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?

I've read about Sunshine Sachs and how much they charge
Eye watering.

'While a Sunshine Sachs spokesperson reportedly declined to comment........' tells all. If the real reason had been as per the unnamed source, the official spokesperson wouldn't have needed to decline to comment.

Presumably the celebrities consider them worth the money. They are very good at what they do.

Of course, you have to be prepared to listen to their advice. And I'm not sure our Duke and Duchess think they need to listen to anyone's advice. And the results are there to see.

I have one other username which I have confessed up to and was never intended to be used on the RF threads. Justine wouldn't be interested in such piffling minutiae - she will be looking to the ad revenue for the week and hoping that amongst other issues the "derangers" on the RF threads are kept humming by the controversy and idly polishinhg her CBE with a cackle...

Supposition based on supposition is not fact !

Veraoften99nils, might not be, but if the 'sources' explanation was true, SS would surely have no issue stating it.

H and M are the modern day equivalent of a freak show

Fluff from 'unnaned sources; is not fact either.

Now we have princess "birthright" statements.

The birthright bit made me side-eye the statement, partly because they know very well (and Meghan said so on Oprah) that the titles they are claiming depends on the wishes of the Monarch as expressed in their letters patent.

Archie and Lilibet are entitled to the style of Prince/Princess if they wish to use it for as long as the 1917 Letters Patent put in place by George V remain unaltered. They have been tinkered with from time to time to deal with individual cases, but largely remain intact. But any monarch can change them at any time - they are not binding. And titles that are bestowed by letters patent can also be taken away. George V’s 1917 ones de-princed several of his relatives.

So not really a birthright - more a privilege that they currently enjoy.

Not according to Tatler it's a cost saving exercise bringing that in-house.

The might have saved a few $$$ by bringing it in-house in the short term - but the reputational cost over the longer term will be a huge loss financially to their ‘brand’.

They both have very poor judgment and seemingly are sufficiently arrogant and deluded to over-ride professional advice.

Their grandiosity and delusion is their down fall.

Do these types ever develop personal insight?

Yes, @Serenster , I think they were making a very clear point about their royal status.

They are obsessed with their royal status, which makes the hero worship of them by 'republicans' quite baffling.

And the title Earl of Dumbarton was also Archie's 'birthright' but they didn't seem too eager to claim that. Not grand enough for their son?

Is the assumption now that H&M have been invited to the coronation and they will attend the service but that there are negotiations ongoing about which other parts of the celebrations they will be included in or excluded from - similar to the Jubilee and HMQ funeral?

I have just seen something online that their children are deemed too young by the palace to attend the service - has anyone any insight into the cut-off age for this?

Well, it’s an hour long church service which is a state event, not a family christening. So children attending would have to be able to be well behaved for the duration. A lot depends on the individual child, but Archie (will be just 4) and Louis (very nearly 5) would be borderline I would have thought? At not yet two I would have thought Lilibet too young.

Hopefully if they have any musical taste they will avoid the excrescence that most decent pop stars have avoided and that will no doubt end up with Cliff Richard, Rod Stewart and any surviving member of the 3 Degrees that can still hold a microphone. Oh, and Brian May reprising his guitar solo from the top of Buck House with Diversity doing some down with the kidz dance piece. Elton is busy washing his hair transplant and Candle in the Wind may have upset Camilla became no-one will ever write a song about her. (I do know it was a rewrite before anyone points that out).

Of course times change, but the images of the last coronation certainly don't show any children in the congregagtion

Apart from anything else, what would happen about their tendency to need frequent loo breaks? The expectation's likely to be that folk get to their seat by a certain time and stay there, and I'm not sure how it would work with DCs and harassed parents nipping in and out

The then 5 year old Charles was there, looking very bored.

I'd be surprised if any of the children other than George and maybe Charlotte attend. I think even Louis is too young. It would be a very boring experience for a young child, even if they might appreciate having the photos later in life.

QEII’s coronation was three hours long or so, wasn’t it? Charles is planning for just an hour, or so it’s been reported, so might be more manageable.

Agree and as I pointed out on another thread, it is likely that a massive state occasion like this would be very intimidating for two young children who have never been involved in the like before (unlike the Wales children). Also, we took my youngest to the States to see his Aunty when he was about Lilibet‘s age, and after the flight home ie from the States to the UK, he had the most horrendous jet lag which took him a week to get over.

Poor Charles! At 10 and 8 George and Charlotte should be ok. Louis can have a picture with Pa afterwards.
I think maybe Archie and certainly Lilibet are too young, especially as they're not used to those venues.

If that is Margaret she has the look of a thwarted Spare in my twisted imagination.

I hope the young children are allowed to enjoy the family event side of things without being subjected to public scrutiny and a very non-child friendly event.
Young children at these events inevitably end up with a press feeding frenzy about which child is the 'naughty' one or how the various parents choose to raise their DC.

True! 😂
The Crown should be mine so I'll make everyone's life a misery as a result...

Four-year-old Charles was not there for the whole thing. He was there for the the main parts (crowning, etc.) but was whisked away by his nanny at some point.

He and Anne were both on the balcony.

There's a rather sweet film of Charles and Anne at the palace running underneath their Mum's train and her getting slightly annoyed!