News on Meghan and Harry

[Viviennemary]

Since they are in the news more or less daily why not a thread on this. Latest I've read over the last few days is that Meghan is going to produce a film from a book. And later this month she is teaming up with Michelle Obama for project on gender equality. Both sound interesting projects.

@narrowboatgirl

Lol nice try.

I don’t think Meghan was bored. Her worst enemy couldn’t fault her formidable work ethic, and she seems to be an extrovert who loves meeting new people and being around groups, especially groups of woman and POC women. She seemed really happy plowing all her energy into things like the Grenfell Kitchen cookbook, and the other charity that provided training and clothing for marginalised women. Neither of those were glamorous or high profile.

There's no evidence that Megan has formidable work ethic - in fact, the evidence points to the contrary. She quit a job after 20 months - and for at least 8 months of that job, she was on some sort of break.

What was her involvement in the cookbook? a handful of appearances? she wrote the foreword. I wouldn't call that "happy plowing all her energy"

@calmcoolandcollected

Just because we have a female queen now, it doesnt change what has led us to this point and all the other ills it represents.

But I don't think the institution is misogynistic today. I believe the press is, though. I doubt the attacks on Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Kate, and Meghan would have occurred with such ferocity, if at all, were they the male spouse of a member of the BRF.

I don't think the press focusing on the wives is misogynistic. They focus on the wives because they are working royals, and their husbands are higher on the order of succession.

No one cares about the husbands because they have no royal roles.

@narrowboatgirl

She didn’t want to be forced to “step back,” she wanted to work and pursue her charity work.

Anyway the whole point was she wasn’t allowed to raise her son and do little charity projects in peace. She left because of the non-stop bullying and racial abuse, not because she was bored.

No, she didn't leave because of bullying and racial abuse. That's ridiculous, if that's what she really wanted - they would have opted for a low profile life. That's obviously not what they did.

She left because she and Harry wanted to pursue commercial ventures while being royals, which the Queen nixed.

What was her involvement in the cookbook? a handful of appearances? she wrote the foreword. I wouldn't call that "happy plowing all her energy"
What a shame to knock one of the projects that received such positive feedback from all those involved in it. She was far more involved than that and has been in touch even though not in the country any more. Can you not let this thread allow positivity about even one thing?

She left because she and Harry wanted to pursue commercial ventures while being royals, which the Queen nixed

I really don't think that was the original reason they left.

No one cares about the husbands because they have no royal roles.

Sophie didn’t have a royal role when she was criticized by the press. Kate didn’t have a royal role when paparazzi routinely stalked her, often from at her doorstep, before her marriage. Sarah has continued to be reported on, albeit less, since her divorce from Andrew. I doubt men marrying into the RF would face the same level of coverage.

The allegation about the newspaper omitting certain parts of the letter has already been struck out as irrelevant at the hearing in May.

@Roussette I agree that the cookbook was a real good project and MM’s input was positively received by those involved. The terrorism headline were so disheartening and a shame to the community that had suffered so much already.I personally thought MM was doing all her royal duties well , same as others in the RF. I didn’t really understand the criticism at the time.

I can’t think of anything more unedifying than a member of our Royal family being cross examined in the witness box. Obviously Andrew is different, I would like him cross examined and then found guilty.

This explains why Beatrice and Eugenie were referenced. It’s all about working Royals and titles and Royal duties which were required of Meghan as a “working Royal”. B and E are not working Royals in behalf of the Royal Family.

Firstly, there are repeated explanations given in the Reply that the statement in the People interview as to the contents of the Letter was not provided or authorised by the Claimant. There are far too many references to this in the Reply, and above herein, to be proportionate or necessary to rehearse here, nor can it be stated that the Defendant is unaware that this is the Claimant’s case

I've read that three times now and it still doesn't make sense. If Meghan insists she didn't "provide or authorise" the info given to People, what's wrong with AN saying she didn't, even if it's mentioned several times?

If for whatever reason she'd prefer this not to be focused on, that seems a vain hope. I'd have thought AN's lawyers would want to go into it quite thoroughly in a case which does, after all, concern confidentiality

The image attached shows the response where reference is made to Beatrice, Eugenie and Prince Michael of Kent. I actually don't see any relevance to the case to mention this.

The original claim describes MM as an American actress, business entrepreneur and women's rights activist. The defence denied parts of this - that she is no longer an actress and is a member of the royal family and does not undertake paid work.

She's saying this is wrong, that other members do paid work. Then names them.

But they are referring to her, not to all members? (This was before they left the RF).
So it's a poor and irrelevant response to talk about other members of the family.

That's how I read the response anyway, does anyone have another take on it?

I think the Grenfell cookbook was a great thing and also MM's work with smartworks. As I have said before, I think a RF model of a deeper involvement with fewer charities is a good thing.

MM is a great speaker and to be honest she shows what the other members of the RF should be capable of. I am sure a lot of us understand how daunting public speaking is but if that was our job we would learn to do it well.

I don't agree with all of MM's actions, well actually most of my disapproval is reserved for PH but I don't see any reason not to celebrate what she is good at.

In the same way my eyes roll when some posters use every opportunity to compare MM to Kate to the detriment of Kate.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Firstly, there are repeated explanations given in the Reply that the statement in the People interview as to the contents of the Letter was not provided or authorised by the Claimant. There are far too many references to this in the Reply, and above herein, to be proportionate or necessary to rehearse here, nor can it be stated that the Defendant is unaware that this is the Claimant’s case

I've read that three times now and it still doesn't make sense. If Meghan insists she didn't "provide or authorise" the info given to People, what's wrong with AN saying she didn't, even if it's mentioned several times?

If for whatever reason she'd prefer this not to be focused on, that seems a vain hope. I'd have thought AN's lawyers would want to go into it quite thoroughly in a case which does, after all, concern confidentiality

Sorry it might be my fault it doesn't make sense due to not explaining full context.

But essentially they are picking apart her previous reply to their defence (as any defence would I guess) and asking her to respond to certain points, there are over 60 of them. Some of this is repetitive things so she has had to repeat multiple times she didn't know they were doing the interview. The bit I copied and pasted was an example of how frustrated they are with repeating themselves and that I think this might be some reason why she's stated in today's legal papers that it's not her or her friends on trial. She possibly feels like these questions are an interrogation.

But essentially they are picking apart her previous reply to their defence (as any defence would I guess) and asking her to respond to certain points, there are over 60 of them. Some of this is repetitive things so she has had to repeat multiple times she didn't know they were doing the interview. The bit I copied and pasted was an example of how frustrated they are with repeating themselves and that I think this might be some reason why she's stated in today's legal papers that it's not her or her friends on trial. She possibly feels like these questions are an interrogation.

I wonder what Meghan and Harry expected when they decided to sue because they don’t seem prepared or expecting the way things are going.

These are examples of their requests, but it's not random, it's attached to paragraphs of MM's reply so they are relevant. She has stated in multiple paragraphs a denial to the letter so they are asking specifics on it.

*8. If so, please state exactly what the Claimant knew and when in relation to any of her friends or associates giving information concerning the Letter for the purposes of publication.

15. State whether the Claimant disclosed information about the Letter to the friend who revealed information about the Letter to People magazine, or whether it is alleged that the said friend obtained that information another way; and if in another way, how.

16. Did the Claimant disclose the existence and/or any of the contents of the Letter in response to anyone for the purposes of such information being published, or knowing that such information would be published? 17. If so, state when such information was disclosed, to whom, and what information was disclosed.*

That's the legal process though. If her lawyers didn't thoroughly explain to her that it's trench warfare, then they are at fault, but the defendant doesn't have to just sit there and take the claim against them. They will generally throw everything but the kitchen sink in there to show that the case against them is unfounded, not viable, not evidenced, overblown, you name it. Meghan's comment today that she is not on trial is disingenuous - she chose to bring the proceedings, and in doing so she has put her version of events on trial. No-one else did that to her, it was her choice.

I wonder if she thought they'd settle out of court. She could win on the technicality of copyright I suppose.

Thanks again, Blossom, that does indeed seem clearer now

However if it IS felt that the defence's questions are an interrogation, the phrase "you ain't seen nothing yet" comes to mind. If this does get into court does anyone imagine AN's lawyers will let things go without one hell of a fight?

It seems incredibly stupid to insist on privacy for the 5 friends and then mention they are all female and mothers with young children. That narrows down the circle significantly. Some people were speculating it might have been that godawful make-up artist who keeps selling stories to the DM but that seems to be ruled out now.

Would absolutely HATE to be one of those 5 right now. Back then it probably seemed like harmless fun and glam to talk to People magazine about a fluffy lifestyle piece. Now they face being dragged into court, potentially forced into perjury and having their private lives and family raked over by the media.

Just a random thought, JM could actually reclaim her image by turning against MM completely. I think more people disapprove of M&H's hypocrisy and bizarre egoism in the midst of a global crisis than those who care about an online spat with another blogger. She can get herself back in the headlines with explosive revelations about MM that will effectively bury the older news about Sasha Exeter.

I think she could win copyright (unless there are any caveats to public interest and if this is judged to be of public interest).

I doubt she can win privacy as her friends and People magazine breached privacy, albeit positive related privacy, and she's not shown (in the court documents at least) she's taken any steps to address this with them, only AN. So she's only interested in privacy when it's an article against her.

I don't know what the privacy laws are surrounding people in the public eye such as members of the royal family. I guess it will all come down to if this is judged to be of public interest.

Her 5 friends were not bothered about the privacy between Meghan and her father so I'm really not sure why they should be awarded the protection of the courts when Meghan is now making a claim that centres around this article. If what Meghan is saying is true and she knew nothing about the article or what was going to be said, then the only ones to blame for the entire situation are the friends, however supposedly well meaning. And if she did authorise it then she doesn't have a leg to stand on with regards to privacy.

TM made it clear in the article the only reason he gave the interview about the letter was because of what her friends said about him. For all his faults, in these circumstances I think that's fair. Meghan even states in her claim what the friends said about the letter were inaccurate so this supports TM's position of a right to reply even more.

Would absolutely HATE to be one of those 5 right now

They'll hate it even more if they're obliged to testify and the questions Blossom linked are asked time and time again. To a non-legal layperson every word of them screams "we don't believe you" and lawyers, after all, are trained to seek out every inconsistency or hesitation

Win or lose, and no matter what spin is attempted, I believe the couple will regret the day they ever started down this particular legal path

Gosh even a PP picked out an inconsistency straight away. One reply said the friends were not aware of the contents of the letter then further on it states they did!

Imagine what AN lawyers will pick up on with inconsistencies as blatant as that.

Is it too early to deploy the sword of truth?