Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

PR Disasters thread 16.

273 replies

HoldMyWine · 10/06/2026 18:55

Meghan and Harry the grift that keeps on grifting. Long may they continue. Better than any soap opera on the telly.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
IcedPurple · Yesterday 15:21

corblimeygvnr · Yesterday 15:16

What's going on here?

Beats me! It's totally bizarre!

That looks like a man's hand.

The only thing I can think of is that she photoshopped it in to make it possible for her to carry that bottle (which is not the same bottle she pours from) and the two glasses in one hand - something which is anatomically almost impossible for anyone with average female sized hands to do. But why? Does she think it looks cute or what?

DaisyDooley · Yesterday 15:26

BasiliskStare · Yesterday 14:49

@Singan - I agree with you. I haven't thought this through , so bear with me , but one I can think of who had the individual star power & the focus , was Elizabeth Taylor and her Aids charity. That's a long time ago , but one example I can think of.

Dame Elizabeth Taylor had things that H&M could only dream of.
Oodles of charisma ‘the X factor’ and star quality.
Her name was oneof the biggest in Hollywood for decades.
She had friends with deep pockets and had plenty of her own money to put in too.
She had focus and absolute passion for her foundation -she left half of her estate/wealth to it.
But the main difference ican see is that she used her star power to bring attention to the cause.
Whereas - Harry uses the cause to try and bring attention to him and his wife.

Personally I cannot cannot understand why Invictus is a thing. Its costs are extortionate. £120k per competitor involved which, when the veterans have to pay their own costs beggars the question -where is the money going?
I don’t think it will happen personally.
It should be tagged onto another ‘games’ which has the infrastructure in place. With only 500 competitors it’s hardly worth it.
I mean, the Great North run gets 60k people-120 times more while costing around £5 million.

MrsFinkelstein · Yesterday 15:29

Starryfifty · Yesterday 13:25

He looks very thin / frail

Id say the opposite tbh. I think he's actually looking a bit "paunchy", especially around the jowls. He's starting to get that traditional "Windsor" look facially. The beard is giving him the impression of a more defined jawline than he has. He definitely doesn't look as healthy as he was. He looks very tired around his eyes.

IcedPurple · Yesterday 15:34

Thedom · Yesterday 14:04

There is a sports Reddit community that I follow and they are complaining about the sports people left out of theTime 100 list, someone asked how serious is the list, and a few posters use Harry being included as an example of how unserious it is.

Some of the posters have never even HEARD of Invictus. and one poor poster thought the 63m cost was actually the prize fund LOL. Here are some of the commments,
^^
“Why shouldn't he be included? He's the founder of the Invictus Games. Last years edition had more than 500 athletes
^^
Which I've never heard of.
^^
500 doesn't sound like much. And 63 million dollar is about 1/8 of the budget of Roland Garros (the first random event I compared it with).
^^
Clearly, Harry is on the list because for some reason he's a celebrity in the US, not because he actually has any special importance in the world of sport
.
I agree that his celebrity status is a factor, but I don't but I don't agree that he has no importance in the world of sports.
His importance is very tightly coupled to combat veterans though, and that of course aligns with American values, which is most likely the primary reason
^^
I'm an american who follows basically every sport and have never heard of that shit
^^
wow 500
^^
^^
Yes. I think that's a lot considering who can participate.
It's a 63 million dollar event, with athletes from 23 different countries.
It might not matter to you, but I know a few veterans with combat wounds who have been very happy to participate.
^^
^^
Never heard of it one time. Just posting a huge prize purse and larping as a popular sport doesn't count as influence
^^
It's not the prize purse, it's the cost of hosting the event.
It's a sports event for wounded combat veterans, so it's primarily a thing in the countries who participated in the NATO operations I guess.
^^
That's even worse. He didn't even pay them.
^^
My local 5k run gets 3,000 people.
^^
^^
That's close to the participants of Paralympic’s
^^
The Paralympics at 5,000 is way more important than Invictus at 500. I shouldn't need to explain that.
^^
Of all the sports for good causes, Invictus gets a far outsized platform because countries who callously murder their soldiers in the stupidest of wars make heroes of them when they survive and need these events to keep face. That the Paralympics are not mentioned here but Invictus is exactly makes the point.
^^
Last years edition had more than 500 athletes competing.
So about as much as my local skeet shooting competition?
^^
Turns out that as an avid sports follower I hadn't heard of 57 of them (listed below). I think the problem is less so that the list is US-centric, which is to be expected, but that the journalist seem to have little clue about other sports,

Time magazine is pretty much pay per play now isn't it?

Decades past the time it was considered a serious news outlet.

And the Sussexes are clearly in favour. Remember that time they featured in their '100 Most Influential People' list? With that weird fake photo where Harry looks like a munchkin? Times are not good for Time. They can't even afford decent photoshoppers these days.

PR Disasters thread 16.
RecoIIectionsMayVary · Yesterday 15:59

corblimeygvnr · Yesterday 15:16

What's going on here?

I think it is the freakish attention to detail.

Mylovelygreendress · Yesterday 16:04

That photo of M with the glasses and wine bottle is weird but clearly not as weird as the Mother’s Day photo of Catherine and her DC which caused such a furore.
Double standards. As ever.

Not2identifying · Yesterday 16:09

That Time magazine cover photo is awful of them both. 😆

LittleMerrymaid · Yesterday 16:10

fantom · Yesterday 11:59

He looks pale and ill in that video.

Has anyone seen the new photoshopped/ AI video from MM?

I have and I thought it was a big improvement on her other advertisements - not that I realised it was photoshopped. I liked it.

The picture of them above must be one that was taken years ago because it looks nothing like them now.

Thedom · Yesterday 16:19

IcedPurple · Yesterday 15:34

Time magazine is pretty much pay per play now isn't it?

Decades past the time it was considered a serious news outlet.

And the Sussexes are clearly in favour. Remember that time they featured in their '100 Most Influential People' list? With that weird fake photo where Harry looks like a munchkin? Times are not good for Time. They can't even afford decent photoshoppers these days.

That photo is the funniest ever, someone at Time was have a laugh to use that as a cover photo 😂😂

Starryfifty · Yesterday 16:21

IcedPurple · Yesterday 15:34

Time magazine is pretty much pay per play now isn't it?

Decades past the time it was considered a serious news outlet.

And the Sussexes are clearly in favour. Remember that time they featured in their '100 Most Influential People' list? With that weird fake photo where Harry looks like a munchkin? Times are not good for Time. They can't even afford decent photoshoppers these days.

That times cover was absolutely absurd. They obviously have great connections there

fantom · Yesterday 16:31

closeup of hands

PR Disasters thread 16.
IcedPurple · Yesterday 16:31

Thedom · Yesterday 16:19

That photo is the funniest ever, someone at Time was have a laugh to use that as a cover photo 😂😂

Edited

Someone said Harry looks like a hairdresser telling Meghan what he did with her highlights!

HoldMyWine · Yesterday 16:40

Her face looks completely different now compared to that Time magazine cover. The lat few years have not been kind to either of them. Karma I guess.

OP posts:
Scorchio84 · Yesterday 16:55

fantom · Yesterday 16:31

closeup of hands

Oh my god seriously!!! 🙈

Starryfifty · Yesterday 16:58

Scorchio84 · Yesterday 16:55

Oh my god seriously!!! 🙈

What am I missing with the hands?

fantom · Yesterday 17:02

Starryfifty · Yesterday 16:58

What am I missing with the hands?

There's a finger missing.

IcedPurple · Yesterday 17:03

Starryfifty · Yesterday 16:58

What am I missing with the hands?

I was wondering the same?!?

The hand in the shot where she's walking is clearly odd, but what's off with this photo? Maybe I'm blind!

fantom · Yesterday 17:04

IcedPurple · Yesterday 17:03

I was wondering the same?!?

The hand in the shot where she's walking is clearly odd, but what's off with this photo? Maybe I'm blind!

There's just a little stump where the pinky should be.

Serenster · Yesterday 17:05

I think AI might have been employed somewhere along the line? It is notoriously bad at hands.

IcedPurple · Yesterday 17:10

fantom · Yesterday 17:04

There's just a little stump where the pinky should be.

Oh yeah. Weird.

Just why?

BasiliskStare · Yesterday 17:13

Do you know , I'm not that fussed about M photoshopping her influencer things - if it is only her. Yes Catherine did it on that one Mother's Day photo and fessed up, don't think she has since. If that's what M does to sell her wares then if people ridicule it , that's on her. She's a private citizen (except in her own mind ) I'm more critical of the constant showing the children without faces hypocrisy whilst being the faces of dangers of children with regards to SM . Those children are pretty recognisable to anyone who had a mind to recognise them. & they will have to live with what their parents have said about them on SM / interviews when they were very young. How M shows herself on her instagrams - her choice - her problem.

Does that sound too po faced - I can see it may.

ETA left out a "that" - inserted for sense .

HoldMyWine · Yesterday 17:15

IcedPurple · Yesterday 17:10

Oh yeah. Weird.

Just why?

Ah yes that is weird.

OP posts:
Treylime · Yesterday 17:25

Lol at the hand. I wish she wouldnt hoik her trousers up so high she looks like Simon Cowell.

IcedPurple · Yesterday 17:31

BasiliskStare · Yesterday 17:13

Do you know , I'm not that fussed about M photoshopping her influencer things - if it is only her. Yes Catherine did it on that one Mother's Day photo and fessed up, don't think she has since. If that's what M does to sell her wares then if people ridicule it , that's on her. She's a private citizen (except in her own mind ) I'm more critical of the constant showing the children without faces hypocrisy whilst being the faces of dangers of children with regards to SM . Those children are pretty recognisable to anyone who had a mind to recognise them. & they will have to live with what their parents have said about them on SM / interviews when they were very young. How M shows herself on her instagrams - her choice - her problem.

Does that sound too po faced - I can see it may.

ETA left out a "that" - inserted for sense .

Edited

You're right that it doesn't really 'matter' but it is so strange. I know AI and photoshop are used all the time by influencers, but this is so clumsy and obvious. The big man's hand, the missing finger, the filled glasses before she's even uncorked the bottle! It just shows that she does not have any professionals working for her anymore.

BasiliskStare · Yesterday 17:52

IcedPurple · Yesterday 17:31

You're right that it doesn't really 'matter' but it is so strange. I know AI and photoshop are used all the time by influencers, but this is so clumsy and obvious. The big man's hand, the missing finger, the filled glasses before she's even uncorked the bottle! It just shows that she does not have any professionals working for her anymore.

It is strange and amateurish - but if it is only her - well - fill your boots, M. I agree it shows there is not a well oiled machine behind her but that's her problem. If that's what she is happy to be put out she can't really complain about people speculating about the finances of As Ever , given there seems to be a lack of professionalism about these public domain photographs. Whether she thinks that is charming family photos / videos which aren't perfect or she just can't see they look clumsy - I don't know. As long as it is only her , I don't really care to be honest. But she can't expect to have no comments or criticism .