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'm trying to understand the whole letter business. So Meghan told Thomas not to go to the press about their differences. So he didn't. Apparently he had the letter for eight months after which 5 of her friends spoke to a magazine about the letter. Thomas felt aggrieved so he wanted to give his side of the story. It does rather confuse things when Meghan said she hadn't given her friends permission and had no idea they had spoken to people magazine. And in any case had only told one friend about the letter.

@HarryDaylight

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.

That is my understanding but in all honesty, I paid very little attention to it at the time and would probably not even remember it now were it not for the court case.

A possible theory about the letter (bear in mind this is all speculation at this stage) that AN will probably be presenting is that Meghan wanted to get her side of the story across to the press, but as she complains about in the latest court filings, was being told by the palace press offices that they would not comment. So she wrote a carefully drafted letter to her father telling him how devastating his actions were and advising him not to talk to the press. It is possible that she hoped he would take the letter straight to the press, who would publish it, and she'd get her complaints out without breaching the "no comment" rule. As Omid Scobie, her unofficial spokesman later tweeted, she knew her dad well and had an inkling that he would make the letter public, so much of it was written with the public in mind. It was also, of course carefully handwritten in her beautiful calligraphy, rather than sent by text and email, when her court papers show that she and Harry were generally communicating with her father by text. She also says she showed it to the press office, and sent a copy to her US lawyer (although they weren't allowed to read it....so...why do that?). It seems that this was a letter, then, of some significance.

But - Thomas Markle doesn't do what she expected and hangs onto the letter. Several months pass. Meghan's position is still not out there. Then Meghan's five friends talk to People Magazine, remember the existence of the private letter and spill about it. Funny that. People publishes its piece, stating that the letter was an impassioned plea to her father. Now Thomas, probably needled by this, finally decides to give the letter to the press. They print extracts of it, and Meghan sues them for breach of her copyright and privacy.

She can definitely expect to have it put to her by the AN's legal team that this was all an elaborate set up to circumvent the palace's "no comment" position, and that what she wanted all along was her letter in the public domain, but with plausible deniability. It will be up to the judge to decide what he considers the evidence to support, however

@Viviennemary

I'm trying to understand the whole letter business. So Meghan told Thomas not to go to the press about their differences. So he didn't. Apparently he had the letter for eight months after which 5 of her friends spoke to a magazine about the letter. Thomas felt aggrieved so he wanted to give his side of the story. It does rather confuse things when Meghan said she hadn't given her friends permission and had no idea they had spoken to people magazine. And in any case had only told one friend about the letter.

But she did send a copy of the letter to her solicitor for safe keeping, as one does when one writes to parents!

@Serenster

A possible theory about the letter (bear in mind this is all speculation at this stage) that AN will probably be presenting is that Meghan wanted to get her side of the story across to the press, but as she complains about in the latest court filings, was being told by the palace press offices that they would not comment. So she wrote a carefully drafted letter to her father telling him how devastating his actions were and advising him not to talk to the press. It is possible that she hoped he would take the letter straight to the press, who would publish it, and she'd get her complaints out without breaching the "no comment" rule. As Omid Scobie, her unofficial spokesman later tweeted, she knew her dad well and had an inkling that he would make the letter public, so much of it was written with the public in mind. It was also, of course carefully handwritten in her beautiful calligraphy, rather than sent by text and email, when her court papers show that she and Harry were generally communicating with her father by text. She also says she showed it to the press office, and sent a copy to her US lawyer (although they weren't allowed to read it....so...why do that?). It seems that this was a letter, then, of some significance.

But - Thomas Markle doesn't do what she expected and hangs onto the letter. Several months pass. Meghan's position is still not out there. Then Meghan's five friends talk to People Magazine, remember the existence of the private letter and spill about it. Funny that. People publishes its piece, stating that the letter was an impassioned plea to her father. Now Thomas, probably needled by this, finally decides to give the letter to the press. They print extracts of it, and Meghan sues them for breach of her copyright and privacy.

She can definitely expect to have it put to her by the AN's legal team that this was all an elaborate set up to circumvent the palace's "no comment" position, and that what she wanted all along was her letter in the public domain, but with plausible deniability. It will be up to the judge to decide what he considers the evidence to support, however

I would say you are spot on.

Am I being dim to ask why she's not taking action against the 5 friends? Surely theirs is a much bigger betrayal if they really did go against her wishes and spoke to the press.

Meghan wanted to get her side of the story across to the press
Meghan's position is still not out there

Which is what?

I agree.

@CallmeAngelina

Am I being dim to ask why she's not taking action against the 5 friends? Surely theirs is a much bigger betrayal if they really did go against her wishes and spoke to the press.

It's in her latest response that she never contacted People magazine about the article when it was published either.

So, surely the media outlet to sue would be People magazine? The fact that she's going after the Mail indicates to me that it's not so much to do with publishing the letter extracts, but personal "revenge" about what she perceives to have been their vendetta against her.

@Serenster

A possible theory about the letter (bear in mind this is all speculation at this stage) that AN will probably be presenting is that Meghan wanted to get her side of the story across to the press, but as she complains about in the latest court filings, was being told by the palace press offices that they would not comment. So she wrote a carefully drafted letter to her father telling him how devastating his actions were and advising him not to talk to the press. It is possible that she hoped he would take the letter straight to the press, who would publish it, and she'd get her complaints out without breaching the "no comment" rule. As Omid Scobie, her unofficial spokesman later tweeted, she knew her dad well and had an inkling that he would make the letter public, so much of it was written with the public in mind. It was also, of course carefully handwritten in her beautiful calligraphy, rather than sent by text and email, when her court papers show that she and Harry were generally communicating with her father by text. She also says she showed it to the press office, and sent a copy to her US lawyer (although they weren't allowed to read it....so...why do that?). It seems that this was a letter, then, of some significance.

But - Thomas Markle doesn't do what she expected and hangs onto the letter. Several months pass. Meghan's position is still not out there. Then Meghan's five friends talk to People Magazine, remember the existence of the private letter and spill about it. Funny that. People publishes its piece, stating that the letter was an impassioned plea to her father. Now Thomas, probably needled by this, finally decides to give the letter to the press. They print extracts of it, and Meghan sues them for breach of her copyright and privacy.

She can definitely expect to have it put to her by the AN's legal team that this was all an elaborate set up to circumvent the palace's "no comment" position, and that what she wanted all along was her letter in the public domain, but with plausible deniability. It will be up to the judge to decide what he considers the evidence to support, however

Thank you, I understand now.

@BarleylemonPenguin

Meghan wanted to get her side of the story across to the press Meghan's position is still not out there

Which is what?

Apart from the bits about how her father had broken her heart into a million pieces, and she was devastated by his action, her court pleadings also allege that her letter was selectively edited by the Mail on Sunday to remove paragraphs which were highly critical of the British tabloid media.

I suspect the latter sections is what she particularly wanted to be published. When the Mail only published extracts of her letter, she then sued them, and has said now what she wanted to say via these proceedings.

@CallmeAngelina

Am I being dim to ask why she's not taking action against the 5 friends? Surely theirs is a much bigger betrayal if they really did go against her wishes and spoke to the press.

She can choose who she wants to sue, but again, this, and the related question on why she didn't take action against People, will doubtless be topics she is cross-examined on.

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)

Thank you, Serenster; the whole legal thing's way above my pay grade but I'd been wondering about that
And yes, even I can see that the defence will suggest this whole thing was done to "get the story out", but it's not going to look too good if it comes out that Meghan knew about her friends talking to People magazine despite the denials

BTW please can anyone link to the "latest submissions" mentioned? I believe they might have been on the last deleted thread, but of course that's gone now

Try this link

documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:757756d3-cf2c-4d27-b155-f75501c00934

her court pleadings also allege that her letter was selectively edited by the Mail on Sunday to remove paragraphs which were highly critical of the British tabloid media

I suspect the latter sections is what she particularly wanted to be published

I may be suffering from lockdown brain but did we not already know this because she/they stated very early on in their relationship, before anyone even knew that they were in a relationship, that she/they were highly critical of British tabloid media?

I read that her father did not release all of the letter to the Mail on Sunday, as some parts were just 'too embarrassing'.

Embarrassing to whom I wonder? To Meghan or to her father?

Thank you, Blossom

Here's a possibly silly question though - why sue at all, if she just wanted to correct some false impression the media may or may not have given? It's not as if the fate of the world hangs on some family squabble, so why not give a statement, write a rebuttal, even release a video setting out whatever the preferred version is?

It's hardly likely such a thing would lack an audience, and it might have saved an awful lot of angst - to say nothing of lawyers' fees

@KatherineParr4

Embarrassing to whom I wonder? To Meghan or to her father?

I think for all his faults, Thomas is probably pretty sensitive. Remember he said that Meghan and Harry had contacted them a couple of days after their wedding, to check he was OK. He later said (whilst being interviewed on GMB) that he had lied, as he was embarrassed that they hadn't contacted them.

Why can I remember stupid things, but nothing important!

No I still don't understand it. Why bother suing. Unless it's for the money. Or if she wins to put anybody else off publishing letters. I wonder if the Mail has read the whole letter. And if it's just copyright why is she even mentioning Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie undertaking paid work. What has that got to do with copyright.

I'm sure the daily mail article at the time said they had seen the whole letter and also the messages on TM phone.

I think it's clear MM has felt press coverage has been very unfair, and felt like she has not been able to have her say or defend herself. So I expect an opportunity to sue the press that is likely to go in her favour (I do think AN will lose on copyright) is something she wasn't going to let slip by.

But I don't know if she expected them to not settle if it's a clear breach of copyright, or expected that as part of their defence they would scrutinise her involvement with the magazine, her friends, etc.

In today's legal papers it's reported she has said that her friends are not on trial, she is not on trial. It's AN who are. And reading some of the replies in her latest court response linked above, I think she thinks AN defence is unfair to question her. You can tell the frustration by some of the responses.

Firstly, there are repeated explanations given in the Reply that the statement in the People interview as to the contents of the Letter was not provided or authorised by the Claimant. There are far too many references to this in the Reply, and above herein, to be proportionate or necessary to rehearse here, nor can it be stated that the Defendant is unaware that this is the Claimant’s case.

why is she even mentioning Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie undertaking paid work. What has that got to do with copyright

I don't know, but if the judge feels it's not relevant to the case perhaps he'l strike that out as well?

@Puzzledandpissedoff

why is she even mentioning Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie undertaking paid work. What has that got to do with copyright

I don't know, but if the judge feels it's not relevant to the case perhaps he'l strike that out as well?

I think it’s an opportunity to get her side and views across in a legitimate way even though it’s irrelevant. The Palace’s stance of not commenting and expectation that members of the RF remain quiet about allegations and comments made must be difficult at times, especially in your mid/late thirties and you’ve spent many years using social media and the media to your benefit.

I think for all his faults, Thomas is probably pretty sensitive. Remember he said that Meghan and Harry had contacted them a couple of days after their wedding, to check he was OK. He later said (whilst being interviewed on GMB) that he had lied, as he was embarrassed that they hadn't contacted them.

That is desperately sad.