Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

PR Disasters thread 16.

1000 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
61
Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/06/2026 10:05

Thanks to everyone who replied about other parents possibly taking pictures of the kids, and yes it's a very fair point about media not necessarily purchasing/printing them even if they did

Good job really, because while I fully accept that many may resist taking them if asked, it certainly doesn't work for some in the UK
How many threads have we seen where people try to discuss this with folk who insist it's "only for their own use", knowing perfectly well it'll soon be all over their SM? Hmm

jeffgoldblum · 14/06/2026 10:06

Thedom · 14/06/2026 07:51

Like most people I really can’t be bothered with a ChatGPT discourse.

Yes , too long , too pointless, too full of nonsense! 🤷‍♀️

Lunde · 14/06/2026 10:27

Recklessismymiddlename · 14/06/2026 06:58

It’s not a fantasy. I think it’s an another dig at at the U.K.

It's an attempted dig - but we see more of the Sussex children than the Wales children.

The Wales children appear for a few standard photo calls - Christmas, Easter, Birthdays, Trooping the Colour (previously 1st day at school but I'm not sure they've done this since 2022). But the rest of the time they are left alone - they are not harassed at sports games/birthday parties etc. And you notice they are never photographed inside their home,

The Sussex children are all over social media on the As Ever selling page or Meghan's personal Instagram. Then they are photographed (papped) in those grainy pictures at Halloween or 4th of July - but here you know that these pap shows are approved for release by at least one parent owing to California Law.

shockthemonkey · 14/06/2026 10:29

MyAutumnCrow · 13/06/2026 23:54

All this is another reason why their story is so fascinating. There's something almost epic about it, almost like a modern version of Aesop's Fables.The cable TV actress who thought she could take on the crown and win. And now she's selling matches on the internet.

Something else that I find fascinating is that neither of them, I’m convinced, would know what Aesop’s Fables are without recourse to the internet; yet think of themselves as ‘global thought leaders’.

I’d love an interviewer to sit with these two ‘writers’ with their multi-book deal, and ask them properly about their literary interests and not soft soap it. Harry can only learn so many rehearsed lines.

You made me think of a clip available online where Trump, having proudly declared himself to be well-read, faces some uncomfortable questions from his interviewer. Oh, what sort of works do you read usually? « Actually… I’m… erm… long pause… I think I’d say The Bible ». Ah, interesting, which book of the Bible is your favourite? Trump looking increasingly annoyed and bothered says « well actually that’s a deeply personal question I’m not going to answer ». It is fun to watch him go from embarrassed to very very angry (cos he knows he’s been caught out)

LipglossAndLies · 14/06/2026 10:35

IcedPurple · 14/06/2026 09:10

Yes, I've said something similar.

The relevant comparison to the Sussex kids is not the Wales kids, but the York sisters' children. And we hardly ever see them, because we don't need to. Eugenie has shown the occasional back of head photos of her boys but Beatrice hasn't shared photos at all. Certainly neither has felt the need to post near weekly videos and photos, like Meghan does with her kids.

And no, obscuring their faces doesn't cancel this out.

It doesn't matter who you compare to, the point is having the agency to control what you share instead of it being out of your hands and other people deciding.

So they all basically now have that, some share a little more, some don't share at all.

So what exactly is the problem then? We all get to decide what privacy means for us and our children.

LipglossAndLies · 14/06/2026 10:36

Lunde · 14/06/2026 10:27

It's an attempted dig - but we see more of the Sussex children than the Wales children.

The Wales children appear for a few standard photo calls - Christmas, Easter, Birthdays, Trooping the Colour (previously 1st day at school but I'm not sure they've done this since 2022). But the rest of the time they are left alone - they are not harassed at sports games/birthday parties etc. And you notice they are never photographed inside their home,

The Sussex children are all over social media on the As Ever selling page or Meghan's personal Instagram. Then they are photographed (papped) in those grainy pictures at Halloween or 4th of July - but here you know that these pap shows are approved for release by at least one parent owing to California Law.

All over? Where? How many times? Are there daily pictures? How often are we talking here? I only see a few occasional moments just like the Wales children..as you say.

IcedPurple · 14/06/2026 10:44

LipglossAndLies · 14/06/2026 10:35

It doesn't matter who you compare to, the point is having the agency to control what you share instead of it being out of your hands and other people deciding.

So they all basically now have that, some share a little more, some don't share at all.

So what exactly is the problem then? We all get to decide what privacy means for us and our children.

So why did you make the comparison if it doesn't matter?

And why are you continuing to make it?

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 14/06/2026 10:50

Mylovelygreendress · 13/06/2026 23:14

M said there was no way Archie could go to school in the U.K. as there would be about 50 paps waiting every day .
In her dreams.

It is another example of how they are lost in the past.

They still think of 'paps' as they were before the digital camera, and definitely before AI/Photoshop.

The days of large numbers of self employed men blindly taking photos before rushing home to their dark room to see if they have a saleable picture are long gone.

KilkennyCats · 14/06/2026 10:55

So what exactly is the problem then? We all get to decide what privacy means for us and our children
Is that the same as “This is MY truth, it doesn’t matter if it’s at odds with THE truth”?

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 14/06/2026 10:59

And you notice they are never photographed inside their home

This is important, they aren't the only working children. By having the line between public and private it helps protect them.

Further back it said about Harry marrying someone else, but that we wouldn't want to wish him on anyone else. I genuinely think he would have been different with a different wife. That is not at all blaming M for him, but different people bring out different sides. The sides that connected for H&M brought out the worst in H.

Recklessismymiddlename · 14/06/2026 11:00

I think they bring out the worst in each other. Folie a deux.

IcedPurple · 14/06/2026 11:00

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 14/06/2026 10:50

It is another example of how they are lost in the past.

They still think of 'paps' as they were before the digital camera, and definitely before AI/Photoshop.

The days of large numbers of self employed men blindly taking photos before rushing home to their dark room to see if they have a saleable picture are long gone.

Absolutely.

Not only have regulations about photographing children tightened up considerably in recent years, but the whole economy around 'paps' has changed. There's no real money in random photos of celebrities just doing normal stuff these days. The days of 'paps' camping out in order to snap a photo of this actress going to the hairdressers or that footballer going for a night out are long gone. But Meghan is always years if not decades behind trend.

noonames · 14/06/2026 11:07

LipglossAndLies · 14/06/2026 10:35

It doesn't matter who you compare to, the point is having the agency to control what you share instead of it being out of your hands and other people deciding.

So they all basically now have that, some share a little more, some don't share at all.

So what exactly is the problem then? We all get to decide what privacy means for us and our children.

This doesn’t make any sense - if they didn’t post pictures of their children, nobody else would. They are choosing to make their non consenting children the subject of online attention. And I think the problem for many people is the hypocrisy of simultaneous posing as champions of online safety for children, while exploiting their own children online for attention and commercial gain. Not just their own children either - don’t forget they used photos with seriously ill children as an advertising tool for Meghan’s clothes.

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 14/06/2026 11:10

I've just watched the Trouping of the Colour posted on Instagram by the Wales. I would love to be on that balcony or in a carriage.

PH must miss that, he must have imagined his children in a carriage, and together on the balcony.

MyAutumnCrow · 14/06/2026 11:17

LipglossAndLies · 14/06/2026 10:35

It doesn't matter who you compare to, the point is having the agency to control what you share instead of it being out of your hands and other people deciding.

So they all basically now have that, some share a little more, some don't share at all.

So what exactly is the problem then? We all get to decide what privacy means for us and our children.

Well, according to your posts about the matter this morning, if what W&C do works so fine, then Harry & Meghan could have stayed in the UK and done that, couldn’t they?

You can’t have it both ways.

MyAutumnCrow · 14/06/2026 11:23

And the thought of those two gauche pissheads chucking their money away on pretensions like having a ‘global press secretary’ has always been funny and always will be Grin

jeffgoldblum · 14/06/2026 11:27

MyAutumnCrow · 14/06/2026 11:23

And the thought of those two gauche pissheads chucking their money away on pretensions like having a ‘global press secretary’ has always been funny and always will be Grin

🤣 , couldn’t put it better!

IcedPurple · 14/06/2026 11:30

MyAutumnCrow · 14/06/2026 11:23

And the thought of those two gauche pissheads chucking their money away on pretensions like having a ‘global press secretary’ has always been funny and always will be Grin

Don't forget the 'chief of staff'.

All serving the Office of the Duke and Duchess.

jeffgoldblum · 14/06/2026 11:33

Let’s not forget being announced by her titles to an empty room!!! 🤣 , I’m never not going to be amused by that! 🤣

Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/06/2026 11:36

They still think of 'paps' as they were before the digital camera, and definitely before AI/Photoshop

I get where you're coming from, @RecollectionsMayVary, though I'm not sure they "think" at all in the way the word's generally used

The whole approach seems to me more like ill judged, hasty and emotive reactions to whatever they've decided the latest snub is, though without the ability to plan anything which would avoid everything going south in the first place

The thought of those two gauche pissheads chucking their money away on pretensions like having a ‘global press secretary’ has always been funny and always will be

Edited to add this is the sort of thing I mean, @MyAutumnCrow; the whole thing's based on pretence, with a basic inadequacy and utter lack of integrity that was always going to be noticeable - and so it's proved

BigWillyLittleTodger · 14/06/2026 11:39

MyAutumnCrow · 14/06/2026 11:23

And the thought of those two gauche pissheads chucking their money away on pretensions like having a ‘global press secretary’ has always been funny and always will be Grin

Global press secretary really jumped the shark in that post didn’t it 😂 let alone thinking that a two bit influencer who can’t even sell tat online and her permanently aggrieved jobless husband are in anyway comparable to the future King and Queen of the United Kingdom is hilarious.

jeffgoldblum · 14/06/2026 11:43

All joking aside, this fervent attempt at a defence would ring less hollow, less hypocritical, if M hadn’t recently stood on a roundabout lecturing us all about the danger of sm to children ( after previously posting a picture of her own child!) , no amount of wordy comments can make people not remember the behaviour that they have seen with their own eyes! 🤷‍♀️

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 14/06/2026 11:46

stood on a roundabout

Another line that will never cease to be funny.

Grrrpredictivetex · 14/06/2026 11:50

There’s a video on X of Harry last night I think at a basketball game. He approached Spike Lee to shake his hand and got a finger pointing response. Word was Harry had used Spike Lees name online as an alias without permission and he wasn’t best pleased.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/06/2026 11:51

jeffgoldblum · 14/06/2026 11:43

All joking aside, this fervent attempt at a defence would ring less hollow, less hypocritical, if M hadn’t recently stood on a roundabout lecturing us all about the danger of sm to children ( after previously posting a picture of her own child!) , no amount of wordy comments can make people not remember the behaviour that they have seen with their own eyes! 🤷‍♀️

Spot on as usual, jeff, though a member of the RF - however distant - berating us for something they do themselves is a well worn path

Trouble is they seem to expect us to overlook this when it suits, so we're back with pretence and some kind of weird faith in people who IMO have done absolutely nothing to deserve it

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.