Princess Lilibet

TerriBull

FGS! are you being deliberately provocative Tuliptree. I can't imagine anyone apart from Andrew himself, thinks he's innocent.

The observations regarding the "back of heads, or very slight profile shots" have been innumerable, they come across as deliberately coy in the way they are orchestrated.

In your opinion!

TheSunRisesInTheEast

The photo of Charlotte is of a pretty, young, happy girl, out in the wild, it's so natural looking for the setting, neat and tidy hair would look very unnatural. She's her daddy's double, she has his smile 😁.

Oh for goodness sake, no one (should) cares who has the neatest hair!

It doesn’t matter, if you’re trying to take a “natural” photo then girls (or boys) with long hair outside are going to look “scruffy” unless the hair brushed two mins before photo taken or tied back.

I agree that the original photo of Harry and Lillibet has been “altered” as those balloons are clearly not real. However, I seem to remember Princess Catherine altering a photo she’d taken of Charlotte, there was a (ridiculous) outcry.

I just feel we are so ultra critical of (some) people we’ve never met and only know through the media.

The public, including here, seem to just love a good “bashing” for those they feel worthy of it.

Interestingly, in terms of our Royals, it seems the Cambridges are perfect in every way, and the Sussex’s are imperfect in every way. M&H seem to get rather more bashing on here than Uncle Andrew and Aunty Sarah!

TerriBull

FGS! are you being deliberately provocative Tuliptree. I can't imagine anyone apart from Andrew himself, thinks he's innocent.

The observations regarding the "back of heads, or very slight profile shots" have been innumerable, they come across as deliberately coy in the way they are orchestrated.

I’m no more provocative than many other M haters 😂😂😂😂😂

FGS! are you being deliberately provocative Tuliptree. I can't imagine anyone apart from Andrew himself, thinks he's innocent.

The observations regarding the "back of heads, or very slight profile shots" have been innumerable, they come across as deliberately coy in the way they are orchestrated.

Tuliptree

MarieElla

Why can't they just post a normal photo of their children instead of all this posing and photoshopping?
Everything they do is criticised because it's never genuine.

Everything they do is criticised by a certain posse of posters who on a Venn diagram probably overlap with those who are uncritical Monarchists, think Andrew is innocent and that no senior royal hasn’t known for years what he’s been up to. Criticising H &M and dissecting the state of L’s hair and the angle of the photos in the midst of the real scandal engulfing the H if W I suppose must give them some comfort. Very odd

How about if some posters criticise the art of photography on lots of threads? Actually it's shame there isn't a dedicated heading for this! Over the years, I and others have written numerous posts on views, scenery, fashion, animals, clothes, hair etc all seen through the lens. H & M , C & W just happen to fall into a category occasionally.

There are lots of threads about Andrew...this one is about Meg and Harry. Simple.
If you want to talk about vile Andrew, Google it.
It's not that difficult.

MarieElla

Why can't they just post a normal photo of their children instead of all this posing and photoshopping?
Everything they do is criticised because it's never genuine.

Everything they do is criticised by a certain posse of posters who on a Venn diagram probably overlap with those who are uncritical Monarchists, think Andrew is innocent and that no senior royal hasn’t known for years what he’s been up to. Criticising H &M and dissecting the state of L’s hair and the angle of the photos in the midst of the real scandal engulfing the H if W I suppose must give them some comfort. Very odd

Why can't they just post a normal photo of their children instead of all this posing and photoshopping?
Everything they do is criticised because it's never genuine.

MarieElla

If she has just come from her ballet lesson, her hair should be in a bun, but then again, this is in the US where they do things differently!

I always pulled my hair out of its net straight after ballet lessons, those buns were so tight and painful! Maybe that's what she did.

But Madame Corinne would have had a fit if I'd worn my ballet outfit around the garden.

If she has just come from her ballet lesson, her hair should be in a bun, but then again, this is in the US where they do things differently!

Her hair actually looked quite nice on her birthday.
Back of head again!

I wonder how differently this thread had gone if it had been William and Charlotte in the OP.
Very different it would have been full of adoration.

It s not my business as to what people feel about Harry and Megan I think it was absolutely predictable, the spare always acts differently, sometimes poorly, but the vitriol for a little girl and of all things, her hair is just so awful.

Are you all so perfect that you ve never looked back on your children’s photos and thought oh my word look at that hair didn’t I ever brush it why ever did I take a photo of her with that old dress on.

It looks like a picture of a love between a father and daughter and this thread looks very very nasty and spiteful

The photo of Charlotte is of a pretty, young, happy girl, out in the wild, it's so natural looking for the setting, neat and tidy hair would look very unnatural. She's her daddy's double, she has his smile 😁.

If it were Princess Charlotte (named after a queen!) I'm sure the comments would be quite different.

Lottie? Charley?
In private, perhaps.

And I said Charlotte's hair was messy.

Lilibet is a nickname, though, a toddler's version of her real name.

If they had called her Elizabeth that would be calling her after her Great Granny.

I can't see what the problem is with regard to calling her after her Great Granny, many people do, especially royals -probably all of them are named after their predecessors, and what a pretty name it is. Has it got to the stage that Harry and Megan's children are being bad mouthed on Gransnet? If it were Princess Charlotte (named after a queen!) I'm sure the comments would be quite different. I agree with Cossy.

Well, it certainly looks like Charlotte.
With messy hair 😁

it is not her!

You could say that the latest birthday photo of Charlotte shows wild, untidy hair! I guess the difference is that her broad smile and happy expression captures the eye more.

I've never understood the back of the head or baby's foot photographs, whoever they might be. I think it sometimes works where the subject is seen walking into stunning scenery, but in everyday settings I'd be putting those photos in the bin as pointless.

Also the little girl has no say if a photograph is published.

Quite.

Allira

^Her parents are in the public eye not her.^

🤔 so why publish that photograph and put her right in the public eye?

There is talk that the photo is fake, but if they do post a photograph, we do not see her face. Also the little girl has no say if a photograph is published.
I don't care about Harry and Meghan they are adults, but saying a young child's hair looks like rats tales is not nessasary.

Whenever there's any criticism of Harry and Meghan there's always nasty bitching about William and Catherine, and especially from people who don't use their correct names, while managing to get Harry and Meghan's names and spelling correct. Hmmmmm?

Her parents are in the public eye not her.

🤔 so why publish that photograph and put her right in the public eye?

I say the above because her parents rarely show her face.

Nothing goady, it was a nasty remark about a little girls hair. Why would adults feel the need to comment. Wild hair in my opinion is lovely.
Her parents are in the public eye not her. We need to lay of the of the kids.