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
SunbathingDragon · 11/07/2020 16:57

I can’t imagine she expected the case to get this far and I do think it’s relatively normal in showbiz to be the source (plus Meghan allegedly has form for this) but I struggle to believe that the reality will be that there aren’t five friends. It’s possible, but I think there are - for no reason other than the fact she has taken legal action and I would hope no one in the public eye is that foolish.

AnneOfQueenSables · 11/07/2020 17:04

This reply has been deleted

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

RubyViolet · 11/07/2020 17:22

I wonder if Thomas Markle can launch a libel action against the five friends for what they have said about him in People magazine. He maintains he was “vilified” in the article.
He probably doesn’t have the money but l am pretty sure the Daily Mail would pay for it in return for more exclusives from him.
What a disaster this is turning out be. Maybe M didn’t realise how far this would all go potentially, her advisers are terrible.

SunbathingDragon · 11/07/2020 17:41

@RubyViolet

I wonder if Thomas Markle can launch a libel action against the five friends for what they have said about him in People magazine. He maintains he was “vilified” in the article. He probably doesn’t have the money but l am pretty sure the Daily Mail would pay for it in return for more exclusives from him. What a disaster this is turning out be. Maybe M didn’t realise how far this would all go potentially, her advisers are terrible.
Certainly I’ve heard it said that he could claim for defamation which could also be why they don’t want to be named. It’s all a big mess for everyone involved on the claimant’s side from what I can see. Whereas the MOS gets lots of articles out of it (win or lose) and Thomas ensures everyone knows what was really in the letter that he received.
Oldbutstillgotit · 11/07/2020 18:04

WindsorBlues

I have a question for those who are Pro-Meghan or those who feel neutral to it all - do you think your opinion of MM would change if it was revealed that there wasn't five friends and that all or even one or two of them where revealed to be MM herself?

Well I thought she was amazing - until her engagement interview but still hoped ( and still do) that the marriage would work out . I have been very disappointed by some of the things that have happened and doubt if there is a way back.
I am not sure who is advising MM and H but I think this court case has disaster written all over it and if it turns out there weren’t 5 friends , I am not sure what will happen but all credibility will be lost .

YouSayWhat · 11/07/2020 18:12

We watch, and we wait.

I wouldn’t like to be Prince Harry, that’s for sure.

ButteryPuffin · 11/07/2020 18:14

This reply has been deleted

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

ButteryPuffin · 11/07/2020 18:17

...so I would imagine, in that scenario, that the 'sleeping partner' friends are now quite peturbed that what was described as a mere formality may now land them in court as a witness.

ButteryPuffin · 11/07/2020 18:24

RESPONSE FROM MN ON THE RECENT DELETED POSTS

I asked about the reasons and have had this response by email:

We've been deleting posts because we're not keen for the H&M threads to return to rumour, speculation and unsubstantiated gossip - our members tend to report this type of post as not in the spirit of the site. More information on our moderation position can be found on Justine's post.
If an MNer has a query about a deleted post of theirs, we're always happy to take a look and will do our best to provide clarity.

Cartesiandebt · 11/07/2020 18:26

There’s definitely an issue with the 5 friends. I’m intrigued to know what it is.

I suspect that either one or more of them is not genuine, or if they are genuine, one or more is not willing to provide the necessary evidence.

Cartesiandebt · 11/07/2020 18:27

The others, I predict, will have been asked if they were ok with their names being added as a way to puff up the whole thing, but will have been reassured that the leader (JM?) would actually run all the communications and no one would even contact them about it...

I agree with this

Grinchlywords · 11/07/2020 18:40

Buttery- that sounds extremely plausible.

My0My · 11/07/2020 18:51

I repeated speculation about why a certain court was chosen. Chancery. The media and privacy cases are usually heard by Querns Bench. I am happy to repeat that it has been discussed why her barristers did that. The reason given by senior legal commentators at the time was because the Chancery courts tend to award bigger payouts. Cases in both courts were referenced. This debate has been published and was not my speculation. If was a view expressed by legal media experts on choice of court.

MM has already said any damages are going to an anti bullying charity. Before any damages are awarded. This is completely truthful and again in the public domain. It was suggested that to try and get a bigger payout, if AN didn’t settle, the Chancery Division was the best bet. However they now have a media and privacy expert judge from the Queens Bench Division. This is to ensure the best judge available hears this case.

I truly cannot see what is wrong with any of this. Anyone in legal circles knows it’s fact.

My0My · 11/07/2020 18:52

Oh. The names of 5 friends are in court papers and known to both sides. I’m sure they exist. If they don’t expect AN to raise that in court.

Original poster
Viviennemary · 11/07/2020 18:57

I can't see it matters who the five friends are. What difference does it make. I mean they are hardly likely to be anybody of significance. Like the Queen oor Camilla. Or even somebody from the royal household. It will only be her celebrity friends.

OP posts:
My0My · 11/07/2020 18:58

Nothing I posted was rumour, speculation or unsubstantiated gossip. It was well researched and already in the public domain in well respected journals. MN obviously isn’t well read. In addition, it’s not illegal to report rumour or speculate. Gossip is what half of these web sites thrive on. It’s two faced rubbish! If other web sites and blogs and social media and uk magazines do print what I posted, and it’s not been challenged before, it’s perfectly legal to repeat it here. Otherwise the whole thread is a love in. Instead this is about a fundamental “right” to privacy and copyright. This is worthy of reasoned discussion about motivation, accuracy and the court system.

My0My · 11/07/2020 18:59

That’s correct. AN will want to establish the link between them and Meghan and that she was behind the letter being leaked before Thomas spilled the beans.

mrscampbellblackagain · 11/07/2020 19:04

Totally agree @My0My

Original poster
Viviennemary · 11/07/2020 19:05

So is there now an official injunction against naming the five people or are they still waiting on it.

OP posts:
My0My · 11/07/2020 19:12

No court decision yet on injunction. AN said they were not going to publish the names this weekend anyway.

Blossom513 · 11/07/2020 19:16

What is the actual problem with speculation anyway? As long as it's clear it's your own opinion/theory and it's not given as if it's fact then I don't see the problem. I can appreciate speculation about how someone has died is disrespectful, but I really don't see the issue about speculation on the behaviour of someone in the public eye when some of the things that have happened are more than questionable.

As for the injunction I read urgent submissions are usually looked at in 3 days but not sure if this is working days. It was submitted thursday I think.

SunbathingDragon · 11/07/2020 19:17

@ButteryPuffin

RESPONSE FROM MN ON THE RECENT DELETED POSTS

I asked about the reasons and have had this response by email:

We've been deleting posts because we're not keen for the H&M threads to return to rumour, speculation and unsubstantiated gossip - our members tend to report this type of post as not in the spirit of the site. More information on our moderation position can be found on Justine's post.
If an MNer has a query about a deleted post of theirs, we're always happy to take a look and will do our best to provide clarity.

Right Hmm, but personal and spiteful comments about people like Amber Heard, Boris Johnson, Donald Trump... is absolutely fine and dandy!
myrtleWilson · 11/07/2020 19:22

@ButteryPuffin

RESPONSE FROM MN ON THE RECENT DELETED POSTS

I asked about the reasons and have had this response by email:

We've been deleting posts because we're not keen for the H&M threads to return to rumour, speculation and unsubstantiated gossip - our members tend to report this type of post as not in the spirit of the site. More information on our moderation position can be found on Justine's post.
If an MNer has a query about a deleted post of theirs, we're always happy to take a look and will do our best to provide clarity.

Indeed plus this from a thread from last year

Megan is a red herring
The affair that William had is the root of all this nonsense

Thats not even speculation - it appears to be stating something as fact - yet it still stands

I understand that moderation is reactive not proactive but it does seem that it is not evenly applied even within threads about the RF...

My0My · 11/07/2020 19:22

It’s almost as if MM was the deleting editor last night! Speculation, rumour and unsubstantiated gossip all in one go! Yay!

Blossom513 · 11/07/2020 19:24

And what about all the speculation about Prince Andrew! Much as I think everyone is in agreement about the situation, at the end of the day, at this moment in time he is not even under arrest never mind convicted of the crimes he's accused of. There are some real double standards on MN. (Btw this is not me insisting he's innocent but just an example of when more serious speculation is allowed to stand).