Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 4

[Anonymous]

The wording was so pretentious ("on your behalf"), but I have to say - the picture is beyond adorable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whoever said that their photographer is ridiculously good looking was right. Man.

+1
Reminds me a bit of Paul Newman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wording was so pretentious ("on your behalf"), but I have to say - the picture is beyond adorable.

The picture is very cute, but there's something about family photos where they are barefoot that bothers me. I don't want to see your feet.

[Anonymous]

Poorly done photograph. Harry and Archie are very overexposed. And they are trying to hard, with the bare feet and the torn jeans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to get raked over the coals, and rightfully so, for the text "Archie made us mama and papa and Lilibet made us a family."

That is incredibly hurtful for a card that is disseminated to the world. As a mom of one who probably can't have a second, thank you for making me feel worse than I already do.

Why would this make you feel bad? Everybody’s family looks different.

Because she has a family with her possible only. That “my family is more real with two” is an absolute asshole sentiment for a public figure to put out.

I didn’t like the wording of that either. Really insensitive

She didn’t say that only families with 2 kids are family. She said for her family two was it. It could be one for you. I think it’s a weird thing to say but she isn’t casting judgment on anyone else. That’s a projection

I wonder why she didn't mention the child she miscarried? She made such a big deal of it in the NYT that it would seem she would at least allude to Lilibet making their family complete after the loss of another child.

Really? I’m sure you can read through the comments in this thread and imagine multiple reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to get raked over the coals, and rightfully so, for the text "Archie made us mama and papa and Lilibet made us a family."

That is incredibly hurtful for a card that is disseminated to the world. As a mom of one who probably can't have a second, thank you for making me feel worse than I already do.

Why would this make you feel bad? Everybody’s family looks different.

Because she has a family with her possible only. That “my family is more real with two” is an absolute asshole sentiment for a public figure to put out.

I didn’t like the wording of that either. Really insensitive

She didn’t say that only families with 2 kids are family. She said for her family two was it. It could be one for you. I think it’s a weird thing to say but she isn’t casting judgment on anyone else. That’s a projection

I wonder why she didn't mention the child she miscarried? She made such a big deal of it in the NYT that it would seem she would at least allude to Lilibet making their family complete after the loss of another child.

Really? I’m sure you can read through the comments in this thread and imagine multiple reasons.

How many Christmas cards did you receive this year with references to children lost to miscarriage or still birth? This is not a thing people do. Just because she was more public with her miscarriage (a good thing, it’s so quiet) doesn’t mean she has to put them on all family references forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going to get raked over the coals, and rightfully so, for the text "Archie made us mama and papa and Lilibet made us a family."

That is incredibly hurtful for a card that is disseminated to the world. As a mom of one who probably can't have a second, thank you for making me feel worse than I already do.

Why would this make you feel bad? Everybody’s family looks different.

Because she has a family with her possible only. That “my family is more real with two” is an absolute asshole sentiment for a public figure to put out.

I didn’t like the wording of that either. Really insensitive

She didn’t say that only families with 2 kids are family. She said for her family two was it. It could be one for you. I think it’s a weird thing to say but she isn’t casting judgment on anyone else. That’s a projection

I wonder why she didn't mention the child she miscarried? She made such a big deal of it in the NYT that it would seem she would at least allude to Lilibet making their family complete after the loss of another child.

Really? I’m sure you can read through the comments in this thread and imagine multiple reasons.

How many Christmas cards did you receive this year with references to children lost to miscarriage or still birth? This is not a thing people do. Just because she was more public with her miscarriage (a good thing, it’s so quiet) doesn’t mean she has to put them on all family references forever.

The person who asked then only wanted it mention so they could have something else to criticize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poorly done photograph. Harry and Archie are very overexposed. And they are trying to hard, with the bare feet and the torn jeans.

Lol…tell us what else is wrong with the photo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorly done photograph. Harry and Archie are very overexposed. And they are trying to hard, with the bare feet and the torn jeans.

Lol…tell us what else is wrong with the photo.

PP here. Not sure what you mean? Otherwise it's a fine photo. But considering it's done by a professional photographer, it's just really bad. I am not thrilled with that kind of exposure for photos I take of my family, and I would really not like it if I received that kind of result from a professional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of them, but it’s a gorgeous card!

It would have looked better without ripped jeans and with M in gray or something not black. Red, perhaps? And the kids in colors or prints would have made the picture more textured/interesting.

Roll your eyes all you want, but ripped jeans have no place in a formal picture. This is a formal picture since it was taken for their holiday card for the purpose of promoting their charitable endeavors. Additionally, it was probably intentional: let’s avoid looking too fancy like our British brethren.

Everyone knows that family outfits for such pictures should include a mix of solids and prints to add texture/interest.

Lastly, they intentionally don’t show the kids’ faces. That’s their choice, but it does prompt speculation. Again: probably intentional.

Wow-- you are one batshit individual. The crazy in your post is so apparent, yet you are so unaware of it. It's their family picture and they can wear whatever the hell they want to wear. Of note, if they had worn what you require, I am certain you would have taken issue with something else. Once more, you are insane-- seek help or Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorly done photograph. Harry and Archie are very overexposed. And they are trying to hard, with the bare feet and the torn jeans.

Lol…tell us what else is wrong with the photo.

PP here. Not sure what you mean? Otherwise it's a fine photo. But considering it's done by a professional photographer, it's just really bad. I am not thrilled with that kind of exposure for photos I take of my family, and I would really not like it if I received that kind of result from a professional.

It can be tricky lighting a multiracial group of people. I actually think this photo looks fine though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poorly done photograph. Harry and Archie are very overexposed. And they are trying to hard, with the bare feet and the torn jeans.

Lol…tell us what else is wrong with the photo.

PP here. Not sure what you mean? Otherwise it's a fine photo. But considering it's done by a professional photographer, it's just really bad. I am not thrilled with that kind of exposure for photos I take of my family, and I would really not like it if I received that kind of result from a professional.

It can be tricky lighting a multiracial group of people. I actually think this photo looks fine though.

1. A quality professional photographer can adjust light for this., even though the really isn't much of a color difference between Meghan and the rest of the family.

2. Bad photoshopping and editing.


Quality is fine for amature ohotos, not for a professional, especially one they probably shelled out a lot of money on.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a fan of any of the royal Christmas cards this year.

Poor Lily is crying!

[Anonymous]

Wow. Some of the comments about this Xmas card are borderline batsh*t. You people are truly troubled folks.

[Anonymous]

The photo is super contrived, try-hard and cringe i.e. on brand for Megan. There's literally nothing holiday about it. And besides, I thought they wanted privacy?