Oops, Meghan Markle won her case!

[MyOhMySimon]

www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/meghan-markle-wins-high-court-privacy-mail-on-sunday-b919462.html%3famp

She won.

@MyOhMySimon
I was reading your post and started to think 'wait a minute'. Then I read the last 2 sentences and thought Ah! there it is.

I know right? They just can't help themselves, can they?

That must include W&K, Charles then too.....

Of course. Majority of celebs too.

Good for Meghan. So glad she won.

Her dad is clearly toxic (lying about his medical history, being estranged from all his children and grandchildren) and by all accounts Meghan financially supported him for years, and only cut contact when he refused to attend the wedding and ghosted her, at the same time he was badmouthing her to the press. Vile vile man.

It's so funny how people are tantrumming over a very clear case of press harassment and illegal action, in the same week it came out that both the Queen and Prince Charles have attempted to exert political influence over the passing of laws in order to manipulate the legal system to give them financial or other gain.

The RF are utterly toxic and corrupt and plenty has come out showing how much their public image is the result of sheer media manipulation. The Queen's protection of Andrew and insistence on forcing his patronage on charities that don't want him, while vindictively removing Harry's for the "crime" of wanting his own life. The ludicrous double standard of attacking Harry and Meghan for getting jobs on the basis "they wouldn't have landed those jobs if not for being royals" while other royals directly and overtly pimp out their royal titles and royal connections for cash. William's highly dodgy behaviour in bullying and threatening the British press into not mentioning his ALLEGED affair with Rose Hanbury (throwing a tantrum and claiming his "human rights had been violated" over a mundane little article that didn't even mention him claiming Kate had fallen out with a neighbour, the fact the only part of that horrible Kate-bashing Vanity Fair article he had removed was a paragraph about him socialising with Rose). William straight up lying to the press about his Covid diagnosis. The evidence that Byline Times discovered about William and Kate's publicist receiving large payments from a tabloid known for bashing Meghan and somehow landing insider scoops about her and Harry.

We keep hearing they want a "slimmed down monarchy" so why the tantrums over Harry and Meghan leaving to seek financial independence? Isn't that a good thing?

I'm sure Harry and Meghan would love it if the British tabloids never mentioned her again. The British tabloids (and the haters who give them clicks) are totally obsessed with Meghan and can't see that they're the ones driving the tabloids to keep printing stories about her.

I'm afraid I do find it hard to stomach empty, rather clueless lectures from very wealthy privileged people

So do I, but with the possible exception of Anne who's said openly that she prefers to listen and learn before putting her oar in, what does anyone really imagine advisers will say?
Will it be "You were wonderful and everyone was honoured to be present for your speech" or "That might have been better not said/perhaps could have been better put"?

Those of us who've experienced the rough and tumble of life usually learn along the way ... those surrounded at all times by sycophants perhaps less so

... it came out that both the Queen and Prince Charles have attempted to exert political influence over the passing of laws in order to manipulate the legal system to give them financial or other gain

I believe the latest thing is over attempts to hide private wealth, but possible abuse involving Queens Consent is hardly anything new - the same issues have been discussed for years and it gets even worse when the subject turns to the Duchy of Cornwall

Which is why some of us point out that H&M are merely continuing a long and depressing pattern, and that criticising them doesn't mean others are exempt

rosetyler so agree with lots you say.
Her father is toxic and nasty ("now is the time to give to daddy" and "the royal family owe me")... say no more.

I have no idea why those that despise them aren't happy they are making their own life. They're not living off the public purse like Andrew.

What gets me is the unfair treatment... so the Queen bought Andrew's house for him for £5M and he sold it for £15M so he could pay £7.5M for Royal Lodge renovations, cinema, indoor swimming pool etc etc.. No one fixates on that. . No royal duties for him either, he doesn't pay anything back. But I know what he did with it... a £13M chalet in Verbier, Switzerland! It's on the market for £18M at the moment, unsold. W&K ££££ on renovations too. But M&H buy a copper bath and it's like they've killed kittens.

So they paid back the renovation costs, they've done all that's been asked of them but it still isn't enough for some.

Leave them alone.

I agree Puzzled criticising them doesn't mean others are exempt but my god do they get the lion's share of criticism....

Which is why some of us point out that H&M are merely continuing a long and depressing pattern, and that criticising them doesn't mean others are exempt

True but I haven't seen a thread criticising any other member of the RF on Mumsnet in ages. The Queen is mostly beloved here. You can't say a single bad word about Kate without being roundly jumped on. Even the Prince Andrew threads were full of posters defending him and accusing his victims of being "liars" who were "making it all up for attention." I remember posters scrutinizing that one photo and trying to claim the skin tone on his hands didn't match the skin tone on his face therefore it was a fake photo, after Andrew had admitted it was real on national TV. The thread about William lying to the press was 90% posters defending him. Whenever anyone mentions the Rose allegation (which, even if it's not true, William handled very poorly and with disrespect to his wife) they're usually met with a wave of outrage and indignation and "OMG how dare you spread such nasty rumours there are children involved!"

Whereas until MNHQ banned them, there were usually not less than four Meghan-bashing threads going on at all times, which were literally just pure hate-fests, contained overt racism, seized on every tiny little thing (wearing nail varnish, touching her own bump) as though it was mass-murder, gleefully shared and promoted every tiny 'rumour' and vindictive lie invented on hate blogs. Someone even posted claiming to have an insider source in Kensington Palace claiming that Meghan hit Charlotte once, and that post is still up to this day.

There's a massive double standard where other royals can behave very badly indeed and it's ignored or defended, while Meghan sneezes and within an hour there's 500 furious ragefully posts about what an "uppity" nasty attention-seeking little madam she is.

Good! I'm delighted. The HateMail deserve all they get.

Good news. The Mail is a nasty, trashy paper.

@C130

Good news. The Mail is a nasty, trashy paper.

x 10

Actually, x 1,000,000

I was on another forum (not sure if I’m allowed to say where) that has this excellent article by Joshua Rosenberg if anyone is interested.

rozenberg.substack.com/p/next-steps-for-the-duchess

Sorry I read on another forum not that I was posting.

@ rosetylersbiggun I read Royal Family threads and cannot remember a single person defending Prince Andrew . If you can provide a link I will stand corrected .

This is just the first thread I happened to be able to find within 30 seconds of googling. I know for a fact at least two others were deleted because they contained posts attacking Virginia Giuffre and overtly calling her a liar, a slut, and accused her of lying just as a form of attention-seeking. Even this thread has loads of posts explicitly calling VG a liar.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3697250-Prince-Andrew

Sample quotes:
"At 17 a woman knows full well what she's doing."
"Her story smells wrong."
"I hate the Believe Her campaign, it's a green light to fantasists."
"I don't find her convincing. At all."
"Well-rehearsed but unconvincing."
"I just don't believe it happened."
"In general I believe women [who speak out about rape.] In this I don't. Not one little bit."
"I'm not sure I believe her. Women lie. A lot."

Plus loads of posts about "why didn't she just leave" (because her passport had been taken?).

Now granted, anytime a woman makes a sexual abuse/assault claim, some people line up to call her a lying slut. It happens like clockwork, and is an example of how deeply ingrained misogyny is in our culture. But to presage the inevitable: "But just because posters called a victim of child sex trafficking a lying attention-seeking liar doesn't mean they're defending the man accused of raping her!1!1!!"

Calling a rape victim a liar absolutely IS defending her alleged rapist. Period.

That's without even going into all the posts scrutinising the colour of his hand in order to vindicate him.

That thread is chilling.

@ rosetylersbiggun. Thank you . I don’t always read AIBU threads so hadn’t seen this and agree that some comments are a bit surprising. Having said that , I have never heard anyone IRL defend PA . I find him quite repulsive . I know people who have encountered him and have nothing good to say about him .
Having said that this thread is about MM and one of the things that annoys me is the assertion that anyone who criticises her is a hater . I don’t hate her . How can I , I don’t know her ! What I can say is that she has disappointed me . I was delighted when H found love . For me it changed at the engagement interview , it seemed so fake .
As far as the court case is concerned , did anyone seriously think the RF would allow one of the family to give evidence in court ? I imagine lots of pressure has been exerted on the right people.
I wish M , H and A well although I do wish the “ must do better “ lectures would stop .

Having said that this thread is about MM and one of the things that annoys me is the assertion that anyone who criticises her is a hater.

But who has made that assertion?

There's clearly a massive difference between posters who simply don't care for her, and the posters who have racked up literally thousands of posts attacking her, who attack anyone who says a word in her defence to the point of off-board stalking, who have used multiple sock puppets and registered new accounts after being banned, who engage in gleeful obscene hate, who use racial slurs and coded racist language, who invent lies about her being a child abuser, etc. etc. etc.

If you aren't one of the latter then clearly terms like "hater" aren't aimed at you, so why get offended at something that's not even about you?

Something else I've seen a lot - and I'm not referring to this thread, but past threads - is people actively choosing to post on the most vile hate-threads (and posting in such a way that makes clear they are firmly on the anti-Meghan 'side') lamenting that they are not a 'hater' simply a critic. It's highly disingenuous to turn a blind eye to vitriolic hatred and racial abuse, make clear you're on the same side as the people posting the abuse, then blink in wide-eyed shock that anyone could possibly think you support your fellow thread-mates.

I mean, I don't care for Gemma Collins, but if I came across a thread filled with abusive posts calling her a slut and a fat pig I wouldn't feel the need to chip in with "Yes I also dislike her" because by doing so I'd be implicitly aligning myself with misogynistic and fat-shaming comments.

^Again if you weren't involved in those pile-on threads then that part is not about you. It's just a general statement.

Totally agree with you about the Virginia Giuffre comments, rosetylersbiggun. Granted it's not unknown for women to lie about rape, but to suggest that she had on the basis of nothing at all was downright unacceptable

But that's the trouble with some folks' love of the RF ... never ask me why, but it becomes so extreme that they fail to see the glaring flaws and defend the indefensible

I would like for Meghan and Harry to do what they said they were going to do and stay out of the press.

Thank you for posting the Joshua Rozenberg piece, ImAncient. I agree it's a clear and succinct overview of the legal decision and its potential implications, as opposed to a pile on by the MM/RF pros and the antis. In short, MM was justified in her decision to litigate given that she's succeeded on the privacy issue; the copyright issue is yet to be dealt with. The Court, quite rightly, doesn't care if someone's nasty or nice, just whether someone's rights have been violated.

@FrippEnos

I would like for Meghan and Harry to do what they said they were going to do and stay out of the press.

I thought they said they wanted privacy, I.e., to decide what to share of their private lives. Not that they were going to stay out of the press

I would like for Meghan and Harry to do what they said they were going to do and stay out of the press

If they are doing something towards charity, why should that not be in the Press because it really helps the charity greatly. There have been many times they have volunteered and brought much needed publicity to that charity so I'm really not sure why there should be a blanket ban on media for this

I would like for Meghan and Harry to do what they said they were going to do and stay out of the press.

Proof?