A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

I agree, there really isn't much to write about

I'd be interested to see a busy period in Sussex-related news if this is a quiet one!

Going back a few pages, if they're now going to use 'MWX Foundation' instead of Sussex Royal as their organisational name, that's a decent practical move. I don't like Arch(e)well, and it doesn't make sense to me to associate with Archie when they want him to have privacy.

Can you imagine being so seemingly desperate for your daughter to 'marry well' that you didn't want to explore it, at least? Or thinking: we've not educated her, she's working in a pre school, she's hit the jackpot, it's the best she can do, best not get in the way.

I am not trying to excuse the RF. But I am puzzled her family's role in all this has never been explored either.

I was not born British and didn't live here at the time and it could be that poster who were have another perspective.

Tofino

yet to be born, blimey!

aww @TofinoSurf is bebe.

Where was your mum, then? Lol.

Another one here who had the day off work to watch the Charles/Diana wedding, and yes the creases were dreadul - but then she was unwise to use an inexperienced couple like the Emanuels for such a dress

She was even more unwise to have married Charles in the first place, but needless to say it wasn't a popular view at the time and I was thoroughly pasted for it

I am a similar age to William and Harry.

I am pretty sure my mum watched it. Pretty sure she would have been at home with my elder sibling but that would be pure speculation at this stage

If H&M named their foundation 'Markle Windsor Foundation' I could support and respect that. If they had done this from the start I think they would have faced less criticism.

However I believe this is a name change to Sussex royal that is being closed down. So not sure how they can use it? Not sure why they didn't just rename their Sussex royal foundation. But i have no idea how these things work.

Just to throw a spanner in the works.

There is an active private limited company on companies house called MWX Trading Ltd. Set up August 2019.

Persons of significant interest Sussex Royal Foundation.

beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12170419

Court documents from Ghislaine being released at the moment, don't see anything on that in the DM, they're too obsessed with sticking the knife in with M&H
Depending on your settings, the DM that you see might be ordered according to your interests. That means if you're more interested in H&M then you'll see more of those articles.
If I click on the DM just now there is only one H&M story and I had to scroll down 3 screens to get to it - it's concerning the current legal debates about the identity of the 5 friends.
Likewise, yesterday the Ghislaine story was the e-equivalent of above the fold on the DM whilst any H&M articles were much further down.

Interesting @Puzzledandpissedoff. I bet you were in a clear minority.

That whole 'virgin' stuff as well, blimey. I think the US media even implied it had been checked somehow.

I have old books on Andrew from this era. I cannot believe what a rotter he turned out to be.

I think the friends being named will be a really positive thing for Meghan. After all, as far as she is concerned they have gone behind her back and betrayed her trust by talking to a news outlet without her knowledge or permission (and given them the wrong information). If her friends and those close to her know they will be named for doing such things in future then perhaps they won’t repeat what they know and that can surely only benefit Meghan. Or am I missing something?

Anne Thanks yes. I don't look at the DM but tend to just google anything in the news and pick which news source suits me. The article I did look at online from DM was just plastered with so many ads, and clips, it makes it almost impossible to read anyway! Like many news sources now, you have to disable ad blocker to look.

Maybe this will present an opportunity to pull out of the case “ to protect the identity of the 5 friends” ( save face / further press intrusion)

OVienna

Philip farted in the bath.

She can't just pull out though, she will have to pay all the other side's costs to do so. And given that her lawyers will have known all along that they were going to have to disclose the names of these potential witnesses to AN before the trial of the case, with absolutely no guarantee of privacy for them unless they can convince a judge there is good reason to suppress the reporting of their names (which is by no means guaranteed), I imagine AN will argue they should get every last penny of their massive costs paid.

Yy I do the same with ads. tbh at the start of the week my adblocker kept switching off and I was at how many adverts there are everywhere!
I do feel sympathy for the 'friends' regarding this case. It seemed blatantly obvious that the their' earlier leak to People would be integral to the AN case but I do think this wasn't explained properly to M or to her friends. As I've said before on one of these threads, it's quite different having a chat with a magazine editor friend knowing that they won't reveal your identity and will actually be grateful for a mini scoop and quite another to find yourself in a court case against a different section of the media. You're suddenly switched from helping the media to being against the media and lots of people (especially with a public profile) wouldn't want to make that jump.

Oh... and he's kept his £300,000 tax funded bodyguards despite stepping away from royal duties.

I know this thread isn't about Andrew, but if there's one member of the Royal Family who needs bodyguards at the moment, it's him!

I bet you were in a clear minority

I was, yes, but I could live with that if the alternative was buying into the silly fairytale

SunbathingDragon it's being reported now that MM didn't mind a lot of what the friends shared, just the bit about TM's letter. It also said that only one of the friends set up the interviews so the other 4 aren't really relevant ... or to put it another way, the story seems to have changed

@Roussette

Anne Thanks yes. I don't look at the DM but tend to just google anything in the news and pick which news source suits me. The article I did look at online from DM was just plastered with so many ads, and clips, it makes it almost impossible to read anyway! Like many news sources now, you have to disable ad blocker to look.

I have clicked on links to the Mail from here - I admit. I couldn't follow the last article on the company very easily though - commentary seems to be all over the place. And I agree with you the formatting, ads, all of it is a nightmare. It's actually amazing they get the clicks they do get. Headache inducing before you even get onto any content.

Actually having re read what’s been said I’m not sure M is referring to the main trial. So I take back what I said earlier. What’s been said is attached. M doesn’t accept her friends will be witnesses, hence not wanting their names published.

Sorry to be silly but the whole friiends thing could have been sorted, she could have got coleen to find out if anyone was talking.

Feeling very old now, TOrfino

Not that she's asked me, but if I was her, at this stage I would seriously consider only proceed on the breach of copyright claim against AN, and dropping everything else, and hoping that I could then keep the defence firmly focussed on the public interest without dragging in issues of whether or not she had an expectation that it would be kept private (and so whether or not she authorised its disclosure to People would not be relevant). I'm not completely convinced that would work though, the arguments are all fairly intertwined. And she'd need the court's permission to do that anyway, and still face a very hefty costs bill, and so it would be a pyrrhic victory at best. And AN would be gloating for all they were worth...

@My0My

Actually having re read what’s been said I’m not sure M is referring to the main trial. So I take back what I said earlier. What’s been said is attached. M doesn’t accept her friends will be witnesses, hence not wanting their names published.

But surely this is a bit naive of m ? Obviously they would be called as witnesses?

When is this being decided?

My0My Thanks for that. I don’t understand how the friends can be described as unwilling participants. Surely fundamental instigators is more accurate.

@OVienna

When is this being decided?

I believe by 8th August