Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

News on Meghan and Harry

999 replies

Viviennemary · 08/07/2020 19:21

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
Onceuponatimethen · 10/07/2020 18:42

On the subject of M going to baby groups there was a sad bit in Jo Brands autobiography where she said she didn’t do any baby groups because she was scared of Being gossiped about. Then ironically it was the health visitor who repeated private stuff Confused

Roussette · 10/07/2020 18:44

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

^ This. Every parent is entitled to give money to their children if they so wish. As I understand it, the Queen gives money to her GC from her private income, should that be stopped too?

HarryDaylight · 10/07/2020 18:50

@Serenster

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.
It really is fascinating from a legal point of view. Thank you so much for helping me understand the complexeties of it. It's almost like a game of chess, or poker! Grin
Original poster
Viviennemary · 10/07/2020 18:57

I agree it is a fascinating case. The Royals who left the country because they wanted private life are now in the papers more than the rest of the Royals put together. It's fascinating because it's hard to guess the outcome. Will we see them give evidence. Will we hear Thomas. Or Samantha even. I think Judge Rinder should be in charge. Stooooopid. I'll write that in big. Grin

OP posts:
KatherineParr4 · 10/07/2020 18:59

I don’t understand why these friends are not happy to testify. If they have her back and have already gone to the papers, what is the issue with their names being made public?

KatherineParr4 · 10/07/2020 19:15

Hmm.. the book sounds like a threat to me. If she was a genuine friend , writing a book would not enter her head. Even if she has been ghosted.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/07/2020 19:36

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

If it's purely private money I agree completely
Unfortunately, though, between the opaque status of the Duchy, Charles's exemption from the FoI Act and an overall lack of any accountability, it's probably no longer possible to know what's personal money and what's not

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/07/2020 19:41

If she was a genuine friend , writing a book would not enter her head

I wouldn't want to take it on trust that it has, and certainly not as a result of yet another Mail "source" story

That said, between the two of them Meghan probably has the most to lose from this friendship and frankly nothing surprises me any more

AnneOfQueenSables · 10/07/2020 20:05

I don’t understand why these friends are not happy to testify
There could be personal reasons they don't want to testify. Plus speaking to a magazine when you're friends with the editor is very different from giving a statement in a court case.
If M didn't give them permission to speak to People then they have to explain why they felt briefing the press against her wishes was fine when she was complaining about press intrusion.
Alternatively if they felt M did give them permission then that is contrary to M's current position.
Add to that, if they have public positions or reputations then they might have professional reasons not to stand against the media.

SunbathingDragon · 10/07/2020 20:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

User214934514 · 10/07/2020 20:42

If JM defects then it will blow the entire drama to another level! She supposedly hired a team of PR experts and spilling tea on MM is almost certainly something they've considered. The press just want clicks and they do not have a personal grudge to paint JM as a racist forever. If she can supply them with better content then the new headlines will swiftly bury the story with Sasha Exeter. JM's not famous enough and not in the right line of work to do anything else which can override the BLM scandal.

Honestly if I were one of the 5 friends and I knew with certainty that MM knew about the article, I would refuse to testify or, if forced, speak the truth. There is no friendship worth sacrificing your personal integrity for. MM sold her friends to the press by starting the lawsuit and it's almost certain she will no longer be friends with any of them after this (regardless of outcome). It's almost ironic that her friendship with Nr 1 friend turned sour because of something entirely unrelated.

YouSayWhat · 10/07/2020 21:11

blimey, MNHQ are quick with the delete button tonight.

SunbathingDragon · 10/07/2020 21:27

I’ve read through the talk guidelines several times and my comment did not breach them.

So once again, maybe her friends don’t want to be named because it’s not true and they will be lying in court and committing perjury. Their reputations will be ruined and Thomas Markle could sue them for defamation if he wished. If it doesn’t go to court then if people know for a fact they were the ones involved and believe they lied, it still leaves their reputations ruined.

Also, maybe there aren’t as many as five of them but that number was used to give clout or cause confusion/speculation.

I can’t imagine that when the conversation with People took place the belief was that they would be named and instructed to talk under oath in court.

If Meghan didn’t know what they were going to say then the likelihood is she will win on a technicality but still lose because the only winners in this sort of thing are the papers.

My0My · 10/07/2020 21:29

AN can ask the court to summon a witness I believe. Their names are in the court papers but I’m not sure whether MM or AN declared them. However their names are in the legal papers and I’m sure AN’s barrister will want them to question them.

ButteryPuffin · 10/07/2020 21:30

I wish they'd been as quick to delete the comment I reported on another thread that coronavirus wasn't a deadly virus. That's been left to stand and is both factually wrong and potentially harmful. Still, coronavirus isn't litigious, is it?

ButteryPuffin · 10/07/2020 21:32

I can’t imagine that when the conversation with People took place the belief was that they would be named and instructed to talk under oath in court.

No, but it is something the Sussexes might have been expected to think might happen when they embarked on this court case.

My0My · 10/07/2020 21:32

Ehh wouldn’t it go to court? AN arena backing down are they? They are vigously defending this. They want the case to go ahead. Meghan might pull out of course!

My0My · 10/07/2020 21:33

Gosh! Typos! Why wouldn’t it go to court? AN aren’t backing down are they? Etc....

YouSayWhat · 10/07/2020 21:34

sunbathing you made another comment and I agree with you (was thinking exactly the same thing) but I think it was this that made the post go whooooosh as it was potentially libellous. Let’s see what happens in the court case and keep some of those more eye opening thoughts under wraps, heh?

Blossom513 · 10/07/2020 21:35

@My0My

AN can ask the court to summon a witness I believe. Their names are in the court papers but I’m not sure whether MM or AN declared them. However their names are in the legal papers and I’m sure AN’s barrister will want them to question them.

MM named them as AN asked her outright for the names in the request for further information. In the public document they are friends a-e (friend a seems to be the coordinator of the article and the one who mentioned the letter). Their actual names were disclosed in a confidential document which is obviously not public (yet!)

SunbathingDragon · 10/07/2020 21:40

@My0My

Gosh! Typos! Why wouldn’t it go to court? AN aren’t backing down are they? Etc....
I get the impression that Meghan thought AN would settle out or court and make her victorious, and able to use it to prove she was bullied by the media because she effectively won the legal case about them.
My0My · 10/07/2020 21:41

Ah. I knew they were lettered but I wasn’t sure how the names were released to the court. In that case both sides know who they are and both sides could expect them to be a witness and questions to be asked of them. If they refuse they could be asked to attend (in whatever way is approved) via a witness summons. After all what they say is rather important!

YonBonnieBanks · 10/07/2020 21:45

Its pretty obvious from their descriptions that the friends include JM, AS and LR. I think another could be SW as I remember reading that she had said she visited MM in London and isn't there something in the papers about the friends becoming concerned when they visited MM in London? Also the editor of people is connected to JM through her SIL or something like that?

ButteryPuffin · 10/07/2020 21:47

What is it that Thomas Markle is deemed to have done that prompted Meghan to cut him off entirely? I know there were reports of him talking to the press but what is supposed to have been the final straw?

Swipe left for the next trending thread