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.

Can anyone offer a reasonable account of why ‘The Letter’ is such a big deal?

It’s what part of her case is about. Copyright. She has copyright of this letter and printing of it without her consent infringes copyright.

The fact elements of it were exposed by her friends and her father have complicated matters but most believe she does own the copyright under uk law.

Yes. The High Court is going to deal with this urgently. Their defence will be as attached.

Well actually they don’t defend anything! The newspapers position is as follows. It’s coming out in the ongoing court case.

Presumably the DM knows their identity due to the legal submissions but other papers don't? I would think they just want to keep that information for themselves so that they can get the story out first and be first to approach the friends.

The DM says their names will be exposed in the court case. So they won’t stay secret.

In order to defend a case, the defendants have to be given information. The five friends were named in the court papers. They have the names. They have said they were not going to publish the names this weekend. Who knows if this is true? However justice may well require that they give evidence and can be questioned by the Mail on Sunday barristers. That’s justice in action. The court could decide they are to remain anonymous at that point. Meghan wants to stop any early publication of their names.

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

Huh?

Nobody here dislikes her. I haven't seen one negative post.

There was ONE post where the poster said that some achievements claimed for MO had been less successful than claimed, but the poster in question also expressed liking for MO in many other ways.

Could you specifically list the posts expressing hatred of her?

Has MM been betrayed by her father, the five friends, the newspaper, or all three?

The naming of Prince Michael as a royal who earns money just seemed so very random as well
I was wondering about this but it struck me that they may have been picked specially for optics. Beatrice and Eugenie are a reminder that their dad is involved in the Epstein case. Prince Michael of Kent is a reminder of the time she wore a racist brooch. The examples link with negative stories about the RF.

?? She probably gave the letter contents to her friends. We will find out. He didn’t like what was reported in The People. He then gave details of the letter to the press. To put the record straight. How could her friends have said anything unless they knew what was in the letter or had been briefed by Meghan? The case isn’t about betrayal. It’s about copyright and privacy.

I keep on reading ‘betrayal’ this and that but can’t quite work the logistics out. I would have left well alone so can’t understand the mindset of opting to drag this through courts.

@BarleylemonPenguin

Can anyone offer a reasonable account of why ‘The Letter’ is such a big deal?

My understanding is; Thomas Markle was sent the letter in August 2018, so a few months after H and M's wedding, he didn't go to the press and he didn't reply. Several months later (Feb 2019?) the five friends spoke to People Mag and misrepresented Thomas and the letter by implying that the letter from Meghan was a request for a reconciliation, which was ignored, so it made TM look bad. Thomas then went to The Mail with the letter to show that it wasn't a request for a reconciliation at all, it was more a telling off for breaking her heart, and a request to stop talking to the press. Crucially he didn't show anyone the letter until the friends had lied about it, so AN's defence is that the privacy had already been breached. Meghan is denying having any knowledge that the friends spoke to People at the time, and definitely didn't ask them too, yet Omid Scobie tweeted back then that the letter was written with public consumption in mind.

Do you think the Markle 5 are busy researching the penalty for perjury in a British court ?

Beatrice, Eugene and Princess Michael of Kent don’t get money from the state. Meghan claims they retain their Royal titles whilst working. She was offered work by the RF. Royal Duties. She didn’t want that type of work and it’s constraints. Unfortunately she’s made it personal.

Well only if they say something that’s untrue. It depends how much that actually matters and to whom.

Omid Scobie has an opinion. He’s doesn’t know.

Thanks EthelMayFergus Does that mean that Meghan, the five friends, and Thomas Markle will be called to court to be cross examined by the defense?

The Spectator summed it up in the Coulson case.

I read this in the latest claimant's response

Of course, it is admitted by both sides that the Claimant sent her father the Letter and he sent her a response, as the Defendant knows full well.

This is the first time I've heard he replied to her letter.

The response later goes on to say:

The intention of the Letter was to make him stop his actions; it was not an attempt at reconciliation.

There has been a great deal of speculation that they will be.

He did. Via text he says. He also tried to ring her, he says.

So the five friends gave incorrect information to People Magazine, as on fact The Letter was not an attempt at reconciliation, and Thomas Markle did respond to it, so that's the reason he took The Letter to the press, to vindicate himself?

Is that right? I'm trying to understand why he was so upset that he would do something like that.

If the five friends don't give evidence Meghan will struggle to prove her case. In essence, she needs them giving evidence and confirming that, although she told them about the letter and some of its contents, she did not authorise/instruct/agree to them talking to People magazine. A witness summons can be issued in a civil case to compel them to give evidence (the other side can seek one or the court can make a order of its own volition). The fact that they are all presumably not based in the UK makes things more complicated, but they can be examined by a court in a mother country if they don't want to come here. But really, since her case is based on the fact that they breached her privacy without her knowledge, she needs them to give evidence. Which means they'll have to sign witness statements, take an oath and be cross-examined by a top QC. Not something I'd be looking forward to.

I pointed out the own goal they have made by stating that it's 5 women. Somewhere there has to be someone on their legal team facepalming today.

@My0My

Beatrice, Eugene and Princess Michael of Kent don’t get money from the state. Meghan claims they retain their Royal titles whilst working. She was offered work by the RF. Royal Duties. She didn’t want that type of work and it’s constraints. Unfortunately she’s made it personal.

Beatrice and Eugenie were born with their titles and by all accounts don’t use them whilst working. Princess Michael merely uses her husband’s title through marriage - much the same as Meghan is also Princess Henry of Wales. The title of Prince is considered lower than that of Duke although for some, the implication of royalty by use of Prince/Princess probably has a greater prestige.

@Blossom513

I read this in the latest claimant's response

Of course, it is admitted by both sides that the Claimant sent her father the Letter and he sent her a response, as the Defendant knows full well.

This is the first time I've heard he replied to her letter.

The response later goes on to say:

The intention of the Letter was to make him stop his actions; it was not an attempt at reconciliation.

Didn't Meghan tell her friends that he had replied saying that he would like to have a photo taken with her and Harry? Which indeed he did say, but inferred that it would be a way of showing that they were united, if a photo was issued of them together.