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.

Well spotted Hedda !
This playgroup story today is definitely a very directed story. You can almost see the smirking. They definitely play dirty. This is just the beginning, whoever advised Meg has got this very very wrong.

I think AN know full well that they will lose. They are taking a calculated risk that the benefits to them will outweigh the compensation that will be required to pay.

I understand the cynicism, I really do, but commercial organisations don't work like that. They have internal counsel whose job it is to advise correctly on the law. My understanding of this organisation is that they would review articles pre-print. If they were sure they'd lose a legal battle in the form the article took, I don't believe they would have run it without some sort of amendment.

I mean - who knows what the article looked like when it was originally submitted???? This could be an edited format.

There has to be enough nuance in the law for it to be plausible their approach could fly.

* the nitpicking over hats and bare legs and closing car doors myself (how very dare I!) would have had me heading back across the pond.

Yes but that’s what you buy into if you are a member of the RF. she should have expected it!*

Which is exactly what my post was saying - perhaps it didn't come over that way?

@Viviennemary, as i understabd it, M can withdraw the case. My understanding is that she expected the MoS to 'settle', (ie say sorry, and give her an undisclosed sum), which they are not prepared to do.
Unless some legal expert knows more.

As far as Archie is concerned , could his Nanny not take him to a group ? Or Doria ?

www.thesun.co.uk/news/12080855/meghan-markle-5-pals-story-defending-privacy/

" It would be a huge betrayal of Meghan if he scowled throughout!"

But he does do that - very often!

@BalloonSlayer

I also feel for Meghan with the baby groups thing.

I can imagine Kate told her going to baby groups was doable . . . but that might have been down to good old British reserve . . . "OMG is that Kate Middleton with Prince/Princess X? I can't believe it! Nor can I!! Be cool, be cool, pretend we haven't noticed and act like she's anyone else." Americans would be more honest and wouldn't try to hide their excitement.

I wouldn’t see the actions of us Brits in a negative light in this scenario ie. less honest. I would view it as us being more respectful and considerate of someone’s privacy. I saw W & K and their children at an event in Norfolk last year. They were there in a private capacity and everyone was just letting them get on with it. Interestingly, they were there with Zara & Mike Tindall and their girls. The kids were running around together having great fun so yes, they do get together with their cousins.

I really don’t believe that the case is a slam / dunk for Meghan, particularly with the erratic instructions she’s giving her team. AN have a good arguable case on both copyright and privacy, but which show her as someone absolutely prepared to manipulate and throw her own dad under a bus to achieve some public sympathy.

Someone above mentioned them
Not earning any money since leaving. The Lady CC book suggests that there was a very large expenses payment made for the Disney voiceover (entirely possible that’s how they managed to pay her on a notionally charitable project). There’s also the Goldman Sachs jaunt for them both which would have been sizeable and then there’s Oprah apparently helping out with accommodation, presumably to secure her own tame royals for future use. Lady CC also suggests that they’re receiving funding from the Gateses - also a member of their staff has gone to work for them. Lady CC believes that what’s a material sum to the Sussexes is a drop in the ocean to Bill and Melinda who may have future use for tame royals. Pretty remarkable if even slightly true

and then there’s Oprah apparently helping out with accommodation, presumably to secure her own tame royals for future use
That was denied.
www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a32630428/prince-harry-meghan-markle-home-not-arranged-by-oprah/

Apart from LadyColinC suggesting stuff, is there any other source for the Melinda & Bill Gates connection?

I'm no more interested in what Lady Colin has to say than I am in the Mail's silly story about baby groups, but I'll just add this ...

Years ago in LA I met a lady who was a long term friend of Nancy Reagan. Obviously she saw less of her during the White House years, but even so they'd go for lunch together whenever Nancy was back at the family ranch near Santa Barbara
To be fair I doubt they went to Dennys, and no doubt there was a "heavy" in the background somewhere, but all the same this lady's only surprise was that I was surprised

Now, if that was no big deal for a First Lady, why would Archie attending a baby group be for Meghan - especially when a nanny could take him if they wished?

There was an announcement that a senior bod from the Gates foundation was now heading up the Archie foundation (can't remember the actual name!)

If say National Enquirer or some newspaper not under AN umbrella printed the names of the 5 then I take it AN would be able to print them as they would be public knowledge?

I had heard that about the emails from the PR agent coming from the same computer etc @Cartesiandebt - obviously no idea if it’s true or not but I‘d imagine AN will know for certain with the money they can throw at this.

@BalloonSlayer

Am I the only person who hopes Meghan wins her case?

It doesn't look strong, but the papers in the UK are awful and have done dome dreadful things, have ruined lives. It would be great for someone to win a case like this against them.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she does win the court case but she won’t win the publicity battle and will ultimately be the loser because or taking legal action.

If say National Enquirer or some newspaper not under AN umbrella printed the names of the 5 then I take it AN would be able to print them as they would be public knowledge?

Again I don't know the law on this, but an awful lot gets into other nations' media which never sees the light of day in the UK so presumably there must be something stopping it?

Don't ask me how it matters, though, since most is traceable on the inetrnet now anyway ...

There’s plants of famous people who manage to bring up thier children in a healthy way with contact with other children.
No they probably do this in a variety of ways - play with cousins if lucky enough to have family like the royal family or the kardshians,

• they have a nanny of other family member take the child to groups
• they find other equally famous people with same age children and make thier own mum and baby group
• they just get on with it, take thier own child to groups albeit with a bodyguard in the background and just drop the whole I’m better than everyone attitude and be a normal person

Think of all the hundreds of very famous people who have brought up kids - film stars, royalty around the world, etc. Not sure what makes her so special that she couldn’t possibly mix with plebs! If a famous person joins a group thier reception and integration is largely defined by thier attitude and behaviour - if they go in and muck in and help with snack time and chat and are actually interested in other people they will get on fine and possibly make good friends, if they go in snobby and couldn’t possibly do anything ‘normal’ then people won’t bother with them

There are a couple of very famous people with children at my dc's prep school, they have birthday parties and playdates with their friends, usually organised by the nanny. The children are very well socialised and normal

@WinnieTheW0rm

Not sure if this has already been asked but if the letter was written to Thomas Markle surely the letter would be his to do what he wants with it. If that is the case then Meghan has no case as it's not her letter

That's the difference between copyright and ownership.

He is the owner of the letter as he was the intended recipient and he possesses it.

But the writer of the letter can remain the copyright holder (there's may be legal points around whether that is always the case) and so it should not be reproduced without the copyright holder's consent - other than small excepts for (fair) comment.

So the case will look at who owns the copyright, whether previously published accounts were authorised, whether TM's actions were reasonable (in correcting unfair comment) and whether AN should have published.

MM launched the case against AN, as she could hardly sue her own father, but I think the reasonableness of his actions may well be a feature.

Her case against them will be scrutinised, so to that ecpxtent she is fours on trial. But the way she put it is snappier than 'claimant' and feeds her wider (and already partially struck out) narrative.

I think what will also be carefully scrutinised is how much of the letter was published as well since parts were omitted. Then in turn what bits were published that was new information and not what People had revealed.

@EthelMayFergus

It's not hard to understand what you're saying, it's hard to understand why you think that. My impression is that Harry had a good relationship with all of his family, his grandparents, all of his cousins, father, brother, sister in law. You think he wasn't a good fit in that family and was pretending to be. I think he was a popular and happy member of his family based on all of the photos of him smiling and laughing with them.

I think it's awful to suggest he was faking his happiness when with his family and it's because he didn't fit in with them, you can't possibly know that. Is it to make out that they really are toxic and Meghan saved him from the hell that he was living?

I agree with.

Some people like to disagree with others out of principle. They are easiest ignored.

@KatherineParr4

in which they might explain what the Claimant was truly like (as opposed to the tabloid portrayal of her).

It seems to me that both M and her father have tried to portray ‘what they’re really like’ in different ways, and both by manipulating the media. Meghan with this letter and talking to her friends so that they felt the right image should be presented. She must have known what they were doing. In any case, the letter looks like it was written to be published.
Thomas through staging photos of himself because he didn’t like either way the media were portraying him, then giving interviews.
Samantha was at it as well by giving interviews because she felt the family were being ‘snubbed’, to use the awful DM word.
What is it that motivates them all to bare all in public?
Meghan looks more and more naive . She does not look she had a clue what the expectations of her would be in the RF. The blame for that must lie with the RF for not laying it out for her, chapter and verse. Also with her because she really didn’t need to look too hard to see what was required.
She also appears to have had no idea what a court case entails. No one in their right mind would have started in this road. It’s just beyond tawdry.
Why oh why do the pair of them not do what they keep talking about and disappear quietly, to live a private, dignified life out of the spotlight. They do have enough money to do that if they lowered their expectations.

Is this a more normal reaction for Americans in their own country (I genuinely don’t know but wonder as it would make sense why they all did it and why in the U.K. we seem to be so baffled by it)?

Is Thomas Markle going to be asked to testify, and will he be allowed to do so remotely?

@Samcro

didn't William advise H not to marry M so quickly? I imagine that was not received well and would lead to bad feeling. why should the RF have stood against it more forcefully? he is a grown man, he should be allowed to marry who he likes. this is not the 1930's.

The Queen still needed to give permission though due to Harry’s position in the line of succession. If she had said no, it would have meant renouncing any claim to the throne and perhaps that wasn’t something he wanted.

I think the 1930s is still strong in some families!

@Cartesiandebt

Probably a red herring, but I have seen speculation elsewhere online that the problem with the 'five anonymous friends' is that at least a couple of them don't actually exist - that they only communicated with People via email.

According to someone who worked with MM on a photoshoot when she was on Suits, she had form for 'pretending' to be her own PR agent, and sent abusive emails about the arrangements that had been made from a Hotmail account. Completely unsubtatiated of course, but the trail is all there online, and presumably AM's legal team will be chasing these sorts of leads and investigating them thoroughly.

I’ve heard this said of many celebrities. That when you hear of a source or spokesperson commenting for an article that it is the celebrity themselves.

I believe some of the supposed evidence of Meghan doing this is the way some of her previous responses have been worded. However, the only online alleged evidence I’ve seen all preceded her wedding.