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.

She's got a small half smile on her face at one point during the anthem! Angry? Really? Cannot see that at all.

She doesn’t look angry to me. I think Harry looks a bit pissed off with her.

Back with more recent news, does anyone know what's happening about this injunction?

I'm aware the Mail said they've no intention of publishing the names this weekend (which could just as easily mean they plan to do it next Tuesday for example) but the application was made to sound like an emergency measure ... and yet nothing more seems to have been said?

I'll find the link but I read urgent injunctions are usually decided in 3 days. If that includes weekends it will be today but if working days then it won't be until Tuesday.

I’m really confused about the injunction because the Sun named the 5 women earlier this week.

I personally have no interest in knowing who the five friends are but they should be individually identified just to confirm they actually exist. Reading the court documents there is so much to take issue with - as already discussed on these threads - that I wouldn't have any faith in the accuracy of statements made by the Claimant's side. I think this is the angle AN are coming from.

The court only deals with matters super-urgently if there is a genuine need to do so. In a case like this, where time is not of the essence, it would expect that the parties to agree on measures that will keep both sides happy in the interim period. Here, from what the Mail has said, they were not about to publish the names imminently, and so have probably been asked to undertake not to do so until the injunction application has been heard and determined.

This whole injunction thing is another example of how Meghan's legal team is taking a high-risk approach to the litigation. Don't just file some names in a "sealed section" and say they are confidential, because saying so does not make it so - get a court order confirming the position. Or agree it with the other side (on the basis that if they won't agree this you'll seek costs against them if they make it necessary for you to apply for an order - that normally focusses the mind).

I'll find the link but I read urgent injunctions are usually decided in 3 days

It entirely depends on the matter, and the nature of the urgency. Properly urgent injunctions can be done over the phone in the middle of the night, if that's what's necessary. When Lehman Brothers was placed into administration the Judge came down to its Canary Wharf offices at about 3am to make the necessary orders before the markets opened!

This is the link.

I presume because their legal papers alleged the MOS were going to print this weekend and have also alleged harassment that they have gone for an urgent without notice interim injunction?

www.brettwilson.co.uk/services/defamation-privacy-online-harassment/urgent-privacy-harassment-and-defamation-injunctions/

i just want to add something about the balcony event.
i remember a clip where Princess A was fighting for a place near HMQ and in the middle, where MM was there before and then pushed to the edge.
maybe they are the same videos and maybe the chat was related to what happened there.

Sorry cross post Serenster. I think I got 3 days mixed up with the notice needed to be given to the defendant.

I think as it was reported MM's legal papers claimed MoS were going to print the names today and also they were harassing them then I think a without notice urgent injunction is what they were aiming for.

@alliwantisagoodnightssleep

I’m really confused about the injunction because the Sun named the 5 women earlier this week.

It wasn't reported as fact, more of 'are these the 5 women.. blah blah'. But I would be surprised if it's wrong actually.

Thanks again all - and Serenster for the detail - again that makes perfect sense

I took a risk and clicked on the Sun's site (well, there's a first for everything ), and the headline asks "Are these Meghan's 5 pals?"
They may or may not be right, but I imagine making it into a question will have covered them against any comeback

So adding a question mark can get them round an injunction if those names are accurate? The legal world is bizarre.

Cross posted with you, Blossom

from what the Mail has said, they were not about to publish the names imminently, and so have probably been asked to undertake not to do so until the injunction application has been heard and determined

Reading that again with my cynical hat on, doesn't it create the possibility of the media putting out a non-attributable whisper that they might publish, and then wham!! The claimant runs up more legal debt, the media get a nice headline out of it, and all they have to agree is not to say anything more yet

Not a very nice thing to do if so, but then I don't suppose they're feeling very well disposed towards her right now

If I recall correctly, at the time the sun published that article there wasn't an injunction in place (but I think it was after the reports they had applied for one).

So I am taking it as the sun got the article published quick but also framed as a question, before any injunction was put in place. If you had reporters on the case I don't think it would take too much digging into the people article to make a pretty accurate guess at who they are. Especially when there is even more semi-identifying info in legal papers already public, like one of the friends knows the editor of people magazine.

Reading that again with my cynical hat on, doesn't it create the possibility of the media putting out a non-attributable whisper that they might publish, and then wham!! The claimant runs up more legal debt, the media get a nice headline out of it, and all they have to agree is not to say anything more yet

Meghan's legal team opened themselves up to that however by filing their responses to the requests for further information without first taking steps to ensure that the section that they wished to be treated as confidential actually was confidential. Simply saying they are confidential doesn't cut it, and they must have known that. And being nice is not generally part and parcel of the litigation process I'm afraid! Meghan chose to launch these proceedings, someone must surely have explained to her before she did that the process is called adversarial for a reason, and she won't be able to control it.

Also, there would be no justification for Meghan's lawyers making an application for an injunction without notice to the other side. If they tried to in this case, I imagine they would have been roundly told off by the judge.

But is anyone the slightest bit interested in who the bloody friends are? Or who Archie's godparents are?
I really do wish they would just stay in LA in their borrowed home, and stop all this nonsense. Oh, and put an end to the tapping PC (and the British tax payer for money).

Unfortunately this is what can happen when any of the RF go off piste in their yammerings

With the notable exceptions of the Princess Royal and the Countess of Wessex, both of whom have said similar stuff about sticking with the script for the first decade or so of working with a charity, and only making your opinions known once you actually understand properly

The Duchess of Cambridge is coming up to 10 years married, and is just beginning to do more stuff.

Meghan chose to launch these proceedings, someone must surely have explained to her before she did that the process is called adversarial for a reason, and she won't be able to control it

This is what it all keeps coming back to, isn't it - and with good reason

As said, whoever's right or wrong and whatever the outcome, I honestly believe Meghan will regret the day she ever started down the legal path

The whole point of leaving was so they could live their lives in private and Archie had a 'normal upbringing out of the spotlight. Then they go and name their charity Archewell and take out a lawsuit.

No I'm not that interested who the friends are. Apart from Jessica Mulroney, given the recent events she was involved in.

I'm more interested in the steps being taken to protect their identities and why they are reluctant to publicly stand up for their close friend and to only do it anonymously. Given it's a case to stand up against the media they believe has been bullying her you would think they would be jumping at the chance to support her given it's their interviews that is threatening the success of MM's claim.

If the sun are correct then I don't think many people will actually be interested. They aren't that well known to most people apart from JM, in the UK at least. And JM is only known to those that follow MM.

A fair point, iVampire; despite Sophie's past indiscretions both she, Anne and now Kate have indeed been a lot more circumspect in speeches about charity work

Given it's a case to stand up against the media they believe has been bullying her you would think they would be jumping at the chance to support her

Hmm, not sure; I keep remembering what a PP said about it perhaps all being a jolly jape at the time, but maybe less appealing now it's landed them with a possible grilling in court

Having seen (although not in depth as I am not following closely) how the Johnny Depp trial is going, I think MM would be wise to drop the case.

I wonder if HMQ will step in and MM will finally feel some royal family support?