To really like Meghan markle

[summer788]

I really do

Me too. I love her smile and it is obvious that her and Harry adore each other.
Kate just looks so bloody smug all the time and I just don't find William genuine .

I find it bizarre @Roussette Is it just part of the populism that has been pushed over the last few years? Seems to have led to an increase in tribalism all over the place.

Meghan never said that all British people are racists. Harry said the British press was racist. I don’t know why people keep insisting on being offended at something that was not said.

To be frank, I can't work it out. I do put some of it down to the political storm there has been, covid, brexit, people speaking their mind. I notice it everywhere, not so much politeness around, a sense of entitlement abounds, people being rude for the sake of being rude etc.

I didn’t like or dislike her prior to the docuseries.
How could I? I didn’t know her and I wasn’t dumb enough to believe what the gutter press wrote.

I watched their series as I was being nosy and wanted to hear all the salacious gossip I missed after not watching the Oprah interview.

Now- I’m not naive enough to think she’s shown the whole truth about herself, but I LOVE the fact she’s got us talking about the media and the RF!

Overall- the docuseries has given me no evidence to hate her. I do admire her fortitude and I am impressed she has so many loyal friends who have spoken up for her. I think truthfully that’s as far as I can go in defending her.

As a woman, I have wanted to come to her defence though- as I think there’s a lot of misogyny in way people treat her. Why isn’t this thread about whether people like or dislike Harry?

Ghastly person.

@Dogsitter1 I can’t stand Harry 😃 Megan almost as bad

They are both selfish, immature, pampered narcissists. Neither recognises their immense privilege and they couldn't get their story straight if their lives depended on it. Well done @summer788 you have fallen for a heavily edited and curated PR exercise. M&H have both been proven to have lied and MM lied to a court.

Isn't it interesting that you mention MM lying to a court but not the fact that she won the overall case PipinwasAuntieMabelsdog? Could that be because that was the main thrust of how the case was reported in the UK, through the bias of the Daily Mail, which was the very newspaper that MM was, quite legitimately as it turned out, sueing?

Here is the unbiased version by the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/06/meghan-markle-court-case-privacy-daily-mail/

Interesting how the article emphasises that the Daily Mail pursued the case knowing that legally it didn't have a leg to stand on.

"The newspaper chose to fight a weak case, despite the legal problems. “This could only be because they had a nonlegal objective"

Yes and we can all take a very good guess at what those objectives were can't we?

@Cranberrystreet

One issue with that WaPo report, is it doesn’t mention that Meghan and Omid scobie both lied to the court and had to amend their evidence once Jason Knauf provided emails

The most important point from the case is cold hard evidence of lying by Meghan. She secretly funnelled quite spiteful information to Omid Scobie ‘make sure he knows Sammantha didn’t finish high school, make sure he knows Sammantha has three kids with different dads’

each to their own, but I can’t admire that behaviour, and the person who engaged in it.

@Cranberrystreet the lies she told did not materially influence the findings of the case, hence her still winning whilst still be proven to have lied to the court about the documents she had passed to others and seen. HTH

Thanks for your explanation PipinwasAuntieMabelsdog but I don’t need help in understanding how the court arrived at its conclusion.

My point was that, whenever the case is mentioned on sm or in the press, everyone tends to highlight the fact that MM lied to the court (an oversight she explained and apologised for) rather than the fact that she won the case! I am suggesting that the heavily curated PR exercise you mention isn’t all orchestrated by M & H!

All you have to do is read the press since Charles & Camilla took the throne. Look out for articles by broadcasters such as Gyles Brandreth and Jeremy Clarkson (both contacts of Camilla).

Ohnonevermind
The most important point from the case is cold hard evidence of lying by Meghan

^ I have to strongly disagree with you on this point! I think the most important point is that the DM acted illegally.

And when it comes to spreading tittle tattle; Samantha is hardly worthy of “admiration” on that score surely?

My point was that, whenever the case is mentioned on sm or in the press, everyone tends to highlight the fact that MM lied to the court (an oversight she explained and apologised for) rather than the fact that she won the case!

That tends to be the case when you get found out to have lied to the court! You may win the case, but your integrity will forever called into question. It’s called a Pyrrhic victory….

My point was that, whenever the case is mentioned on sm or in the press, everyone tends to highlight the fact that MM lied to the court (an oversight she explained and apologised for)

Not sure lying to a court of law can just be termed “an oversight “🤔

So a newspaper infringing someone's privacy and breaking copyright law is not worthy of mention?

And if you read a report according to the Guardian and not the DM, the lying was explained as follows:

"Knauf also said she sent him briefing notes ahead of him meeting with the authors of Finding Freedom, with details including on her relations with her half-siblings. This appeared to contradict a 17 November 2020 statement by the duchess’s lawyers that “the claimant [Meghan] does not know if, and to what extent, the communications team were involved in providing information for the book …”

"In response, Meghan made a witness statement in which she apologised for not remembering those exchanges, stressing she had “absolutely no wish or intention” to mislead, and felt the exchanges “strongly support” her case. The briefing notes were “reminders” only of information Knauf already had, a “timeline” of her family so he would answer media inquiries. They were not “special or exclusive”, just “general background factual information”, and “a far cry from the very detailed personal information” ANL alleged she “wanted or permitted” to be put into the public domain".

The judge evidently accepted this viewpoint in their summary "The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private. The articles interfered with that reasonable expectation.”

@Cranberrystreet

Michelle Obama’s much repeated phrase comes to mind ‘when they go low, we go high’ - Megan unfortunately went lower.

Luckily Omid had the same oversight. wasn’t that a lucky coincidence 🍀

Phone autocorrected Meghan for some reason.

I’m not disputing that she win the privacy case. I am questioning calling a lie to a court of law “an oversight”. The content of her communication with Scobie is irrelevant. It is the fact that it was categorically denied that any communication took place, when in fact it did, that is problematic.

This is something I never knew.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19599899.amp

Apparently the Queen has sued papers in the past using the same reason Meghan did. Copyright infringement.

Most interesting is this:

'Clear invasion'

On that occasion the Palace claimed a breach of confidence by the owner. The law of confidence - until recently, the closest Britain came to a law of privacy - has been the route most frequently taken when the royals have resorted to the courts.

Information obtained in confidence - for instance, by an employee - should remain confidential; if it does not, there are grounds for legal action.

Information obtained in confidence - for instance, by an employee - should remain confidential; if it does not, there are grounds for legal action.

Unless it is a protected disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act - ie the employee is entitled to act as a whistleblower and is protected from retaliation if they do so.

I understand that. I am just seeing the hypocrisy in it is all.

Meghan & Harry have threads and threads about what they are doing and none of them seem to mention that previously, current royals also did the same thing. Including the Queen.

I started to dislike MM during their South Africa tour.

I thought H&M would do some real good by raising awareness and shining the spotlight on SA charities.

Instead, we had a tearful whingefest all about her and how no-one asked her how she was.

She had witnessed first hand the grinding poverty and appalling conditions people endure in South Africa, but rather than counting her blessings or trying to help others she made the tour all about herself.

M&H do seem to be an absolute car crash couple. Which can make it hard to look away.

It's well known in the UK the Queen has sued.
She didn't lie.

Spot the difference between the two situations.
(One time was for leaking her Christmas speech, by the way.)

@Cranberrystreet Do you live in the UK? It was well reported that the MoS couldn't win. There were tons of articles on the action Meghan took, including on the tv news stations.media lawyers discussed that the MoS couldn't win.
Meghan quite rightly won the case. There was never any doubt that she would. So the MoS appealed. And that's when it came out she'd lied. She still won because her lying about FF didnt affect the illegality of publishing the letter.

But it's one of those reasons why the RF tend not to sue. Because it's an uncertain process. And here, Meghan won the battle against the MoS but lost her credibility because when she lied a load of information got released in Jason Knaufs emails. Including talking about manipulating (pulling the heartstrings) of the British public. And that made all the teatime news. No one in the uk cares about celebrities suing newspapers. There's not much sympathy or respect for newspapers in this country. But the gossip that Meghan had lied and manipulated....now that has interest. And of course she now lives with people being able to legitimately say, she lies, every day.

It was also well discussed in the British media that MoS fought the case because they had information and they wanted to put it out in the public arena. They were also wanting to release the names of the 5 friends and cross examine them. It never happened because the judge shut it down before it got that far. But the point I'm making is, there is nothing that the WP discussed that wasn't discussed ad bloody infinitum in the uk. So I'm wondering how you missed that?

Now Radaronline are saying that they leaked stories to the media as well. The Daily Beast is backing them up on that claim.