Harry and Meghan, more news!

[callmeadoctor]

New thread following on old one: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/3932323-Harry-and-Meghan-news?msgid=97617755

I'm with you @ARoseInHarlem

Stellar posts all round, ARoseInHarlem, but especially this bit:
"If the time spent curating an image on IG had been spent doing something constructive - such as, oh I don't know, unpublicized charitable work, learning the ropes, listening to advisers and experts - none of this mess would have happened"

At the risk of also sounding like your old mum I can't express how sick I get of these people spilling their guts all over Instagram and the rest .. to use an appropriately old fashioned phrase, whatever happened to a bit of decorum?

what have all these new claims and submissions, such as how her wedding generated £1bn of revenue, she wasn't protected by the institution etc, got to do with a breach of copyright case?

I can't answer that, but given the amount the judge has already thrown out I imagine he'll have something to say about it

FWIW I don't believe Meghan will risk going into court with this, but if she did it's almost a shame UK court cases aren't televised ...

I don’t believe someone in the public eye would stay friends with people who they felt had betrayed them or sold them out to the media. I believe they would sever ties and denounce them, and if they were they litigious sort then they would take legal action against them. Meghan may have done the first point but not the second or third. That in itself seems very damning to me.

Does anyone else think H&M are already hasbeens?

Who? 😉

*I can't answer that, but given the amount the judge has already thrown out I imagine he'll have something to say about it

FWIW I don't believe Meghan will risk going into court with this, but if she did it's almost a shame UK court cases aren't televised ...*

Yes I agree the judge will not be impressed. Will it always be the same judge each time?

I can't imagine why Meghan would see this through. Even if she wins on the copyright I just can't see how she can possibly come out of this looking good if they are going to cross examine her about her friends. Who she has now named (albeit in confidential docs).

But my thoughts are, even if her legal team advised her against proceeding, if she's that firm in her belief that she's right, the media are wrong and unfair, and needs to be heard then I actually think she will ignore advice and not drop the case. She's already not coming across very well and she will want to keep defending herself more and more. I've seen these behaviours before so it really wouldn't surprise me (but I will still grab the popcorn! 😂)

Does anyone else think H&M are already hasbeens?

I think there is still a lot of interest in 'what will they do next', but I'm not convinced they have much credibility at the moment.

Will it always be the same judge each time?

I don't know, but surely it's a certainty that any judge involved will read the case notes and be aware of what's already taken place

even if her legal team advised her against proceeding, if she's that firm in her belief that she's right, the media are wrong and unfair, and needs to be heard then I actually think she will ignore advice and not drop the case

The nuclear option you mean? That might be very, very foolish
I think she'd quickly discover that a role in Suits is no preparation at all for the real world in court

Will they come back as bold as brass to appear on the balcony waving and smiling as if they'd never been away. In a way it would surprise me but in another way it wouldn't.

I think shes got a good case on the copyright and that she may well win but I don't think it will end up being good for their image, I think a lot of dirty laundry will be aired.

@StartupRepair

Maybe Meghan should be suing her friends for breaching her privacy

Isn't this what Wayne Rooney's wife is doing re the other footballer's wife who she 'entrapped' via fake IG posts? The difference, of course, is that a footballer's wife has money (and arguably Wayne Rooney's wife has more money than MM) and a reputation that Rooney's wife might have an acute interest in damaging. I'm guessing none of the 5 who spoke to People magazine have as much money. Why waste time and money suing them? Easier just to cut them out of your life. Also, those 5 people speaking to a 'journalist' at People magazine about the letter wouldn't have done any harm. The harm occurred when the letter was published for all and sundry to read. You'd go after the publisher (DM's owners) for disseminating the information and because they have deep pockets. (Disclaimer: I don't know the ins and outs and the particulars of claim, so this may not be actually be why! Just a general comment).

Also, Harry has history with the British tabloids. It's personal for him, which makes it all the more ill-advised.

@Blossom513

I'm wondering why she didn't go for defamation actually, if she feels that strongly about the lies and volume of negative press

I don't think the reproduction of the letter "defamed" MM. I think the contention is that it breached her privacy. It was her Dad who handed the letter over two the DM. He and the DM breached her privacy. Fancy raking your dad over the coals in court. That's a completely different level of harm that you wish on someone, compared to privately saying your piece and cutting them out of your life.

what have all these new claims and submissions, such as how her wedding generated £1bn of revenue, she wasn't protected by the institution etc, got to do with a breach of copyright case

I think this is why you don't go to court about these things. There's so much back and forth, between allegations, defence, rebuttal etc. It's possible/probable that in its defence the DM's owners contended something (eg MM was a person in the public interest, because xxx million pounds was spent on her wedding which was televised world wide blah blah blah), to which MM's team might reply "well actually, it was yyy million pounds, and anyway it was a largely privately funded event because Charles footed the bill for the dress/ flowers /cake /alcohol/scented candles etc, the taxpayer only paid for security for their own protection". I think. The process of discovery, claim, counter-claim is what you want to avoid, and you certainly don't want to put yourself in the spotlight by actually appearing in court (virtually or in person). It's completely ludicrous, totally hot-headed.

How do you know there's a devil Sitting? Have you seen him with your own eyes?

Well played EthelMayFergus. That made me laugh. You win. I wasn't on the ball as the kids played up. That was fun though :)

People magazine always confirms statements with the person reported on, or their publicist. That is why everything that appears in People is "pro" the subject of the story. They are mostly PR fluff pieces. There is no way MM didn't know her friends spoke to People.

The judge in the litigation has been assigned (Mr. Justice Mark Warby).

If the friends are in the US, the UK courts cannot compel them to testify, however, it's pretty bold to make the assertion MM did, knowing that any one of those parties may choose to testify and contradict her statement.

The statements on the bump to the UK economy, the unfairness of the press, and other royals (Beatrice, Eugenie and Princess Michael of Kent) being "paid" royals are irrelevant to the suit, and likely will be struck. I am certain MM has been told that, so it seems to me that adding these to the suit is to get "her" story "out there".

I don't think the reproduction of the letter "defamed" MM. I think the contention is that it breached her privacy.

Sorry, I didn't mean defamation from the letter article. But about any other articles, as she has said about the lies that have been printed and the unfair reporting. She seems to want to get that across when she provided other articles as evidence which were thrown out. And various other comments she's made. So I've wondered why she has pursued copyright rather than something like defamation.

But I take your latter point about the back and forth process and putting yourself in the spotlight. Whether articles are lies or not I imagine that kind of court action would be quite intrusive.

This court case was the one they announced towards the end of their Africa tour isn't it? Which I'm sure was reported that the palace didn't know they were issuing the statement and seemed very ill timed and hit headed of Harry.

I wonder if the palace didn't support the court action on this occasion. Which maybe where she feels the institution hasn't supported her. Along with not allowing them to be working Royals while Beatrice and Eugenie can.

@Blossom513, MM would have to prove she was defamed, and that said defamation was a serious harm to her reputation. I think if most of what's been printed is true, even if twisted to create a particular narrative or picture, that would be difficult to achieve.

Having watched the channel 5 documentary on Princess Diana, it struck me that William and Harry have both chosen women who are like their mother.

The difference between the two, however, makes sense when you consider how drastically Diana changed, perhaps through necessity, from a shy and quiet teenager who naturally shied away from attention and the press to a confident outspoken master manipulator of the press and media.

It would make sense for William to have more memories of the younger version of his mother whereas Harry entire experience of his mother, certainly by the time he was old enough to be aware of his mother as a person beyond his mother, was after her transformation.

Sittingontheveranda

Well, it's always interesting to hear what people think.

Otherwise called gossip and I disagree that it is interesting. Empty vessels make most noise....

I was replying TheNavigator's post immediately before mine, starting; "I think...".

I don't always agree with TN, but it's a bit harsh to label them as an empty vessel.

But you've a lovely line in cliches and I see I should read the book and not judge it by its cover.
And, since I was given two ears, two eyes but only one mouth, I'll listen and read and quietly keep typing on the internet with my eight fingers.

(I'm kidding myself: not only do my thumbs not get involved, I type everything with the middle finger of my right hand.

Go figure! as they say in cliche-land)

@miri1985

I think shes got a good case on the copyright and that she may well win but I don't think it will end up being good for their image, I think a lot of dirty laundry will be aired.

I think it’s a case that she may win on a technicality but she will lose overall.

The reason she’s thrown in all these self aggrandising statements about how much her wedding generated for the Uk economy (gor’ bless you ma’am!) is to support the claims which the judge has said should be repressed as they had no basis behind them re: being bullied by the press - it’s “look at how mean they all were about the price of the wedding and my outfits, when in reality I am the saviour of the royal family”. The trouble with all this is that any “bullying by the press” isn’t actually relevant to a breach of privacy in publishing the letter. They’ve used a branding agency to pluck a figure out of the air to make her sound impressive and of course in doing so she’s laid open the gates for the Mail (who will frankly have access to far better media / brand tracking and income projections what with it being their business) to slam it down.
Likewise, the attempt to assert her importance as an entrepreneur prior to marriage isn’t relevant to her claim and she should just have let it slide and be struck out because by pleading her founding of The Tig as a success story of entrepreneurship, the Mail can attack it as a vehicle for a wannabe to get free dresses.
I am convinced she is going against all advice in an attempt to try and show that she was a phenomenal asset to the UK and was cruelly spurned - none of which is relevant to privacy and the letter.

(As for books - William Shawcross on the queen mother is great - lots of dubbonnet and horse racing debts.)

(Don’t know where repressed came from! Struck out!)

I don't think she could stop the case now if she chose to, as ANL would continue with their case against her?

She will only settle if the Mail issue a statement to the effect that she’s “won” which weirdly, if she pays all costs and agrees to an interview, I reckon they would. But the likelihood of her giving them an interview after striking them off her favoured press outlets list is nil.