More News on Harry and Meghan

[Viviennemary]

Two little bits of news I read today. First the bells won't ring out at Westminster Abbey for Meghans birthday next month and she'll be devastated. No I don't think she'll even expect them to ring. And I had to smile at Bogart the dog was left behind in Canada because it didn't take to Harry. What else could she do. Hardly leave Harry behind. And it would have been a worry with a baby in the house too. She did the right thing here.

So the theory is that an LA pap took this photo using a drone, and sold it to this German magazine?

@ButteryPuffin

So the theory is that an LA pap took this photo using a drone, and sold it to this German magazine?

And yet, it's apparently the British media who are the worst.

Chris Ship has tweeted images of the privacy complaint that's been filed. It specifically names the Daily Mail as revealing their location in Canada (though it says North Saanich - is that on Vancouver Island?) and then doing the same when they moved to the house of a 'friend' in LA. In both cases they say this happened after six weeks.

I couldn't say with regard to Canada, but my recollection is that the idea they were at Tyler Perry's house was put out there very quickly after they moved to the US. It didn't seem like it took six weeks. Was the Mail the original source of that? They are certainly gunning for the Mail. It is pointedly mentioned here even though the complaint isn't against it.

The DM did publish a photo of Harry in the LA house. They deleted it so maybe they realised it was taken illegally.

@ButteryPuffin

Chris Ship has tweeted images of the privacy complaint that's been filed. It specifically names the Daily Mail as revealing their location in Canada (though it says North Saanich - is that on Vancouver Island?) and then doing the same when they moved to the house of a 'friend' in LA. In both cases they say this happened after six weeks.

I couldn't say with regard to Canada, but my recollection is that the idea they were at Tyler Perry's house was put out there very quickly after they moved to the US. It didn't seem like it took six weeks. Was the Mail the original source of that? They are certainly gunning for the Mail. It is pointedly mentioned here even though the complaint isn't against it.

Just had a quick google and TMZ posted an article on the same day as the DM and gives the DM credit for first reporting they were staying at Tyler Perry’s property.

In all honesty, I’d be really annoyed with a media outlet for revealing where I was living. However, I’m not sure what expectation of privacy is expected or permitted. In the U.K. the homes of the RF and often when they move amongst them is widely published.

I think the DM is intentionally doing what it can to make things difficult for them but probably staying on the right side of the law (post-legal action commencing that is).

I think the DM is intentionally doing what it can to make things difficult for them
Of course they are! Firstly, it's "what they do," and secondly, it's open season on the pair of them for attempting to fight back.
Realistically, it's a battle that H&M will never win. Even if they do win their court case on a (copyright) technicality, their laundry will be well and truly aired in public during the process and their reputation, arguably, trashed. And either way, the Mail are NOT going to give up reporting negatively about them. Ever.

I'm a bit confused how you can sue John Does? How does this work?

And 100 of them?

I have no idea. Is the claim against the Daily Mail and then specifically individual journalists whose names are currently unknown but they will be asking for that information to be divulged?

I imagine it's a shot across the bows.

If they don't sue, it's open season for anyone with a drone.

Also 100 is a very specific number when you don’t know the names. For all they know, it’s one person!

They certainly do like litigation. They have to be every solicitor’s financial dream.

No I wouldn’t like it either. I’d hate it.

Out of all the litigations they have been associated with, I support this one the most. It's not acceptable for paparazzi to behave this way especially with a child involved. Sadly this is not unique to them. But this is exactly why they need to pick their battles wisely because there have been a few of these recently (plus threats like the charity complaint) that people then just roll their eyes at 'another one' even though this time it's actually quite valid.

I'm interested in seeing the full papers but the first page Chris Shipley tweeted does also seem like another attempt to get other parts of their story across and not just what's relevant to this particular case.

I read Vardy v Rooney papers yesterday and there is a significant difference in the way facts are presented and emotive language is used. I can pick both apart but I won't bore you

Their case will be interesting too as Vardy is claiming Rooney has allowed friends to speak to the press like AN are claiming with MM. It's no surprise really that this goes on but I struggle to sympathies with those that want to use the press to suit them when it then backfires.

@SunbathingDragon

Also 100 is a very specific number when you don’t know the names. For all they know, it’s one person!

They certainly do like litigation. They have to be every solicitor’s financial dream.

Presumably if they prove the photos were taken illegally, it makes them of no value and they can't be published by any legitimate outlet. That in itself might stop it happening again. I don't blame them one bit for doing this.

And why oh why do they continue to insist on using their Sussex titles, even in court documents.

It’s awful though, have never seen pap photos of celebrities & children in their private backyards on TMZ & the like

I have - I saw photos of Jessica Chastain's wedding published, that was at the back of her husband's fancily villa in Italy. It was clearly taken by a drone - in one of the photos you could see everyone looking angrily at the camera. I am by no means a regular reader of celebrity sites and magazines, though, so I imagine that's far from the only example. I am also old enough to remember all the helicopters flying over Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt's wedding at their seaside home to get photos.

Anyway, this is one area where I have every sympathy with them, I think this kind of invasion of privacy is totally unacceptable. I do think however that in suing or threatening to sue nearly everyone who annoys them, and then putting every grievance they want aired in their statements of case, they have created so much noise that the justifiable complaints get drowned out.

@TofinoSurf

And why oh why do they continue to insist on using their Sussex titles, even in court documents.

Why shouldn't they?

@TofinoSurf

And why oh why do they continue to insist on using their Sussex titles, even in court documents.

Because they are their titles to use. It’s HRH they cannot use. I’m guessing they like the Duke/Duchess titles because they didn’t need to accept them and don’t need to continue using them, but choose to do so.

Because it goes against everything they try to portray about equality for a start? What happened to 'just call me Harry', it lasted for one event?

I know it's their choice which is why I'm intrigued why they keep insisting on using them at every opportunity. What are they trying to do, remind everyone of their status and importance?

I have complete sympathy with H&M over the drones harassing them at their private home. I use to live in SoCal and drones were a known problem for at least a couple of years when they first became popular. I've read stories of drones flying over residential neighbourhoods to hover over woman sunbathing in their backyards or even children playing, there was one a story about a man who used a drone to harass his ex-wife at her home. This was pre-legislation banning drones from private environments.

I actually had an experience with a creepy man using a drone. I belonged to a female rowing club and we'd practice several times a week in the early morning. The bay where we trained has many boats and yachts harboured, and there was this one guy who would sit on his yacht and send his drone to hover over us as we were training, it was filming us, obviously zoning in on our breasts etc. It was so rage inducing but of course we had no privacy rights as we were in public.

As much as people are saying H&M have been naive to think they wouldn't be bothered by the paps in LA, it's not the norm to have drones flying over celebrities homes. You don't see drone pictures of other famous people in their private homes and backyards, so this does feel like it's more aggressive to me, it's clearly open hunting season on them. I'm not a fan of these two and every time they open their mouths I find them more insufferable but I'm 100% on their side about this.

@TofinoSurf

Because it goes against everything they try to portray about equality for a start? What happened to 'just call me Harry', it lasted for one event?

I know it's their choice which is why I'm intrigued why they keep insisting on using them at every opportunity. What are they trying to do, remind everyone of their status and importance?

I think that was because it was a royal charity so Harry couldn’t use his royal connections to support it.

@TofinoSurf

Because it goes against everything they try to portray about equality for a start? What happened to 'just call me Harry', it lasted for one event?

I know it's their choice which is why I'm intrigued why they keep insisting on using them at every opportunity. What are they trying to do, remind everyone of their status and importance?

That makes no sense. I'm sure he still asks to be called by his first name at events, meetings etc (he certainly did when a friend interacted with him earlier in the year). But that's different to filing court papers, formal interaction etc. He's using his title because it's just that, his title, where appropriate. Just like any other titled person would.

What doesn't make sense?

They've used their titles on every single occasion possible apart from the Travalyst event in March, Harry's first appearance back in the UK after their announcement where he insisted he was introduced as just Harry. But similar events since have gone back to using Sussex titles.

Their 'branding' was based on Sussex Royal. They've had to drop the Royal (they made this clear themselves in a statement this wasn't their choice) yet they are clinging on to the titles of Sussex when they don't actually have to use them - they could just use their names. Why don't they? They want to be known as duke and duchess of Sussex. Why? It's not even a title given to Harry from birth, they had a choice whether to accept the titles for their marriage.

It just strikes me that using their titles is important to them and what they want to be know as, and I'm intrigued why. Either because they believe they are entitled to status/importance or because they see it as part of their brand identity. I can't think of any other reason why they would keep continuing to use them. And it just doesn't seem to fit with the kind of messages they are giving out to the world through their speeches etc. This is one of the reasons I just can't take them seriously. It's elitist.

I think anyone that uses titles that relate to class, birth right etc (rather than titles like Doctor which are earned by profession) is using it for similar reasons. A bit of a 'don't you know who I am' statement. I expect it in the Royal Family but not when you choose to leave because you don't agree with aspects of the institution and want to supposedly make your own way in life and talk about philanthropy and equality. It's a joke.

I find it even more strange they continue to use them in America too. What relevance does a British title have in America?

I find it even more strange they continue to use them in America too. What relevance does a British title have in America?

Exactly