PR Disasters Chapter 14

[Recklessismymiddlename]

Continuing the baton on from @Atlusvue

Honestly, the lying is off the scale, isn't it?

I came across this on reddit this morning, the clapbacks continue - this is on response to some rando on twitter calling her the Temu princess...

when contacted for comment, a spokesperson for As Ever said: "Thank you for drawing this false and defamatory tweet to our attention. For clarity, this is completely untrue; her products are not sourced from Temu."

I'd bet the price of a full gift set of dropshipped candles that I know who the spokesperson is. I wonder if dealing with a genuine divvy like Harry day in day out makes you think everyone is stupid.

Article is here.

archive.ph/sZSrk

It truly is. Yet they continue to do it. She's making a rod for her own back because her divorce book will be treated with a lot of doubt about her "truth"

I don't think anyone can trust either of them again, and it astounds me how often they do.
H&M still seem to have a prominent public role, do tours, give speeches, make social and political statements.
It's baffling.

How can saying someone sources goods from a Chinese retailer to onward sell be defamatory? China produces nearly a third of all global manufacturing for retail sales - most of her competitors will sell goods produced in China. It’s difficult to see how that would lower her estimation in the eyes of the general public (which is the test for defamation) - Meghan claims no exclusive provenance for As Ever’s goods (part from the wine and chocolate).

Oh ffs. This has to be directly from Meg. The Temu comment was a suggestion that she herself is a low value/low quality royal. Not the actual product. She's as dumb as he is

It actually quite funny. I think it’s been apparent for a while that while she may fancy herself as a player in a big game, she’s nowhere sharp enough to succeed.

I find their clapbacks funny. They often accidentally undermine themselves. A recent classic being the response to the Australian petition.

Thanks @Mylovelygreendress

Archive link to African Parks story https://archive.is/wTySQ

My regular comment here that it is the one charity for which Harry is director, not just patron, which carried different responsibilities.

Tom bower was interviewed recently. He was discussing Ingriftus. He said this is going to become a huge political headache and unfortunately H doesn't have the intelligence, diplomacy, etc to deal with it. He's way out of his depth here

She even had a book on her bookcase about Princess Diana prior to meeting Harry.

So do I, they have no idea how entertaining they are.

I agree.

My pet speculation on the unusual lack of gum-flapping from Harold is that the Yorks and their contacts were useful in helping secure the cut price deal on the house (dodgy Russian owner) and advising on the setting up of the charity grift.

I’m catching up on the thread and very much enjoying the list of lies started by @noonames . There are so, so many! How does this woman still get credulous coverage when she is such a proven liar?

This recent (2025) one really stood out to me because it proved to me how Meghan lives in her lies from moment to moment, and I think she believes what she’s saying is true in the moment because she’s a seasoned fantasist.

This was in her Jamie Kern Lima interview, where her “persona of the week” was “woman emerging from years of RF hell, finding her voice again, being “seen” and not playing the prove it game”. She gave an anecdote about the actress Yasmeen Bleeth, whom she allegedly met in the carpark outside Humphrey Yoghurt where M was allegedly working at age 13. It was all about M being brave enough to speak to YB, and YB asking M her name and being very kind to her. M was telling JKL just how important it is for young people to be “seen” in such moments which is why she always asks young fans their name. (Catherine is pretty famous for these sorts of interactions so of course M is better at this and the originator). This was all part and parcel of her “nobody teaches you how to be royal/famous” complaint (most people just behave like decent human beings, Meghan, perhaps that’s what confuses you). She talks about this encounter as if it was a serious and life changing moment in her young (13 year old) life and a teaching moment for her going forward.

The trouble is she is on film from her Suits days giving a rather different account. Her persona back then was “woman experiencing success in the acting world, a rising star who can therefore afford to be a little self deprecating and poke fun at herself”. In this version, she approaches YB and blurts out something inane, and YB just stares blankly at her for a second or two, says thanks and then walks away. Meghan slopes back into the cafe feeling really stupid. Meghan laughs heartily about this encounter.

So to add to the list, I would ask:

Which of the Yasmeen Bleeth anecdotes is true? Did you even meet her?

How did you manage to both work at the yoghurt place at the age of 13 (I believe there were child labour laws preventing this) and also “grow up on the set of Married With Children” where your dad worked?

How come you struggled so much being a royal because “nobody teaches you”, but your husband says you did royaling better than those born to it so everyone was jealous and cross with you about that?

How come you say nobody helped you, but your own flying monkey, Omid Scobie, says you turned the help offered down, one person rejected on racial grounds?

In what way had you only “found your voice” in 2025, when you didn’t stop publicly pushing your agenda and complaining publicly whilst within the RF, and haven’t stopped yakking for cash to anyone who will
listen and pay since you left the RF in 2020?

I suspect you're spot on there, jeff

If there was any good reason for their silence on the subject it would have been thought about by now, so all that's left is more dubious motivations ... something they demonstrate all too often

I know I could google it but could someone briefly explain the difference please ?

And you're right, bluegreygreen, but I said at the time that Harry was unwise to draw attention to this charity once again, and so it's proved with the stories of his involvement rehashed

Granted there's stilll Invictus - at least for now - but I do wonder just how long it'll be before all charities accept that the pair bring nothing good any more

Edited to add @bluegreygreen, that basically Patrons are honorary positions and don't involve being responsible for management, whereas Directors are legally appointed and are very much tasked with the running of whatever it is

That's exactly how I read it - more that she's a 'knock off" royal. Which is more cutting than talking about where the products are manufactured.

This is so funny - the combination of grandiosity and stupidity in that statement is quite the thing.

Yes, Harry has at least two known connections with Russian oligarchs that I can conjur up off the top of my head - and I've got a terrible memory these days, so there may well be others. There's the bloke he bought the Montecito house from, and the one who helped to finance the Israeli IDF's team entry into Invictus in 2022/23.

I have been thinking out loud for a while that Sarah F gave the Sussexes a lot of grift-tastic advice. It makes sense of why so much has gone wrong for all of them, and why the Sussexes stay so quiet about the Yorks, and why Sarah F only has ever had sickeningly sweet things to say about Meghan and Harry.

And Eugenie - what's her role in Harry's life? It used to involve introducing Harry to girlfriends. She introduced him to Cressida Bonas, and supposedly to Meghan. I am so pleased for Cressida Bonas that she backed away from all the emergent sleaze and found herself a successful career and family life in a way of which M&H can only dream. She's a real stage actor, for a start, and well-reviewed. Best revenge, and all that.

That is an astute observation. It’s not just a lack of original creativity but also depriving others of something that was unique to them.

@Indianrollerbird That's such a good post - the Yasmeen Bleeth story makes no sense whatsoever in either of its tellings!

Also, there's Meghan's much trumpeted first foray into investment with Clevr Coffee in Dec 2020 - 'The Duchess of Sussex can now add the impressive-sounding job title of ‘start-up investor’ alongside high-rolling Netflix producer and public speaker, to her post-royal repertoire' - thank you, Tatler magazine - followed and contradicted more recently by 'I've spent all my life investing in women, can I finally invest in me?' (said at that dismal 'Her Best Life' event in Sydney).

I was just thinking about the Commonwealth emblems that they could be seen as a homage to the Queen, but then someone else pointed out that nicking the Queen's pet name without asking was another example of this appropriation, and a far more egregious one. So yes, I agree, very astute.

That "can I invest in me" comment baffles me. What did she mean by it? Or is it just another facet of the gigantic, all-encompassing H&M Omnigrievance?

Dear god. Can you imagine a whole book of her word salad 😱