PR disasters thread 33

[BigWillyLittleTodger]

A shiny new thread for September Sussex shenanigans!

I'm trying to think if anyone else has used their children to sell candles?

They were managing to have privacy quite nicely overseas.

It was an odd choice to come back and possibly tip that apple cart.

You totally misunderstood/misread me, I was saying the Sussexes children's name could not have been kept private.

They have chosen to share some details of their children's lives yes.

I do like though that they have apparently deliberately chosen a nurturing and sort of free-range school for their children.

Obviously they couldn't keep the names secret, if only because they need to be named in the Line of Succession.

But other than that, we really don't need to know anything about the Sussex children. How often have we seen Princess Beatrice's daughters? Eugenie shares a bit more but it's usually just on family occasions like birthdays. We certainly don't see her using her children to flog candles or have them kneeling on the floor in front of her while she prepares to try on her Armani jacket.

@BasiliskStare your granny's view may be from an earlier time but I think it reflects one of the many things a lot of us (well me anyway!) heartily dislike about M and that is that she is just so tacky.

She sells what should be private.
She complains constantly.
She is unfair to others.
She prioritises herself.
She throws money around like water and often other people's money at that.
She wants constant attention.
She always assumes she is the expert.
She literally pushes other people out of the way to get what she wants.

We expect dignity above all from out RF and it is offensive to have this vulgar, self obsessed, manically materialistic and outstandingly inauthentic woman using a title which represents our country. Worse, a country which she has repeatedly mocked and criticised and brought into international disrepute.

Is the school confirmed now?

No, not that I know. My 'apparently' was based on what Tom Sykes gave away, which as I've said before could not be true or could be outdated.

But there was an interview where it was said that they were choosing a school based on it being nurturing.

I do agree with @DandyAF , in that when Archie was born , H was WRF. He could not have kept the name secret. Once his name was known , even when they bowed out it practically wasn't feasible even if they had wanted to, to keep L's name secret. So to that extent they are different from the Starmers / Clooneys etc. That said - they could have posted no photographs , not talked about the children in public , not sold candles in their name etc. So , I think they were at a disadvantage as far as privacy goes whilst they were in , immediately just out of the WRF. But I don't think they have done themselves any favours by not doing things they could ( or could not) have done to protect those children's privacy when it was entirely within their control. That's my view , others will differ. To be realistic in a year group , you only need to see have seen so many photos of the back of children's head to be able to pick them out. & that's why I think H&M's - we don't show the faces - doesn't cut it for me if you are really concerned / paranoid about your family's safety .

I love what you are saying rather

But the same needs to be said about him too.

He is as bad. And for me? He is worse. Because it is his family and his country.

As you were 🫡

Who has claimed that the Sussexes could have kept the children's names private? There's no way, because there's always an official announcement.
They are the grandchildren of the current king.
Perhaps some posters don't understand how the RF works.

He is worse. Because it is his family and his country.

Totally agree with you @unfunnyoldbastard

Oh I don't excuse him at all, he is repulsive, but she is more viscerally tacky and that was my specific point here.

Sadly we are always going to be stuck with him to some degree because he is the son of KC and a UK citizen.

I have some small hope that we can at least scrape her off at some future juncture.

Yes, I agree too.

I have some small hope that we can at least scrape her off at some future juncture.

I’m just picturing barnacles now @Ratherhaveacupofteaandabiscuit … 🥴

Quite likely a more favourable term than what you scrape off shoes I suppose.

I don't think the names could have been kept private.

However I think using the kids in Instagram and in the marketing videos for their food and home decoration brand seem contradictory in terms of the risks and privacy concerns they are now claiming.

They don'r appear to know whether they want to live quiet peaceful lives, away from press intrusion or whether they want to be Kardashians and live their lives courting the press and social media.

No, the names could never have been kept private! 😊
Other aspects of their lives, yes.

I can't imagine rugby being played in a nurturing school. I wonder if the dim duo have checked.

Gwyneth Paltrow’s V has.

So, the candles were based on her children?

I find them both as bad as each other now , previously I felt he was more to blame but now? On par.

I’m reading through the thread to catch up, and those posts are still deleted, and I’m very fucked off to find out that it’s because of Timothy Claypole, a mischievous medieval poltergeist in the long-running children’s television comedy series Rentaghost on the BBC.

Who the hell has a problem with a reference to a ghostly jester? I think we should be told.

No, her V.

What was it called though?

I like to imagine this said in a French accent - the spelling/words may be off but you’ll get the drift?

Merchezmafouffe?

And however odd and unnecessarily personal that was of her, she didn't base a candle design on her children.

Just quickly @PoppysAunt - sorry if I wasn't clear - H&M could never have kept the children's name private. I agree. It's the other things they could have done to keep them private I was trying to refer to. If I wasn't clear , apologies. Those children , however far down and however irrelevant are in the LoS so no , the names could not be kept secret . Hope I've cleared my post up 😊