Anyone starting to feel sorry for them?

[Aspargar]

https://archive.ph/vV0f9

No matter how preeningly narcissistic the couple may seem, surely even they must now have realised what the source of their woes is? The fact is: people were only interested in hearing what Harry and Meghan had to say when they were dishing the dirt on the royal family.Hence, in January last year, the record-breakingly vast sales of Harrys memoir Spare. with all its eye-popping claims about his brother, father and stepmother. But every time he, and Meghan, start talking about any other topic – be it sport, jam or social justice – the world turns off. No one cares. Now that the Sussexes have finished flogging all the family secrets, they’ve got nothing that anyone wants.

There is part of me that does feelsorry for them too. I mean 2024 has been a disaster, off the back of 2023 which was another disaster. It’s not going to get any better. Reap what you sow, so we knew it was coming their way but it’s all a bit sad and pathetic now. The faux tours, cards from ‘the office of’, as time goes on, the more pathetic that will look because they have lost all connection to the Royals

This must be their year of reckoning. He won’t win his cases, they will lose Netflix, the brand will face further set backs, they realise that their kids will never have a royal Christmas at Sandringham or summer at Balmoral, ever. In fact they are unlikely to ever meet the King again.

Its all came off the rails. We all knew it would happen. Many could even see the disaster impending from the engagement announcement. But it’s still hard to watch and that’s what makes me feel a bit sorry for them.

Prepared to be flamed! 😬

Absolutely! It’s beyond belief that he’s been quiet

Don't really understand that post. Prime Ministers aren't THAT powerful, even if elected, in the same way MPs aren't. That's why the PM won't allow Leveson 2 - he'd be toast if he did.

I agree that is is unlikely that Diana would have been murdered due to the variables you outline. But in a way you agree with what I say - we're not saying they wouldn't want to do it - that's almost a accepted - but rather that's the only reason we can conclude they didn't; it's not the way to go about it.

I don't know, did we ever find out why the chauffeur was working for MI6, or was he feeding stories back to The Sun or is that more or less the same thing. Or that the bodyguard was in some way a former State operative (can you ever really leave), I know I don't want to get into it really but it's not terribly tidy all round.

The King is Head of State, not the Prime Minister.

But in a way you agree with what I say - we're not saying they wouldn't want to do it - that's almost a accepted

I’m sorry, but who on earth is accepting that the British State wanted to kill Princess Diana??

All the media coverage and expert analysis at time seemed to suggest Huge Grant taking the settle was good judgement at the time - it was seen as a sad indictment of our system of law at that level.

A 10 million bill if you win if a very pyrrhic victory - there's always a risk of a loss it's never zero risk - with an even bigger bill and that verses a huge amount of money now and still get press about you were wronged.

People always over estimate what actors get paid don't take account of their costs or tax - plus people are always more willing to risk/spend someone else's money.

I've no idea what will happen with Harry's cases - have to wait and see though I do think he struggles to see entirely predictable outcomes to everyone else from his own behavior - so how good his cases are we'll all have to wait and see.

I think Meghan being reported as wanting him to let it go - suggests she can see risks and potential harms with it all and wants some distance - even if it's behind the scenes mental energy it will be taking.

Someone up thread simply says it wouldn't happen because that's not how it's done, not that they wouldn't want to. No, 'Hey, MI5 wouldn't do that because they're really nice people and in any case would be held to account if they did' type stuff, for which I am glad, as they never are.

It’s not a sad indictment of the law. Civil courts want people to reach settlements before resorting to pursue a case through to a very expensive and slow court system. That’s literally what it’s designed for.

Um, no, I don't agree with what you say. I don't think MI5 ever had any thought of or interest in assassinating Diana because she never presented any threat to the British State.

Also, your argument - that someone could not have committed a specific act because if they had committed it they would have done it better, and therefore they didn't commit it - constitutes at least two logical fallacies. Maybe three.

Erm, I didn't say they didn't commit it. But coming back on topic - and if we went off topic it's down to me tbf - if you even slightly thought that someone might have bumped off your mother, and then you have courtiers briefing against you daily, you might think, hmm, not sure I want to hang around here - I'm off.

But , as I said earlier , Harry ( and Meghan) left because the late Queen wouldn’t let them do half in / half out !
Do you have evidence that the courtiers briefed against him daily ?

Asked at 12:21 by@TriptoTipp , and not yet answered.

The sad indictment bit I thought is because you have to have so much money to get near the courts - so it tends to put of wronged Joe Bloggs public without those resources.

So yes it does what it meant to I suppose protects the rich and influential and makes even them settle rather than go to court but hardly show how accessible justice is for ordinary people - I though sad indictment in media at time was referring that.

Even Huge Grant who done better than many financially is criticized on this thread for settling with at least poster saying he case must have been poor - rather than he didn't want to win and get a 10K bill or thrown the dice and lose and face an even bigger one- when it' s your cash you had to earn bet it looks very different prospect face that than it looks on outside.

I don't think settling before court is wrong or undesirable outcome but the whole prolonged process doesn't look great.

This! I'm pretty jealous of them and think they've done just fine for themselves. Very nice life!

I think you’re mistaken as to why Hugh Grant launched a claim.
The punishment is in the process. Hugh instructed very very expensive lawyers. This was his decision to pursue the case, the defendant (the Sun) had no option but to respond. Thus they’ve had to instruct expensive lawyers too.

The claimants racking up costs is designed to hurt the defendants for as long as possible then seek settlement. Which is exactly what has happened in the Grant case. He is using the poor excuse that he would be having to pay £10 million, knowing that he started this case and he racked up millions in his own costs. Acting as if this has been thrust upon him. He always knew how this would work. He’s got exactly what he wanted.

Yes the huge settlement he got from the papers won't have made a point to them at all and press interviews after in media either.

But yes I think he got what he wanted - it's why I think criticizing him for not spending another 10K + on a court "victory" is such an odd stance from posters.

I wonder why ??

Most of that 10 million is his own costs, that he racked up with his lawyers. So who’s to blame?

He knew full well it would cost millions but was hoping he didn’t have to pay up. So he racked up the costs higher and higher….but he made out that he was doing it in the name of justice! He wasn’t, if he were he would have continued with the case if that was the reason.

He did not have to spend millions on lawyers, that was his choice to a very expensive law firm and very expensive KCs.

So we agree he had cash/resource to get it as far as he did - money he earned - that most don't have access to - a point I saw him make very well to the media at the time. He had grievance and had managed to get to a financial point in his life he could actually try and hold the newspapers to account.

Faulting him for using best legal advice he could against a well armed and financed opponent is against most advice I see for legal things but him having money - again money he earned - did give him that option.

He risked as much money as he felt he could - and got a settlement from the papers - he got whole thing into media cycle to highlight the wider issues as well as his own grievances.

It's possible to think Huge Grant is not a great human being or someone I like or admire while also admitting that his behavior was rational and got him what he wanted and did shed some light on wider issues in post interviews in media.

He owns the wider public nothing more - he's not in any political office he was a private individual with a grievance who was one of the rare people with resources to do anything - a point I actually heard made in post analysis in most coverage.

The papers have in past overstepped boundaries and broken the law and should be held to account for that - preferably not just by the wealthy - doesn't mean I think Harry case is a good one or that Huge Grant didn't play his own PR games.

I do think there is a failure of justice generally in the cost of accessing courts eg for employment cases. I also think there is a failure involved in a civil court cases like this being able to ring up such big bills and waste so much court time - totally disproportionate to the likely damages. We do not have punitive damages in the UK so the payouts are meant to represent actual loss to the claimant - there is no way this would be higher than the costs they are currently incurring.

And whilst there may well be some ‘guilt’ by The Sun in these cases, as has been pointed out, they are the ones being forced to incur costs defending themselves against PH et al. They would have to incur costs doing so even if totally blameless and in other areas we have victims of vexatious claimants forced to settle to avoid bankruptcy despite no wrong-doing.

Even Huge Grant who done better than many financially is criticized on this thread for settling

I was pointing out that Hugh Grant has been an advocate for exposing the historical wrong doings of the media, he has presented himself as a crusader for exposing tabloid malpractice, and yet he took the money and accepted an out of court settlement "without admission of liability" and with an NDA. So the Sun's denial of any wrongdoing stands in all legality. Personally, I think the better option IS to settle, but I think if anyone should NOT have settled it should have been Hugh Grant, who has spent years claiming he was trying to expose the wrongdoing rather than get any monetary gain from it,.

Ultimately, everyone knows about the hacking scandal and most people denounce what the newspapers did at that time, no one really cares much about historical wrong doings by a dying media now though, the younger generation probably can't even relate to it, it's part of the dinosaur age pre SM and Tik Tok.

The case has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with Harry’s desperate bid for attention

"if you even slightly thought that someone might have bumped off your mother, and then you have courtiers briefing against you daily, you might think, hmm, not sure I want to hang around here - I'm off."

Would you take 23 years to make that decision?

Would you champion and support the promotion of the institution that killed your mother for 23 years?

Would you insist on hanging on to titles and then putting these titles (like a trademark) from the institution that killed your mother on your own children?

Harry has had too much therapy.

Whatever therapy he has had / is having is clearly not working .