothing wrong with showing a few nice photos of your kids and still maintaining a private life.

If you understand anything about the internet, there IS something wrong with sharing pictures of your kids online.

Perhaps they have tried to reach a compromise between the tradition and modern life. It’s not that deep.

[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.

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.

I think every sane person can sympathize with will and kate not wanting to have the sibling and in law who sold out intimate family moments to internet strangers and profiteerrs for money joining them on the family holiday trip.

[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

Will and Kate took the only classy, gracious, normal path given what Harry and Meghan did for money.

[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.

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.

You are talking about Meghan and Harry, correct?

[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:

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.

How do you scapegoat someone you never see and don't acknowledge the existence of? He needs to stand on his own two feet. Make something of himself. Find a path forward. They have moved on and left him in their wake and he's still spinning his wheels.

He is a middle aged man,not a 15 year old boy.

[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.

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.

I think every sane person can sympathize with will and kate not wanting to have the sibling and in law who sold out intimate family moments to internet strangers and profiteerrs for money joining them on the family holiday trip.

+1 I wouldn't trust them and would just be polite and courteous. Period. No real conversations with exchange of feelings or personal info. .

[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.

Without the faces, they’re protecting their kids from people making AI deep fakes of their kids. And giving less of an indication of who
they are to any crazies who might want to hurt them.

Another way to protect their kids is just not to show them at all.

Then it is not a family Xmas card with the children totally missing, now is it. I never put my kids' faces on FaceBook; although many of my friends did. My husband is in LEO and considered it a security issue. And we did not want their likeness out there for anybody to capture and use. I can only imagine with all the hate mail and death threats Meghan receives, there would be no upside to putting their faces into the atmosphere. YMMV

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Without the faces, they’re protecting their kids from people making AI deep fakes of their kids. And giving less of an indication of who
they are to any crazies who might want to hurt them.

Another way to protect their kids is just not to show them at all.

Then it is not a family Xmas card with the children totally missing, now is it. I never put my kids' faces on FaceBook; although many of my friends did. My husband is in LEO and considered it a security issue. And we did not want their likeness out there for anybody to capture and use. I can only imagine with all the hate mail and death threats Meghan receives, there would be no upside to putting their faces into the atmosphere. YMMV

Many people send out family Xmas cards with only their kids on it or kids+pets so missing two members. No one would fault them for only sending out a pic of the Duke and Duchess sans kids or just a lovely picture of Montecito to guard their children's privacy.

[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?

Only a horrible mother would straighten a four-year old hair. You're a horrible person PP