Ham pr disasters 36! The clap backs continue!

[jeffgoldblum]

A continuation of our continuing discussion of our favourite private citizens! 😁

I do hope, in the middle of all the craziness, that the children have a calm time settling in to school, and find friends and wise adults.

On the one hand, of course it's better not to show the children's faces. On the other, why post all these pictures with them at all? Just leave them out completely. It's so constant, there's something contrived and performative about it. Just don't post any pics of them!

That left me speechless ~ do 5 year olds understand being asked about their "rose" and "thorn" ?!!!!!!! I think not, but I only have a sample of two Austenlets, neither of whom would have had a clue as to what this meant

I also never hid surprises in their backpacks on the 1st Friday (why the 1st Friday?) of term as I hadn't been aware that "a little nod to let them know you see them is so special" I'm wracked with guilt to think I've not done this

Just off to start an AIBU thread "AIBU not to hide surprises in my childrens' backpacks on the 1st Friday of term?"

Oh yes we haven't been putting out feelers, looking for acting jobs, putting out rumours etc . Not us 🙄 we're just packing pencil cases.

Mike Tindall’s certainly changed things round. There’s definitely been at least one tabloid event with him all over another woman. But unlike HAM I think he probably listens to the PR advice.

I don’t think kids should be wondering or not whether they’re “seen” by their parents, I think if they are then they’re having a miserable childhood. Also the kids I know would say “why’s this in my bag?” Well I thought it would be nice for you. “Why?” “To remind you that you’re seen.” “Well I didn’t see it so now it’s squashed by my art project.”

Also, it's not child appropriate language. It's devoid of clarity and meaning.

The next thread should have 'remaining in abeyance' in the title.

I have enjoyed seeing the increased use of the word.

William is usually in NYC for UN General Assembly Week for Earthshot activities that occur around that time. Just saying...

😂😂😂😂😂

It's quite delicious to imagine Harry being held back by William's police escort.

I have to pop off to cook dinner! , in my absence…
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5577034-ham-pr-disasters-37-will-the-blame-remain-in-abeyance-too?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Thank you 👍🏼!!

Yes obviously he has had a bespoke arrangement, which (seemed entirely fair and proportionate to the potential risks). However, my point being that this is a clear change, in announcing their status, from Public to private citizens, and as they are now back living in the UK, and from what I hear there will now need to be a revised assessment (I'd read this prior to the kings letter) so, does the "private citizens" tag, significantly downgrade the "public figures" as far as Ravec is concerned?

It made me think as I work with many private citizens who are at significant risk of harm (though this would be to themselves/ family etc) but would not represent risks to state security ( harry being kidnapped as pp have pointed out) Nonetheless, this argument does not appear to stand up as Taylor Swift was granted protection on one occasion, and whilst the risk may have been significant, it would appear to be a bit of a stretch that it would have been a potential "risk to the state" (obviously I don't know this for certain, but think it unlikely)

I didn't say he isn't or shouldn't be assessed by RAVEC, but the clarity of the "private citizens" just made me think, especially as HAM focused especially on this part of the kings letter.

Taylor swifts concerts were targeted by terrorists , the protection was more for the public attending than Taylor herself.

A journalist friend of mine says her favourite responsibility is keeping the Larry The Cat obituary up to date.

I feel sorry for Harry’s kids. They are sorta royal but not, and with the flakiest of parents. That’s a fairly niche and hard road to navigate.

Also estranged from virtually the whole family.

Reminds me of ultra-posh Katie Boyle writing housekeeing tips for us plebs in the ITV Times in the 1960s. False AF.

It would be lovely if A&L grew up terribly, terribly sensible - the Saffys to H&M's Edina, in AbFab terms. Nannies and boarding school are probably their best chance at this.

I have heard it said that the reason Bea and Eug are actually basically nice and sensible women is because most of the time they were being brought up by nannies and PPOs.

Sorry if it’s already been posted. I’m just catching up.
But Richard Eden has posted that Richard Branson has contacted him today he won’t be at the charity event for Ukraine.

Maybe he didn’t want to get cornered by a grifting private citizen looking for a personal donation.

https://x.com/richardaeden/status/2098042206523183262?s=46

I know someone whose parenting style is lifted from social media. She talks in a very similar way. It's all so performative and the poor child is turning into a confused and spoilt nightmare.

I'm intrigued as to whether PPO's contribute to the bringing up of Royal children?

I didn't think they were meant to get too close to their 'principals' for professional reasons?

Be difficult explaining to the kids exactly what their status is. As their parents don't even seem to know what their own status is. Your titles are in abeyance. Bit hard for a five year old to grasp.

And their parents have blown up any chance of these children spending time with their grandfather and step grandmother.

No - the government/state provides protection for some people who are none royal/politicians as well. It's much rarer and is usually on a temporary basis for a particular situation.

The thing about protection when there's an actual defined threat is that it's not some fancy A-list celebrity motorcade deal - where you swan about publicly with your 'protection detail'.

It can severely constrain your daily life. You'll be advised not to post anything online which might reveal your movements, you'll not be able to tell family and friends things in case they reveal where you are going to be. You'll have someone monitoring everywhere you go and everything you do. You won't be able to go places because it will be seen as not safe. And if you don't comply with advice you will be considered refusing the protection and it might be revoked.

When the UK government was originally protecting Salman Rushdie at the height of the fatwa danger he was shuffled between safe houses across different cities and even different countries for nearly a decade. It was so like being a prisoner that he gave up the 24/7 protection as soon as it was deemed the threat had lessened. And it must have been an awful experience because even after that terrible attack a few years ago he hasn't gone back to 24/7 protection but just heightened security for public events.