Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Meghan court case live today

999 replies

callmeadoctor · 09/11/2021 12:57

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
rubicscubicle · 11/11/2021 17:23

@MsDidoTwite

Somehow I can’t see a case fir perjury being made out against MM or JK’s evidence having much impact in determining the final outcome, even if ANL does get the summary judgement set aside.
All the mos is doing is making more money for MM to receive at the end of the case, considering she now wants their profits from the story too.

A waste from the publication that came with their begging bowl to ask for Covid relief money. So taxpayer money.

The only good is that when MM wins, again, the money will go to charity.

SueSaid · 11/11/2021 17:27

'I’d agree with this. Giving the letter to the papers was shitty and I felt sorry for her over it.'

See I don't. It seems more like she knew it would be shared with the media so she used it as opportunity to get her side across.

It's all very manipulative and even if the current case finds in her favour the Sussexes as always come out of it looking like a pair of hypocrites.

cabingirl · 11/11/2021 17:29

@MsDidoTwite

Somehow I can’t see a case fir perjury being made out against MM or JK’s evidence having much impact in determining the final outcome, even if ANL does get the summary judgement set aside.
I don't think they will make a case for perjury

I don't think ANL can will the copyright claim - because they had no public interest reason to publish a private letter.

I think they'd love to go to trial to fight the privacy breach claim because even if they didn't win at trial they'd have chance to request emails etc from Meghan - get the identity of the 'five People friends' released, and have Meghan on the stand, plus if the People friends include 'as speculated' Serena Williams or Abigail Spencer then it's even more gossip worthy.

Also they'd be able to ask the 'People friends' under oath if Meghan/Harry gave them the letter and asked them to use the content of it in the article defending Meghan. ANL would try to argue that as the letter was already distributed and content released to public platform that privacy was already breached.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/11/2021 17:29

She's going to need some serious chutzpah if this goes to trial

I don't dispute it would be difficult, but would expect an actress to be able to put a good face on it

As said, though, I'd no more expect to see her in a courtroom than I would Andrew ... the palace wouldn't like what could easily follow, so I'll eat my hat if it happens

SpidersAreShitheads · 11/11/2021 17:31

@Aspiringmatriarch

Utterly vile and they whine about their own privacy being breached.

I think vile and breaching of privacy is a pretty good characterisation of Samantha's behaviour. I despise misogynistic comments (which is one reason I sometimes go to bat for Meghan) but if someone has had a history of multiple contentious relationship breakdowns etc, it does speak to the stability of their character as a whole.

To lose custody of all three of one's children is quite a big deal, even more so where there is more than one dad as it does imply her parenting was extremely poor rather than there was some dispute with one father, a difficult time with one of the children etc. And it also implies that there were issues over an extended period of time. Given that Samantha was regularly popping up to take pot-shots at Meghan, her character and the nature of their past relationship would be important background.

Tbh all this tit for tat is doing nobody any favours but as a purely human response to a difficult situation I can't see anything terrible in how Meghan has behaved here. But of course anything less than saintly behaviour means she'll be torn to shreds.

I understand that this debate is quite polarising and people feel strongly one way or the other.

But I think it's entirely possible to be on one "side" while still acknowledging that mistakes have been made or behaviour is undesirable.

I don't think there is any excuse whatsoever for Meghan insisting the fact that Samantha Markle had three children by three fathers, and that she doesn't have custody of them, was published. It's completely irrelevant to the argument and it's deeply, deeply misogynistic. Meghan sets herself up as a woman's champion - so what if a woman has different fathers for her children? It's essentially slut-shaming. It's inexcusable and goes against everything that Meghan claims to stand for.

I don't know the ins and outs of the custody issue - but I'm aware that Samantha Markle has MS. I'm also led to believe that she gave up custody of her children, rather than them being taken away - in case that is somehow relevant. But that part wasn't mentioned, was it?

I don't like people who twist the truth and act like a victim for profit/attention. And that's my issue with Meghan. But I can still accept that there are some things that must have been really shitty for her. But at the same time I am utterly APPALLED that she has brought her half-sisters sexual activities and parenting into this. It's vicious and shows that she doesn't have any principles in using whatever she can to win.

You clearly are a Meghan cheerleader, and that's fine. You can do that while still agreeing that those comments about her sister were below the belt. I don't understand how anyone could think those comments were acceptable, even if you're a big Meghan fan.

And for what it's worth, I don't think any of the Markles have come out of this well - Doria seems incredible but the Markle side are absolutely awful. All of them. Including Samantha Markle. Doesn't change the fact that a member of our royal family indirectly briefing the press to slag a woman off for having children by different fathers is deeply problematic.

Pawprintpaper · 11/11/2021 17:33

This is my take on it fwiw,

That Meghan (consciously or not, not for me to decide) has modelled herself as a new Diana - beautiful, compassionate etc, and yet has battled forces from within her own family, new family, palace, press and SM who have tried to run her down. I can imagine her despairing that the world refuses to see her as she, Harry and her friends see her, and that is a big source of the “unfairness” that she spoke to Bradbury about. Whether that was a true reflection of what she is really like and whether she has the maturity and self reflection to see herself as anything less than perfect and saintly is something we can’t know. Either way, it is hurtful to hear mistruths and character assassinations about yourself, particularly with the racist overtones, and I’m not sure anyone on the planet has suffered as much criticism as her for such minor things as tights, bananas and wearing coats.

Add to this Harry’s unspeakably complex relationship with the press. You can see why they wanted to control the narrative.

But I feel they’ve played games and got caught out. Effectively breaching their own privacy via Scobie and the 5 friends, and still being unhappy that it hasn’t played out in their favour. Win or lose, this will do them far more reputational damage than a newspaper that is not widely known for its balance and diligence. It also walks the line between punishing the press for going too far/invading privacy and respecting the need for freedom of the press in the public interest. Otherwise prominent people with friends in the right places and money to sue will fully control the press while normal people don’t have that option.

Ironically the number of column inches about this is an absolute gift to the newspapers, H&M really are the gift that keep on giving for them.

SickAndTiredAgain · 11/11/2021 17:41

@JaniieJones

'I’d agree with this. Giving the letter to the papers was shitty and I felt sorry for her over it.'

See I don't. It seems more like she knew it would be shared with the media so she used it as opportunity to get her side across.

It's all very manipulative and even if the current case finds in her favour the Sussexes as always come out of it looking like a pair of hypocrites.

Yes that’s what I meant when I said I felt (past tense) sorry for her but that that had diminished with the stuff around writing daddy to pull at heartstrings.
SickAndTiredAgain · 11/11/2021 17:48

@SpidersAreShitheads I completely agree. I think no one comes out of any of this well. Samantha and Thomas Markle certainly don’t, but the three different dads thing really does not show a pleasant side of Meghan either. Saying three children by three different dads is not a neutral fact, nor is it relevant.
That doesn’t mean I don’t have sympathy for her in other areas, I can have sympathy over some things while still criticising others.

rubicscubicle · 11/11/2021 17:51

I don't think there is any excuse whatsoever for Meghan insisting the fact that Samantha Markle had three children by three fathers, and that she doesn't have custody of them, was published. It's completely irrelevant to the argument and it's deeply, deeply misogynistic.

and if it was tm jnr, surely the story would be that he is a father of 3 by 3 different mothers. So what is your beef here?

EdithWeston · 11/11/2021 17:57

As said, though, I'd no more expect to see her in a courtroom than I would Andrew ... the palace wouldn't like what could easily follow, so I'll eat my hat if it happens

She'll have to appear won't she - because she's the one bringing the case

smilesy · 11/11/2021 18:05

sorry confuse, because I did answer what I though about this and you said no.

And I was confused because you started your answer by saying that you didn’t know if she remembered or not when she has clearly stated that she had “forgotten”. I didn’t ask if you thought she was collaborating. I was wondering how you felt about her apparent memory lapse. As that was the topic on hand. Anyway. As you were.

rubicscubicle · 11/11/2021 18:05

someone asked about the lottery money.

Admittedly there is a lot of speculation.
That there is no record of him winning this amount, but that is what TM jnr told Andrew Morton.

That he collected under someone else's name in order to make sure that Doria could not get ahold of it
That he was avoiding taxes.

etc. etc.

Bottom line, TM jnr said he paid for high school for MM, did a few things for Sam and him and then the money lost in jewellery business.

www.businessinsider.com/megan-markle-father-won-lottery-spent-winnings-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

SickAndTiredAgain · 11/11/2021 18:10

@rubicscubicle

I don't think there is any excuse whatsoever for Meghan insisting the fact that Samantha Markle had three children by three fathers, and that she doesn't have custody of them, was published. It's completely irrelevant to the argument and it's deeply, deeply misogynistic.

and if it was tm jnr, surely the story would be that he is a father of 3 by 3 different mothers. So what is your beef here?

Women having children with multiple men, and particularly women not having custody is viewed very differently to men having children with multiple women and not having custody.

And besides, it was SM’s irrelevant personal life she chose to bring up. Not TM jr, who was arrested for allegedly holding a gun to his girlfriend’s head, and charged with pointing a firearm at her. Both of these are equally irrelevant to Meghan, although I’d argue one shows far more about the person’s character, and that isn’t the one she chose to highlight.

PickupaPenguin8 · 11/11/2021 18:11

When did she comment on Samantha , I wasn't aware of that?

SickAndTiredAgain · 11/11/2021 18:12

@PickupaPenguin8

When did she comment on Samantha , I wasn't aware of that?
In the email of info to JK ahead of him sitting down with the finding freedom authors
Aspiringmatriarch · 11/11/2021 18:13

Doesn't change the fact that a member of our royal family indirectly briefing the press to slag a woman off for having children by different fathers is deeply problematic. Was she briefing the press? I thought this was part of the 'background' provided by Jason Knauf to Omid Scobie? She didn't insist on anything being published did she? Anyway, I agree it's not great - but I think the provocation was pretty extreme and the fact that Samantha's own child has talked about her abusiveness, the whole situation kind of is relevant. Not because of 'slut shaming' but in the sense that Samantha had seemingly alienated a lot of other people before.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/11/2021 18:13

She'll have to appear won't she - because she's the one bringing the case

I guess time will tell, Edith
Of course she'd be required to appear if there was an actual trial; it's just that, for the reasons mentioned, I honestly don't believe that'll be allowed to happen

smilesy · 11/11/2021 18:18

I’m not clear what bearing the character of Thomas Markle has on a thread about a court case involving Meghan and ANL. There is a whole other thread about a weird conspiracy theory involving him. Maybe that would be the place to discuss that as it is massively derailing this thread 🤷‍♀️

SickAndTiredAgain · 11/11/2021 18:20

@Puzzledandpissedoff

She'll have to appear won't she - because she's the one bringing the case

I guess time will tell, Edith
Of course she'd be required to appear if there was an actual trial; it's just that, for the reasons mentioned, I honestly don't believe that'll be allowed to happen

What do you mean allowed? She’s brought the suit hasn’t she? I know you’ve said (I think it was you) that the royal family won’t want a trial going ahead but can they really influence her to stop it? They’ve hardly won themselves any favours from her. Unless you mean they can influence the other side to just pay up? Which would be an awful lot of influence..
rubicscubicle · 11/11/2021 18:23

It was exactly that. Background info. Not a press brief, as it's being twisted to mean on this thread.

It was particular about Samantha, she was the one in question, as she was the one going to all the British press at the time. If TM jnr was the champion, I'm sure she would have given a background info on him.

cabingirl · 11/11/2021 18:25

What do you mean allowed? She’s brought the suit hasn’t she?

I think the speculation would be that the RF using their connections would influence or make a deal behind the scenes with ANL to 'settle' / drop their appeal.

I think ANL are having too much fun with this though so they'd have to be offered something really juicy to let it go now. Private birth footage of Princess Charlotte or something.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/11/2021 18:26

I know you’ve said (I think it was you) that the royal family won’t want a trial going ahead but can they really influence her to stop it?

Yes, it was me; I doubt the RF could influence Meghan, but I certainly believe they can interfere in order for the case to be decided in a certain way

After all it wouldn't be the first time ...

rubicscubicle · 11/11/2021 18:31

@smilesy

I’m not clear what bearing the character of Thomas Markle has on a thread about a court case involving Meghan and ANL. There is a whole other thread about a weird conspiracy theory involving him. Maybe that would be the place to discuss that as it is massively derailing this thread 🤷‍♀️
Someone rightly asked about Thomas as it's him who sent the letter to the MoS in the first place.
Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/11/2021 18:35

I think the speculation would be that the RF using their connections would influence or make a deal behind the scenes with ANL to 'settle' / drop their appeal

Almost but not quite, cabingirl
I'm not sure the palace would risk doing a deal with ANL over this, for fear of their attempt also finding its way into print. Much more likely IMO that it would all be sorted out with the lawyers and the court

The alternative is to believe that the RF are subject to exactly the same law as the rest of us, and that their interests are addressed in exactly the same way - which frankly is just amusing

Pinkyxx · 11/11/2021 18:37

Personally, I don't think anyone comes out looking good here however I don't like the fact that I felt sorry for MM when that letter was published. I felt genuinely that it was an awful thing for her Father to do. Now that feel she distorted the facts and played a game of smoke and mirrors.

As I see it the only thing her Father did wrong was to pose for some absurd picture reading a British magazine. He didn't ignore her, in fact quite the contrary as the texts now prove. The texts / emails between her and JK seem to demonstrate that she wrote that letter knowing it would be leaked. She worded it carefully to control the narrative and portray a certain image while showing her Father in a poor light. Same on the book she (until now) claimed to have had nothing to do with.

Using her friends to have articles printed saying she was essentially a saint was provocative and aimed to prop up the image she was trying to craft publicly. This couple with the letter, feeling deeply manipulative. The 'briefing' about her family is just unforgivable. I don't care what they've done, it's just not ok. She may not like her step sister, but the hypocrisy of claiming to be a women's advocate trailblazer and then portraying her step sister in that way is disgusting and deeply misogynistic. She lied saying her Father ignored her in the run up to the wedding, refused to return messages etc - all now seems patently false based on the texts disclosed in the appeal.

You can't on one hand cry victim then try and manipulate a situation by attacking others but not allow them the right to defend themselves. She wouldn't speak to her Father so he played in her sandbox - the press. She then sues, wins, then faced with an appeal lies to a high court.. and frames it as a lapse of memory.. this added to the many falsehoods that came to light from that now infamous Oprah interview.. I'm just inclined to feel she doesn't care much for honesty or the privacy of others, and feels she can disparage whomever she wants in whatever way she chooses but no one is allowed to utter a word to challenge her.

Give me a break.

Swipe left for the next trending thread