Princess Lilibet

rafichagran

This was a nasty OP. A four year old, whose hair was likened to rats tails. The remark was horrible.
The thread then goes on about Andrew Meghan, and Harry, it really went of track.
The adults are fair game, but not a four year old child.

The thread did not go off track. It was off track from the get go and was never about a little girls hair.

it's not about the child's hair, it's about it not being their children used in the photos they put out!

I have to disagree Tuliptree
read the OP again, it was about a four year old child's hair, not Andrew who I detest.
The thread has definitely stly gone if track from the original post.

rafichagran

I have to disagree Tuliptree
read the OP again, it was about a four year old child's hair, not Andrew who I detest.
The thread has definitely stly gone if track from the original post.

It’s the music behind the words

Aveline

They shouldn't have used her to insult our late Majesty

I don't think they did, I read they did it to honour her. It was also reported Harry and Meghan spoke to the Queen and she was ok with it.
This threadvhas gone a long way from someone making derogatory remarks about a four year old hair.

"It’s the music behind the words"

Explain please. I just took the OP as it was written. No hidden meaning. Just unkind about a four year old child.

To be fair there have been many horrible
marks on GN about Royal children over the past few years.
(I haven't consulted my spreadsheet!) but will just cite a few:
Louis appears to be autistic
William has a nervous tic and chews his mouth
Archie has a wonky eye
Savannah P is sly
Louis is a brat and needs disciplining

I know the OP's comment about the messy hair isn't exactly complimentary, but in the bigger picture here it certainly isn't that bad.

I have no idea what direction the OP wanted the thread to go in. That always comes down to the comments made by those contributing to it.

* remarks not marks

It’s very difficult to keep a young child’s hair tidy for five minutes as I well know with my DGD so I doubt that royal children are any different.
At least in this photo we can see part of her face which is unusual as they usually blank it out.
However, it is beyond me why they have to keep posting photos if they want to remain private - or do they!

Tuliptree

rafichagran

This was a nasty OP. A four year old, whose hair was likened to rats tails. The remark was horrible.
The thread then goes on about Andrew Meghan, and Harry, it really went of track.
The adults are fair game, but not a four year old child.

The thread did not go off track. It was off track from the get go and was never about a little girls hair.

Should you read the OP again perhaps, as you seem to have misunderstood.
It is quite plain.

I think the OP explained earlier that her post was based purely on her observation of a photo. No hidden agenda.

DGD arrived this evening, her hair looked as if it needed a good brushing and rats tails is a good description, well known in the hairdressing world, so I understand. She's not having her photo taken though.

However, a rat's tail is quite a fashionable style at the moment, apparently. Not one I like.

MartavTaurus

I think the OP explained earlier that her post was based purely on her observation of a photo. No hidden agenda.

Yes, but messy hair does seem fashionable at the moment.

Perhaps some of us older Grans do itch to put a gentle brush through it!

It was also reported that the Queen was not happy about her very personal private pet name being hijacked by that publicity hungry couple.

Ohhh!, Cossy, it's ridiculous, the amount of bile & spite that's directed at Harry & Megan & their beautiful children! Leave them alone & what would Harry's mother think of all the bile that's spat-out in the direction of her truly beautiful grandchildren?😶

What would she think of all the bile spat out at her son.

Her son William.

It’s odd how people forget she had two sons and three other grandchildren who have had to suffer the attacks by Harry and Meghan.

Aveline

It was also reported that the Queen was not happy about her very personal private pet name being hijacked by that publicity hungry couple.

Well nobody owns their name, pet or otherwise. And Queen or not.

I would think it was the unkindness and spite behind the naming that upset Queen Elizabeth, not the name itself.

It’s hard when someone you care for deliberately sets out to hurt and upset you.

The child is known as Lili anyway.

Perhaps she'll change her names when she is older, both are well-known for different reasons and she may prefer names which are less controversial.

Re the name, I think the late Queen was asked if the child could be named after her, but the assumption was that ‘Elizabeth’ was going to be used, as have so many other family members.

If that is true, it was a sneaky way of using ‘Lilibet’.

Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie don’t sound very regal names, more like Disney characters, not to be taken very seriously.

I agree Calendargirl. Very Disney. Better to have called her Elizabeth and then her nickname could have been Lili/Lilli.
For a couple so apparently privacy conscious it is strange they put any photos of their children in the public domain while they are still so young.

But do they actually ever think anything through?
Everything they do seems to be impulsive and never lands well....from big things like leaving the RF to little things like turning up at sporting events as a surprise *uninvited!
They do so need to take advice.

Sadgrandma

It’s very difficult to keep a young child’s hair tidy for five minutes as I well know with my DGD so I doubt that royal children are any different.
At least in this photo we can see part of her face which is unusual as they usually blank it out.
However, it is beyond me why they have to keep posting photos if they want to remain private - or do they!

Much has been made across the years about media appearances, photos, privacy etc etc

Just to clarify, if I may, using just my own opinion, there’s a world of difference in being able to choose when, where and how one chooses to make public appearances and release photos.

The RF are not celebrities, those especially born into the RF (as opposed to marrying in), have zero choice in these matters, to the point of harassment in some cases.

I remember so clearly an instance where Princess D took her “boys” ski-ing. She always tried to maintain a balanced relationship with the press and paparazzi and on this holiday had arranged some times designated for photos and a request to leave her and the boys alone to enjoy their holiday and privacy outside off these times.

Did the press do this? No, and I distinctly remember a clip, shown on TV of Princess D trying to eat a meal outside with W&H and getting very angry and literally storming towards the press and telling them, in no uncertain terms, to go away. All witnessed by her two children and other guests.

Of course they have to keep posting and making appearances. Their whole future income and way of life depends on their being “celebrities”. I don’t hold that against them, it’s no different to how a hist of other celebrities/influencers make their living.

Neither of them has any qualifications or experience to have a career of any kind and commercial/business ventures haven’t worked out, so their options are limited.

Since what they’ve gone for is the Martha Stewart sort of look, it’s inevitable that the children have to be involved in the wholesome ‘family’ back to nature image. Sunshine, greenery, fun and informality. Glorious unfettered hair.

Of course controlling what you put out there is different from the intrusion of the press taking snapshots. Preserving the image is vital if your living depends on it.