Harry and Meghan biography

[sunshinesupermum]

Hasn't Prince Harry learnt anything from his mother's experience of having someone write her biography 'to set the record straight'? Couldn't they have at least waited until after his grandmother's death, however long that might be?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8257071/Meghan-Harry-biography-bombshell-Royals.html

So (from the article) we have " five women who form an essential part of Meghan’s inner circle" which would mean they probably had an invitation to the wedding. That narrows it down:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle

I can only see three female co-stars on Suits......

biscuit. It was a joke.

Perhaps Megan has named Catherine and her Majesty as part of her inner circle?! The woman is very light on female friends and family, never a good sign.

arche lost in translation, sorry

The five friends thing will be very interesting - if they don't live in the UK, which is probably the case, they can't be compelled to attend. The MoS could seek to have them examined in the US by sending a letter fo request tot he courts where they live, and then a transcript would be available for use in the UK proceeding, but that would be a very unsatisfactory result, as then the MoS won't really be able to cross examine them, and the judge will not get the chance to assess their credibility fin the flesh. However, if Meghan's case entirely relies on their testimony that they spoke to the press and disclosed the letter without her consent, she really needs to have them come and give that evidence live in the court. It's her case, the duty is on her to prove it. It will make it much harder for her to prove it if the people who are key to it don't give evidence.

Also, I am sure Meghan's supporters will spin this as a meaningless preliminary skirmish, but as a litigator myself having elements of your claim struck out is most definitely being given a bloody nose by your opponents. Plus the large costs order - which is inevitable if you lose in court, no matter at what stage. I do hope she's thinking long and hard about whether this litigation is worth it (and listening to her lawyer's advice, although it sounds like she's one of those clients who is sure they know best. We've all had them).

I’m certain that Meghan’s lawyers advised her to settle this out court but ultimately you do what your client instructs you to do. In these cases I’m sure they’ll have her instructions in writing in spite of their advice. It’s what I did a few times to protect my employer.

I'm confused about the "costs" thing - surely who's going to pay them gets decided after the case is finished, rather than at some preliminary hearing?

Or have they been decided for just this preliminary bit, with the rest to allocated later?

@Serenster yes that's true. The burden of proof is on her.

I feel very sorry for Megan's lawyer, the damage to his reputation is going to be huge.

I haven't seen what the costs order was - there are several that can be made. Options include an order that the costs are reserved (the amount awarded is on ice, basically) until the final outcome is known, or it could be that costs have to be paid now, irrespective of what happens after this point. From the the fact the sum has been publicised, I suspect it's the latter case, although I am happy to be corrected by someone who knows more.

And I wouldn't feel sorry for her legal team! I am sure they are delighted to be involved in a such a high profile case, no matter the outcome.

Bluechangling, it's a looooong time since I did my (very brief) Law studies, but the Paul Burrell case was a criminal case so technically the Crown vs Paul Burrell. HM apparently had a memory () that could have influenced the verdict but it was impossible to call her as a witness as the prosecution was in her name. So the case fell apart on a technicality (happy to be corrected by people who actually know about legal stuff!)

This is a civil case, so nothing to do with the Crown/CPS, although I'm fairly sure the RF could find another way to shut it down if they wanted.

That said, in their position, I'd be weighing up the short term embarrassment of dirty laundry versus the possibility of MM finally getting her comeuppance.

I'm quite relieved to see that the Judge has thrown out the claim that the press had an organised malicious campaign to discredit her

He hasn’t. It has been struck out of this particular proceeding for legal reasons, with the caveat that it may be reintroduced subsequently.

Biscuit

Brilliant summary. The two of them provide enough material for a degree in Psychology.

so they're probably still entirely deluded about the state of things and possibly annoyed at a pandemic virus having stymied their cash making endeavours.

Fairly sure I’ve heard something about someone in America suing Coronavirus. It didn’t occur to me if might have been DoS (Duchess of Sussex). Actually does that make them a pair of DOS’s ?

I’m also minded that this is a very theatrical distraction from Andrew.

I would dearly love to know who is footing the legal bill? I can not imagine RF are willing to support this financially. It is going to be enormous if she proceeds. Given she has called her father a liar, it would be rather awful if he decided to sue for defamation. This debacle could go on for years. If anyone becomes sick and tired of Coronavirus they won't have to wait for very long for a timely distraction.

Either the desire for attention and publicity far outweighs the negatives, or MM is a narcissist and can not imagine herself losing anything ever.

The Queen was made aware of both the problems in the marriage and Megan's wish to leave early winter last year, it is common knowledge in these part. Apparently Harry was instructed to get on with it, it was his choice to marry her. It was too early to consider anything else. I know this from a very reliable source, and that could shed light on the reasons why he looks just so unhappy, and why we are hearing the reports from trusted friends.
I imagine this is all a huge strain on him as a person, as we know he already has mental health issues and this situation won't be helping. Rock and hard place spring mind.

The two of them provide enough material for a degree in Psychology

You just reminded me of that quote from the psychiatrists, faced with Basil Fawlty:
"there's enough material there for an entire conference"

it could be that costs have to be paid now, irrespective of what happens after this point

Thanks for the explanation, Serenster
To an outsider, this possibility looks awfully like "get the money before they change their minds or do a bunk", or even just "let's see if they'll put their money where their mouth is", but presumably that's not necessarily so?

ARoseInHarlem

I think the word you are looking for is perhaps ‘authentic’.

Imo, this latest development is going to enrage M&H and make their decision making more rash, rather than give cause for consideration.

There was a thread recently where posters discussed the non verbal communication between M Buble and his wife; if you examine the Westminster footage you will see H looking at M in a similar fashion, as if in dread of what he might see. Maybe it was concern but to me it looked like fear.

@mamansnet Thanks you for explaining that for me . I was quite young when the trial happened and my mum always said it was shut down because Lizzie had enough Paul's nonsense, and was worried about what else was going to come out

• You just reminded me of that quote from the psychiatrists, faced with Basil Fawlty: "there's enough material there for an entire conference" *🤣🤣

Been following this thread with interest.

If my memory is correct MM, a little while ago, tried to withdraw the case but the MoS would not agree.

I'd love to know Prince Philip's opinion on the whole circus show.

@BlueChangling oh I'm sure that's true too!!

So I'm just trying to clarify the crux of this case. I know there a lot of other elements to the case, some of which have now been struck out but fundamentally is this right?

MM, as the author of the letter owns, its copyright. She therefore claims her copyright and privacy been breached when it was published by the MOS.

However the MOS are countering this by arguing that MM had every expectation that the letter would be made public and in fact sanctioned the actions of friends in giving an interview to People Magazine that referred to the contents of the letter to demonstrate that MM had acted lovingly/kindly towards her father and thus put her in a good light and conversely her father in a negative one.

It was only after this that her father gave the letter to the MOS in order to set the record straight as proof that communications between them were not how her friends had portrayed them.

As such the MOS argue not only was MM complicit in making some of the content (to her advantage) public, but exposing this was now in the public interest because the PR from MM's inner circle was unfair and unbalanced.

MM counters the above by saying she had no knowledge of the interview/article with People Magazine and did not sanction her friends to reveal the contents of the letter - thus did not breech her own privacy and had a reasonable expectation the letter would remain private.

So fundamentally crux of the cases is did MM sanction the interview?

If she did and her friends take the stand they would have to commit perjury.

If (as based in the US) they don't provide testimony whilst the MOS can't prove MM did sanction the interview, fundamentally they don't have to because as the person brining the case it's up to MM to prove that didn't - which she can't do if her friends don't testify.

This suggests she's playing a very dangerous game if she did sanction the interview and even if she didn't her case is going to rely on putting her close friends in a difficult position as they will have to state publicly that they betrayed her trust by speaking to the People without her consent.

Have I missed anything?