Meghan court case live today

[callmeadoctor]

@HeddaGarbled

Meghan even said in the Oprah interview that he only mentioned in the car on the way to meet the Queen that she had to curtsey. You'd think he might have mentioned it earlier!

That was probably bollocks too.

I don't know. From some of the things Harry himself has said, it seemed like his goal here was to seal the deal before she changed her mind and got scared off like all the others had. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he purposely withheld information from her.

[quote Mummy7777]@pickupaPenguin8

Yes I agree - marry in haste repent at leisure. They both seem immature tbh.

It's a load of codswallop if she really wants us to believe that she didn't Google the royal family. She has stated to us that when she sees a wrong she puts pen to paper etc etc. I jus cannot believe she didn't Google the royal family.

In my eyes she's lost all credibility. Both of them are just full of bullshit.[/quote]
I agree. I remember one of Meghan’s teenage school friends said that she and Meghan watched Princess Diana’s funeral, and Meghan read Diana’s biography. Meghan also wrote about K&W’s wedding on her blog The Tig. So definitely bullshit that she didn’t know anything about the royal family or who Harry was.

I always thought the Dear Daddy letter was manipulative and self conscious before reading Meghan's actual thinking behind it. It did not tug on my heartstrings.

I am sympathetic to Meghan because she is undoubtedly being trashed by the DM and other tabloid press. That said, I think her issue is that she comes across as being preachy and hypocritical by her actions v words. Its fair to say that are appears to regard the general public as being pretty stupid. And that is why the media is going for the jugular.

twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1458410805339336709

She emailed Knauf several pages worth of "background" bullet points that she wanted him to pass on. Knauf didn't want to do it, because he thought it was important for them to be able to truthfully swear they had nothing to do with the book. Harry agreed that that was important, then told him to do it anyway. They spend the next several years dancing around the specifics, insisting that that never spoke with the authors directly.

As a mixed race woman, I get quite fed up with the line that no one can have a less than positive opinion about Meghan and, by extension, Harry without someone claiming its racisim.

There's is a distinct difference in assuming someone is lying based on their skin colour and forming an opinion on a person, based on their actions.

After the Oprah interview, both me and my older dd were of the opinion that there was so many holes in their story and she she seemed so sure of herself, that Harry had been feeding her misinformation. And that she genuinely believed what she was saying. I was a quite supportive of her and thought she had found herself in a Web of half truths and genuinely believed the vast majority of what she said to be the truth.

Like when Harry said the skin colour of potential children was talked about 'at the beginning' and she said it was when she was pregnant.

My thoughts were that, whatever the conversation was, happened early on and he kept it from her incase it made her think twice about marrying him. Then told her, once he had made his mind up about leaving to fuel the fire. But told her it had just been said as he couldn't tell her he had kept it from her. So she was being truthful, according to her information.

But given that she has lied in court documents etc, I am inclined to think she believes she can say what she wants and is above reproach. Even if she believed the emails and texts would never come to light, she knew she was lying. I don't believe 'I don't remember'. A lie is still a lie, even if you think it will never be found out.

And her skin colour has nothing to do with my opinion on this.

I also find the fact that people get so upset that Harry is critiqued and assume it's down to his wife's heritage, quite laughable. An extremely rich white man receives criticism, because he moans he only has several million to live off and got financially cut off after quitting his job and it must because his wife is mixed race. Couldn't possibly be because he is being ridiculous. And didn't have the sense to recognise (especially during a pandemic) how tone deaf he sounded.

If quit my job, I won't continue to be paid until I achieve financial independence. I am trying to think how I would word that in my resignation. If I worked in a family business and quit I wouldn't expect to keep being financed until I found something else either.

It really showed how he has no clue about the real world AND clearly has no one decent to advise him to keep certain things to himself.

I simply don't get why either of them pushed forward with this case, given the information they knew. It also doesn't match with their view that they were being controlled and could not act, if they brought it before leaving. The linger this goes on, the more I am baffled about their behaviour and their view of the world.

@TaliaB1, they did NOT marry in the back garden and the Archbishop of Canterbury stated that quite firmly some days after that statement. If a public figure, especially someone who knows what they say will be quoted over and over, makes a statement it helps to be strictly factual. We don't marry in the back garden in the UK (unless both parties are Jewish) because it's not LEGAL to do so. They, both of them, put the AOC into a difficult position by making that statement, it might be a small point but sticking to facts does help, I find.

@BananaPB

On a separate note - did everyone see this ? I assume it's because of Meghan's video reading of The Bench was heavily ratio'ed

Channels from big corporate media and govt sponsored material gets poor ratios. It's more likely they were the ones hassling YouTube about it. I doubt a company that size would changes their audience engagement platform just for her benefit! It wouldn't surprise me if she felt responsible though. Perhaps she wrote one of her sternly worded 'this is the Duchess of Sussex and I have a complaint' letters, which she can now leak to the media.

@PrestonHood121

The court heard that the duchess had written: "Given I've only ever called him 'daddy' it may make sense to open as such, despite him being less than paternal, and in the unfortunate event that it leaked it would pull at the heartstrings."

She wrote the letter with the intention of it being it leaked. When he didn't do it, she had "friends" reach out to People magazine, and then her dad showed some paparazzi the letter when they asked him about it.

Crikey. Is this “friends” reaching out to the People a fact?

As has been stated at least 200 times on this site, it is common for Americans to refer to a non-binding vow ceremony as a marriage.

What’s this? Would anyone who believes this to be true please explain? TaliaB1?

I lived in five American states over 36 years and have travelled to all but six states for either business or pleasure.

I have never heard anyone the word marriage to describe a non-binding ceremony (though I once was invited, memorably, to “our Velcro ceremony”.)

Not saying it’s never happened, but I dispute it’s commonly used in the context described.

I originally didn't form an opinion as didn't know the details. After seeing the appeals case I agree that neither H or M can be considered as reliable in their evidence.

They did not consider the implications of their actions at the time they shared information. It seems one it blew up in the press amnesia sets in and suddenly they are innocent but victimised.

There is a continuous pattern of particularly M playing the role of the freedom of rights and equality, insisting in privacy and investing and being respectful of the royal family. This is all words to attempt to form a more favourable public opinion. However her/their behaviour and actions are proving to be very different.

They say one thing, do another, manipulate and then blame others when what comes out makes them look bad.

For me this has nothing to do with race or gender and everything to do with narcissism, self entitlement and greed.

@ShagMeRiggins

As has been stated at least 200 times on this site, it is common for Americans to refer to a non-binding vow ceremony as a marriage.

What’s this? Would anyone who believes this to be true please explain? TaliaB1?

I lived in five American states over 36 years and have travelled to all but six states for either business or pleasure.

I have never heard anyone the word marriage to describe a non-binding ceremony (though I once was invited, memorably, to “our Velcro ceremony”.)

Not saying it’s never happened, but I dispute it’s commonly used in the context described.

I don't believe this to be true either. I think its something people are saying because it's one of the one things, that can't be denied.

I have a handful of American friends as I worked for a US company and spent time there. I also know an English couple who live there who are very involved in their local community and have many American friends.

But this isn't, by any means, lots of Americans. But my American friends were of the opinion, that was her attempt at 'flipping off' the RF AND the British public and that she simply didn't know that you can't get married outdoors in the UK with just the couple and one clergy.

She was essentially saying 'you all celebrated a charade and we fooled you all. You thought you were sharing our special day, you spent money and time on it but it actually meant nothing'

I think if they wanted a private ceremony, thata what they should have gone with it. There really was no need for it to be an official event, if they hadn't wanted it.

At the time though I did think if Harry, also not knowing the rules, convinced her that could be their official marriage if she was starting to feel she wanted something more private. Like I said, earlier, up until the last few days I have thought that he was the cause of alot of this. Telling her one thing, that's incorrect and making a fool out of her.

As Mummyoflittledragon said, how credible is it that she didn’t brief her five friends what to say in the people article? I bet ANL want the chance to explore that more thoroughly in a trial. I seem to recall that Meghan tried in a previous hearing to shield them from being called as witnesses but it was that article that “poked the bear” as far as TM was concerned before he released the letter to the daily mail.

Not saying it’s never happened, but I dispute it’s commonly used in the context described

Part of the context being the British husband, sitting there too who must know the resonances in Britain. Perhaps he did not expect the Archbishop to need to issue a statement of clarification. It was a misjudgement, on his part

What blows my little mind is that this week, Harry has been talking about the importance of avoiding misinformation and of being truthful. And then there's this. There's no way in the world she could have forgotten that email - it's not a couple of quick lines dashed off in a hurry, it's a tome. Her lawyers will have asked her over and over to check her records and her recollections before they prepared her witness statement. She was either lying (she remembered but decided to deny it) or - less likely - just negligent (couldn't be bothered to check, wasn't worried about perjuring herself).

@MauraandLaura

I wonder if that phrase is going to be used in other court cases..

'I am sorry m'lord for forgetting I had robbed that bank, I didn't mean to mislead the court'

Quite!

I have always thought that letter was worded to be leaked. She thought her dad would do the leaking and when he didn't, she arranged her friends to brief the press about it, because she knew then that the rest of the press would put pressure on her dad to reveal the contents.

@Runforthehillocks

I have always thought that letter was worded to be leaked. She thought her dad would do the leaking and when he didn't, she arranged her friends to brief the press about it, because she knew then that the rest of the press would put pressure on her dad to reveal the contents.

That was why theory too, runforthehillocks. And then when Thomas did eventually leak it she was annoyed that the Mail only published extracts of it, and not the parts where she was critical of the press, so she decided to due them to make sure the whole text got into the public domain. Big mistake. Huge.

She would have just been better off publishing the letter herself. Saying 'as part of this private letter has become public, I have decided to publish the whole thing to you can see the context

But surely she’d realise that JK had the emails and would likely reveal them?

No, she absolutely would not have expected him to provide them. She would have assumed he was effectively gagged due to being a Palace employee. She will have been warned by her lawyers that she would likely have to disclose them herself as part of the litigation process - no doubt one of the reasons she pursued a summary judgement application, to wrap things up before she had to disclose anything unhelpful to her case.

(We also don’t know what discussions have been going on behind the scenes here - Meghan could well have been saying to ANL “well, I no longer have copies of any relevant communications as I’m no longer part of the Palace so I have nothing to disclose”. It would be quite normal for ANL to then make their own enquiries of other people who may have copies of relevant documents, and sometimes they are prepared to help).