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.

I would have thought Meghan's legal team would have explained all the risks in pursuing this case, likelihood of her friends being named being one. If rape victims get named on twitter I think the likelihood of the names of the friends remaining a secret for long is quite remote.

And if JM is one of the friends, well she has quite a lot going on herself and who knows maybe not quite so loyal now?

Honestly, it is all such a soap opera. I also do not see the DM settling out of court, the publicity they are getting with all of this and I suspect clicks on their website is priceless.

On a technical level, I find the case quite interesting.
I seem to remember a case years ago, about a letter written by Princess Diana. The case ultimately decided that copywrite remained with Diana but the recipient of the letter retained ownership. However I am unable to remember all the details and may have the substance wrong.
In this case, news of the letter, and some of the contents, were made public by the 5 friends (who apparently knew of the letter and some of the contents).
Therefore does the recipient (Thomas Markle) have the right to take the letter and total contents to a different newspaper, with (in his view) the intention of correcting the original article, and defending himself.

I agree with the DM getting lots of publicity. So it's win win for them even if they end up losing and paying damages. And of course the lawyers will also be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the extra work. Which is probably needed in these difficult times.

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.

I have re- read this thread and can see no hatred towards MO.

I think several of us actually said we love Michelle Obama!

I wonder if MM will use protecting the identity of her friends as a reason to back out of this case? Is that possible?

I also have an image of Charles zooming with Harry with a bag of cash and telling him if he wants it then he needs to stop the case before any more of the RF's dirty washing is aired in public.

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

I didn't even realise the defendents' lawyers could apprach them - though the press undoubtably would - so I guess the best hope is that the friends keep schtum if they're identified before any case is heard. What with Justice Warby striking things out and much else, the whole thing seems enough of a mare's nest already without more going off-piste

I would have thought Meghan's legal team would have explained all the risks in pursuing this case, likelihood of her friends being named being one

So would I, but the whole thing of what the lawyers are doing beats the heck out of me, especially given the details a PP linked showing that some of the submissions are contradictory. I wouldn't expect any judge to let something like that pass, but then we've been assured he's "biased", so no doubt he'll be deemed to be in the wrong too

She expresses concern for her friends’ mental well-being, but no concern for her father’s.

Each of these women is a private citizen, young mother, and each has a basic right to privacy.

Please, please not the mother card, in this context.

The naming of Prince Michael as a royal who earns money just seemed so very random as well. Almost as though the intern was preparing the case

Young mother I think means something different to what I would think in this context. Well, unless her friends are all 15

Each of these women is a private citizen, young mother, and each has a basic right to privacy

The statement confirms that they are all women, which wasn't known before (her Soho House friend Marcus had definitely been floated as one of the possible five) so...well done, Omid. Doing great work there on keeping the details private!

the publicity (the DM) are getting with all of this and I suspect clicks on their website is priceless

That's why I'm trying to stay off it - also why I asked where the assertion that they're harrassing Meghan's friends came from (though I guess they'd hardly report on that)

Have they harrassed the friends though? I don't know either way, but if something's presented as a fact it's generally pretty useful to know where it came from

The Royal Family is a family unlike any other. It's my understanding that they barely see one another
There are many threads on MN that show many families are like this - particularly in-laws who always seem to be in the wrong for some reason. The RF is no different to these families.

There are many threads on MN that show many families are like this - particularly in-laws who always seem to be in the wrong for some reason. The RF is no different to these families. It's amazing how many toxic MILs, SILs and BILs there are on MN.

I thought a PP linked that it was the Telegraph and another site that had identified one of them, maybe JM?

In the claimants latest response, AN directly request her to name the friends a couple of times if I recall correctly. Which she does in a confidential document but in the public document they are identified as Friend A-E. Maybe this is what's seen as harassment? You can tell from some of the claimants responses that they were irritated by some of the repetitive questions for more information. Unless something is going on behind the scenes re harassment not made public yet.

I'm sorry, I'm talking to myself. Basic right of privacy...! It's a bloody risk, then, speaking to the EDITOR OF PEOPLE MAGAZINE, isn't it????

Cause journalists are so discreet. Deepthroat, these gals ain't.

There is definitely a willingness on mn to believe every one apart from immediate family is toxic and no contact is wise.

In RL I know no one who is no contact with their family.

I don't believe the RF didnt support her, I think she thought she didn't need it, and wanted to do things 'her way'. Which turned out to be disastrous PR-wise as she made no real effort to assimilate into British culture.

It just isn't the done things for Royals to be close friends and holiday with A-list Hollywood stars (or not openly, anyway). It isn't the done thing to buy endless couture and never promote British brands or the high street. It isn't the done thing to only choose glamorous/light causes and neglect the heavier/more boring areas such as visits to hospitals, hospices, factories and the like. To my knowledge she didn't do any engagements in the North of England (correct me if I'm wrong) and basically stuck to the London bubble. The baby shower was a really vulgar display of wealth (and once again a needless private jet), and the churlish attempts to break protocol to 'protect their son' by refusing to announce who his godparents are etc, even though she is perfectly happy for him to be on social media etc now he has no obligation to be.

I do think she has a strong work ethic but it is less impressive when it is purely used for self promotion and not any real philanthropy.

I must say I thought the letter saga was more or less out of the news for the time being apart from the DM of course. But no. I thought I'd watch ITV news at 1.30 to get any updates on the CV situation. And there it was news of Meghan trying to prevent the names of the five friends bring disclosed. So it's still main news headlines. I don't know what the law is here regarding the five friends. . I expect it's different for civil cases as compared to criminal cases. I wonder if they can even be compelled to give evidence if they don't want to.

Daily mail are reporting it's MM that has revealed the sex of the friends, that it was not made public until today when she submitted the legal papers.

I am not actually saying that I agree the Mail should publish their names. Not at all.

I am saying that if you are any way protective of your privacy it is an unusual move to engage directly with a high profile media outlet as these five have done. It should have been apparent that this could swing out of their control and that it could act as an accellerant (sp) of more negative news coverage of Meghan and speculation. Which is has -= and her pockets are tens of grands lighter from legal fees.

Why is she even still speaking with them? I am assuming she is because she is protective of them in this suit. This is why it is so hard to believe she didn't know about it.

There’s plenty of news outlets carrying this story. They will have info. She’s applied to the High Court because she thought her friends would be named this weekend. This is the story that just keeps giving!

Perhaps the public falling out with JM has made the need for secrecy a little more urgent

Anyone have any idea what happens now with an injunction request? I assume these are looked at and granted/declined quite urgently?

The DM has now said it has no intention of naming the five friends. Whether or not this means the names will remain a secret even during the case hearing I'm not sure. It's quite interesting from a legal position.