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

[Roussette]

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

Goodness, Rousette! That Cosmoplitan link really is "Court Action; the Legally Blonde account!!!"

Poll: "Pardon me, Cosmopolitan, is your bias showing??"

1. Ugh, like totally!

2.Of course not! There is no way this is a (possibly fake) re-telling, like her Dad's heart attack!

Sorry I was replying to Sunbathing.
I think the Cosmopolitan 'article' is trash. Their timeline completely misses that the letter was discussed in People first by M's friends. It doesn't mention it had been discussed with staff and given to lawyers before it was sent to TM. And it also mocks TM's heart attack. Considering it references court documents, it would know about the correct timeline but chose to ignore it.

Or what Serenster said - their response is way better

if you are keen to know the details of the court case you could read the judgment as links have been posted. Or do you prefer searching articles until you find one that supports your point of view? In the mass media - which is not known for its accuracy.....

Yeah, you are of course right. Not unlike others on here. Many cherry picked paragraphs out of Daily Telegraph article for instance.
I am duly reprimanded and have taken it on the chin

Serenster I can link what I want. Same as you can. And anyone else...frequent DM and DT comes to mind. Start your poll, I don't mind, Im used to all this At least it gives some of you something to talk about! I thought we all agreed we weren't too keen on echo chambers?!

If I was Granny, I'd be holding on tight to my castles in Scotland and elsewhere, after all, she probably wouldn't get a thank you if she did give them one!
Gosh, that's a pretty mean thing to say!

I think getting her dgs and his DW and dggs off the front pages would be thank you enough for HM.

I see not one ounce of meaness in it Roussette. You can only turn the other cheek a certain number of times - then you have to accept you're being walked all over, and stop enabling that.

The meaness is in treating your very elderly GPs and elderly DF in such a dismissive manner (after all, they don't control the word 'Royal'!), and disregarding the remainder of your family and long-standing friends.

Don't agree but do not want to get in a spat with you.

I cherry-picked the relevant bits out of a DT article because it is behind a paywall and I can't post the whole article as it will get deleted but it is not flattering,and I did provide a link for those who can access it.

I am shocked that anyone can continue to defend H&M when their behaviour, leaking documents etc has been so appalling. They do not want privacy they just want 100% favourable media coverage and nobody gets that. Being caught out with Omid Scobie like this is hugely embarassing and adds weight to the claims that they colluded with his book.

People may not want an echo chamber but for anything posted about PA that is very much the case and I suspect it will be the same with H&M soon.

I am loathe to reply to this so I will keep it brief. I want her to win her court case, it will come at a price I know that. I have no idea that they want 100% favourable media, and you don't know that either, I think they want to be treated more fairly. They weren't before the wedding and it has just carried on., hence this court case which no doubt will come back and bite them on the arse because it's a massive news org.

If you talk of being 'shocked', there is a lot I am shocked about with regard to H&M and views on here but am really not in the mood for a pile on if I expand on that.

I think various posters said the judgement was critical of both sides playing the media. But of course one side is the actual media so no surprise there

I think the fact the judge even referenced Omid Scobie is pretty newsworthy. He must be lapping it up - suspect all publicity is good publicity for him and it certainly suggests there was very close involvement from the Sussexes with the book.

I know there were a few nasty pieces before the wedding but generally I thought they received a lot of positive coverage. Everyone seemed to love their wedding and viewed her as a positive addition to the RF.

But then, the press do love to build someone up prior to attacking them.

Judge Mark Warby ruled that the sources’ names cannot be published as part of her legal action against British tabloids, just as Meghan was hoping.

I copied this from the cosmopolitan article. I stand to be corrected but my reading of the judgment makes that paragraph just wrong. The order granted is that the names are not released at this time. Not an order that they are never released.

As I say, I may be wrong

Cosmopolitan also published the following in May -

According to the source, Meghan is hopeful that the book will squash some of the unfair and persistent tabloid rumors about her—not to mention explain the real reasons she and Harry chose to step down as senior royals. “She said the book will finally set the record straight and show the world why they were left with no other choice than to leave the royal life,” the source says, adding that Meghan wants people to see “the genuine person that she is.”

In particular, sources claim Meghan “desperately wants to shatter this image of being a demanding diva who was rude to royal staffers and others on her quest for fame and power.” (Can you blame her?)

“She said the book will help give her and Harry a clean slate,” the source explains. “Meghan seems to think that readers will finally understand the monumental anguish and turmoil she had to endure with a stiff upper lip. Meghan said people need to see her vulnerable side, something the book does in great detail.”

Looks like the brief for the book - although M & H apparently had nothing to do with it!

Perhaps Harry he doesn't remember the Paul Burrell case

Or perhaps he does, and believes granny will swoop down and intervene if there's a risk of anything coming out which could disadvantage the RF?

I've little time for any of them, but even I can see they're probably being wise to play it straight and allow H&M enough rope to hang themselves ... as aj so accurately put it, there are consequences for bad behaviour

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure I do want her to win the invasion of privacy part of the court case because I think it could set a precedent for people in the public eye being able to stifle unfavourable press coverage even if it's factual.
Of course, wealthy people can currently quash unfavourable stories using injunctions. But, I don't agree with them either because it affords those with money a different standard of privacy than those without.

I think lots of media outlets said H&M assisted with the book to begin with (I’ve no idea where it originated from) but then that changed, and OS as well as H&M have publicly stated otherwise. However, I wonder if The Times would have spent the same amount to serialise a book that is said to be written without the support of H&M as when the agreement was made the public belief was that it was their side of the story in their words. Likewise, I think it benefitted OS to presell the book. Would so many people have bought/ordered the book if they’d known it’s now (allegedly) not written after interviews with and support from H&M? So if that’s the case, this court case will only financially benefit OS and I wonder which is more important to him - money or his contact/friendship with H&M.

Isn't there also something in the ruling where the Judge points out that Meghan's lawyers had told the Daily Mail they had submitted Court papers - but actually they hadn't. So he's calling her lawyers out as more than disingenuous.

Meghan needs a way out of this case before it turns into a fiasco.

@AnneOfQueenSables

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure I do want her to win the invasion of privacy part of the court case because I think it could set a precedent for people in the public eye being able to stifle unfavourable press coverage even if it's factual. Of course, wealthy people can currently quash unfavourable stories using injunctions. But, I don't agree with them either because it affords those with money a different standard of privacy than those without.

Agreed.

It’s also worth considering that there are injunctions in place that we are oblivious to, which could account for why PA has articles about him but many of the other influential people allegedly involved for JE/GM don’t. Equally, various members of the RF could also have them in place. I do disagree with those who control (or try to control) the media purely because they have the money and influence to do so.

I think they want to be treated more fairly.

I imagine most people in the public eye want that, to be fair. In the case of Harry and Meghan in particular, I cannot for the life of me understand how they think taking the fight to a major international publication by suing it and throwing in all sorts of irrelevant grievances and then publicly announcing that they refuse to deal with it at all will help them to achieve this.

I think the fact the judge even referenced Omid Scobie is pretty newsworthy

I was interested in his comment about "someone called Omid Scobie" (my italics)

I'm wondering if this means it's a pseudonym, but maybe with his probing mind and access to better information the judge could find out for us just who Omid Scobie is ... because as far as I can see nobody seems to know

I don’t think it’s about privacy or secrecy so much as control. I think they, like most/all in the public eye, want to control their image and portray a certain type of person. Unfortunately for them, and their families, it’s all making them look worse and losing public sympathy and support. I wonder if they pinned a lot on Finding Freedom making amends in the public eyes and now that appears to be backfiring (especially since they have said they weren’t involved and a judge has made it clear he believes they released private information to the author) it’ll be interesting to see what their next action is.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I think the fact the judge even referenced Omid Scobie is pretty newsworthy

I was interested in his comment about "someone called Omid Scobie" (my italics)

I'm wondering if this means it's a pseudonym, but maybe with his probing mind and access to better information the judge could find out for us just who Omid Scobie is ... because as far as I can see nobody seems to know

Interesting phrasing. I wonder what, if anything, the judge is getting at. As you say, it could well be a pseudonym. Otherwise it could be that it’s effectively a company name with several PR or similar type of workers, or maybe the judge is implying something else.

[quote Nishky]@Roussette if you are keen to know the details of the court case you could read the judgment as links have been posted. Or do you prefer searching articles until you find one that supports your point of view? In the mass media - which is not known for its accuracy.....[/quote]
Exactly. Link from Cosmo???? The entire judgment is online, 20 pages, straight out of the horse's mouth.

@AnneOfQueenSables

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure I do want her to win the invasion of privacy part of the court case because I think it could set a precedent for people in the public eye being able to stifle unfavourable press coverage even if it's factual. Of course, wealthy people can currently quash unfavourable stories using injunctions. But, I don't agree with them either because it affords those with money a different standard of privacy than those without.

Exactly. All of this. Very dangerous precedent if she wins this part of the case, but I think she won't.

And regarding the relative merits of the Daily Telegraph article, I have read the judgement and the article and that article plays the account of what has occurred with a straight bat. It is really not reasonable to compare it to Cosmo.

I really cannot believe what I am reading on here sometimes.