Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan? Thread 4

[Mummy195]

Hope you don't mind Dave.

Have you seen my dancing?!

This made me laugh Roussette

Do you mean you're not practicing your TikTok dances? (If you don't have DC or they're too old or too young for this reference to resonate, consider yourself lucky.)

I should specify - consider yourself lucky at not knowing about TikTok dance memes, not consider yourself lucky to not have DC.

(I'm here in peace and don't want to accidentally put my foot in it and upset someone struggling to conceive )

I do wonder about the tights thing. I imagine there are do's and don'ts dress wise. but telling an adult woman she has to wear tights seems very strange.

It's often a dress code at work Samcro, I worked for a chain of cinemas while at uni and you had to wear tights and polished shoes.

Have adult kids, think the TikTok thing has passed them and me by... but one of them sent me a vid of them lip syncing to Sinead O'Connor in a purple wig for a covid competition, perhaps that was TikTok!

I must admit I have never worked somewhere that have told me I have to wear tights(although I would as my legs are not like megs)
@Roussette I have no idea what that is. my adult son keeps saying I need to do a group chat on face book and I don't have a clue

Hehe... oh I zoom, whatsapp video, group chat, the lot. But as my DCs live a way away, it's so I can keep in touch!

I draw the line at Instagram though... and TikTok now!

Sometimes I can't believe K is in her 30s as her outfits are really quite old fashioned, but she will be so constrained with what she can wear I suspect.

I have long suspected K purposely dresses in a very pared back style to avoid attracting press attention and discussion of her fashion choices.

Diana was a fashion icon and it rattled Charles that people were more interested in what Diana was wearing than what he was talking about in his speech. Kate chooses to be in the background supporting William and avoiding too much personal attention. If I say she sometimes looks rather frumpy I don't mean it unkindly - I think that is exactly how she wants to look to avoid attention. I commend her sensible choices.

I don’t usually post here but I’m of an age that when I started working (solicitor), that we females, were not allowed to wear trousers in court. This filtered down to work dress code of no trousers, in case we needed to go to court suddenly, eg for an injunction. 🤷🏻‍♀️

So yes I can totally see how in an institution such as the monarchy wearing of tights (however ridiculous that may seem ) would be de rigeur.

I wonder if its a kind of work uniform. I always think kate looks more comfortable when she is in casual clothes.
I did love the way diana dressed after the divorce, it was like she found a style that really suited her.

@CanIHaveAPenguinPlease yes I remember those days too... seems incredible really

That sounds like it could possibly be TikTok Roussette!

As I'm now on this thread, I'm going to respond to this post below by @Butterymuffin as no one has and I can answer her question.

I'm not a legal eagle, but I thought that anyone bringing a court case against someone else could withdraw it at any time if they wanted. Settling out of court is different as both sides have to agree to it. The Mail on Sunday haven't done that as they presumably think they will get enough out of going to court not to give in and settle. However the Sussexes could walk away with no settlement if they just changed their minds about the whole thing, so they are presumably set on going ahead now. Happy to be corrected if anyone can show the actual legal position.

It's not easy to withdraw a court case that you started at any time. This is for the obvious reason that you can't allow claimants to start legal claims and force the defendant to spend money and time working on their defence, only for the claimant to then drop it when the wind doesn't seem to be blowing their way.

So yes you can withdraw, but you're highly likely to face a very big costs order against you, i.e. you'll possibly have to pay all of the defendant's fees. This would mean the law suit would heavily cost them financially, as they'd be paying both their own and the other party's legal fees without any settlement or damages.

What's not being said much at all, and I think that's because people haven't looked into it and/or just don't understand, is that Friday's hearing is a strike out hearing. Associated Newspapers applied for an order striking out part of Meghan's claim, and that is what the judge will decide on Friday. Presumably the reason they're asking for parts to be struck out is because it doesn't meet a specific legal 'test' or is irrelevant.

However the point that Associated Newspapers are doing that means that, for now at least, they're on the front rather than the back foot.

It's going to be a very interesting case law-wise.

Here's a Press Gazette article about the hearing

I don’t know Nishky I quite liked the fact that there were ‘rules’ & you knew what they were.

Thank you Dandy I missed that Friday’s hearing was a strike out one. That will be interesting to follow.

I did jury service a couple of years ago & was always beyond excited when the jury was asked to leave the court for a point of law. I was also the mad juror forever handing notes to the clerk for the judge. Any wonder I didn’t get asked on a second case

So yes you can withdraw, but you're highly likely to face a very big costs order against you, i.e. you'll possibly have to pay all of the defendant's fees. This would mean the law suit would heavily cost them financially, as they'd be paying both their own and the other party's legal fees without any settlement or damages.

You're also likely to have to pay a portion of the costs of the winner in any action.

I think this is a win for Associated Press, whether it prevails in trial or not. It will make more money from what is disclosed at trial (and reported on) than it will ever pay in damages if it loses the case.

@Roussette and anyone else interested:

I have a correction to make to my first post here.

I just went on the current 'hidden' thread, and for some reason my computer turned it from pages into one long page.

Scrolling through to get to the bottom, I saw that contrary to what I said earlier, there were nine posts deleted by MNHQ on our thread rather than the zero I'd claimed. However all of these were because they mentioned a new website with one poster making most of the posts and recommending the other site to people.

So they don't really count fully for the purposes of my point that our Harry & Meghan posts on it haven't been deleted.

But still, fair's fair, thought I'd better declare the deletions I'd inadvertently forgotten about.

When I came in last night, I read the strop from DM etc. about how they were excluded, but H&M are so irrelevant. They were so angry, that for quite a while I was naively convinced that the tabloids would never report on them again. yes, I know silly since last time they were angry with H&M, the rags boycotted them for a full 2 day, except other publications and the internet just carried on covering H&M, so the British tabloids seemed to have no choice but to slither back into the fold and cover the Sussexes once again.

So this morning when someone said that the DM has put a pic of H&M in the front pages, I honestly thought they were joking. Imagine my surprise to see the DM cover at the local supermarket.

I mean the DM went on and on about how irrelevant H&M are, yet I am attaching a sample of a few reports from them in just the last week.

Seriously though, when is this jilted lover going to let go.

I think this is a win for Associated Press, whether it prevails in trial or not.

The case isn't against AP though, is it?

No, seriously, MM gets slotted in anywhere

Oops Associated Newspapers, now DMG Media.

@Dandyish are they still spamming with those links? Would have thought they would have given up as they are deleted.

I think the person who got the hardest time was Camilla, her coverage was brutal, I watched a documentary on her and Charles the other night, it’s on Channel 5 on catch up if anyone is interested, it’s basically about how she was the most hated woman in Britain, the Queen wanted nothing to do with her, the public threw things at her and it explains how she rode the storm over the years and quietly built bridges, worked her way into being accepted by the royal family and the public with her charity work.

What is really striking in comparing her situation to Harry and Meghan is Camilla started off as public enemy number one and is now a respected and loved member of the royal family and Queen consort in waiting. Harry and Meghan had the world at their feet on their wedding day, such goodwill, and now look at them, they were the architects of their own demise, it could have been and should have been so different, such a shame.

Camilla is a good egg, as are Anne and Sophie. Kate perhaps a little bit young to be an actual good egg as yet , although well on the way to being one, but HMQ must be so pleased that K married in.

@Samcro no they’re not linking to it anymore, these posts were a week or two ago (can’t remember exactly when) and were deleted en masse pretty promptly.

Charles threw a hell of a lot of money towards revamping Camilla's reputation. Although I'm sure she's nice enough, the expensive PR guy has just as much to do with her rehabilitation. There's a documentary about it somewhere on YouTube. I think it was originally meant to air on the BBC but the Palace got it pulled.

So someone went and trawled for negative comments on the FT coverage of FT. You could tell from the beginning the kind of subscribers that FT has. Most of them will be high profile, finance types, mostly suited and booted, some bankers etc. So inevitably there would not be much comments from them, especially not on a story like this. There were a few who commented, but not the 10s of thousand bots style we usually get from the DM. It was a mixed reaction of negative and positive. There seemed to be quite a few who understood that the story was put there not necessarily about H&M, but more about the seemingly unaccountable media and regulation really. Some seemed not to understand that.
But inevitably, the readers of this kind of publication would be quick to spot the bots or trolls from the get go.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think FT will go around covering H&M, but they will do with pertinent issues, all round they will - it could be any celebrity or anyone with a vocal platform.