Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

PR Disasters chapter 12

1000 replies

AtIusvue · 13/05/2026 11:46

Meg n Harry giving us plenty to talk about as usual…..

OP posts:
Thread gallery
89
BigWillyLittleTodger · 16/05/2026 19:01

I bet Catherine is horrified at what they are subjecting those children to.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 16/05/2026 19:06

IcedPurple · 16/05/2026 18:58

Totally.

I find it shocking even by her standards.

Her little 4 year old daughter is made to pose as her servant. It's quite disturbing, and the fact that the child is faceless makes it worse, not better. She's just a prop for Meghan's Insta self promotion. Not a little person with her own personality. I don't think Meghan is capable of thinking of other people as autonomous indvidiuals with their own needs and their own perspectives. Sadly that seems to include her own children.

And not one of the MSM will call her out on it, it will be left to the comments section.

BasiliskStare · 16/05/2026 19:07

I agree those wardrobes look a bit faux chateau.

I just don't get - & I know it's been said so often - just because you hide your childrens' faces - those images you have chosen to merchandise your perfect life will be there , somewhere , forever. The children have had no choice in how they are portrayed. There used to be in my day the thing about boyfriend / girlfriend being shown you unflattering photos as a small child. But those were private family photos in an album so the embarrassment was limited , hard copy photographs ( or in my case "slides" with a projector - Oh how old am I )

I do believe the dangers of Sm for children are not just what they can access themselves , but photos they have had no control over which are winged out to the wider world, photos which will be around pretty much forever. Will A really want to see his mother laughing at him behind a pillar at Disney when he's older? We don't know but he has no choice now. I think the not showing the faces is a sop. It's lip service to protecting them. These children have so many photos and so much their parents have been saying about them in the public domain which can never be taken back. Now many parents do similar things , their choice , but they don't in tandem make themselves out to be the guardian angels of children and Social Media.

Do excuse the rant 😊

EmpressSisi · 16/05/2026 19:14

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 16/05/2026 18:12

I went to check the photo was real and saw this

I find this photo really unsettling, in more ways than one!

ShamedBySiri · 16/05/2026 19:15

That lilac coat looks like a lab coat that was put in the wash with something pink.

BigWillyLittleTodger · 16/05/2026 19:16

IcedPurple · 16/05/2026 15:02

Yes, the complete absence of the 'stalwarts' is strange. I kind of miss them too! Not the boring inane arguments about 'haters' brainwashed by Murdoch, the silliness about "why are you wasting time talking about someone you don't even know?', or dredging up some long forgotten tabloid article from 7 years ago. That was dull. But it's nice to be challenged every now and then!

Maybe they're bored with the Sussexes too? Or there's just no longer any way to defend them and their shenanigans anymore?

They will be back when the dust settles, when H&M are being really abhorrent (which has been for quite some time now) they go very quiet but if we discuss something inane about H&M then they come back in their droves with the but but Andrew, why do you care, you are all racist tropes, it’s a pattern on here.

IcedPurple · 16/05/2026 19:19

BasiliskStare · 16/05/2026 19:07

I agree those wardrobes look a bit faux chateau.

I just don't get - & I know it's been said so often - just because you hide your childrens' faces - those images you have chosen to merchandise your perfect life will be there , somewhere , forever. The children have had no choice in how they are portrayed. There used to be in my day the thing about boyfriend / girlfriend being shown you unflattering photos as a small child. But those were private family photos in an album so the embarrassment was limited , hard copy photographs ( or in my case "slides" with a projector - Oh how old am I )

I do believe the dangers of Sm for children are not just what they can access themselves , but photos they have had no control over which are winged out to the wider world, photos which will be around pretty much forever. Will A really want to see his mother laughing at him behind a pillar at Disney when he's older? We don't know but he has no choice now. I think the not showing the faces is a sop. It's lip service to protecting them. These children have so many photos and so much their parents have been saying about them in the public domain which can never be taken back. Now many parents do similar things , their choice , but they don't in tandem make themselves out to be the guardian angels of children and Social Media.

Do excuse the rant 😊

That's not a rant at all. I think you succintly expressed what many of us are thinking.

How does not showing the chidren's faces cancel out the potential damage of frequent social media exposure? Is it because they won't be recognised? Because I'm not even sure that's true. We've seen enough of them to have a fair idea of what they look like, even if their faces are ostensibly 'hidden'. And if someone were really obsessed, there's probably technology out there that would allow them to 'construct' their faces from the clues provided by all the many photos.

As we've said before there are many A list stars whose children we have never seen. In some cases we don't even know the name or gender. And nobody gives much of a thought to those children, because we aren't constantly reminded of their existence. By contrast, these photos encourage interest in the Sussex children, which surely should be the opposite of what people campaigning against the dangers of social media would want? And as you say, once a photo is published, it's out there for the rest of the child's life. That might be fine for the occasional family event, but using your faceless kids as props for your self promotion is creepy.

binkie163 · 16/05/2026 19:19

HoldMyWine · 16/05/2026 17:58

Looks like she does her own photography for her insta as well thought. Check out the teapot.

Oooo good catch 😀

Baital · 16/05/2026 19:21

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Editing doesn't remove your original comment

Starryfifty · 16/05/2026 19:22

BasiliskStare · 16/05/2026 19:07

I agree those wardrobes look a bit faux chateau.

I just don't get - & I know it's been said so often - just because you hide your childrens' faces - those images you have chosen to merchandise your perfect life will be there , somewhere , forever. The children have had no choice in how they are portrayed. There used to be in my day the thing about boyfriend / girlfriend being shown you unflattering photos as a small child. But those were private family photos in an album so the embarrassment was limited , hard copy photographs ( or in my case "slides" with a projector - Oh how old am I )

I do believe the dangers of Sm for children are not just what they can access themselves , but photos they have had no control over which are winged out to the wider world, photos which will be around pretty much forever. Will A really want to see his mother laughing at him behind a pillar at Disney when he's older? We don't know but he has no choice now. I think the not showing the faces is a sop. It's lip service to protecting them. These children have so many photos and so much their parents have been saying about them in the public domain which can never be taken back. Now many parents do similar things , their choice , but they don't in tandem make themselves out to be the guardian angels of children and Social Media.

Do excuse the rant 😊

Not a rant at all. You make perfect sense.

Serenster · 16/05/2026 19:22

ShamedBySiri · 16/05/2026 19:15

That lilac coat looks like a lab coat that was put in the wash with something pink.

Thanks for the kind words all - I’m still around, though real life has been pretty busy lately! 👋

I find a lilac outfit an odd choice for Meghan as she’s previously suggested she’s not a fan of the colour. When she was a Royal she gave a speech at one of her charities and said:

So on my visits to Smart Works, one of the times that I went I realised there was a little bit of a challenge in terms of styling for the women because we had a lot of donations, but not necessarily the things that women needed to have… there was a rack of about 40 or 50 lilac coloured blazers. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s a great blazer and I’m sure for someone it’s exactly what she wants to be wearing. But for most women… you want to be wearing the pieces of clothing that make you feel [your best] and not the leftovers that didn’t sell from the end of the season

corblimeygvnr · 16/05/2026 19:23

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 16/05/2026 18:12

I went to check the photo was real and saw this

Oh ffs really ?

Hideous wardrobes 😬

BigWillyLittleTodger · 16/05/2026 19:25

StillSpartacus · 16/05/2026 08:26

Ah sorry no! I meant the likes of Tom Sykes & Lauren, whose income depends on content and clicks, rather than accuracy. My apologies BigWillie if I wasn’t clear.

Thank you @StillSpartacus appreciated.

Mousespoons · 16/05/2026 19:25

HoldMyWine · 16/05/2026 17:58

Looks like she does her own photography for her insta as well thought. Check out the teapot.

hopefully not like when Anne on Amandaland became an inadvertent house plant influencer, and ended up photographing her boobies reflected in a shiny plant pot

corblimeygvnr · 16/05/2026 19:26

Hmm

PR Disasters chapter 12
Whyohwhy321 · 16/05/2026 19:27

Baital · 16/05/2026 19:21

Editing doesn't remove your original comment

I'm well aware thanks. It was a duplicate post, hence the edit.

jeffgoldblum · 16/05/2026 19:28

Surprise, surprise!!!

PR Disasters chapter 12
Lunde · 16/05/2026 19:30

The composition of the picture is really strange - with no idea what she is attempting to convey.
-at first it looks like a tea tray as there seem to be multiple cups of different teas (pale/dark and something red) - perhaps As Ever tea
-Meghan's reflection caught on the teapot
-a silver bowl with some lemon slices
-there are some sad wilted flowers
-a bowl of green leaves - possibly mint leaves - what are these for?
-a small silver bowl - flower sprinkles? Why?
-a plate with honeycomb - does she put it in her tea? Doesn't it make tea waxy/greasy?
-a dirty fish knife in desperate need of sliver polish appearing to be smeared with butter? From what? Was the bread and butter she sat on in a previous photo supposed to be there? Why a fish knife?

It appears to be random As Ever products chucked on a board without coherent thought. It seems really amateur influencer,

PR Disasters chapter 12
corblimeygvnr · 16/05/2026 19:30

jeffgoldblum · 16/05/2026 19:28

Surprise, surprise!!!

Why does nothing ever fit her?

Lunde · 16/05/2026 19:31

jeffgoldblum · 16/05/2026 19:28

Surprise, surprise!!!

Cosplaying Catherine again

KilkennyCats · 16/05/2026 19:33

jeffgoldblum · 16/05/2026 19:28

Surprise, surprise!!!

God, what is wrong with the woman? This is tragic Confused

jeffgoldblum · 16/05/2026 19:33

corblimeygvnr · 16/05/2026 19:30

Why does nothing ever fit her?

No idea 🤷‍♀️, but if that article and sources are to be believed it’s probably because her clothes are borrowed or pinched!

jeffgoldblum · 16/05/2026 19:33

Lunde · 16/05/2026 19:31

Cosplaying Catherine again

I would upgrade her to stalker status at this point!

IcedPurple · 16/05/2026 19:35

Lunde · 16/05/2026 19:30

The composition of the picture is really strange - with no idea what she is attempting to convey.
-at first it looks like a tea tray as there seem to be multiple cups of different teas (pale/dark and something red) - perhaps As Ever tea
-Meghan's reflection caught on the teapot
-a silver bowl with some lemon slices
-there are some sad wilted flowers
-a bowl of green leaves - possibly mint leaves - what are these for?
-a small silver bowl - flower sprinkles? Why?
-a plate with honeycomb - does she put it in her tea? Doesn't it make tea waxy/greasy?
-a dirty fish knife in desperate need of sliver polish appearing to be smeared with butter? From what? Was the bread and butter she sat on in a previous photo supposed to be there? Why a fish knife?

It appears to be random As Ever products chucked on a board without coherent thought. It seems really amateur influencer,

a dirty fish knife in desperate need of sliver polish appearing to be smeared with butter? From what?

Mabey she used it to scrape the butter off the backside of her jeans after she moved a bit too close to that precariously placed uncovered butter dish in one of the recent 'As Ever photos?

Lazingsundayafternoon · 16/05/2026 19:39

jeffgoldblum · 16/05/2026 19:33

I would upgrade her to stalker status at this point!

She must just sit there obsessing about what Catherine and the rest of the RF are doing. Eaten up with envy and spite. What a sad and disturbed way to live.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread