Harry and Meghan’s Christmas card

[Anonymous]

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?

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

My mother used to put my hair in hot curlers. Now we have brushes and blow dryers. No pain or chemicals necessary.

[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.

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.

Edward the 8th abdicated an entire throne and was bestowed the Duke of Windsor, living abroad. He kept all his benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except when they did that in the past, they got criticized for not including the kids at all. People said Megan wanted the spotlight all to herself, the kids don’t exist etc. almost like they can’t win and some people would find something to be outraged at no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was disowned by his weird, very rich family. He’s trying to stay relevant by releasing these weird kid/non kid photos to try to stay relevant so he doesn’t go completely broke. The photo is weirdly photoshopped. The dress choice of his wife is odd and attention stealing.

And you and everyone here are giving them EXACTLY what they are after - attention

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except when they did that in the past, they got criticized for not including the kids at all. People said Megan wanted the spotlight all to herself, the kids don’t exist etc. almost like they can’t win and some people would find something to be outraged at no matter what.

So then why post public holiday cards at all? Why not walk the walk and actually live a private life like the keep loudly and publicly claiming the want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harry and Meghan are rich Californian socialites. There are many of them. I don't know why they don't just live that life. Their royal family connection is meaningless at this point. They have chosen to live the American life and are very wealthy. They are part of the multi million dollar Montecito neighborhood. Surely they get plenty of attention from their own social circle. I don't get why they need public attention. They should just go and live their rich lives. Stop with the exposes about the family, stop with the TV shows etc. Just go live the life of the mega rich.

+1
Their American life is so much better than what they would have in the UK. It’s so much better to be rich here - the UK “rich” live like middle class Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except when they did that in the past, they got criticized for not including the kids at all. People said Megan wanted the spotlight all to herself, the kids don’t exist etc. almost like they can’t win and some people would find something to be outraged at no matter what.

So then why post public holiday cards at all? Why not walk the walk and actually live a private life like the keep loudly and publicly claiming the want?

+1
It has always been funny to me that they claim to crave privacy, but then are constantly self-promoting. I can think of lots of celebrities who actually do live quiet, private lives and who are only glimpsed when the paparazzi manages to get shots of them going to the grocery store or whatnot. This couple doesn't actually want to be left alone. That would hurt their feelings.

[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.

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

Well that’s true. European royalty . . .

What's this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except when they did that in the past, they got criticized for not including the kids at all. People said Megan wanted the spotlight all to herself, the kids don’t exist etc. almost like they can’t win and some people would find something to be outraged at no matter what.

So then why post public holiday cards at all? Why not walk the walk and actually live a private life like the keep loudly and publicly claiming the want?

+1

[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.

Oh, I do sympathize - AND I would also act rationally with a public statement of love and support, while privately being upset. They didn’t do that because they are aholes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except when they did that in the past, they got criticized for not including the kids at all. People said Megan wanted the spotlight all to herself, the kids don’t exist etc. almost like they can’t win and some people would find something to be outraged at no matter what.

So then why post public holiday cards at all? Why not walk the walk and actually live a private life like the keep loudly and publicly claiming the want?

+1
It has always been funny to me that they claim to crave privacy, but then are constantly self-promoting. I can think of lots of celebrities who actually do live quiet, private lives and who are only glimpsed when the paparazzi manages to get shots of them going to the grocery store or whatnot. This couple doesn't actually want to be left alone. That would hurt their feelings.

,+1Amen!

[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

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

No, they took the cold unloving stick approach that is why the Brits have such a cold reputation

[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.

Edward the 8th abdicated an entire throne and was bestowed the Duke of Windsor, living abroad. He kept all his benefits.

Not ALL the benefits, just significant monetary benefits. The royal family has a very very long racist history there is zero possibility they would support Megan if they left the UK

[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.

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

Well that’s true. European royalty . . .

What's this?

DP. Truly the stuff of nightmares.

[Anonymous]

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.

Same and I certainly don't do much do my daughter's hair on a day to day basis; however for family photos, I would spend time on her, including potentially using some of my curly girl product to help define her girls and keep her hair from frizzing up. You don't think a multi-millionaire could do that for her daughter? Come on!!!