H and m pr disasters 34!

[jeffgoldblum]

A continuation of the exiting and entertaining shenanigans of ham….

Plus - Many people would see an invitation to the Carol Service as an act of kindness & graciousness on Catherine's part. However those of a bullying mindset, like H&M, are more likely to view it as a sign of weakness and a chink in the armour which risks encouraging future mischief making.

Catherine owes them absolutely nothing. Nor does she need to show she's the bigger person because that's already been proven. Keep Calm and Carry on Greyrocking is the best way to go.

That was after the Bashir interview, wasn't it. Very unpleasant, I remember it.

They probably haven’t packed up a house.
I dare say they’ll be renting or borrowing a furnished gaff for a while (or staying with friends or family). Didnt they say they’re planning on keeping Montecito so that Meghan can live there

Once they find a permanent home here they’ll either buy it furnished or buy all new stuff. There’ll be no “I wonder if the old dining room curtains will fit Archie’s new bedroom” kind of process.
And as for clothes - they’ll need all
nee stuff for a British winter anyway so would only have brought the mimimim.
Ditto the kids’ toys. I bet they were allowed to bring their favourite teddy and that was it.

But they had a framed photograph of Gloria Steinem readily available?!!!!

Yes, that's one way it might be possible, @MrsFinkelstein.

For clarity, I wasn't 'pushing forgiveness' or suggesting that the Sussexes should be invited to the concert.
It had just occurred to me that it was an event where extended family members attended but was purely a public setting, so there could be no possibility of 'misinterpreted' private conversations.

I have been very supportive of the Wales' grey rock technique to date, so hope they will continue to do what they think is right.

How convenient!!!

TBH, I find that highly amusing. In the normal course of life we don't recognize or use royal/nobility titles here in the US so the customs official would not be required to or expected to use her title. In the normal US way, at her age she would have been correctly addressed as 'ma'am', a younger woman is usually addressed as 'miss'.

Maybe it was the ma'am thing that got her goat since you know you've crossed the 'age-Rubicon' when you go from miss to ma'am. A river I crossed many years ago, sigh.

Well, I got called 'dear' by a bus driver recently! Wait till that happens to M . . . . . .

I think cutting them off completely is the best. IMO it is inevitable they will do another freedom flight style round of interviews/ documentary/ book etc

A bizarre thought because I don't believe H&M will settle in the UK. If they moved to Australia, which has already been hinted at, I believe they are unlikely to settle there as there is already a lot of antipathy towards them. So where else could they go? I think they've burned an awful lot of bridges in the USA

Would settling in Portugal be an option? Or give Canada another try?

I thought the story went something along the lines that M played the "oh, I'm really Sussex now" card at Border and so the Officer questioned the accuracy/validity of the passport she had presented for entry into the US, since that was still in her maiden name

No idea if it's true but the fact it sounds credible is a maybe a bit of an indicator of how people think she might behave.

I think best thing for them would be to knuckle down and live a very private life in UK or Portugal, enjoy their young children and foster healthy relationships for them. It's very doable but unfortunately a private life is not what they want.

Shouldn’t the children have started school
by now? Or is it this week?

They can't just rock up in random countries and take up residence. They would need visas.

Sure, they're rich so this might not be an issue. But the same problems will follow them wherever they go. Their lack of any purpose in life, their desperate need for status, their wish to live an A list life without the means to do so. That won't change whether they're in Australia or Portugal or California.

Wherever you go, there you are.

You can’t say a bad word about the weak, pathetic enabler KC without being jumped on by some posters. Not sure why. I just ignore them!

I agree. It's amazing how little time it can take to move lock, stock, and barrel.

I managed, on a much, much smaller scale, to move twice in 72 hours, home to storage to new home. A crew came in and packed for me, moved it, then moved it again and unpacked it. And I'm not a HNW person.

I imagine someone who is simply leaving one residence pretty much 'intact' and moving to a new furnished residence and who has the wherewithal to pay for it, would simply pack a few bags (or have staff do it) and hire someone to pack the rest once they've found their 'permanent' home.

I think it's doubtful that KC knew anything more than that they were 'thinking of it'. They would have been putting out feelers before making so big a move. I'm sure he murmured something about getting to know the children better that could have been taken for approval. Even if he'd given them a list of 'dos and don'ts' they wouldn't have listened. After all, doesn't he know who they are?

Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

HAM reminds me of a person I worked with who simply felt the rules and polite conventions we all observe didn't apply to him. We used to joke about him that any instructions he was given, any signs he saw he saw the words 'except for 'John'' tacked on to the end. "No Parking <except for 'John'>, the workday here starts at 8 am <except for John>. You get the drift.

I remember that.

I just don’t think anyone in the RF did.

i wonder if he went rogue in order to try to defend his friend and made a god-awful mess of it.

I just don’t think it would have been sanctioned as such.

But she only has to bring the photos.

It seems that any old frame will do. Maybe she has a rotating frame for useful snaps/occasions?

How resourceful! ☺️

Since they've always 'guarded their children's privacy faces fiercely', I wonder if a diktat that 'in keeping with the rest of the children' AnL would not be allowed to wear masks, huge hats, deep hoods or whatever.

Would that keep HAM away or would it be the best and biggest possible venue for a 'reveal' of their children's faces?

If the HAMs didn’t get an invite to the Carol concert when they lived abroad personally I don’t see any reason why Catherine should feel pressure or obligation to invite them just because they now reside in this country, nothing has changed but their location, location was never the issue.

I just saw a tweet by Smart Works (the charity that provides women going back into the workplace with suitable work clothes) that they’re excited to welcome Meghan, their patron, back in the UK. The RF website still features Harry and Meghan, and on Meghan’s page is a photo and description of her Smart Works patronage. If Meghan does a single thing for Smart Works now that she’s back, I think we can assume “half in, half out” has happened.

The same part of Charles that allows community sharing and openness and becoming Defender of All Faiths (to reference another thread that’s ongoing right now) is what’s stopping him from drawing a line under Harry and therefore Meghan.

That's a good question. It's a matter of when, not if. Interestingly, the children's faces were shown at first when they were babies and toddlers, if you think about Archie's christening, meeting Archbishop Tutu, him featuring on the Christmas card, Lilibet's first birthday etc.

That's interesting. It gets ever more complicated, doesn't it? I suppose Meghan wants to reconnect with the charity, so that's their call? Muddies the waters though, as you say.

He criticised Diana during their estrangement rather than after her death
Nicholas Soames - Wikipedia

In 1970, he was appointed equerry to Charles, Prince of Wales (now Charles III); he has remained a close friend of the King ever since,[5] and publicly criticised Diana, Princess of Wales, during the couple's estrangement. When Diana first accused the Prince of Wales of adultery with Camilla Parker Bowles, Soames told the BBC that the accusation, and Diana's fear of being slandered by her husband's courtiers, stemmed merely from Diana's mental illness, and "the advanced stages of paranoia". Charles later admitted his adultery and Soames apologised.

I don't think anyone would have dared criticise her just after her death; they'd have been crucified in public opinion and the media.