Please or to access all these features

The royal family

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

1000 replies

jeffgoldblum · 25/10/2026 19:46

Once more into the breach dear friends!!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:09

MargaretThursday · Yesterday 14:01

It's not Jeff guessing- you yourself told everyone on your 8.13 post today on the "William on Graham Norton" thread.
So why are you denying it now?

Life’s too short to go trawling through old posts. Tell me what I actually said and I’ll answer it. I have no time for these McCarthyite witch-hunts.

Speaking of witch-hunts, though, if this were the Mumsnet board of the 1600s, I suspect some of you would have been enthusiastically supporting the Witchcraft Act of 1542 (33 Henry VIII, c. 8), which criminalised alleged witchcraft and sorcery as felonies punishable by death.

The Act referred to “any Invocacons or conjuracons of Sprites wichecraftes enchauntmentes or sorceries”.
And as Meghan burned at the stake, you’d be standing around, clucking self-righteously about your own apparent virtue before God and the King. Some things, it seems, never change.

pipinghot · Yesterday 14:10

Mylovelygreendress · Yesterday 14:06

Is he silent or silenced ?

Oprah is being very silent lately isn't she. She wuved wem for a while. Not so much these days it seems. Guess they stopped making money for her.

pipinghot · Yesterday 14:11

andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:09

Life’s too short to go trawling through old posts. Tell me what I actually said and I’ll answer it. I have no time for these McCarthyite witch-hunts.

Speaking of witch-hunts, though, if this were the Mumsnet board of the 1600s, I suspect some of you would have been enthusiastically supporting the Witchcraft Act of 1542 (33 Henry VIII, c. 8), which criminalised alleged witchcraft and sorcery as felonies punishable by death.

The Act referred to “any Invocacons or conjuracons of Sprites wichecraftes enchauntmentes or sorceries”.
And as Meghan burned at the stake, you’d be standing around, clucking self-righteously about your own apparent virtue before God and the King. Some things, it seems, never change.

Haha- you do think a lot of yourself, don't you?

smilesy · Yesterday 14:12

AllegationsMayVary · Yesterday 14:06

We don’t know that she or another royal official from her office or security team shared it beyond the initial recipients.

Maybe she did. Maybe an official did. We don’t know.

BP have not said it’s nothing to do with us and this info wasnt shared. Where did you see that?

What has happened is that BP have declined to comment when asked by The Times if they knew about the arrival of the 2019 letter into their system.

Because that is what they always do. Because if they say “we didn’t know”, they risk being dragged in to an unedifying game of “we said, they said” by either the press or the Sussexes, regardless of whether anyone at the Palace knew anything or not. Do you agree that Meghan has got in to the mess she is in because she insisted on saying something? This is what the Palace sensibly want to avoid

AtIusvue · Yesterday 14:12

AllegationsMayVary · Yesterday 14:06

We don’t know that she or another royal official from her office or security team shared it beyond the initial recipients.

Maybe she did. Maybe an official did. We don’t know.

BP have not said it’s nothing to do with us and this info wasnt shared. Where did you see that?

What has happened is that BP have declined to comment when asked by The Times if they knew about the arrival of the 2019 letter into their system.

Meg would have most likely, set out in her statement, those supporting and informing her decisions at that time. That would have involved naming KP if that included them.

Its telling that she hasn’t. Doesn’t mean it’s fact, but in the absence of anything else, and knowing how quickly she’s willing to throw the RF under the bus, it’s more likely than not.

BP/KP saying this has nothing to do with them, is pretty clear that there’s no involvement. They can’t risk lying over this, especially in the wake of AMW.

AutumnCrowning · Yesterday 14:14

Mylovelygreendress · Yesterday 14:06

Is he silent or silenced ?

They’re each in a different marriage now.

Nottingham was a sham, to provide Meg cover for whatever this is.

jeffgoldblum · Yesterday 14:15

I have to say that personally I applaud Harry for keeping silent in this case, it really is the wisest decision, so for this one time ….well done Harry!

OP posts:
dreamerhereawake · Yesterday 14:16

andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:09

Life’s too short to go trawling through old posts. Tell me what I actually said and I’ll answer it. I have no time for these McCarthyite witch-hunts.

Speaking of witch-hunts, though, if this were the Mumsnet board of the 1600s, I suspect some of you would have been enthusiastically supporting the Witchcraft Act of 1542 (33 Henry VIII, c. 8), which criminalised alleged witchcraft and sorcery as felonies punishable by death.

The Act referred to “any Invocacons or conjuracons of Sprites wichecraftes enchauntmentes or sorceries”.
And as Meghan burned at the stake, you’d be standing around, clucking self-righteously about your own apparent virtue before God and the King. Some things, it seems, never change.

They may well have burned women for being ‘witches’.

I’m not sure they burned women for just being a scheming twat though.

I am certain no person here would cheer and be happy if M was subjected to that.

I can hear only one person clucking anyway.

MargaretThursday · Yesterday 14:17

andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:09

Life’s too short to go trawling through old posts. Tell me what I actually said and I’ll answer it. I have no time for these McCarthyite witch-hunts.

Speaking of witch-hunts, though, if this were the Mumsnet board of the 1600s, I suspect some of you would have been enthusiastically supporting the Witchcraft Act of 1542 (33 Henry VIII, c. 8), which criminalised alleged witchcraft and sorcery as felonies punishable by death.

The Act referred to “any Invocacons or conjuracons of Sprites wichecraftes enchauntmentes or sorceries”.
And as Meghan burned at the stake, you’d be standing around, clucking self-righteously about your own apparent virtue before God and the King. Some things, it seems, never change.

You could gave asked Chat GBT for confirmation of what you put. I'm sure it would have brought it up as quickly as your " tell me about" question.

But just to help your memory, here's a screen shot. I like to be helpful and save people time.

Always at hand to refresh memories. That's what ChatGPT will say about me. 😁

Ham pr disasters 57! ….continuing the confusion and controversy….
AllegationsMayVary · Yesterday 14:17

Kingsandqueenz · Yesterday 14:08

I don't think that need to speak out at all, this is a private issue regarding Meghan & her father.
None of the royal family has ever met Thomas Markle, Harry hasn't even met him. He was never in the UK

Meghan is no longer part of the royal family, she left of her own accord many years ago. BP owe her nothing & should ensure they are not dragged into this sordid scandal.

I agree BP owe MM nothing now but as any institution be it a school, scout camp, workplace when an allegation of such serious nature lands on your desk you have an obligation to deal with it as per your in-house policies or any other legal or best practice requirements.

It might be that ‘it was logged and we took the direction of The Met Police’ - so there would be a paper trail for 2019 when H&M were WRF members and the Met considered it sufficient security risk to share with H&M Office - even if this stopped at H&M and their private secretary or head of security.

dreamerhereawake · Yesterday 14:19

And as for titans being long gone?

As with M, just because folk say so, doesn’t mean it is true.

AutumnCrowning · Yesterday 14:19

andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:09

Life’s too short to go trawling through old posts. Tell me what I actually said and I’ll answer it. I have no time for these McCarthyite witch-hunts.

Speaking of witch-hunts, though, if this were the Mumsnet board of the 1600s, I suspect some of you would have been enthusiastically supporting the Witchcraft Act of 1542 (33 Henry VIII, c. 8), which criminalised alleged witchcraft and sorcery as felonies punishable by death.

The Act referred to “any Invocacons or conjuracons of Sprites wichecraftes enchauntmentes or sorceries”.
And as Meghan burned at the stake, you’d be standing around, clucking self-righteously about your own apparent virtue before God and the King. Some things, it seems, never change.

Don’t be disgusting. Ffs.

andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:19

MargaretThursday · Yesterday 14:17

You could gave asked Chat GBT for confirmation of what you put. I'm sure it would have brought it up as quickly as your " tell me about" question.

But just to help your memory, here's a screen shot. I like to be helpful and save people time.

Always at hand to refresh memories. That's what ChatGPT will say about me. 😁

That doesn't make me an admirer of Harry and Meghan, let alone a paid-up member of the Sussex Squad, which is what I was accused of. Disagreeing with the pile-on against them doesn't mean I worship them. It's perfectly possible to question the treatment they receive without being a fan of either of them.

Kingsandqueenz · Yesterday 14:20

AllegationsMayVary · Yesterday 14:17

I agree BP owe MM nothing now but as any institution be it a school, scout camp, workplace when an allegation of such serious nature lands on your desk you have an obligation to deal with it as per your in-house policies or any other legal or best practice requirements.

It might be that ‘it was logged and we took the direction of The Met Police’ - so there would be a paper trail for 2019 when H&M were WRF members and the Met considered it sufficient security risk to share with H&M Office - even if this stopped at H&M and their private secretary or head of security.

Well according to Meghan she was the one who recieved the letter & accepted an investigation was taking place.
Not BPs problem

IcedPurple · Yesterday 14:20

dreamerhereawake · Yesterday 14:19

And as for titans being long gone?

As with M, just because folk say so, doesn’t mean it is true.

I don't want to get into a discussion about individual posters, as I'm sure that's against guidelines.

But let's just say that some posters have very recognisable posting styles.

BigWillyLittleTodger · Yesterday 14:21

andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:09

Life’s too short to go trawling through old posts. Tell me what I actually said and I’ll answer it. I have no time for these McCarthyite witch-hunts.

Speaking of witch-hunts, though, if this were the Mumsnet board of the 1600s, I suspect some of you would have been enthusiastically supporting the Witchcraft Act of 1542 (33 Henry VIII, c. 8), which criminalised alleged witchcraft and sorcery as felonies punishable by death.

The Act referred to “any Invocacons or conjuracons of Sprites wichecraftes enchauntmentes or sorceries”.
And as Meghan burned at the stake, you’d be standing around, clucking self-righteously about your own apparent virtue before God and the King. Some things, it seems, never change.

Life’s too short is it?

jeffgoldblum · Yesterday 14:21

IcedPurple · Yesterday 14:20

I don't want to get into a discussion about individual posters, as I'm sure that's against guidelines.

But let's just say that some posters have very recognisable posting styles.

Indeed! , not gone and not forgotten.

OP posts:
Starryfifty · Yesterday 14:22

feellikeanalien · Yesterday 14:21

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52349573

If Meghan is doing an interview with the Sun then this hasn't aged well.

Edited

Well they need them now and got help them and hamlets when the tabloids turn on them

Kingsandqueenz · Yesterday 14:23

feellikeanalien · Yesterday 14:21

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52349573

If Meghan is doing an interview with the Sun then this hasn't aged well.

Edited

I guess everyone has a price... The Markles certainly do!

jeffgoldblum · Yesterday 14:23

feellikeanalien · Yesterday 14:21

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52349573

If Meghan is doing an interview with the Sun then this hasn't aged well.

Edited

Love the typo! 😁 , it really is appropriate for that interview!

nooo! Alien!! You should have left it! 😭

OP posts:
andyburnhamhere · Yesterday 14:24

Anyway, there are rumours of apologies forthcoming from the Sussex camp. I'm sure, like most people here, I'd welcome that if it proved to be the case, and perhaps it could signal some sort of rapprochement after this long impasse. This new affair may have blown up quite unexpectedly and certainly hasn't helped.

Nevertheless, The i Paper has been told the couple are willing to explore some form of a personal apology, but it is unclear what exactly they would be willing to issue a mea culpa for.
A source close to the couple said: “If they need to apologise, they will, but that will be a discussion that happens in private.”
The condition of any apology needing to remain private will raise eyebrows in the Palace, where the couple’s willingness to openly air family grievances have proven so damaging to relations.

inews.co.uk/news/hidden-threat-harry-meghan-apology-mission-4838099

smilesy · Yesterday 14:25

AllegationsMayVary · Yesterday 14:17

I agree BP owe MM nothing now but as any institution be it a school, scout camp, workplace when an allegation of such serious nature lands on your desk you have an obligation to deal with it as per your in-house policies or any other legal or best practice requirements.

It might be that ‘it was logged and we took the direction of The Met Police’ - so there would be a paper trail for 2019 when H&M were WRF members and the Met considered it sufficient security risk to share with H&M Office - even if this stopped at H&M and their private secretary or head of security.

Why do you think it was shared with anyone other than Meghan? It was sent to her office via her special protection, which probably gave it straight to her as it contained sensitive, private information. There is no evidence that it went anywhere near anyone else. Meghan is not shy in getting others to shoulder responsibility for her cock ups but she hasn’t said that anyone else saw the letter (if she back tracks now it will seem very fishy). So there is probably no paper trail. I’m not sure why you keep insisting that the palace need to say something, when everyone accepts that “no comment” from them means just that 🤷‍♀️

Mondommountain · Yesterday 14:26

Starryfifty · Yesterday 09:37

It's incredible how much Meg's appearance has changed. 8 years is not a huge amount of time tbf. She looks like a completely different person.

Totally, she has lost volume and muscle mass, she is using fillers or fat transfer and has clearly had surgery to try compensate, it’s so obvious in many of her expressions. She looks much older than her 46 years now, she used to be so pretty.

dreamerhereawake · Yesterday 14:27

For apologies to count (from the Sussex camp or not) they have to be sincere.

If that pair are apologising (can’t see it myself) it will be for their benefit only. Not because they are sorry.

I would no more buy that than that watery spread.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread