PR disasters thread 30

[BigWillyLittleTodger]

Flying through these threads at a rate of knots! A shiny new thread for yet more Sussex shenanigans!

In the eyes of the church, he was widowed prior to his 2nd marriage.

As PH has repeatedly acted to publicly undermine the monarchy it seems only sensible, rational and logical to remove his titles. I think it would be popular with the majority of the public. Harry already identifies as a victim so nothing much will change on that score.
As H&M seem to weaponise and exploit their kids it will probably be helpful to the children NOT to have royal titles.

It’s quite odd, the Horners are very well in with KC and QC they don’t need the HAMs to boost their royal credentials, I’m surprised they’ve pinned their flag on these two, quite short sighted of them if they want to keep in the good books of the next King and Queen.

If that were true he would have been able to marry in church

So the are issuing a furious denial that they met with the Horners.

But no furious denial about money worries, ice/visa issues and the fact that Meg won’t be living full time with her children. what a pair of oddballs.

https://www.gbnews.com/royal/harry-meghan-furious-denial-secret-lunch-geri-christian-horner-uk-return

is the opposite of megxit....meg-in?

But Camilla was divorced. So could Charles have got married on church but she would have to go somewhere else? 😆

I wasn't talking strictly in the eyes of the Church, which isn't the definition of legal marriage or legal divorce. But, if Charles was - in the eyes of the Church - still married to Diana up to the point of her death, then doesn't that mean that Camilla is still - in the eyes of the Church - married to Andrew Parker Bowles and therefore a bigamist? Or does the Church not consider Charles and Camilla to be married and they are therefore cohabiting, or even living in sin?

It is, however, true that there was lots of "controversy" both from a social angle and a Church angle, about whether somone who had been divorced could remarry and/or ascend to the throne. The fact no one remembers any of that today (well, aside from those who rip into Charles for divorcing Diana) shows just how "modernising" Charles was in that respect. That seems to be far more modernising than which of his great-grandchildren will be called a prince or princess or not.

Out of all the stories circulating about them... this is what they're choosing to respond to?

Perhaps the Hormers insisted.

Hilarious. No clap back about Visa issues, etc😂😂

That’s more likely.

The current US administration are cancelling visas with no notice.
None of us know what visa PH travelled to the US on but we can be sure he isn’t a citizen or green card holder so his visa can be canceled if the administration decides to do this.

I would imagine so. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would touch this pair. Even Kerry katona would give them a swerve

A Belgian former car salesman has just become a prince! Giving the right to children born out of wedlock to call themselves prince or princess, and we're not even talking about children of the King himself, but of his younger brother. This is modernisation of royalty by expanding who can use the princely title, even to those born out of wedlock.

"A former car salesman has become a prince after his father, Belgium's Prince Laurent, officially recognised him as his son.

"Clement Vandenkerckhove was born when Laurent had a relationship with a well-known singer and actress before he married his wife."

"The 26-year-old was finally recognised during a brief town hall ceremony in February, according to Belgium's Soirmag magazine."

"He and his 62-year-old father both signed to acknowledged paternity and with the stroke of a pen, a new Prince of Belgium was instantly created."

https://news.sky.com/story/ex-car-salesman-becomes-belgian-prince-as-father-officially-recognises-paternity-13575309

(Edit to fix link)

But even if they did have lunch with the Horners, why would it be for advice about returning?

DM were/are surely just shit stirring?

I never fail to be amazed at the stories they clap back at .

There are so many spurious stories about their money, their visas, their kids (can you imagine if they spent their time responding to every online claim that the kids don't really exist?) that there's no point bothering with them. Their visas and financial affairs are known at least to the people that matter, i.e. the authorities. The story about the Horners involves other people and so, yes, they would want to deny it if it isn't true (if the denial is genuine). I guess they don't want it to seem like they'e pretending all sorts of people are their friends unless those individuals really are their friends.

I've heard thevterm Regretsit

Archive link to H&M denial of Horner story https://archive.is/qXFua

Or Megretsit ...

😂😂

It caused a rift with Joachim although he has not been a full time working royal but pursued a military career since 1987 and now at age 57 he was worked his way through the ranks and is a Brigadier General and specialist defence attaché in Washington DC (which must be interesting in relation to Trump and Greenland)

I'm not really sure what effect it had on the eldest 2 from his first marriage (she lost her Princess title on divorce and is also styled as Countess Alexandra) Nicolai and Felix seem to be (mostly) pursuing acting/modelling/influencer careers.

The younger 2 are still at school and are living in the US so I'm not sure whether titles would really matter there (although I have read that Joachim's wife, Princess Marie, was upset and there are rumours of rivalry with the now Queen Mary).

The controversy was that remarriage after divorce with a living ex was still very new and not fully accepted by the church when Charles and Camilla married in early April 2005 - remarriage was first allowed in July 2002.

Yet it was controversial and many of the clergy opposed it - so a caveat existed that clergy could refuse to marry divorced people if it went against their conscience. This is what happened to Charles and Camilla - the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to marry them so they were forced to marry in Windsor Registry Office and have a service of blessing afterwards in the chapel. The Queen also seemed ambivalent as she didn't attend their actual civil wedding and refused permission for them to have the reception they wanted.

tbf, it's the closest the Horner's are ever going to get to associating with Royalty. They'll take what they can get at this stage.