Harry & Meghan, all welcome (aka positive thread, now renamed!)

[Roussette]

Here we are, let's inform, discuss, share and respect.

Oops - forgot we weren't supposed to talk about PP here. Sorry!

@ajandjjmum

Oops - forgot we weren't supposed to talk about PP here. Sorry!

why not? we seem to be talking about all the RF.

Does anyone know when the court case is meant to happen? I thought it was soon?

@ajandjjmum

Prince Philip will be taking part in the VJ Day celebrations on 15/8. Good to hear! I didn't realise, but apparently he was on a ship in the Tokyo area on VJ Day. Wonder if he met Tom Moore?!

I enjoy it when the conversation meanders a bit. Do people really mind?

@ajandjjmum

Oops - forgot we weren't supposed to talk about PP here. Sorry!

I’m sure we can talk about him we just can’t make disgusting accusations against him.

just remember to use punctuation... ,,,,

I enjoy it when the conversation meanders a bit. Do people really mind?

I don't! I like a bit of meandering meself! And how on earth can we set anything about a member of the RF and his wife in context if we can't talk about other members of the RF

Happy I'm allowed to meander! I'm really pleased that he'll be involved in VJ Day, because he was actually there and contributing. He is a character - inappropriate at times, but so supportive of HM particularly in latter years. I have a definite soft spot for PP.

meandering is a lovely word.
I like it when a thread does that.

Surely meandering is normal when mums chat.

@Samcro

meandering is a lovely word. I like it when a thread does that.

Me too. It makes it more of a conversation rather than disjointed posts. I'm quite shallow and love a dress or tiara digression.

The longevity of the RF lives is really quite gobsmacking. I know they've got the best doctors available to them etc, and no doubt are constantly monitored, but it never ceases to amaze me. Queen mother, Queen, PPhilip etc.
I'd love to know how much medical care and privileged life contributed to this or whether they are just a family who live a long time and it runs in the genes!

Clean living. George VI and Margaret didn’t live long.

They were smokers.

“For the time being at least” sounds very ominous.

Does that mean she’s going to have to go through it all again for the actual trial?

I think the trial will be 20 x worse than she's gone through so far - but it was at her instigation.

No expertise but could the reference to 'at least for the time being' be because it might depend on how crucial their evidence turns out to be in the main case?

TBF it's often seems to be the women among the family who live to really good ages rather than the men

I once posted a list once which I now can't find of all the male monarchs and their male siblings, and even allowing for those which were accidents their overall ages at death were lower than you'd expect, given their access to the best

@Roussette

The longevity of the RF lives is really quite gobsmacking. I know they've got the best doctors available to them etc, and no doubt are constantly monitored, but it never ceases to amaze me. Queen mother, Queen, PPhilip etc. I'd love to know how much medical care and privileged life contributed to this or whether they are just a family who live a long time and it runs in the genes!

If you think of the number of famous/successful people with wealth and prestige who don't live to a grand old age, I think the genes must play a significant part.

I think the judge will want the names to be reportable when it gets to trial. And quite right too. As key witnesses they should be accountable - they're not Mafia supergrasses in fear of their lives. This also removes any reason to pull out of the case on the grounds of protecting the friends' privacy but protects them in the months before the trial, which I think is fair enough.

@TheChristmasPrincess

“For the time being at least” sounds very ominous.

Does that mean she’s going to have to go through it all again for the actual trial?

Yes, if she wishes their identities to continue to be kept confidential.

A large factor in determining whether to grant an injunction or not is what is termed "the balance of convenience" - if one option has consequences that will be difficult or impossible to undo, then the court will likely not take it, unless it needs to do so. So here, when the paper had not to date published the names of the friends, and there are still plenty of preliminary matters to be sorted out (as the judge mentioned), then there was no pressing reasons to decline the injunction at this point in time. Whereas once they are named the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back. Hence, the balance of convenience = not publishing their names now.

I suspect AN will actually be quite pleased by this, as from the statements made by Meghan's lawyers at the application hearing, if she had lost I reckon she would have been promptly contacting them to settle the case whatever the price, and somewhat strangely for a defendant, they will want this case to run and run. What the judge said about lots of preliminary matters is interesting though. At this stage of a claim the parties would be pretty busy with discovery - where you are obliged to hand over to the other side all documents and information that you possess which is relevant to any of the issues in the dispute. So, for example, all of Meghan's records of her phone calls, texts and emails to each of the five friends and People magazine. I can well imagine this is also going to be a matter that gets disputed at some stage.

I agree about AN being pleased about this and wanting the case to run. It’s all publicity and additional articles for readers to click on/papers to buy for them. It also seems to reduce the reasons M can give to try to look as if she is backing out for a reason other than not wanting her evidence to be pulled apart in court.

I wonder if she realised the level of intrusion into her phone/email etc when she started this mess.

Interesting in the times re mr Scobie and 'engergetic briefing' www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/meghans-five-friends-can-stay-anonymous-judge-rules-tvprlw2fw

@Wheresthebeach

I wonder if she realised the level of intrusion into her phone/email etc when she started this mess.

Her lawyers will absolutely have outlined to her what is involved if she issued litigation against AN, yes.