Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

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

548 replies

purpledalmation · 09/03/2023 10:15

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Mistymoonsinastarrysky · 09/03/2023 14:06

nilsoften · 09/03/2023 10:22

We celebrate the birth of a healthy baby girl to a couple who are deeply in love, as we would for anybody else, without prejudice, if asked.

😵‍💫

Fifi0000 · 09/03/2023 14:11

milti · 09/03/2023 14:01

Meghan has actually played a blinder - if money and fame was her true objective - multi multi millionaire and global notoriety. Set for life financially. How long til the drug addled mentally ailing husband becomes surplus to requirements

I think money was the ultimate objective. I'm not talking a few million but super rich. The RF have limits on their spending because the plebs don't like it. Only the monarch and heir have access to huge amounts. I think Harry had a good sized inheritance but no where near what the monarch and heir would have access too. The monarch and heir hold the purse strings and H&M didn't like it. They don't have the ability to earn the huge amounts on their own merits hence still attaching themselves to the RF name although they hate them . It's all a money making scheme.

If they truly hated everything the RF stands for they would go their own way , they aren't they are just bitter they wouldn't give them lots of money and status.

Maireas · 09/03/2023 14:12

Bingpt · 09/03/2023 10:53

I'd view it in the same light as Katie Price calling her daughter Princess. Not much different, trying to be cutesy. It's just a name. If they are no longer working as royals, they can do what they like anyway can't they? They didn't need approval from her father-in-law to change her name.
What happens next? This is where they try to get all the benefits of being "royal" but without the responsibilities.
Will be interesting to watch over the next few years.

It's very different to Katie Price.
This isn't a nickname, but a title which will give Lilibet (and Archie) privilege and status.
It's not an empty term.
They said it's their children's "birthright" ...

milti · 09/03/2023 14:17

@Fifi0000 yes - I think Harry’s well has run dry - in terms of mega bucks - book done and tell all Netflix - unless he comes up with an even nastier book - their popularity is in the toilet - including in the US

WeWereInParis · 09/03/2023 14:20

MrsMaxDeWinter · 09/03/2023 13:32

@purpledalmation

I am not a Royalist but I think it is a good thing that the titles issue has been settled.

For one reason and one reason only: the nonsense conspiracy claims about the children.

Meghan used a surrogate.
No, Meghan did not use a surrogate, she used dolls.
No, they are not dolls, they are borrowed children.

This move shuts all this down.

You would have to be pretty wacko to believe that the Royal Family and entire British media are complicit in recognising titles for children that don't exist or whose birth was in any way fraudulent.

So if this buys them a bit of peace from nut jobs, good for them.

Unfortunately I think the kind of people who think the children aren't real or whatever the latest crazy conspiracy is are unlikely to let the titles change their mind when common sense and basic intelligence hasn't helped so far.

adrianmolesmole · 09/03/2023 14:22

Harry isn't that rich in the scheme of things. And he has no obvious means of income other than slagging off his family, for which he will surely run out of material soon.

He has a few jobs, chief
Impact officer of Better-up for example, plus others. He and Meghan have invested in various things. I think they'll be alright.

Kendodd · 09/03/2023 14:27

I wouldn't have done it if I were them. Likewise Andrews children. I think Ann was always the smart one.
Having said that, the title might open doors for them as adults and they can always drop them if they want. I don't think they have the choice to add them in future though.

BadgerB · 09/03/2023 14:33

Novella4 · Today 11:08
I liked Harry's book too.
So did millions of people round the world .

Do you really know people who liked Harry's book, thought better of him because of it?

IcedPurple · 09/03/2023 14:36

Darthwazette · 09/03/2023 13:04

By giving the children titles now it removes the vitriol they would face if they chose them for themselves when they reach adulthood.

Imagine if Lady Louise had declared recently that she now wanted to be known as Princess Louise. Archie and Lili would have that in multiples.

I can see their point of view.

But they are 'giving' the children titles which could be taken away by Charles or eventually William at the stroke of a pen. If Scandinavian monarchs can downgrade their grandchildren's titles, so can British monarchs. It's entirely possible that by the time Archie is an adult, he may no longer be a Prince whether he likes it or not.

Given that Harry has just written a book with a very negative view of William and Charles, why would he want to burden his children with titles which either of them could take away on a whim? Not saying they would, but they certainly could. I thought he wanted to be free of all that 'toxicity'?

IcedPurple · 09/03/2023 14:38

adrianmolesmole · 09/03/2023 14:22

Harry isn't that rich in the scheme of things. And he has no obvious means of income other than slagging off his family, for which he will surely run out of material soon.

He has a few jobs, chief
Impact officer of Better-up for example, plus others. He and Meghan have invested in various things. I think they'll be alright.

I doubt we'll ever see them at a food bank, but plugging a coaching app and investing in powdered oat 'coffee' isn't going to fund a Montecito lifestyle indefinitely.

nilsoften · 09/03/2023 14:42

Crikey, I've just been on a YouTube channel called UK Royal Trends which seems to major on the most off the wall "seemingly" informed gossip about Princess Meghan and Harry...

WhydidntIknow · 09/03/2023 14:42

They left because:

  1. Didn't want to explain themselves to tax payers as it was expected and shoved (taxes) in their face
  2. They wanted to choose own projects

The very same complaining about M&H publicity are the first to comment on them. You are free to ignore them, you do not fund their lives - but you wouldn't - you are obsessed with them.

BadgerB · 09/03/2023 14:48

IcedPurple · Today 12:30
Harry absolutely loves the monarchy and the status he derives from it. Burdening his children with royal titles is just the latest proof of that. His only problem is that he will never be King.

And so he should! Meghan, to whom he is obviously devoted, one might even say enthralled, wouldn't have given him a second glance had he been just Mr H Windsor

Original poster
purpledalmation · 09/03/2023 14:50

@nilsoften You do realise he's called it toxic and dysfunctional? He stood by while his wife called them racist. He has said they are all trapped within the institution. He has said the Wales' children are needing protection 🤷🏻‍♀️ and expressed concerns about their wellbeing. He's lobbed numerous destructive accusations against the monarchy.

He says he supports the monarchy but his actions say otherwise. As we all know Harry doesn't really know how to distinguish fact from fiction. So no, he doesn't support the monarchy.

OP posts:
Original poster
purpledalmation · 09/03/2023 14:59

mummabubs · 09/03/2023 12:39

My position is that whether I agree with the monarchy or not (I don't), those are their titles to use should they choose. It's hardly a shocker. H&M have clearly said they won't be using the titles colloquially, but wanted to have the set up so that their children to have the choice themselves when they're older as to whether to use it. They're giving their children some control and power in recognition of how miserable Harry seems to have been for feeling powerless for much of his life. I admire that decision as a parent. It's recognising that your own children might have a different perspective than your own and supporting them to find their own position.

Do you actually believe Harry gave these titles altruistically? It's yet another opportunity to grab headlines and wrong foot Charles, following eviction from Froggmore. These titles have been given by the parents despite no formal approval. It's a calculated move byH&M because if Charles now removes them he looks petty.

Re choice of the kids, they could have used the titles at any time by their own choice. H&M bestowing them now has no legal standing in that they are not the king and queen, and they could be removed. It's all about the money.

OP posts:
Original poster
purpledalmation · 09/03/2023 15:01

derbylass81 · 09/03/2023 13:01

Where has this stemmed from? Are they using that title? I'd say it's hypocritical and tone-deaf.

Will camilla's kids and grandkids be getting titles? That will piss me off, if so.

No, camillas children won't be prince and princes.

OP posts:
LadyVictoriaSponge · 09/03/2023 15:02

Sweetpeasaremadeforbees · 09/03/2023 12:30

Why Wouk republicans support H and M.

I assume it's because of that old saying 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' or a case of supporting the supposed underdog no matter how bad they're behaving. I think it's mad but I've (mostly) given up trying to work it out.

Agree with this, the usual crowd of pseudo republicans on here who appear on every thread defending a Duke a Duchess and now a Prince and Princess, I can’t take them seriously, however I welcome real republicans views on here, it makes for interesting debate and conversation.

WinnieTheW0rm · 09/03/2023 15:06

The idea that there was any question at all over the Sussex DC becoming Prince and Princess emanates solely from H&M.

Are they a reliable source?

Original poster
purpledalmation · 09/03/2023 15:07

@adrianmolesmole Harry said in his audiobook I think (but I did hear his dulcet tones) saying they were planning to leave in 2018. So there was never a plan to stay.

OP posts:
Puzzledandpissedoff · 09/03/2023 15:10

It's recognising that your own children might have a different perspective than your own and supporting them to find their own position

I don't think anyone would disagree that's an admirable thing to do, but wonder why they didn't leave it for the children to choose when older. Titles aren't much use to children of their age, so all that seems to be left is their potential use to the parents

As for suggestions that Charles or William could revoke the titles I really can't see that happening - there seems little doubt that H&M would go ballistic, and for once they'd have a point

Original poster
purpledalmation · 09/03/2023 15:12

milti · 09/03/2023 14:01

Meghan has actually played a blinder - if money and fame was her true objective - multi multi millionaire and global notoriety. Set for life financially. How long til the drug addled mentally ailing husband becomes surplus to requirements

But with their massively high outgoings and trying to continue the live the way they've come to expect, their millions won't last long. They need to keep earning, but they are both pretty talentless and not that bright. Netflix don't want meghans rom coms, archwell isn't a major player in the long run, she can't act and he can't write, so there only brand is trashing their families and playing the victim. Not a sustainable business model.

OP posts:
LadyVictoriaSponge · 09/03/2023 15:14

adrianmolesmole · 09/03/2023 13:34

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'.

Actually they didn't want to leave, Harry wanted to protect Meghan's mental health. The half in option was because they wanted to continue working for the Queen but also protect themselves, they received far worse treatment than other family members and I don't blame them for wanting that. Rather naive of Harry tbh, but that was the reasoning.

I think the person who got the worst treatment by far was Sarah Ferguson how she coped mentally with the daily personal abusive headlines I will never know ‘Duchess of Pork’ as an actual headline and constant articles about her looks must have been mental torture. Thankfully social media did not exist then she would have been utterly destroyed.

Original poster
purpledalmation · 09/03/2023 15:17

@LadyVictoriaSponge Yes, I think Sarah Ferguson got dreadful treatment from the press at the time, and for once I agree with Harry, the UK press need to have tighter controls.

OP posts:
BadgerB · 09/03/2023 15:22

milti · Today 14:01
Meghan has actually played a blinder - if money and fame was her true objective - multi multi millionaire and global notoriety. Set for life financially. How long til the drug addled mentally ailing husband becomes surplus to requirements

She'd better get a move on then. She's still very attractive now, but time is passing and there will be competition from younger fortune-hunters for any billionaires on the market.

Maireas · 09/03/2023 15:22

I also agree with this, and it's the vile misogyny which needs to stop. Women are always judged. Looks, behaviour, style, sexual availability.
I swear some of these "journalists" would like to bring back the scold's bridle and the ducking stool.

Swipe left for the next trending thread