Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

PR Disasters thread 20

1000 replies

OctopusFriend · 02/07/2026 20:13

More to chat about

OP posts:
Thread gallery
31
RecoIIectionsMayVary · 05/07/2026 11:19

notimagain · 05/07/2026 11:13

Depends in the perceived threat, which we don't know.

There are certainly good reasons for using them from a security POV in certain circumstances, but probably hard to use security to justify using one to e.g. London>Brum and return

But statically they are a very unsafe means of transport.

Perceived by them, and actual are very different.

Passingthrough123 · 05/07/2026 11:20

shockthemonkey · 05/07/2026 11:16

No way!!! Where are you reading those stories, @Passingthrough123 ?

https://www.aol.com/articles/kate-middleton-trying-convince-prince-155600000.html

Mylovelygreendress · 05/07/2026 11:23

Passingthrough123 · 05/07/2026 11:19

Can you imagine the trauma some of the veterans might be suffering on reading the headlines that the event could be a terrorist target? The idea they could end up in another bomb blast? It's so irresponsible of Harry to leak that possibility for the sake of positive press when these veterans have already experienced so many horrors.

Ah yes , the veterans . Remember them ?

Aprilfountain · 05/07/2026 11:32

Mylovelygreendress · 05/07/2026 11:23

Ah yes , the veterans . Remember them ?

The poor veterans; really they are just being used as canon fodder at this point, in Harry's incessant war against the Royal Family, the press and Ravec.

Sophiecunninghamsfinger · 05/07/2026 11:32

My experience of people like this is that they continue to be wankers even if you offer an olive branch. There's no point plus I don't believe for one second that Catherine would initiate this. She has a family to protect - her husband, children and father in law.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/07/2026 11:34

Invictus are also apparently demanding Harry turns up to drum up some sponsors for the struggling IG27

If so, I'm not sure what use they think this would be, @Lunde. It may have worked once, but it defeats me what attraction Harry would be to sponsors now

That's why it seems ridiculous that the Invictus trustees still keep him onboard. Who ARE these people ... all "pals" of Harry (if he's still got any) or not? And if not, why can they apparently not see what practically everyone else does?

AnAutumnCrow · 05/07/2026 11:42

notimagain · 05/07/2026 11:13

Depends in the perceived threat, which we don't know.

There are certainly good reasons for using them from a security POV in certain circumstances, but probably hard to use security to justify using one to e.g. London>Brum and return

Ah but, you never know - someone might look at Harry in a funny way at the Invictus thanksgiving service and he’ll need to be extracted, just like in London Has Fallen. Which is one of his favourite movies. And he’s got the custom campaign mission in his CoD: Modern Warfare X Box game library. He’s ready.

MyDogClive · 05/07/2026 11:43

My experience of people like this is that they continue to be wankers even if you offer an olive branch. There's no point plus I don't believe for one second that Catherine would initiate this. She has a family to protect - her husband, children and father in law.

More pertinently, she has other, more interesting stuff going on and I doubt she gives HAM much headspace. Other than having a good laugh and rolling her eyes at the latest made up attempt at relevancy.

bluegreygreen · 05/07/2026 11:45

Yes, clearly from the Sussex camp. They have used Us Weekly before.

"At this time, William is not planning to be there, but things could change. Kate has been trying to convince William to meet with Harry, Meghan, and the kids," the insider told Us Weekly.

Us Weekly story https://archive.is/WQqSb

The source adds, “She is hoping that William will show up, but she will respect his decision.”

“This is not on William’s timeline, it’s on Harry’s,” the source alleges.

Mylovelygreendress · 05/07/2026 11:47

Is there anyone involved in Invictus who has the courage to tell H and M to fuck off ?

notimagain · 05/07/2026 11:48

AnAutumnCrow · 05/07/2026 11:42

Ah but, you never know - someone might look at Harry in a funny way at the Invictus thanksgiving service and he’ll need to be extracted, just like in London Has Fallen. Which is one of his favourite movies. And he’s got the custom campaign mission in his CoD: Modern Warfare X Box game library. He’s ready.

Yep, the security angle is all frankly very weird..

TBF in certain circumstances in certain countries the rich and famous will cut around in helicopters due security concerns, not just to avoid traffic jams.

Problem is someone in H's security set up seems to have tried, possibly been briefed, to portray the UK as one of those countries....

AnAutumnCrow · 05/07/2026 11:50

Aprilfountain · 05/07/2026 11:32

The poor veterans; really they are just being used as canon fodder at this point, in Harry's incessant war against the Royal Family, the press and Ravec.

I wonder if he will ever be interviewed and asked about any of this, or will every interviewer continue to stay supine.

I’m thinking that journalists are not going to get sacked any more for challenging the Sussexes.

bluegreygreen · 05/07/2026 11:55

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/07/2026 11:34

Invictus are also apparently demanding Harry turns up to drum up some sponsors for the struggling IG27

If so, I'm not sure what use they think this would be, @Lunde. It may have worked once, but it defeats me what attraction Harry would be to sponsors now

That's why it seems ridiculous that the Invictus trustees still keep him onboard. Who ARE these people ... all "pals" of Harry (if he's still got any) or not? And if not, why can they apparently not see what practically everyone else does?

I've been thinking about this.

I don't know the regulations (either Charity Commission or other legal requirements) around removing a charity patron.

We do know that Harry objected strenuously (to the extent of allegedly using charity money on legal action) to any attempt at reducing his influence on the Sentebale board.

I think Invictus is even more important to him than Sentebale was. The trustees may already be trying to remove him, but I suspect if they are it may get messy.

jeffgoldblum · 05/07/2026 11:59

AnAutumnCrow · 05/07/2026 11:50

I wonder if he will ever be interviewed and asked about any of this, or will every interviewer continue to stay supine.

I’m thinking that journalists are not going to get sacked any more for challenging the Sussexes.

It’s not the risk of sacking @AnAutumnCrow, it’s the fact both him and Meghan refuse to do interviews with anyone who doesn’t agree to pre prepared questions or that might challenge them.

Mylovelygreendress · 05/07/2026 11:59

Any update on Africa Parks ?
Sorry about these pesky questions!!

jeffgoldblum · 05/07/2026 12:00

Mylovelygreendress · 05/07/2026 11:59

Any update on Africa Parks ?
Sorry about these pesky questions!!

None! 🙄

Rhaidimiddim · 05/07/2026 12:01

ShamedBySiri · 05/07/2026 10:30

True but in that case the Earl would be entirely within his rights to say No Visit then. Why should his privacy and security be compromised? I wouldn’t allow Meghan access to the grave either. She never knew Diana. She isn’t family. I just wouldn’t allow it.

And IIRC Diana asked her brother whether she could have a pied-a-terre at Althorp, and he refused because of the media circus she'd (unintentionally, but inevitably, nonetheless) bring with her, which would compromise his family.

Rhaidimiddim · 05/07/2026 12:04

Passingthrough123 · 05/07/2026 11:15

It's definitely about adjacency. They will want to spin the narrative that Project Thaw is happening, and that their paths might have crossed with William and Kate given the proximity and that all was dandy. Where do you think the stories in the US came from this week that Kate was apparently pushing William to make peace with Harry and was desperate for her kids to meet their cousins? Utter bollocks from the Sussex camp again.

Last time (or last time but one) that he was over he stayed in a Hotel outside Ascot very close to the Wales' children's school, and very convenient for a drop-in at W & C's then house.

Passingthrough123 · 05/07/2026 12:08

Rhaidimiddim · 05/07/2026 12:04

Last time (or last time but one) that he was over he stayed in a Hotel outside Ascot very close to the Wales' children's school, and very convenient for a drop-in at W & C's then house.

Did he?! I hadn't read that. That must've been deliberate too.

But why is he so desperate to reconcile with someone he clearly dislikes, if Spare and his interviews are anything to go by.

AnAutumnCrow · 05/07/2026 12:11

jeffgoldblum · 05/07/2026 11:59

It’s not the risk of sacking @AnAutumnCrow, it’s the fact both him and Meghan refuse to do interviews with anyone who doesn’t agree to pre prepared questions or that might challenge them.

Fair point - but it’s such a crazy situation! It really ought to be the other way round for organisations like the BBC - they should be refusing to interview the Sussexes under such biased circumstances.

I do hope that they are looking hard at ‘journalists’ like Relph. There’s having sources on the one hand - they all play the game to some extent, I’m not naive - and then there’s the selling out of the BBC’s impartiality and credibility in a period where the new DG’s supposed to be cleaning house.

As for ITV’s Chris Ship - that’s just shit journalism by any standard. ITV News must have codes, too. They’re regulated, I believe.

I hope the balance is now tipping away from the pro-monarchist Sussexes’ inexplicable power.

DJPJ · 05/07/2026 12:14

MyDogClive · 05/07/2026 11:43

My experience of people like this is that they continue to be wankers even if you offer an olive branch. There's no point plus I don't believe for one second that Catherine would initiate this. She has a family to protect - her husband, children and father in law.

More pertinently, she has other, more interesting stuff going on and I doubt she gives HAM much headspace. Other than having a good laugh and rolling her eyes at the latest made up attempt at relevancy.

Just read up on High Conflict Personality - I think this perfectly describes PH.

“A high-conflict personality (HCP) refers to an individual who consistently engages in blame, struggles to manage emotions, and habitually intensifies or prolongs conflicts. Though not a formal clinical diagnosis, the concept is widely used in legal and mental health fields.

Characteristics:
Preoccupation with Blaming: They rarely take responsibility, deflecting fault onto a specific "Target of Blame".

All-or-Nothing Thinking: Situations and people are viewed in extremes (perfect or terrible), leaving little room for compromise.

Unmanaged Emotions: They often react with intense, disproportionate anger or distress.

Extreme Behaviors: They may resort to actions that the vast majority of people would avoid, such as stalking, aggressive harassment, or extreme manipulation

These traits are often linked to or overlap with Cluster B personality disorders (such as narcissistic, borderline, and antisocial personality disorders)

How to Manage Interactions:
Dealing with someone who has an HCP requires a completely different approach from standard conflict resolution:

Use the BIFF Method: When responding to their messages, ensure your communication is Brief, Informative, Friendly, and Firm.

Set Rigid Boundaries: Define exactly what behavior you will and will not accept, and stick to the consequences when those boundaries are crossed.

Do Not Defend or Justify: Arguing or attempting to prove them wrong will usually only escalate the situation.”

I think the RF have the measure of him and although it’s a hideous emotional toll to deal with such a family member if you have a consistent strategy you can bump along from one issue to the next without inadvertently escalating it.

DJPJ · 05/07/2026 12:22

Passingthrough123 · 05/07/2026 12:08

Did he?! I hadn't read that. That must've been deliberate too.

But why is he so desperate to reconcile with someone he clearly dislikes, if Spare and his interviews are anything to go by.

$$$$$$$$$

jeffgoldblum · 05/07/2026 12:23

AnAutumnCrow · 05/07/2026 12:11

Fair point - but it’s such a crazy situation! It really ought to be the other way round for organisations like the BBC - they should be refusing to interview the Sussexes under such biased circumstances.

I do hope that they are looking hard at ‘journalists’ like Relph. There’s having sources on the one hand - they all play the game to some extent, I’m not naive - and then there’s the selling out of the BBC’s impartiality and credibility in a period where the new DG’s supposed to be cleaning house.

As for ITV’s Chris Ship - that’s just shit journalism by any standard. ITV News must have codes, too. They’re regulated, I believe.

I hope the balance is now tipping away from the pro-monarchist Sussexes’ inexplicable power.

You would hope so!!
im convinced that the 1 million donation was a bribe! BBC are no longer to be trusted.

Recklessismymiddlename · 05/07/2026 12:28

Lunde · 05/07/2026 12:15

The comments are not kind.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread