PR Disasters….Part 8

[AtIusvue]

PR Disasters of the The Duke and Duchess of Sussex continued :

• So far we have Meg using charity events/sick children/vulnerable adults to merch her fashion, with the launch of her new fashion platform
• She will be appearing on MasterChef Australia
• Harry claiming to have had therapy when Archie was born, even though he never sought MH help for his ill wife a few short months earlier.

I don't think he has anything new to say, if he did why keep wanging in about the past?

How will w and c be complicit? Are we thinking of different rumours?

I don't know how to do the archive thing - but this is an excerpt from a new article in the DM - so not entirely fawning.

"Royal expert Richard Palmer said the sale of her Bondi outfit online reflects badly on the Sussexes - and will worry the Royal Family.
He said: 'This is perhaps the starkest example yet of Harry and Meghan’s efforts to commercialise their royal brand.
'I think this will have alarm bells ringing at the palace and may ultimately prompt further discussion about whether there is a need to strip them of their royal titles, now the King has shown it can be done in effect with Andrew.
'The palace can say it’s nothing to do with the institution because Harry and Meghan aren’t publicly-funded members of it - but they are the King’s son and daughter-in-law and any suggestion of cashing in on royal status reflects badly on the monarchy'.

The ones @jeffgoldblum is referring to.

That would be because he has loving and present parents to guide him. The SMWs could learn a lot from W and C about parenting.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15741909/Meghan-Markle-criticised-selling-outfit-wore-met-Bondi-beach-terror-attack-survivors.html#comments-15741909

No need to be patronising. Tom Sykes isn’t a random talking head. He’s a well respected journalist and insider (grew up in royal adjacent circles). He’s disgusted the same as we are. I was referring to the royal website. Which remains unchanged, despite the courtiers being annoyed.

@Rhaidimiddim, we don’t often disagree but I feel you are upset or irritated with me? , if so I’m sorry about that! , after yesterday’s irritation and this morning ( by starmer) I have to have a optimistic outlook for at least a day! , no doubt tomorrow something else will occur ( most probably) and I will once again return to my usual thoughts.

I'm not thinking of any rumours in particular.

AMW was empowered by QE2 ( against Charls's advice). No-one can blame W for those decisions ( although several here insist he knew and therefore shares the blame).

But with H & M - if anything comes out. W & C are far more likely to have known whatever there is to be known that should not have been allowed to happen.

Errrm… it’s Friday 😂

Ah I get you! , I see your point! , the ones I’m thinking of ( no before another poster asks I’m not saying, a rumour is only a rumour until proven) , couldn’t possibly be laid at their door but would implicate the late queen and Charles and the police but , even the hardest head could not argue they would know!
the rest are simply the shady people that have been funding them and assisting the both of them since they left!
however I think you are right some will still try!🤷‍♀️

omg it is 🤣🤣I have been off work all week so everything is askew 😀

I think you may have misunderstood. I realise I said commentator when I meant the poster you referred to who disappeared. I wasn't referring to Sykes or meaning to be patronising.

Isn't the problem though that, titles or not, they will remain the son and daughter in law of the King? They are monetisating their family connection and that remains titles or no. I really can't see anything that the palace can do, except remove them from the website.

Symbolically, removing Handiana from any royal family publications including digital pages will be noteworthy. IMO.

Yes I agree. Also really useful signal of who is a working Royal and who is a member of the royal family. There is a lot of muddled communications at the moment, probably because the late Queen had a lot of relatives representing her and no one has really brought the website up to date. But in this day and age it needs to be really clear who is working for the monarch and who isn't.

The Queen and her work with victims of domestic violence was mentioned a few pages back but for some reason I cant quote the post. Anyway, a few years ago I heard an interview with her and it was obvious she had first hand knowledge of domestic abuse either through a family member or a close friend.

Indeed!

That picture is very Jessica Lockhart isn't it? The camera sees only her!

This one I recall ! Hot damn!

I don't think it matters if W&C were aware of anything nefarious relating to matters that would be covered by personal and/or medical privacy and/or safeguarding. It would never be their responsibility, or indeed right, to do or say anything about it.

I'd have that picture pinned to my fridge if I was Catherine.

😂😂

I wish someone would look at me like that!

Keeps William on his toes 😉