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.

Disappointing but not surprising that so many Meghan-Bashers also hate Michelle Obama

What on earth are you talking about?

@narrowboatgirl

I think Harry used Meghan much more than she used him (she didn’t use him), he wanted an escape from a toxic family and to start his own life so he deliberately chose a wife who would support him in leaving. No other woman would sacrifice so much to make her husband happy.

Disappointing but not surprising that so many Meghan-Bashers also hate Michelle Obama.

You have no more knowledge of Harry's or Meghan's intentions than the rest of us. Just because you are pro-Meghan doesn't make you right. It just means you have a different interpretation and opinion of the things you have seen and read either directly from them or reported in the press.

Why can't it be accepted on both sides that we are all going to have different views about their intentions and behaviours? Nothing can be proven either way as it stands.

I think Harry used Meghan much more than she used him (she didn’t use him), he wanted an escape from a toxic family and to start his own life so he deliberately chose a wife who would support him in leaving. No other woman would sacrifice so much to make her husband happy.

I’ve no idea if it was true or not, but it was widely reported that his relationship with Chelsy ended because she didn’t want a life as a royal wife. I’m sure she would have supported him to leave. Had they married Harry would likely be living in Africa now, not LA. Africa was supposedly where he always to live wasn’t it?

he wanted an escape from a toxic family The Royal Family is a family unlike any other. It's my understanding that they barely see one another.
William and Harry seemed to have a great and almost normal relationship. Then they fell out.

It's quite astonishing that every family member that Harry and Meghan have seem to be 'toxic' except for Doria.

And was there anything actually stopping Harry from leaving the RF as a single person if he truly hated it that much? Why can he supposedly only do this with the support of a wife?

Vivienne I 'd expect it'll be the transient nature of so much in California that'll be a challenge for Harry; he's gone from a background where precedent and the longevity of the institution mean everything to one where they count for little

I happen to love LA's cultural energy and the meritocratic nature of the US, but imagine it could be difficult for anyone who feels shorn of reference points and isn't used to being judged on their own abilities

Hi all, we've removed some posts from this thread that are just speculation and unfounded rumour.

We're fine with a Harry and Meghan news thread - but a number of comments made here are just not in the spirit of Mumsnet.

It's worth reading this post to get an idea of where we draw the line.
Here's a relevant section:

there's no doubt that some of the flack Meghan Markle has faced is also due in no small part to her being a prominent black woman. So we will work harder to bear this context in mind and crack down harder on people who seem to be on Mumsnet mainly to contribute posts that criticise her or speculate about her actions in an unpleasant way. Because frankly, it’s not what we want Mumsnet to be about.

Please do bear in mind the expectations we have for these discussions. And as always, please report any post or poster that you're concerned about and we'll take a look.

What? My comment deleted because I said it was pointless leaving the RF to protect Archie's privacy only to name their charity after him and continue to put him on social media?

It's quite astonishing that every family member that Harry and Meghan have seem to be 'toxic' except for Doria.It's quite astonishing that every family member that Harry and Meghan have seem to be 'toxic' except for Doria.

And yet Meghan didn't live with Doria for a number of years during her upbringing, for reasons that are not clear.

@PineconeOfDoom

I think Harry used Meghan much more than she used him (she didn’t use him), he wanted an escape from a toxic family and to start his own life so he deliberately chose a wife who would support him in leaving. No other woman would sacrifice so much to make her husband happy.

I’ve no idea if it was true or not, but it was widely reported that his relationship with Chelsy ended because she didn’t want a life as a royal wife. I’m sure she would have supported him to leave. Had they married Harry would likely be living in Africa now, not LA. Africa was supposedly where he always to live wasn’t it?

Also reported that his relationship with Cressida ended because she wanted to continue acting and life in the RF wasn’t for her.

there's no doubt that some of the flack Meghan Markle has faced is also due in no small part to her being a prominent black woman. So we will work harder to bear this context in mind and crack down harder on people who seem to be on Mumsnet mainly to contribute posts that criticise her or speculate about her actions in an unpleasant way. Because frankly, it’s not what we want Mumsnet to be about.

But these threads are largely about Harry and his actions or is it unacceptable to criticise and speculate on the actions of a privileged white man as well?

It's quite astonishing that every family member that Harry and Meghan have seem to be 'toxic' Friends too, they've both been quite unfortunate with toxic friends in the last couple of years. Harry had a close long term friend that didn't attend his wedding as he suddenly became toxic in the months leading up to his wedding.

@SunbathingDragon

there's no doubt that some of the flack Meghan Markle has faced is also due in no small part to her being a prominent black woman. So we will work harder to bear this context in mind and crack down harder on people who seem to be on Mumsnet mainly to contribute posts that criticise her or speculate about her actions in an unpleasant way. Because frankly, it’s not what we want Mumsnet to be about.

But these threads are largely about Harry and his actions or is it unacceptable to criticise and speculate on the actions of a privileged white man as well?

I asked this yesterday before it went poof!

I hope my comment doesn’t make this thread go poof then!

I don’t have a high opinion of Kate or William either and am just as vocal about other members of the RF. I expect many of my comments are on now-deleted threads but I have said time and time again that my feeling of annoyance towards H&M is far more aimed at H than M.

Wow, I can’t believe the Daily Mail is now harassing Meghan’s friends in order to hurt her. Good for Meghan for being willing to do whatever it takes to protect her friends.

No doubt that’s why she’s had the same close group of friends since she was in college/just graduated, and why her friends are so loyal to her.

On the "five friends", I sort of get that Meghan wouldn't want the media to know who they are before any court case - not least as they'd stampede towards their doors in pursuit of another story - but surely the names would be disclosed in court?

Or doesn't it work like that? (I genuinely don't know)

I don't know why the names are a secret legally speaking. Some bloggers have said who they are but I suppose this is unconfirmed. It's not been in the news for a few days. But I honestly can't see what the fuss is about re the letter. Although I did read that here in the UK Meghan does retain copyright of the letter even if it's in Thomas's possession.

The newspapers have claimed that names have been disclosed to the court but in a ‘confidential’ part of the document that isn’t available to the public. Probably to avoid them being hounded before the case.

She has totally set her friends up by bringing this case so it's a bit late saying 'leave them alone' now. AN will definitely name them, you'd have to be very naive to think they won't and that must have been discussed with M's legal team when she was considering bringing the case. Their defence is that at the point that they printed the letter it was no longer private because of the five friends going to People magazine. How could the five then be kept out of it? The case rests on them and whether she knew about them talking to People.

@Viviennemary

I don't know why the names are a secret legally speaking. Some bloggers have said who they are but I suppose this is unconfirmed. It's not been in the news for a few days. But I honestly can't see what the fuss is about re the letter. Although I did read that here in the UK Meghan does retain copyright of the letter even if it's in Thomas's possession.

I think it will end up like the Johnny Depp/The Sun case where only the media is a winner, regardless of any technicalities, by getting extra articles out of what is said in court.

Narrowboat It's a bit of a stretch to say The Mail is harassing them, but it's a matter of time before they name them.

Yes. She does retain the copyright. However it appears to be her friends that knew if it’s contents as well as her father.

The case will be interesting and it really depends on how far Meghan wants to go in punishing the press and they will, of course, defend their position.

The current submission from Meghan talks about her not being protected by KP staff and her friends were told to say ‘no comment’ which she believes silenced them. The whole problem with this is that she couldn’t stay above the press. She wanted to use friends. It’s all rather seedy and not very Royal. It will be interesting to see what happens!

I’m not a legal expert but my understanding is they are named on private legal papers relating to the case, but those papers are not in the public domain.

I don’t blame her for wanting to protect her friends. There was a thread here right after the wedding were a couple of posters were getting themselves into a tizzy pushing the weird lie about Meghan not having anyone she’d known pre-fame at the wedding except her mum, and someone copy and pasted a list of all her school/college/early acting days friends who were there.

One woman was described as “Meghan’s best friend since school” and within about two minutes another poster had posted an entire private detective-style recap of the woman’s entire life including the name and location of her high school, to prove that she’d only been best friends with Meghan since college, not high school. Like that makes any difference. It was posted so swiftly the poster clearly hadn’t googled, they’d researched and memorised the birth town and name and address of this ordinary woman’s high school already just because she was friends with Meghan. Chilling.

The five friends would, in the normal course of events, be pretty crucial witnesses of fact to support Meghan's case. This means that they would be expected to attend the court and give evidence to support her. The court system does not permit ambush, however, so they would have to be identified in advance so that the defendant has the opportunity to consider them, and approach them itself if they want to (witnesses don't "belong" to one side or another - though in this case I'd expect they'd simply refuse to talk to AP's lawyers - that's what normally happens). It is possible for their identities to be disclosed on a limited basis, to just the court and the other side, as she has done here. That doesn't mean that their names are officially suppressed though, you'd need a formal court order to achieve that.

As an aside I am somewhat side-eying action to keep the 5 friends' names private when she named Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie openly in her statements of case; presumably she doesn't care as much about their well-being. I wonder if she let them know if advance that she was relying on their status in her case?

Yes I saw that, Blueroses, but if it's true that the press are "harassing Meghan’s friends" surely that means they already know who's been named in the case (if these are the same ones being referred to)?

To be clear I don't doubt they would harass those involved if they got the chance - I simply don't know if they've actually done it, and all I can find online is speculation which I didn't think was allowed here?