Harry and Meghan court dramas (not Suits)

[ARoseInHarlem]

Starting this thread while I digest the last few posts on the previous thread. I think the H&M saga could be as unsettling for the RF as the Charles & Diana bad publicity in the 1990s, if not worse.

I wouldn't expect her to actually donate. The patron's role is to give their time and effort. I do think the least she can manage while she is writing letters to other organisations would be to write one to the organisation of which she is still patron. If it's considered beneficial to other organisations in terms of publicity and lifts their staff's spirits, surely the same would be true of the NT.

I think that they really do want to “change the world” or at least “make a difference”.

I think Harry wants it because it gives him a reason for the bizarre existence his ‘royalty’ has forced upon him and I think Meghan wants it because she wants to be admired and respected.

anticipating being criticised for something is not an excuse for not doing the right thing

No it's not, but it still gets trotted out all the time. Frankly it sounds like getting the excuses in first, as in "well, nothing she does will be right for some" and even a suggestion that the judge in her upcoming case is "biased" because he knows someone or other

It's perfectly true that a minority can't bear to hear a single word either for or against Meghan, but hopefully most of us are a bit more balanced than that ... and oddly enough, some of us blame Harry much more than his wife for a lot of what's gone badly

I would expect her to donate. She has more money than most people can ever hope to have. Why shouldn't she donate. It really is a bit of a cheek asking ordinary people to donate while they sit tight on their millions.

I've finally been able to read the latest legal filing.

Something I noticed.... response 4 says:
The Claimant discussed with Friend A that she was writing a letter to her father at the time of penning it, which was seven months prior to the People magazine publication. The Claimant and Friend A discussed the existence of the Letter (but not the contents) again in September, when the Claimant received a reply from her father, and again discussed the existence of the Letter (but not the contents) in December as the Claimant’s father continued to give interviews to UK media falsely claiming he had not heard from his daughter.

However response 15 says:
As stated above, the Claimant told Friend A about the fact that she had sent the Letter to her father and discussed some of its contents.

If anyone had problems with the bandwidth on the other site, I think these links should work instead:

Particulars of Claim

Amended Defence

Claimant Reply Dated 17th April

Response to 2nd Request for Further Information

Skeleton Argument for hearing on 24th April

Table of Pleadings

Response to 3rd Request for Further Information (2nd July)

Strike-Out Judgement

Apparently the Telegraph has named JM as one of the ‘five friends.’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8497801/Will-Jessica-Mulroney-Meghan-Markle-trial-century.html

Is there a new thread? I can only find this old one.
Been having a break and can't find the new one.

Not really, Cartesiandebt; on the whole it's the usual Mail rubbish, with plenty of could's, inverted commas and the get-out of "Jessica has never confirmed if she spoke to People"

Given what's going on I'd expect their lawyers to be pretty hot right now on what's printed and what's not - even if they're being presented with an open goal

My last post was deleted!!! I’ve no idea why. I said, and it’s correct to say, that MM isn’t interested in theatre. She made a tv series in Toronto and prefers Hollywood. Harry pitcher for her to work for Disney. All of that is true. She’s not a stage actress and hasn’t been a regular theatre goer whilst in the uk.

So don’t delete the truth please.

How odd My0My

As you say, it's the truth, so why was it deleted?

Who reported it and why?

@goldierocks

I've finally been able to read the latest legal filing.

Something I noticed.... response 4 says:
The Claimant discussed with Friend A that she was writing a letter to her father at the time of penning it, which was seven months prior to the People magazine publication. The Claimant and Friend A discussed the existence of the Letter (but not the contents) again in September, when the Claimant received a reply from her father, and again discussed the existence of the Letter (but not the contents) in December as the Claimant’s father continued to give interviews to UK media falsely claiming he had not heard from his daughter.

However response 15 says:
As stated above, the Claimant told Friend A about the fact that she had sent the Letter to her father and discussed some of its contents.

If anyone had problems with the bandwidth on the other site, I think these links should work instead:

Particulars of Claim

Amended Defence

Claimant Reply Dated 17th April

Response to 2nd Request for Further Information

Skeleton Argument for hearing on 24th April

Table of Pleadings

Response to 3rd Request for Further Information (2nd July)

Strike-Out Judgement

Well spotted!! I've just got to that bit now, I'm working my way through it. Thanks for sharing the links. It's fascinating.

I think (but still reading) she is denying she knew the letter would be discussed in any interview, denying she knew there was an interview/article for people magazine, but I think it's worded in a way that she hasn't denied she knew her friends were going to be interviewed. Attached screenshot.

@Roussette

If MM spoke out about the NT, she would be maligned for doing so. Possibly not by everyone but by a lot of people. There would be posts on here saying 'how dare she. She lives in LA' and the like. Any comment by her would not be welcomed. I remember when I'd watched her old school Sacred Heart BLM speech to graduates, it was warmly received. As she said... silence was not an option. I thought .. it's great to see and hear something positive on MM in the press and SM Then I came on the H&M threads here lol.

I disagree and think it would be welcomed, assuming she went about it in a way to draw attention to the Theatre and not as a focus on herself.

Question for any legal bods, If she put in one response friend A did not know the contents then in another response friend A knew some of the contents, what happens now? Would she get opportunity to amend this reply as an 'error' or does it have to stand and potentially be challenged on it (significantly I assume!) in court?

Maybe relationships with the NT aren’t great ?

Maybe the NT would prefer a patron who lives on the same continent.

I disagree and think it would be welcomed, assuming she went about it in a way to draw attention to the Theatre and not as a focus on herself

If it happens, we'll see then I suppose...

Who reported it and why?
Not me. Don't know.

This is the context in which 'unprotected by the institution' was used. (p12 paragraph 12.8d)

In the first response by claimant (MM), earlier this year, she stated she was 'vulnerable as well as heavily pregnant' (reasoning behind her friends giving interviews)

Defence (AN) request for further information:
28. Explain why it is alleged that the claimant was 'vulnerable' at the time (in addition to being pregnant).

The claimant response to the request was:
28. The Claimant had become the subject of a large number of false and damaging articles by the UK tabloid media, specifically by the Defendant, which caused tremendous emotional distress and damage to her mental health. As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself.

Have you read the reports of Johnny Depp / Amber Heard in court today. I would imagine that would put H&M off going to court if they had any sense.

Have you read the reports of Johnny Depp / Amber Heard in court today. I would imagine that would put H&M off going to court if they had any sense

You'd think so, wouldn't you? If anything would take a toll on mental health, it's that.

Indeed..

Hang on a second, all this grumbling about not being able to comment about press articles - as advised by the KP comms team - that left her feeling vulnerable and undetected.

Yet in their latest response

the Claimant repeatedly advised and warned her father against speaking to the press because of the damage which they would cause;

Am I missing something here? Isn't this what the KP comms were trying to advise her too? The whole purpose of 'no comment' is to not engage with the press.

@Ihavenoidewhatsgoingon

Have you read the reports of Johnny Depp / Amber Heard in court today. I would imagine that would put H&M off going to court if they had any sense.

I haven't read much about this. I'm vaguely aware of something that initially it was him that was accused of DV but it's becoming more clear it was actually her? And the latest case is Depp v The Sun?