@Iloveyoubut , think on this.
H&M are public figures because they have made themselves so. They could have been living a quiet and anonymous life in the US these last 5 years. They chose not to. They chose one high profile medium after the next to share "their story", to attack the head of state (past and future) and the public and media in the UK. They have not stopped doing this at all. Their entire public profile depends on their credulity as victims of an unfair system, and the people they need to convince is the public who fund that system and whom they insist on telling these stories to. The public is not required to sit back and listen uncritically. We are allowed to comment.
H&M are commercial figures. They make their money from selling themselves to the public through their various vehicles, be that books, Netflix, jam or advisory services - all of their profits are funded from members of the public putting their hands in their pockets. They need to persuade the public that their products are worth buying. The public is not required to sit back passively and uncritically and consume these products. They are allowed to say they are shit or that they sound shit - or, for that matter, that they are great or sound great.
H&M are political figures. They have never stopped portraying themselves as members of the RF, political influencers and states people. Apart from all the quasi royal visits, they are directly involved in the political landscape and the shaping of public discourse, privacy and freedom of speech through their work with the Parent Network and the Aspen Insitiute, and Archewell's funding of political think tanks (seeking to influence the flow of internet information) on both sides of the Atlantic. They have shared platforms with a number of political figures, and have the sort of access no "private" couple would have. The public is not required to sit back silently and let them do this without comment. What they are doing, if they get their way, will effect everyone.
H&M are litigious figures. Every one of their court cases uses publicly funded resources in the form of court time, space and personnel. Resources that, some might say, should be better spent on the massive backlog of cases in our courts dealing with people presently in distress and need of justice. Not only that, through their suits against RAVEC they are costing the public purse in direct litigation costs. They also cost the tax payer every time they set foot in this country. If Harry has his way, they will cost us a lot more than they currently already do, when they are providing no public service in return. We, the public, are not required to sit back silently and uncritically while this happens.
HTH with your misinterpretation of fair public discourse as "hate".