How do republicans who support H&M feel about 'princess' lillibet

[purpledalmation]

I mean how do you reconcile the, to me, gross hypocrisy of saying you want to leave the royal family to pursue your own projects and for privacy and would give up their royal titles.

Their own projects so far consist of trashing the royal family and making money from it, while clinging to their royal titles.

Privacy consists of reality tv shows, public therapy sessions and a book tour.

They touted their children's privacy and security as a reason for leaving yet they name their children prince and princess. A sure fire way to draw attention to them and reduce their security.

I honestly want to know how people who want the monarchy gone yet praise harry and Meghan for their bravery in standing up to the RF, square this circle?

It appears then that Harry and Meghan do in fact understand that once Charles ascended the throne, those titles would be their children’s birthright.

So why didn’t they say this on Oprah. Why the faux confusion and heavy implication that Archie not yet having a title was down to race?

In fact , as a Republican , it will be helpful to have a 'Prince' and 'Princess' in California .

Even the rapid royalists may now have the dawning realisation that it's all made up

Rabid royalists - though they are rapid on here - on every thread multiple times !

I disagree. Generally speaking (and I'll admit I've not thought this through thoroughly) I think all royal children, including the Cambridge children, should have what Sophie and Edward's children had. The titles are there, and they can choose when they turn 18 whether they want to use prince/princess or not.
Given what Harry has said about his childhood, growing up in the RF, etc, plus what Meghan said about titles ("I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad, and, from my experience, a lot of pain. I wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.”) I'm surprised they didn't do what Edward and Sophie did and leave it to the children to choose.

Of course, when they get older they can still choose to not use it. And realistically in America it will surely be barely used anyway. But it's not like if H&M had chosen not to use it now it would have been taken away.

Since I'd be in favour of abolishing the RF, clearly I don't think anyone should be a prince/princess. And it's not something I would impose on a child if I had felt I had to remove myself from the institution of the RF because of the damage it did. I suppose for balance I should add that while I'm not in favour of the RF, I'm also not a fan of H&M.

Because @FingerPuppet , that would not fit Harry's victim narrative, I blame him entirely, he should know the protocol of his own family, he should of corrected Meghan or not let her say it at all! .

It makes sense to me. Harry and Meghan don't want to be a part of The Firm anymore - absolutely their choice, and I can understand why

Slight problem there. FWIW I could also understand them not wanting it, but that wasn't their preference - they wanted half in/half out, even though it had allegedly nearly driven Meghan to suicide, and it's hard not to think that's down to the £££££

Their kids might feel differently - let them have their birthright - when they're older they can decide whether they want to keep it, or not

Slight problem there too. I agree about the "birthright" thing, but then why not allow the DCs to choose for themselves when they're old enough as others have done?

It's all a nonsense, as others have said it's all made up anyway. My sympathy lies mostly for Harry as a human being, troubled as he is, trying to escape the whirlpool of the British Royal Family and establishment and find some piece for himself and his family. That said, I'm a lifelong Republican and see also in him a battering ram at the institution, not that that is his intention. Charles chose Camilla and his supposed duty over his youngest son, they are not like us, nor would I ever want to be them.

They never wanted to leave did they? They wanted all the perks with none if the work with 'one foot in and one foot out'.

When they were told no they kicked off and started trashing his family. (Harry clearly hadn't been told no very often) They are toxic, entitled, spoilt users and that is why they are still clamouring for titles and trying to get in camera shots at the jubilee etc.

This is also why why will attend the coronation even though it's not appropriate. Every move they make is aimed at financial gain, neither of them are remotely interested in family relationships or their relatives feelings.

Your answer is as evasive as I expected, but this gave me a laugh.

"battering ram at the institution"

Right. So he uses his own royal titles and has now imposed them on his children. He got a 'Sussex Royal' door mat monogrammed. He maintains his place in the LoS.

He loves the monarchy. Said so himself. His own behaviour has caused his popularity to tumble on both sides of the Atlantic, but has had no discernible effect on the 'institution'. His hero status among republicans is baffling to me, but I guess some are just in too deep.

And how is giving his children royal titles in California going to find them 'peace'?

A piece of profit, probably @IcedPurple !

They don't really care about Harry , not if they support him destroying his own identity, without being 'prince Harry' and without being a member of the royal family, he has nothing.
He's an empty vessel.

They never wanted to leave did they? They wanted all the perks with none if the work with 'one foot in and one foot out'.

I think this is pretty spot on.

The Oprah interview was clearly done in anger as a reaction to them being denied their “one foot in and one foot out” approach.

How can anyone now deny that there was no agenda there when they intentionally implied that Archie not yet having a title was due to racism. They have been quick enough to assume the birthright of their children now Charles is on the throne. They knew.

I am no royalist, but the dishonesty and subterfuge is astounding.

I'm a republican and I thought that Harry and Mwgan were right to leave the Firm - but it was apparent very soon that they wanted to pick and choose which royal bits they wanted.

They should have dropped their own titles and absolutely shouldn't use Royal titles for their kids, but it's all part of their hypocrisy and not surprising at all.

They never wanted to leave did they? They wanted all the perks with none if the work with 'one foot in and one foot out'
When they were told no they kicked off and started trashing his family

Well yes, but according to H&M's later claims the awful treatment they received was happening well before then - and never mind their earlier accounts of how welcoming they were and all the rest

So I'm back to why they wanted to remain part of it in the first place, and whether there's any realistic alternative to them having exaggerated the whole thing because they couldn't have exactly what they wanted

I don't need to "reconcile" it. Two entirely separate issues. And for the avoidance of doubt, in the extremely unlikely event of me being offered an honour, I would refuse it.

Why do you need these people:? Why do mums and dads and others still bang on about their little princesses? The whole Princess stereotype even the girlpowerish ones are all bs.Meghan certainly experienced racism but she is also a hell of a piece of work.Get rid of all.Let the poor and homeless live in their palaces.The Queen may have been venerated but she never in all her life donated her own ££ to a project.Let them go

So true!

This with bells on.

They’ve made themselves look incredibly ridiculous calling her a princess after they’ve made their fortune slagging off the monarchy (sour grapes).

The ‘spare’ is apparently suddenly all for titles and royal rules.

@Teeheeeheee

Who are these people ?

Could be worse - imagine if Harry had been born first !

The list of people who rejected honours makes good reading

Queen Meghan

I don’t think they’ve out paced you yet.

It's extra ridiculous when the trend across European monarchies is for fewer princes and princesses running around. The Wessexes started it nearly 2 decades ago by 'agreeing' not to use royal titles for their kids, even though they live in England, are now working royals and are on good terms with the family. The Swedish king 'deroyalled' several of his own grandchildren, although they are still princes and princesses. Then we have the recent move in Denmark, with the queen depriving 4 of her grandchildren of royal titles they had held all their lives.

So for two people who make a living from talking about how 'toxic' the royals are, burdening their children with royal titles in California is incredibly hypocritical. None of their supporters will address that head on however.