The marching of the Kings californian grandkids

[Thedom]

Wish I could go back and find all those posters who predicted a Kardashian-esqe social media blitz at some point in H&M's future, wonder where are all the posters who we're so affronted by the very idea of that.

People magazine and all, the uber celeb magazine.

I guess needs must with the downfall of her business efforts, \oh look, here are my kids whose privacy we have decided to forego for the greater good of taking the heat off what a crap business woman I am'.

If you refuse to read them, then I am certainly not going to waste my time quoting them for you here at this time of night.

The privacy of the Wales children is not sacrificed for some 'faustian pact'. Their parents recognise that they will be in the public eye. They are very carefully, very sensibly, publishing a very few photos of their children (birthdays, first day of school term), not for commercial gain. If parents want control and rights 🙄 over the images of their children, the easiest way to gain that is not dump them all over your social media. Easy peasy.

Why is H and M backing the calls of bereaved parents to tech giants to be able to gain access to their bereaved children’s phones a Trojan horse? It’s a very legitimate cause if you ask me.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjewne81lq4o

But Harry has only known life in the limelight. And Meghan’s career has always been in the public eye too. That is their background and where their experience lies and I think it’s a bit unreasonable expecting them to suddenly change to a completely different way of living

There are plenty of A-list celebrities who manage to keep their children's lives private. Both the UK and US have fairly strict privacy laws by which their media abide.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made much noise about giving their children a private life away from the media. They also very publicly supported the bereaved parents of the Parents' Network, and have used this public support as part of a wider campaign for social media censorship.

These are significant reasons why people feel their behaviour is hypocritical.

Because you can't. I've been on this thread since started, you are wrong.

I think you will find that there are quite a few photos of the royal children on official Royal websites and K and W have published videos of them at leisure playing in the woods and on the dunes of what is presumably a Norfolk beach. I wouldn’t call that strictly necessary exposure tbh. Even their drawings have been published I believe because I read about it on Mumsnet.

And that’s leaving aside the crushing psychological blow that a royal heir must confront around about George’s age now, when they realise that their destiny is fixed for life and their every move will be monitored and scrutinised once they are adults. The pressure must be awful.

It’s a pretty cruel fate if you ask me. The poor boy might want to become a sculptor, a boat builder or a chef fhs! Or he might break the mould and be hugely academic and want to go in to scientific research? Seriously, think of the horrors of what we as a country put those children through, all for the privilege of being able to coo at their photos, gawp at their weddings and and to ensure the continuation of an outdated institution. It’s downright wrong imho.

Their involvement is a Trojan Horse for censorship, which is their greater goal through their work with Aspen Insitiute and Archewell's funding of think tanks tasked with campaigning for the political censorship of social media. The bereaved parents' issue is a data protection one, which is not the same issue as online safety. The greatest tool at the hands of parents is the word "no".

I’ve never seen it before because I don’t go searching for such things

People didn’t have to search for it. It was in the press and on TV after Gloria Steinman, Meghans very good friend, had accidentally on purpose left it on display during a photoshoot for a magazine.

It was never a blurry image.

I have seen the supposed photo of their uncovered faces at Disney, such bad A! / photoshopping, apparently done by some Sussex Squad fan site, , poor Lili looks like Ms Piggy.

The crazy genie is out of the bottle, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

It's A!, not a real photo, definitely not the kids real faces, so I guess it can be posted on here as it is being shared everywhere online.

This is a prime example of why you should not mess around, or troll, on social media, especially when it comes to something as precious as your kids, and even moreso when you have the kind of divisive reputation H&M have.

I will post it on the next post and MN can remove it if they think it shouldn't be here, but it's easy to find online, as it is everywhere. .

The photo Meghan posted of her kids, modified with some AI composite of their faces.

I've taught orphaned chdren from the DRC who came here as unaccompanied child refugees.
Their lives were massively inflienced due to the circumstances of their birth.

Ive taught orphaned chdren from the DRC who came here as unaccompanied child refugees.
Their lives were massively inflienced due to the circumstances of their birth

Help me out here please because I’m honestly confused and don’t know which way to interpret your post. Are you comparing Harry’s life to theirs and suggesting he could be as adversely affected by the circumstances of his birth as those children are by theirs?

I was agreeing with the post I quoted
Apologies if unclear.
Many children (most?) are massively affected by the circumstances of their birth.
I just struggle to think that the royals have it worse than everyone else.

@NoMoreLifts thank you for explaining. It wasn’t you. It was all me.

They don’t. Harry thinks he does.

Harry needs to see the privileges he has gained and people he’s met that had he not been royal he would never have or seen. Yes there are negatives but there are huge positives. It’s a shame since meeting his wife he’s only focused on the negatives.

Harry believes that the people he meets are lucky to have met him, and furthermore he thinks they should pay him for the privilege.

If he wasn’t royal and had the brains he’s got he’d just be another person trying to make ends meet. He wouldn’t have gone to university in his ‘ordinary’ life and would most likely be doing manual work (nothing wrong with that). He has no understanding at all of the exceptional privilege he was given being born into the RF. That is what annoys me the most about him, he is so very average but for his birth. Nothing about him as a person is special or inspiring.

Exactly @BunnyLake he only sees the negatives. He’s unremarkable apart from his birth. Not unlike some of the other royals I should imagine. Anne has carved herself a great role and as an equestrian would have succeeded. Andrew would have made a mess of things the same. Edward I think would have done something arty without constraints. William apparently loved air ambulance. Charles I think something environmental.

Seriously? That’s your supposition. I doubt he thinks that at all.

I disagree. I think he has a gift with meeting and greeting people. He can create an instant rapport with children. You could argue that before all of this happened, he was naturally very gifted at his charity work, better than some of the main prayers in the RF. And meeting people and talking to strangers and establishing an instant connection is far from easy.

He was also a very good soldier by all accounts.

I am sure that there are plenty of things he could succeed in doing.

If Harry hadn't been born into the RF he would not have met Meghan as they wouldn't have moved in the same circles. Your average Joe Bloggs from Tunbridge Wells rarely holiday in the USA

Why does he charge for his "charity" work, then? Why did he think he could speak to John Travolta in that demeaning way? He is rude, entitled and a bear with a very small brain.