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.

Sorry. The simple sword of truth.

I know, Blossom, and said earlier that I can't imagine the judge will let something like that inconsistency pass

Given things like this and the various stuff deemed irrelevant or embarrassing (in the old fashioned sense), I only hope he can hang onto his impartiality. I realise they're massively trained and experienced but they're also human, and it must be a bit frustrating to have to keep striking out things that lawyers might be expected to have checked

Er. No. Meghan’s QC chanced his arm and put into the claim what she wanted. When I read the claims it felt rather tv American law drama as opposed to Uk Court Chancery Division. He was trying to do his best for his client but probably a bit tongue in cheek. It’s the same with the responses now. It’s not great but it’s Meghan's view. They will put what they feel is relevant to the judge but they will get away with what they can. It’s up to the judge to say not admissible or find against her.

When is this coming to court? And will it take place "live" in person - will Meghan and her mates have to turn up? Or video link.

I should have thought that video links aren't ideal if you're trying to sniff out lies and inconsistencies, as body language is key.

It was meant to be October onwards for the main case. Any day now for the injunction.

It will now depend on Covid regs. They may have to do remote but it has its flaws as you say. How far behind the court is with other hearings and what priority they give to this case will also be of consideration.

FannyCann that simple sword of truth didn’t work out too well for the guy that wielded it. Two years in jail as I recall.

I think it's meant to be beginning of next year at the earliest. I'm not sure what happens now they have submitted a reply. Whether there will be more back and forths of documents for a while.

I was just reading the original claim and hadn't realised that a strike out hearing literally means a strike out in the document - you can see them in red and striked out.

www.keepandshare.com/doc5/27222/duchess-of-sussex-poc-11-10-strikeout-pdf-1-9-meg?da=y

They will put what they feel is relevant to the judge but they will get away with what they can

Even if they're aware from experience that something will be struck out? Seems a bit of a waste of time to me, but then I'm not qualified to know

Did I miss something? What injunction?

Nothing gets struck out in court. This only happens in the preliminary exchange of papers and position statements. These went before a judge because AN asked for irrelevant items to be struck out and the judge agreed. Once they get to court, their positions are known. Our courts don’t like to be ambushed. Neither do they wish to waste time on spurious claims. The judge agrees or disagrees (with the submissions backed up by witnesses) giving written reasons for his or her judgement.

Sorry: should have said nothing gets struck out at the main (final) court hearing. It’s earlier hearings where striking out can be applied for.

Indeed OverUnderSidewaysDown

It's been a while since we have been treated to a great British court room smack down of over arching hubris.

Almost makes one nostalgic for the 90's

@CallmeAngelina

Did I miss something? What injunction?

Meghan has applied for an injunction today to keep the names of the 5 friends confidential.

Ah right - I had heard that, yes. Didn't twig it was an actual injunction though.
She's making a right "do" of all this. If she wanted privacy, why on earth not just drop the thing? Everyone would have forgotten it by now, and instead it's being re-hashed and splashed all over the papers interminably.
Even if she does win on the copyright issue, there's going to be an awful lot of dirty linen being washed in public.

Oh this is interesting, just come across in the claim regarding copyright. The images represent the letter - the blurred writing is what the MoS published, the black block are the parts they didn't publish. About 50/50? I think copyright claim is rather subjective in terms of what volume is allowed to be reproduced without permission. I would say 50% is pushing it! However some of the complaint is about deliberate omissions and misleading the public as the headline said 'full letter revealed' which implies she is more bothered about misinterpretation rather than copyright.

If the injunction is to keep the names of the 'friends' out of the (British) public domain until,thebstart of the trial, I think that's a fair/reasonable thing to do.

But once in court, the reasons for secrecy drop away, and I would be disappointed if they were only Ms A, B, C, D, E at that point. I know that's done for certain witnesses, where divulging names could be harmful (like counter-terrorism police), but I don't think there's anywhere near such a need for protection. Just to keep the circus away until the trial.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8498177/Meghan-bemoans-Archie-lack-social-skills-doesnt-interact-toddlers.html

Lordy that article is a bit

To be fair to her she probably IS too well known for such a group, I can only imagine the DM stories that would come out of it if she told Archie off, didn't tell him off enough etc

Apparently this is an extract from the application for an injunction against the 5 witnesses being named:

“These five women are not on trial, and nor am I. The publisher of the Mail on Sunday is the one on trial. Each of these women is a private citizen, young mother, and each has a basic right to privacy”

No senior solicitor or barrister, let alone a QC, would draft this. Each of these sentences is irrelevant and/or is repetitive and/or is verbose. It can only have been included as a direct quote from the applicant, in this case MM, taken over the phone by a junior and included in the draft.

This case has Harry’s fingerprints all over it in terms of the level of hatred towards the tabloid press (don’t blame him, personally). It also show a combination of naivety + ego + financial means + an agenda.

It’s very, very embarrassing for MM and PH, whether or not they win. And, just as Marilyn Manson and Paul Bettany have had their imagines tarnished on just day 3 of the three week Depp vs The Sun trial, this trial (if it happens) is going to incur a lot of collateral damage. If any of that damage is to the monarchy or any valued members of staff, I would expect HMQ to step in as she did with Burrell (I think it was).

How utterly ridiculous , other RF mothers have managed to make sure their children get out and about either with them or with the Nanny or in William and Kates case with grandparents. George and Charlotte both went to nursery , in George’s case in Norfolk . Kate has been seen at lots of local attractions.

Are they going to be too famous to take him to school?

I was going to say 'oh lordy' too! The article is reporting the source is a close friend.

I know we shouldn't believe everything we read in the daily mail but surely right now they will be doing everything by the book and being absolutely certain on what they are printing about MM? Wouldn't they?

The solution really is that he starts going to a nursery or whatever the US equivalent is. It's so sad as he had at least 3 little cousins in the royal family to grow up with and Zara's children are of a similar age too. Can't remember others off the top of my head.

This case has Harry’s fingerprints all over it in terms of the level of hatred towards the tabloid press (don’t blame him, personally). It also show a combination of naivety + ego + financial means + an agenda.

Hmm I do wonder how much Harry is encouraging her but if he is then he has to be careful because this is only in Meghan's name. Everything that is said and done in this particular case will reflect only on her and not him. So I do hope she is doing this for her own sake and not his (regardless of what I think about the case itself).

Surely somewhere like LA has mum and baby classes for celebs only?! If not I'm patenting the idea, flying out there and going to earn my millions.

easeblossom22

How utterly ridiculous , other RF mothers have managed to make sure their children get out and about either with them or with the Nanny or in William and Kates case with grandparents. George and Charlotte both went to nursery , in George’s case in Norfolk . Kate has been seen at lots of local attractions.

Are they going to be too famous to take him to school?

Agree . Catherine takes ( or used to take) Louis to a musical class.
It can be done.

Baby groups can be really tedious at the best of times and I imagine M is too well known so understand her reluctance. However, I think that right now due to covid there are countless children missing out on seeing or making friends. If such groups are running in America (and they aren’t currently in the U.K.) I would have thought a nanny could go for Archie’s benefit or else some form of daycare would be enjoyed. I honestly don’t think babies of Archie’s age really do need other similar aged children to interact with though.

If I was a friend of H or M I would be very reluctant to speak to a paper now in case I was called into court and cross questioned. It would be awkward and embarrassing.