Before entering the fairy tale, make a small gift

The invitation for Seven Princes and the Strawberry Princess, published on 5 May 2023, proposes a game in which seven princes participate through talents, stories and improvisation. It explicitly schedules 12 May, from 19:00 to 22:00, asks participants to dress for the occasion and bring a handmade gift no larger than an apple, and opens the prince roles to any gender.[S1]

These conditions raise a practical question. Participants can design a role, while the time, number of places and preparation tasks are already set. The gift makes participation begin before arrival; dancing, conversation and storytelling are proposed ways into the event. This is a reading of a game proposal, not an account of what participants did.

Making objects also means constructing characters

A craft invitation published on 29 April had already connected puppet-making to future performances and announced a first performance for 12 May. Makers would give the characters colours, personalities and skills; the puppets were intended as performance props.[S2]

The document establishes a planned connection: make objects together, give them characters, then bring them into a performance. It does not supply a handover or use record. Which puppets were completed, who made them and whether they appeared in this game remain unresolved.

What remains across two invitations to the same event?

The invitation published on 9 May retains the event name, the date of 12 May 2023, the three-hour period, the 120-yuan fee, the seven prince places and the small-gift requirement. It adds that only three places remain and continues to describe registration as first come, first served.[S3]

Remaining places express the publisher’s account of recruitment. They do not establish that four people had paid, arrived or completed the event. The texts are two public expressions of the same planned event, not records of two independently verified occurrences.

An omitted sentence does not establish a cancelled rule

The 5 May notice explicitly prohibits phone use throughout. The corresponding item on 9 May retains the arrival and departure times but omits that sentence. Both the saved original webpages and the current public archive preserve this difference.[S1][S3]

The omission is verifiable. It could reflect editing or a change in arrangements; without further explanation, it does not establish that the restriction was cancelled. It gives subsequent research a concrete question: how was phone use explained at the event, and did participants receive another version of the rules?

Both notices also plan for an unnamed documentary director to record the event and edit it into a film. Neither names that person nor establishes that the recording or film was completed. Reading this plan beside the earlier phone restriction raises a further question about how participants’ own recording and the production’s recording were to coexist.[S1][S3]

Keep page credits, game roles and later records distinct

The original 9 May webpage credits Tian Xinyi (田昕怡) as its page author. This reading retains that credit without assigning the princess, host or documentary-director role to the author. Fairy-tale characters do not establish anyone’s private relationships.[S3]

The existing Happiness Kingdom essay follows questions about education funding and a noodle restaurant in records associated with the 22 July event.[R1] That offers a different route through the project. The May game proposal and July records remain separately attributed; this reading does not establish shared rules, identical roles or a continuous recording between them.