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

Back to Harry and MM though.... I really find it hard to believe they didn’t know and their lawyers didn’t know that the 5 friends would be identified. Surely that’s quite a critical part of the case as to whether the friends spoke with or without her permission and how they came across the letters contents in the first place so wouldn’t the five need to be identified in order to provide evidence.

Will someone please clarify the case? It is a copyright case, not a privacy case, yes? So surely it boils down to who owns the copyright of the letter?

It's both, two claims.

I think many posters expect AN may lose copyright but win on privacy because of the people interview.

Do we think MM is going to drop her case?

Think of the consequences. Quite apart from AN's legal costs and the utter loss of credibility, the media - who haven't always been kind - would regard it as open season in future

Probably the best outcome for MM would be for AN, having got plenty of clicks out of it, to pay her off on the eve of a trial ... but whether they'd be prepared to do that is anyone's guess

But Megan and Harry aren’t dealing or compromising or cooperating at all with the British media .....at least that’s what they said in the leaving statements earlier in the year

I presume that anything I say on this thread will be deleted by mods if it isn't fawning adulation of Saint Meghan

What? Are you saying all the posts by the new posters on here i.e. Puzzled, Tofino, WaterWish, Sunbathing, OVienna are all fawning posts?
I don't think so!

By the way she isn't 'Saint' Meghan. She is just Meghan.

So surely it boils down to who owns the copyright of the letter?

I understand MM has copyright of the letter.

Trump is a parent?

So is Boris Johnston.

Yes.
And he is POTUS.
And everything he does affects every one of us directly or indirectly.

Ditto Boris Johnson

everything he does affects every one of us directly or indirectly

And a court case about privacy and copyright also affects every one of us because if newspapers' reporting is curtailed or if information in the public domain (eg People magazine) is then deemed not to be quotable elsewhere then it impacts reporting, copyright, privacy, NDAs and injunctions. It can have far reaching consequences for the public and the media.
I do think one of the constant issues on these threads is that certain posters don't care about freedom of the press and don't have experience of NDAs or injunctions or copyright so think all of this is 'private' to MM. It isn't.

Sancro didn't specify that only parents with political influence can be criticised and others are exempt. The post was about being protected purely on the grounds of being a parent.

@Roussette

Ditto Boris Johnson

But Harry was a public worker too just like Johnston. Meghan was when they got married. They’re job was Royalty. Even Archie’s birthday certificate lists that as their occupation doesn’t it? So by that logic they receive their funding for doing a job for us the taxpayers (extremely simplistic summary obviously!) so why shouldn’t they be discussed by those taxpayers who fund them? (Not sure how that should Change now they are no longer senior royals).

They are no longer senior Royals agreed.

So, we mustn't criticise ANY parent? That doesn't leave many candidates.

Either there is freedom to discuss people in the public eye or there isn't whether they are politicians, actors or royalty. The fact that some of those people are parents is completely irrelevant.

Meghan could have a more low-key life is she had chosen to. Tim Lawrence is married to a senior royal and doesn't attract too many column inches. MM wanted the public life but only on her terms - it doesn't always work like that though.

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump both wield political power. M and H don't.

The only other person who has had as many threads devoted to them as MM is Donald Trump. He has a huge amount of power and should be scrutinised. I don't believe that MM has deserved the level of scrutiny and downright vitriol directed at her and there's absolutely nothing that I've read on any of these threads that has managed to persuade me that she does.

They might not be senior working royals but at sixth and seventh in line to the throne they are still technically senior family royals. I understood that was one of the reasons for retaining the HRH title, albeit not using it, as it means a lot in terms of who bows to whom etc.

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump both wield political power. M and H don't.

Typically the RF stays away from politics but H&M have started to make certain comments that could be deemed political. Certainly they don’t wield and power as such but arguably they are trying to use their position to influence - and their position is solely down to being members of the RF.

@SunbathingDragon

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump both wield political power. M and H don't.

Typically the RF stays away from politics but H&M have started to make certain comments that could be deemed political. Certainly they don’t wield and power as such but arguably they are trying to use their position to influence - and their position is solely down to being members of the RF.

They don't wield power. They don't make decisions that effect our daily lives, our taxes, education or health.

Is that one of the rules then?

@HarryDaylight

Is that one of the rules then?

Is what one of the rules? What rules?

All the H&M threads have attracted supporters as well as those more critical. Obviously this is allowed, anyone is free to comment. But often a lot of the topics are rehashed by both sides. Even now there is another debate on which public figures are open to scrutiny and which aren't - this has been discussed a number of times before. But both sides of the H&M debate have contributed to the volume of threads about them. But the supporters only want to blame the non-supporters for this.

Just to reiterate I'm not saying supporters can't comment, just that they are also contributing to the volume of content.