Archewell: leading the way with compassion...

[Blip]

Archewell states on their website that their purpose is "leading the way with compassion"

I don't see Harry and Meghan role modelling compassion, certainly not towards either Harry's family or Meghan's family. To me this seems incongruous. Why don't they practice what they preach?

In her statement, Meghan said that "Until receipt of Mr Knauf’s Witness Statement the only exchanges I remembered having about the Book with Mr Knauf were my discussion with him in the Audience Room and the email exchanges of 12 September 2018 about proactively asking our friends not to participate in the Book." She also said, "In the light of the information and documents that Mr Knauf has provided I accept that Mr Knauf did provide some information to the authors for the Book and that he did so with my knowledge, for a meeting that he planned for with the authors in his capacity as Communications Secretary." Apologising and saying she had "absolutely no wish or intention" to mislead the court, she added, "In fact, had I been aware of these exchanges at the time of serving the Re-Amended Reply, I would have been more than happy to refer to them as I feel they strongly support my case.

We clearly come to different conclusions as to interpretation of the emails.

@GingerbreadBaking the fact they are coming unglued as we speak is testament enough to that lol

when you do provide facts, or undisputed truths about something incorrectly posted, like you have done with that ridiculous letter grabbed from Reddit (and only on Reddit, nowhere else) the relevant posters are nowhere to be seen, they just scurry away and don't accept anything. They then I imagine are 'reborn' to start over. (Reborn is my new word for NC, hope you like it)

Reborn 😂

so far have only partnered up with existing charities who do all the work

🤦🏾‍♀️ again someone doesn’t know how foundations work. They help those charities raise money, direct their supporters to those charities to donate directly and offer grants. Supporting grassroots charities is no bad thing. Any one of us who give to charity are doing the same thing on a smaller scale.

No idea about Reddit as not on it so can't comment on that.

I'm interested to know how you can post a fact proven in a court of law but because that doesn't suit (no pun intended) then it becomes just an 'opinion'? Sounds just as ridiculous to me.

@Whaeanui the longer version of the saga…

In Meghan’s court case against the Mail one of the issues was the extent (if any) to which Meghan had collaborated with Omid Scobie on the book “Finding Freedom”.

In a signed statement Meghan’s solicitor denied that Meghan had spoken to Omid Scobie or given authority to anyone to speak to him on her behalf.

Meghan herself described the allegations that she had in any way assisted Scobie as “false, fantastical” and a “conspiracy theory”. She denied that she had been given any opportunity to fact check. “It had nothing to do with me” she claimed in her signed statement.

Omid himself also gave a signed statement “Any suggestion that the Duke and Duchess collaborated on the book is false”.

Three statements that were sworn to be true, three clear denials.

Meghan first had to resile on the “I had not been given any opportunity to fact check” assertion and admitted to the court that in fact one of her staff members had actually done this on Meghan’s behalf.

Later, faced with her actual emails from the time, Meghan later then had to apologise and accept that she had in fact drafted lengthy notes specifically for her press officer to hand to Omid Scobie for his book and had also authorised him to speak to Omid Scobie on her behalf. Harry had also said in those emails that it was important for him and Meghan to be able to say that they had nothing to do with the book. So it wasn’t a false conspiracy theory at all - it was true, but they had not wanted it to come out.

She was criticised by the judge for misleading the court. Judicial speak for she lied - all three of them lied in fact, clearly intentionally.

I'm interested to know how you can post a fact proven in a court of law but because that doesn't suit (no pun intended) then it becomes just an 'opinion'? Sounds just as ridiculous to me.
I don’t think it was proven that an author, lawyer, and Meghan ‘conspired’. Despite the intervention that had no legal bearing, she won. The emails didn’t prove what the fail was claiming. It’s perfectly reasonable to think, given the circumstances, she forgot. It didn’t matter in any case. She won.

Did you not follow the other archewell thread? I mean, a blatant lie was posted by members here and none of you commented on it. I was even asked to apologise for questioning it.

She's a grifter and he is her useful idiot ☝🏻👀

I don’t think it was proven that an author, lawyer, and Meghan ‘conspired’.

Meghan and Omid Scobie both knew that her staff were involved in reviewing his book, and that she had authorised her staff to give him information directly. Somehow however they both denied this in sworn statements.

Meghan’s lawyer had no direct knowledge of this, but would only have made her own statement on the basis of her client’s clear statements to her (because she was putting her own professional reputation on the line). So we know what Meghan was also telling her lawyer about this.

When two people both know the truth but both lie about it, that’s generally seen as a clear sign that they have agreed between themselves what to say. That’s a conspiracy to mislead the court.

You have forgotten that it's 'their truth' not the truth.

Archewell??? What is it exactly. Some sort of cross between a charity and a business. And what a daft name.

This might have been an "unfortunate lapse of memory", said the appeal court ruling, but it didn't bear on the fundamental issues of whether such a private letter to her father should have been published.

The court case was about the publication of her letter to her father.

Archewell??? What is it exactly. Some sort of cross between a charity and a business. And what a daft name.

Archewell Inc is a mix of for profit and not for profit. Archewell Foundation is a not-for-profit private foundation. You obviously know where the name comes from.

Generally, we pick our battles. You sure do

That’s how it started, but other issues came up along the way (normal with court cases - once you start them, you are no longer on control of the process).

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

When that picture was put up, there was probably maybe 30 posters, 20 at a conservative estimate, who called the poster out on it.

As far as @Whaeanui establishing it was a fake document, no one has called it out. I posted saying I was puzzled by it. But that's it. And the posters who were going on about it endlessly have scarpered!

😴

The picture was not fake.
Even today I still see it as William. MNHQ took around 20 pages of pressure to take it down, because I think they also thought it was him.

Posters always bring it up because they know it was eventually taken down and I cannot repost it. I still believe a lot of people would see it was him if I reposted it.

So now, I'm off to report the poster who is bringing it up as against the that rule, mostly because they know I cannot repost it and are doing that on purpose.

When two people both know the truth but both lie about it, that’s generally seen as a clear sign that they have agreed between themselves what to say. That’s a conspiracy to mislead the court.

There is no proof of any conspiracy.
When Omid and Meghan both denied that they collaborated on the book, they had never even met at that stage.

Omid met with Jason Knauf, who knew that MM had no idea who he was talking about (Omid). Hence he came to the courts with this without being subpoena . He would have needed permission from his boss William and he was never fired for breaching confidentiality clause - instead he was promoted afterwards.

MM was JK boss, so as a technicality, she had to accept cooperation, despite not having a clue what Omid even looked like at the time.

@notanotheroneagain I think you are confused about what @Roussette and I are talking about? It was a fake document, posted 2 days ago on the other archewell thread

The word Archewell doesn't actually mean anything
I think it should actually be Arche ... well?!

Yes it does mean something.

The name stems from the Ancient Greek word 'Arche', which means 'source of action' compounded with the English word 'well'.

The picture was not fake.

No, it wasn't fake but it wasn't PW either, unless it's another picture in which case I'm confused too😁