Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Ham pr disasters 57! ….continuing the confusion and controversy….

864 replies

jeffgoldblum · Yesterday 19:46

Once more into the breach dear friends!!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
MrsDanversGlidesAgain · Today 10:10

Passingthroughagain · Today 09:59

The DM have turned the comments back on after moderating them all weekend...

I imagine M's comms team are reading and weeping.

The DM commentariat aren't MM fans, to put it mildly.

nicegreenwillow · Today 10:11

CoffeeCantata · Today 10:09

I agree Diana wasn't always the best judge, but something tells me she would have disliked M on first meeting. Apart from anything else, D needed to be the star - and someone who clearly intended to be front and centre, and was prepared to use sharp elbows to get there, wouldn't have gone down well with Diana. Who knows also how she'd have taken to any women in the life of 'her boys'? She sacked Barbara Barnes for being too popular with them, and was very nasty to Tiggy.

But that's just a guess!

She wouldn't have liked either daughter in law. Too much the Queen Bee.

MajesticMeanderings · Today 10:12

SiegfriedSassoon · Today 09:57

Maybe a letterwriting kit will be the next thing to drop on As Ever 🤭

A lie detector kit might be even more useful in the circumstances . . . . . .

AtIusvue · Today 10:12

I have a feeling Diana would have been a nightmare MIL for any DIL, even Kate. I think she would want to remain the no1 woman in Harry and Wills life.

TheTwerkingDuchessOfMonteshitshow · Today 10:12

@BunnyBunbunbun Philippines was 12 until a few years ago when it was increased to 16

I believe it was 12 (now 13) if there was no more than a 3 year age difference between the 2 people having sex.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · Today 10:13

Apart from anything else, D needed to be the star - and someone who clearly intended to be front and centre, and was prepared to use sharp elbows to get there,

In effect, PH married his mother. Something a lot of us have been noticing for years.

nicegreenwillow · Today 10:14

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · Today 10:13

Apart from anything else, D needed to be the star - and someone who clearly intended to be front and centre, and was prepared to use sharp elbows to get there,

In effect, PH married his mother. Something a lot of us have been noticing for years.

They don't even hide it.

pipinghot · Today 10:16

TheTwerkingDuchessOfMonteshitshow · Today 10:12

@BunnyBunbunbun Philippines was 12 until a few years ago when it was increased to 16

I believe it was 12 (now 13) if there was no more than a 3 year age difference between the 2 people having sex.

Similar to some states in America. Unbelievably. Or maybe not. I think for example a 17yr old can 'legally' have sex with (in the UK it would be rape), a 13yr old, in some states.

pipinghot · Today 10:18

Btw can someone help me out - some people have said that MM has been working with The Sun - where is the absolute proof of this?

DancingFerret · Today 10:20

CoffeeCantata · Today 09:48

Mrs D, although, like me, the late Queen had a shocking Resting Bitch Face, that miserable look she had at the wedding wasn't for nothing!

I'm not saying she knew the full horror of the Markles, but she would have seen the stadium-worth number of red flags flying around Meghan: Harry's puppy-like blind devotion, the headlong rush to the altar, the trouble M had caused with staff, tiara-gate (which I'm sure Angela Kelly will elucidate soon), the problems between Meghan and Catherine, the lack of rellies at the wedding, the demands for an even grander wedding, the air freshener request for St G's Chapel etc etc).

Whatever she knew or didn't know at that time, that face certainly predicted the future!

I could have written that.

From moment she first raised her head (hinting and coy in the obviously set up "pap shots") I couldn't believe 'popular and kind Harry' (hah!) was in a relationship with someone so obviously fake, grasping and awful.

We'll see how this latest fiasco eventually plays out, but right now there's a strong whiff of dung heap in the air. (Childishly, let's not forget that fly that continually buzzed round her head during the wedding.)

pipinghot · Today 10:21

pipinghot · Today 10:16

Similar to some states in America. Unbelievably. Or maybe not. I think for example a 17yr old can 'legally' have sex with (in the UK it would be rape), a 13yr old, in some states.

Depressing but somehow not surprising, the table within the link showing ages of consent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_the_United_States

Age of consent in the United States - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_the_United_States

dreamerhereawake · Today 10:22

AutumnCrowning · Today 09:57

Given that he also transferred to a very good facility in the US that he previously couldn’t afford, it was assumed that HaM had stepped in. Is Meg and/or Harry paying for it?

I am of the opinion that the reason for the suddenly zipped mouth is because someone is footing the bill for his healthcare.

I’d be intrigued to see the contents of that letter. I’m not convinced it said anything about anything awful at all.

Maybe more like a ‘keep your trap shut and we will pay for your care’.

Who knows?

This latest debacle stinks to high heaven and I’m not convinced (yet) that all is as it is purported to be.

AllegationsMayVary · Today 10:22

Starryfifty · Today 10:01

Not a chance. He too will blame the RF for this

This is where they have painted themselves into a corner and they are now in a twist or flip situation. They have come back demanding a reconciliation - but if the heat is under them about what they didn’t do in the last 7 years will they resort to the usual finger pointing - that they were advised by both the Met and RF to remain silent until any investigations were concluded / or that it was considered a malicious letter with no evidence of a crime in UK or potentially Philippines if age of consent was 12.

Seems that the finger pointing is just at the Met currently but this could change.

BunnyBunbunbun · Today 10:23

TheTwerkingDuchessOfMonteshitshow · Today 10:12

@BunnyBunbunbun Philippines was 12 until a few years ago when it was increased to 16

I believe it was 12 (now 13) if there was no more than a 3 year age difference between the 2 people having sex.

"I believe it was 12 (now 13) if there was no more than a 3 year age difference between the 2 people having sex."

I don't know about the close-in-age exemption, my impression from what I've just quickly looked at is that didn't exist in the old Philippines law and was only introduced with the new age of consent law in 2022.

BunnyBunbunbun · Today 10:24

pipinghot · Today 10:18

Btw can someone help me out - some people have said that MM has been working with The Sun - where is the absolute proof of this?

She showed them a copy of the letter, her spokespeople have spoken to them.

TheTwerkingDuchessOfMonteshitshow · Today 10:25

pipinghot · Today 10:21

Depressing but somehow not surprising, the table within the link showing ages of consent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_the_United_States

@pipinghot Im shocked.

Justnot · Today 10:27

MM probably doesn’t even know about Hillsborough - not sure what’s it’s like now, but you wouldn’t want to have been walking round Liverpool with a copy of The Sun not that long ago (obviously many other reasons to vilify The Sun apart from that)

nicegreenwillow · Today 10:29

Justnot · Today 10:27

MM probably doesn’t even know about Hillsborough - not sure what’s it’s like now, but you wouldn’t want to have been walking round Liverpool with a copy of The Sun not that long ago (obviously many other reasons to vilify The Sun apart from that)

She won't know about any of that.

mysoddenbananabread · Today 10:33

TheTwerkingDuchessOfMonteshitshow · Today 10:25

@pipinghot Im shocked.

While I think this is slightly off topic I don't know why you are shocked. Living in the Middle East you will know that there are several countries in the ME and in the further Muslim world where child brides are common. Just because the term " marriage" is used doesn't make it any better.

CoffeeCantata · Today 10:35

AllegationsMayVary · Today 10:07

And remember that QE2 had a lifetime of disruption and scandal around the abdication that landed on her shoulders. She also spent decades of her reign micromanaging the shenanigans of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor behind the scenes - all of those similar behaviours, histrionics, drama, chaos, conflict and division seen with H&M must have been a triggering flashback as she had already walked this road and knew where it was going with a narcissist Folie a Deux.

Quite, and that was in a more deferential age and before social media carnage and the extremes of the tabloid press.

Whatever the D and D'ess of Windsor did, they didn't rubbish the RF on international TV or cause the vulgar mess which the HaMs have created.

Mylovelygreendress · Today 10:45

nicegreenwillow · Today 10:01

@AtIusvue - I thought they'd returned to the UK because they needed/wanted more royal adjacency?

That what I assumed . They don’t seem to have secure income streams and although they are rich by most people’s standards, they are not rich by A list standards .
I firmly believe they thought A and L would be the route back in , that KC would fall in love with the little HaMlets and invitations to Sandringham etc would ensue .
I am also wondering how the notoriously private Ian Wace is feeling about the HaMs staying on his property ? I would imagine the media know where the house is .

Puzzledandpissedoff · Today 10:45

The Philippine Police say the review of materials will be completed next week - that doesn't seem very long or thorough

The same thought occurred to me, @MrsFinkelstein, and with notoriously corrupt Philippino agencies, the Scum and the Markles involved it's getting to the point where I'd believe nothing until it's actually proved

I see the trash rag is now claiming Roslyn wrote that Markle Snr travelled for the "12 year olds", which is clearly appalling if true, but how the hell is the Scum accessing these alleged letters anyway? It's hardly usual for material likely to be needed for a prosecution to be shared with slavering hacks, so what exactly is going on here??

AllegationsMayVary · Today 10:46

AtIusvue · Today 08:21

Thank you to @Cismyfatarse for posting the Times token, I’m putting some of the questions in the article here, because I think it’s good to have a pause and look back at everything. Good to see them starting to question in the press too!

Why was Meghan so sure that the allegations contained in the letter were true?
While there was no pictorial evidence attached to the letter, which was sent to the police and then passed to the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, it is understood that the evidence within the letter was very compelling and came from someone who knew Thomas Markle Sr and the family well. It has since been reported that it was sent by his first wife, Roslyn Loveless, who died in 2024.
What is the date discrepancy?
Meghan said last week that she received the letter in 2018 after being passed it by the Metropolitan police.
In a later statement, however, the police said that they received it in January 2019.
It is acknowledged that Meghan may have possibly misremembered the precise date, whereas the police would have recorded it with a timestamp.
That said, it may have taken the police several months before they were able to confirm the correspondence in their archives.
What did the palace know?
The Metropolitan Police shared the information with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in early 2019 but not, it seems, with the wider royal household.
Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the matter.
Why did the Met not pass on the allegations to other forces?
Scotland Yard said that the letter contained a number of claims about alleged offending outside the United Kingdom. A Met investigation was not launched. The force admitted it had not passed the letter on to authorities overseas.
The Met is now reviewing its handling of the matter and considering whether a referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is necessary.
If the force makes a referral, the watchdog may review its approach to the letter.
Why did Meghan still call herself a ‘daddy’s girl’?
Meghan wrote to her father last December when he had his leg amputated in the Philippines. The contents of the letter are unknown, but it is now understood that she was responding to his repeated complaints in the press that she did not care for her ill father. It is believed that she wrote to tell him that she did not want to speak to him as a result of the serious allegations against him. It was the last time she would be in touch with him.
It is not known why she continued to paint a positive image of him in her own television appearances and a 2022 Netflix documentary in which she said: “I was a daddy’s girl all my life.”
Why did Markle Sr nail plywood to the windows of his homes?
In an intriguing section of Prince Harry’s autobiography Spare, which was published four years after Meghan learnt of the damaging allegations against her father, the duke described Markle as “a complicated man”.
Harry made no reference to the allegations in his book but wrote about media coverage in the run-up to their 2018 wedding, saying: “The press reported that, as a result [of the press interest], Meg’s father had nailed plywood over his windows. But this wasn’t true. He’d often had plywood nailed over his windows, even when living in Los Angeles, well before Meg started dating me. Complicated man.”
What could happen next for Markle Sr?
Investigators are analysing data to determine the full scope and extent of the alleged offending. The Philippines interior minister, Jonvic Remulla, said that “all signs point to a possible sex offender of the grossest kind”.
The authorities said that the forensic data would be analysed in a week.
This will have to be completed before police decide whether to charge Markle Sr, who is thought to be in Florida recovering from a leg amputation.
The US Federal Bureau of Investigations said that it was aware of the allegations, adding that it would provide support where appropriate to the authorities in the Philippines. The FBI also said that it would investigate “any related allegations of federal violations of US law”.
The US has an extradition treaty with the Philippines, which means that in principle Markle could be sent there to face any trial should the authorities charge him

Edited

Interesting that BP have declined to comment - if they didn’t know it would be easier and more transparent just to say so. The Met say they passed the letter to The Office of H&M - we don’t know yet which royal officials saw it, logged it on passed it on within the RF system

IcedPurple · Today 10:47

pipinghot · Today 10:18

Btw can someone help me out - some people have said that MM has been working with The Sun - where is the absolute proof of this?

"Absolute proof", no. This isn't a court of law.

But it's been obvious from the Great Return that the Sussexes have some sort of 'arrangement' with The Sn. Several clearly planted stories. She also had a 'friend' go as far as 'thanking' The Sn for their work a few days ago. Yes, the great warrior against the 'British press' is thanking the sleaziest scummiest tabloid of them all.

smilesy · Today 10:53

AllegationsMayVary · Today 10:46

Interesting that BP have declined to comment - if they didn’t know it would be easier and more transparent just to say so. The Met say they passed the letter to The Office of H&M - we don’t know yet which royal officials saw it, logged it on passed it on within the RF system

Not really. They don’t comment on most things. As no one is entirely sure what is going on here, I would say that’s the best thing to do. It is certainly what Meghan should have done