PR Disasters, chapter 13

[AtIusvue]

Meg and Harry and all their PR shenanigans

Trigger Warning: this thread may contain talk about sleeves.

Agreed @RecoIIectionsMayVary Andrew is a huge subject that needs its own thread.

It just shows you how spoiled and ignorant they were.

This. It's like not being able to ask for help or only being allowed to wear beige. Not the actual truth.
What did they say at the end of the Oprah interview? "You rescued me"
"No, you rescued me".
Utter fantasy.

This thread will nearly be up soon! If there’s someone that wants to take it over the running thread feel free to do so, otherwise this will be the last of the PR series from me.

Completely agree.

And they were newly weds, it would have been just a stepping stone. What they lacked was patience, and this has been the case in everything they do.

Why, I had no intention to upset you, and you have been vocal in the past that this is a thread about the Sussexs.

Because the thread will probably end today, so if anyone else wants to continue they can.

I’ve kept this going for a year I think and I’m not always around to keep it updated. That’s all.

I posted the AMW article earlier on another thread .

I thoroughly enjoy your threads. I’m always pleased to see one and wish you’d reconsider.

The thread can continue, just who ever wants to carry on the conversation from the last thread can create a new one.

The threads fill up much, much faster than the first couple of threads, which means even if Im not contributing, I always have to keep an eye out for when a new one needs created etc.

Understood 😊

https://apple.news/AckxV5kzwTIq-o2tql49yWg

Thanks for the heads up, Jeff. Here's a link direct to the article:

https://www.instyle.com/prince-harry-addresses-what-banned-doing-royal-family-surprise-appearance-11688230

This feels like the end of an era.

"We show up and do good"
😂 😂
Is this a spoof?!

It's from Feb 2025

What a bullshit statement. Have they ever explained what that meant ??

Oh now that's weird, because @jeffgoldblum Apple News link says updated 21 May 26 (I looked for the direct link because the Apple link is paywalled). I didn't notice the date on the original article. Are they having old articles recycled to get some good PR?

I did wonder about the outdated reference to (the now defunct) Archewell Foundation.

Apple News

No, I think at this point it's just word salad.

Ugh, does Apple news always capitalise the first letter of every word? It looks awful, like it's misaligned. Makes me feel seasick.
And I just saw the upper case subheading. Don't these editors know about basic reading? Upper case is harder for the eye to read. (Hence UK road signs being lower case.)

Ha, ha, I've no idea. I assume that's InStyle's house style rather than that of Apple News . I just posted that image to show how they have updated an old article and republished it for today's readers - which is presumably why it's appeared on @jeffgoldblum 's feed this morning.

I don’t think they have even bothered to update the article at all. No new info - not even a top and tail exit to put last years speak into context or to reflect on what has happened since.

All very odd. Maybe they are dredging up stuff to remind people of PH as the ANL judgement is due - so maybe just click bait ahead of achieving higher click bait in the coming weeks.

Apologies everyone for my plop and go! , @Indianrollerbirdis correct this story has appeared as a new one today on my Apple News feed and because I only read the title and the first paragraph ( worded in a very naughty way!) i didn’t see the February date! Screenshots attached to see what i saw!

The article is about Harry never voting and not having a specific political leaning. I wonder if this is being published again to butter up the people of Birmingham before the Invictus junket rolls into the city? Hoping the public there will believe he doesn't have any beef with any particular side of the political divide.