PR disasters thread 18

[NormalAuntFanny]

Since I finished off the last one by accident here is a shiny new 999 posts which might last us until the end of the heatwave

.

Why thankyou @BigWillyLittleTodger and. @Indianrollerbird! It’s always nice to know you are not suffering from heat induced paranoia! 😁

Every single time it’s brought up it’s by a fan, and every single time it has been shut down by us regulars. There’s at least 2 posters who
like to place these MN threads in the same ballpark as celebitchy and similar. They can never provide the proof of where all these posts are when asked. They just slink off then pop up again on the next thread, spreading the same misinformation. They’re like a pair of “ complicated poltergeists”, apparating to throw knives and chairs, then disappearing just as quickly.

They can never provide the proof of where all these posts are when asked

It's the latest iteration of "You're all racist", @Indianrollerbird; ask them to identify which posts were racist and answer comes there none

Really not worth engaging with ...

Yet there’s plenty of evidence of H’s racist behaviour. Funny that.

I don't want to ask on the other thread @Indianrollerbird (for obvious reasons) but will ask here - do you know if the recent result for the Marquess of Bath would apply to the royal line of succession?
Or would there need to be a separate legal case if it ever arose?

(Not saying it currently is relevant, but have been wanting to know since the judgement.)

i’m sure that Meghan and an expensive PR team have sat down to work out a whole storyboard to generate interest in their visit

Where will they stay
Will they bring he kids
Will they meet the family
Will the kids meet their cousins
are Catherine and William being the meanies holding up a joyful reunion because of Catherine’s coldness or William’s temper or both
Could they do some international royal duties as the royals are stretched
Will they show the kids faces
how Diana felt Harry would make a better King

Close to the time, fears for their safet
need fot security
perbaps checking out schools as Harry is keep for the kids to have a British education

fuck all about invictus and what if does.

Anything other PR storyline I’m missing

Meghan offered role in new James Bond film as M ?

It’s doubtful @bluegreygreen, the rules for the monarchy are more strict owing to the position people in the LOS could hold! , titles and inheritance is a less problematic issue.

I don't know the ins and outs of that case, but I highly doubt it. The Bath estate is presumably held under a private family trust and therefore how it passes is a matter for trusts law. Trusts law is mostly made up of common law (ie, rules derived from caselaw over the years). It's based on the principle of "equity", which looks at what the intention of those creating the trust must have been - it can be quite malleable with changing times, and I assume that's what happened in the Bath case - that the court looked at the language of the family trust and interpreted whether it would cover an heir born in these circumstances. Whereas the rules of succession to the throne are governed by statute/ constitutional law - the Act of Succession 1701 is where the rules are about the heir needing to be "born of the body". Of course a statute can be amended by Parliament, and maybe the Bath case will prompt Parliament to look at modern day birthing alternatives, availability of DNA testing etc, and decide a 300 year old statute on succession needs to be updated.

There certainly is, MyAutumnCrow, but for those who seem to find it inconvenient that Meghan chose to overlook it, the subject appears unwelcome

I know. In an ideal world, grey rocking these people would be the best course of action as it is a tediously recurrent claim made by repeat offenders each time. However, I find it rather hard not to challenge them and ask them to prove what they are claiming!

Winning The case has brought a new headache for the Bath family. The child born by surrogacy in USA has dual citizenship and they have now realised there are serious tax issues for US citizens in the UK and have lawyers scurrying around working out how to protect the wealth. 😉

There’s probably a few other wealthy child purchasers who might find themselves in the same position.

In other news, Althorp (usually open to the public over the summer months) appears to be closed for 2 days in July coinciding with the Sussex visit. This is being described as "highly unusual". Is this an indication they are heading there with a film crew?

Yes they may be visiting Eton for Archie - he would overlap there with Louis at least (if he went) or they could just enrol Archie elsewhere if Louis didn’t go to Eton.

God I hope not, how distasteful if so.

Maybe it’s closed to stop them getting in!

😂

Thank you, that makes sense.

Ha ha @jeffgoldblum - I hadn't seen the H&M children being real thread - had a peek , & I'm not going in. Just like I wouldn't split up with my friends in a spooky house. Not worth it. I think the premise is bollocks by the way & whilst I think H&M can be subject to criticism for things they have put out themselves , I'm swerving that thread. I also BTW ( in case anyone interested ) am sceptical 😉about secret alien autopsies. But , just my opinion 😂

Very wise @BasiliskStare. I was more stupid than I would be in a spooky house 🤦🏻‍♀️

It is said that Althorp regularly closes on July 10/11 although a poster on Reddit claims to have looked at past opening periods and that there were no closures.
I don’t think Charles Spencer would be closing it for a whole weekend for the Sussexes.
I wonder if there is some other anniversary or something that makes those dates significant.

I just wanted to say that this is correct. The Marquess of Bath’s case was, strictly speaking, an application by the trustees of the various family trusts that hold the Longleat and Thynn family estates and assets (in which the current Marquess Ceawlin Thynn has an interest for the term of his life but then the benefit passes to his heirs) to recognise his second son as one of the beneficiaries.

Interestingly, the judge acknowledged that he would not decide whether or not
the second son Henry was in fact excluded from the trusts, as that would require consideration of matters which were entirely novel in English law. This was because the law of trust is centuries old, and surrogacy technology relatively new, so no courts have made any decisions on this point. The judge instead started from the position that there must be some doubt as to whether Henry was among the beneficiaries, and concluded that it would be proper for the trustees to exercise their powers to include him.

Anyway - based on this you can’t say the law doesn’t recognise children born by surrogate pregnancies in the rules governing inheritance - as the judge pointed out, it has never come up in the past authorities, so this has never actually been decided.

I see the twins, Lady Amelia and Lady Eliza were born on 10th July.

Maybe he puts on a big birthday bash for them every year. 🤔
Althorp is only open in July and August, and at least two of his other children were born in different months so wouldn't need a closure for a big party.

Interesting that the AI answer refers to a “regular” closure. I can’t see reference to this on the Althorp website, and MSM is describing it as unusual. However, closing for the twins’ birthdays makes perfect sense.

Althorp is apparently on Facebook and Instagram, if anyone was inclined to look and see if last year they closed on the same dates..