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.

@ButteryPuffin

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

He might well be and right now, I imagine remotely would be fine. Considering his health, even in the remotest chance of the pandemic being a thing of the past, he probably will be able to agree remote testimony.

I agree about the speculation that the Meghan has no friends to go to a baby group with is really about something else altogether. Possibly it is because Meghan has said the friends were all young mothers and maybe the reality is that some of them are male. As much as I believe Meghan (and the same goes for most people in the public eye) has been her own unnamed source for articles in the past, I don’t believe she is for this article - purely because I do not believe she would have started legal action if she was.

Maybe the DM article is just complete fiction, maybe it’s trying to imply Meghan isn’t friends with the People article sources now, or maybe it’s something else but I do believe it was written for a specific reason or diversion.

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

More like the 1630s with this particular family, wouldn't you say?

They may no longer leap onto a horse and go to battle garbed in the component parts of a tin can, but I'm not convinced much has changed when it comes to raising drawbridges, repelling all comers and general intrigue

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

Nope. I like to give an alternative view instead of having an echo chamber thread. If I feel something isn't right or isn't as black and white as someone is saying, I post. Simples. But do feel free to ignore me, that doesn't stop me posting!

As far as the taking Archie to groups story, isn't it just a typical DM story with no substantiation? It's a ridiculous headline from them and clickbait in other words. Yet people take it as gospel, no idea why given it's the DM.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

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

More like the 1630s with this particular family, wouldn't you say?

They may no longer leap onto a horse and go to battle garbed in the component parts of a tin can, but I'm not convinced much has changed when it comes to raising drawbridges, repelling all comers and general intrigue

At the very least! I can see why many find others unwilling to marry in. No matter how much I loved the person, I wouldn’t be prepared for life in the RF.

I would assume the 5 'young mother' friends (is this 'young' in the same way that the Sussexes are a 'young couple', incidentally?) may welt not live in LA. In fact I would expect them to be geographically scattered, as me and many of my school or university friends or former work colleagues are. I wouldn't expect them to be located down the road and handy for going to baby groups with, necessarily. Though that doesn't mean there are no other baby group options.

If Harry really spent all those years just pretending to be happy in the company of his family then he's a damn sight better actor than his missus.

@Roussette

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

Nope. I like to give an alternative view instead of having an echo chamber thread. If I feel something isn't right or isn't as black and white as someone is saying, I post. Simples. But do feel free to ignore me, that doesn't stop me posting!

As far as the taking Archie to groups story, isn't it just a typical DM story with no substantiation? It's a ridiculous headline from them and clickbait in other words. Yet people take it as gospel, no idea why given it's the DM.

I am shocked that anyone would use the DM as a source(and the sun)

Surely even DM readers wouldn't expect the five friends to live close enough to M&H to be able to attend the same baby groups? I have close friends, none of them attended the same baby groups as I did.
H&M mention security quite often. They seem genuinely concerned about their ability to mix with the public and with other celebrities/wealthy people. It's a shame Covid happened just as they moved to the US. They could probably have benefited from seeing how wealthier and more famous people manage to live their lives in the goldfish bowl of the US celebrity circuit from a PR and a security pov.

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

More recently there was this, complete with the reference to a 'hotmail' account:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mysterious-way-meghan-markles-latest-21291583

The Duchess spent a day with organisations that support vulnerable people after returning to the country following the Sussexes' bombshell quitting announcement.

However the way the visits were arranged behind the scenes has been described as "mysterious", and not in keeping with how engagements are usually planned.

According to MailOnline , Kate Gibson, the manager of the Downtown Eastside Women's Center in Vancouver was sent an email from a Hotmail account asking if Meghan could 'drop in'.

Surely even DM readers wouldn't expect the five friends to live close enough to M&H to be able to attend the same baby groups?

I'd assumed that the whole point of moving to LA was to be near to friends and family. Or friends and mother, at least.

So Harry was really unhappy for all these years and was faking it.

What is wrong with him now?

He does not look happy to me and nor is he trying to fake it.

True, though the LA friends might not be friends with babies or toddlers. And lockdown has impacted on meeting up with anyone anyway. In that sense she's in the same boat though as any other mum at home with a one year old and no other kids.

There's quite a difference between being close enough to visit friends (friends in the US will be closer than if H&M were still in the UK - it's the difference between an internal flight and a transatlantic one) and close enough to attend the same baby groups. Also, you don't tend to go to baby groups with friends who don't have babies or who have DCs at a different stage.

www.newsweek.com/judge-will-rule-against-meghan-markle-friends-who-defended-her-1516824

"They can't vilify witnesses and they won't vilify witnesses so that is a ridiculous concern and one which I would have expected Meghan's lawyers to advise against even hinting at."

Luckhurst added that the women would likely appear as witnesses and said they must be named at that point anyway.

He said: "There's a public interest in justice being seen to be done. That's why we conduct trials in public.

What happens if all of the friends refuse to testify?

I am shocked that anyone would use the DM as a source(and the sun)

Like them or loath them (for clarity, I loathe them!) they are however quite often right with their stories - Dan Wootton and the leaving the royal family exclusive, for example. One of the reasons why the royal reporters were so annoyed by Harry & Meghan before that was allegedly because there were various stories that they were reporting on that were being denied that all turned out to be true (around the relationship between Harry and William, the frictions between the couples, the split from the foundation etc).

Strange that this seems to be the only corner of mn where the DM is believed.
As for them sometimes being right, even a broken clock is right twice aday

Love the Daily Mail

@caringcarer

For people who supposedly left their royal positions for a quiet and peaceful life earning their own income, H&M have yet to earn any income since living in LA and continue to make provocative statements in public which will attract media attention.

Also continues with court battle against Mail on Sunday over letter M wrote to her Dad whist now seeking court order to stop the 5 women who spoke to People magazine being named and appearing in court. All of which courts more media attention.

Most people who genuinely wanted less media attention would drop.case and not make public statements. Most people who wanted to earn their own living would stop sponging off Prince Charles and get a job and pay rent to person who's house she lives in.

A genuine persons behaviour is in line with what they say.

The world has been in lockdown since they formally finished their role. What jobs should they have been doing to earn income since April?

What provocative statements have they made? Be specific.

What Prince Charles decided to do with his money is no one's business unless you demand access to his books for all spending.

I wonder if there are five friends involved .. the idea that 5 individuals would get together a posse to protect this very privileged individual makes me wonder.
I think there is a possibility that there is only one person that briefed the press.

Meghan's legal team said in their latest court filing that the women have not yet formally agreed to testify and they fear they could refuse if named too early.

From the Newsweek article above.

So (by Meghan's account) not only did MM's friends talk to a magazine without her approval or knowledge, and created a God awful mess for her, they still haven't agreed to be a witness for her to help her in her case against a publication they all felt had been treating her unfairly and affecting her mental health when she was vulnerable and pregnant. WHY? Why are they so keen to stay anonymous and not jump at the chance to help their close friend who they have said is struggling so much? And why is MM going to such great lengths to protect them?

This simply does not add up. I said up thread that it's my view she knew about the interview and the more we learn the more likely it seems.

Launching a lawsuit against an experienced, solvent defendant without making sure the witnesses crucial to your case have agreed to support you is a....risky move. Starting litigation for tactical reasons without actually planning ahead for having to present your case at trial is also a risky move (starting litigation for purely tactical reasons is also an abuse of the court's process, and frowned on by them) and there are indications that this may be the case here - this is a fascinating case.

@Samcro

Strange that this seems to be the only corner of mn where the DM is believed. As for them sometimes being right, even a broken clock is right twice aday

The DM does sometimes publish accurate stories and also have the exclusive on them. It’s the slant on the way they write that I dislike but all tabloid newspapers have an element of reliability to them, as long as the finer details are something people shouldn’t believe unless definitely substantiated. I include any story that relies purely on a source in that category.

Yes it is. As she has said any money she gains from an award or settlement will go to a bullying charity, I think she initially expected them to settle. They don’t need to and the case is already dubbed “Markle vs Markle”. Very many cases are now remote hearings and yes, I’m sure he will be a witness for AN. The friends, if being witnesses for Meghan, will also probably be remote if the hearing goes ahead before courts are fully sitting again.