Meghan Markle taking Mail On Sunday to Court *MNHQ tweaked title for accuracy*

[TheMustressMhor]

And about time, too. They never stop castigating her.

Prince Harry has said that he's worried that she'll end up being the same kind of victim that his mother was with regard to the Press.

I hope she wins her case.

My personal opinion is that the letter was sent by her knowing that her father would leak it, so I'm very suspicious of all of this.

I tend to agree. The letter conveniently outlines MM's own position in detail- something she isn't able to do herself - which is why she previously used friends to put across her position (in People magazine, I think?). I'm sure the letter was absolutely written with a view to it potentially being leaked.

H&M can't stop the media from publishing negative stories about them, so they've chosen one issue which may have legs, legally (presumably on advice).

The Daily Mail aside, most of the criticism of them in recent months has centered around their christening (refusing to name Godparents seemed pretty odd, admittedly) and their hypocrisy vis a vis climate change/private jets.

If they don't want to attract criticism, they really should lay off the Instagram, IMO. They clear to want to be 'Global Influencers' and royal. They can't have it both ways.

@TottieandMarchpane
@Winterlife
"But maybe her copyright? Isn’t that the general rule with correspondence?"

Yes, Meghan is the author of the letter so she owns the copyright.

I believe her suit would have to be against her father, who released the correspondence.

No. The breach of copyright happens when you publish material without the permission of the author. The Mail on Sunday is the publisher and is clearly in breach of copyright.

Refusing to name Godparents was to protect the Godparents' privacy, surely?

The rules? Seriously?

There is no rule that they need to give whatever information the public want in exchange for their status as royals. The fact that anyone thinks there is such a rule is baffling.

They have roles as royals, which they are meeting. Anything else is a bonus. They are not public property. They are not elected officials.

I think Liliangish's post is spot on.

I suspect the real issue here for Meghan and Harry is not just the letter, but particularly the constant sniping at Meghan by the Mail/ Mail on Sunday. They have been incredibly unpleasant.

The problem for M and H is that the only legal recourse available to them for the vitriolic reporting, would be an action in libel. Then the Mail would inevitably defend by arguing truth or fair comment ( the usual defences to defamation) and any dirty linen- staff resignations, family fall-outs etc- whether true or not, would have to be raked over in court.

The breach of privacy action relating to the letter, is a way of attacking the Mail which does not run that risk.

They seem to have no common sense between them. Elton John's hilarious attempt at a defense of their trip left them in a much worse predicament, which I assume he ran by them in advance.

o. The breach of copyright happens when you publish material without the permission of the author. The Mail on Sunday is the publisher and is clearly in breach of copyright.

So the Mail would have known that from the start and decided the sales were worth the possible damages.

What on earth have they been negotiating over for eight months?

But a lot of people are. It wouldn't have killed them to release a few baby pics or tell the public who his godparents are, instead of all the coy 'here's a picture of his foot' bollocks.

Everyone has the right to choose whether to make photos of their baby public no matter how public their role.

So ‘interested’ people didn’t get to see a baby pic - can fuck off and get a life.

There are no ‘rules’.

There is no rule that they need to give whatever information the public want in exchange for their status as royals. The fact that anyone thinks there is such a rule is baffling.

Yup.

Apparently if you send a letter, the sender still owns the copyright

Ahh! I wondered about this, as I thought it would have been her fathers to do with as he wished, never realised that about it still being the writers property!

@MoonageDaydreamz

The letter absolutely is subject to the usual copyright laws. It is Meghan's copyright and the Mail on Sunday is in breach of it as they knew full well when they published it. They were banking on the Royals doing nothing about it and it's backfired.

It makes no difference whether Meghan knew it would be leaked when she sent it. The onus is always on the publisher to ensure they have permission from the copyright holder (Meghan in this case) before they publish.

@Chiccroissant - they were getting some good publicity because the papers got wind of the lawsuit and were trying to head it off.

See the Daily Heil article about the land rovers. Apart from fact I don’t know if it’s true or not - licence plates are often swapped over - after news of court came out, they changed their headline to ‘Royal Car Crash’ Duchess. Disgusting and mildly threatening.

might it be questioned as to why it has been left so long before bringing this action? The article was published in February. That's 8 or 9 months ago.

Ever tried to bring a legal action? Any idea of the timescales involved? Even setting aside the time it would take the Royal Household to discuss, review and sign off the decision, you can’t expect the legal team to knock up a case in a few days. There are statutes of limitations for a reason. The law itself accepts that you don’t need to decide today. Also, I thought we’d moved on from blaming victims for not coming forward sooner.

So the Mail would have known that from the start and decided the sales were worth the possible damages.

Yes. Or banked on Meghan not actually suing them.

My personal opinion is that the letter was sent by her knowing that her father would leak it, so I'm very suspicious of all of this.

I think, if you put yourself in MM's shoes, it's difficult to see it any other way.

Whatever his motivation might be, he has revealed himself to be entirely untrustworthy with the press. She had to have known that there was a good possibility that this would wind up in the public domain. How could she not?

He = Thomas Markle.

The fail has published an article about it this morning. The comments section is vile no moderation at all. There are some sick people around

The breach of privacy action relating to the letter, is a way of attacking the Mail which does not run that risk.

Wouldn’t the letter open the door to bring up the relationship with her family? Or would it be just a copyright issue?

Doctors, banks etc are bound by their own professional codes, contractual relationships, and so on.

And? So are newspapers, we’ve seen how that works. It doesn’t even need a rogue professional, this kind of information isn’t so difficult to get hold of for those who really want it. The suggestion that she could do nothing about it because of copyright law is laughable.

My personal opinion is that the letter was sent by her knowing that her father would leak it, so I'm very suspicious of all of this.

I think, if you put yourself in MM's shoes, it's difficult to see it any other way.

Whatever his motivation might be, he has revealed himself to be entirely untrustworthy with the press. She had to have known that there was a good possibility that this would wind up in the public domain. How could she not?

In which case the Mail on Sunday were extremely stupid to have fallen for it and left themselves open to being sued.

Of course there are rules. If you want public support then you have to give the public something that it wants in return. You can't say 'support my causes' or 'pay for my house' but demand nothing of me.
I mean, you can, but it will result in the situation H & M currently find themselves in.
It's not about baby photos as such, it's about attitude towards the people who finance their very nice lives.

Like I said, no one is compelled to be royal. I'll swap. Today I've done the school run and cleaned the cat litter tray. I'll happily go and tour the world, meeting interesting people,vehicle wearing beautiful clothes!

They may win the lawsuit but at what cost? The MoS aren't going to sit quietly, it will all be put out in public- how the letter was first mentioned by her friends in the media likely at her instigation. Thomas Markle isn't going to take it lying down either and I'd say there is a fair amount of damage he can do too. Eg. there is video footage of Meghan stating that she worked through college and relied on that and financial aid to pay her tuition when Thomas Markle says he still has the evidence he paid it all, among other stuff that might not reflect well on her. I hope they are prepared for any fallout.

Life would be easier for all involved if we just abolished the monarchy!

I can’t help hearing about Harry and Megan and feeling my teeth on edge. I don’t know them personally but I’m sick to death of the holier than thou attitude for the commoners but thinking it doesn’t apply to them.

You cannot court the ‘celebrity’ and financial gain of being Royalty whilst only wanting a ‘best bits reel’ being shown to the general public.

Harry knows what being royalty entails, he clearly struggles with it, it would be best for him and his mental health that The Queen should step in and ask him to step down from being working royalty and let them have a relatively normal life away from the media and general public.

What the media are doing to Megan is awful, they did the same to Kate. The media should be made to change the way they report on all people. Guidelines should be in place, a little like Doctors with first do no harm.

It is difficult because quite honestly Harry is coming across as a petulant child which is taking away from his very valid point that the media are, at least to some point, the reason his mother died and Megan is having a pretty shit time, although I think they need to take a long hard look at themselves as also adding fanning the flames.

How can you talk of racism when you dress as a Nazi, or call people Pa#i or r#ghead.
What about climate change when you take so many private jets you could probably melt the polar icecaps personally.
How about when they both preach feminism whilst making nice with the Dalai Lama who said that if he was to have a female successor, she would need to be “very attractive” or she would be of “not much use.”

They both feel the need to lecture the general public on how they should be living their lives whilst having no idea what real life is about. It’s fine to preach meditation and wokeness but what about the young, single mother working two jobs to make ends meet? I can’t imagine she gets much time to be woke, to meditate or to pop to the local farmers market for organic, free range, less air miles dinner.
This is why the press and some public are annoyed and lashing out at them. (Although obviously it also pays pretty well for the gutter press) but this is why some of the public want to read these articles, they are fed up of being basically told they underachievers and should be more woke like them so anything criticising PH and MM makes people feel better and maybe a bit superior for a bit.

In which case the Mail on Sunday were extremely stupid to have fallen for it and left themselves open to being sued.

I don't think they 'fell' for it, they must have considered this possibility as well.

grumiosmum Thank you. I guessed it had American connotations because of "outta" but the reference didn't mean anything to me before your message. I can see why it would be offensive. I imagine there are British equivalents but not going to quote anything in case it starts another problem!