General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020

[Somebody]

I was speaking in the abstract, not about a particular instance.

And I don't think they have ever had an issue with photographers or at least not since the engagement. But what some refuse to see (and what is off topic for this thread) is that media can still be intrusive, bullying and abusive even if you are not physically being chased by photographers.

Edited to add: of course the tabloids (Sun I believe) did hire a drone to take photographs of their Cotswold home including photos through windows that showed details. That was one instance of intrusive photographer behavior.

How do you know that I refuse to see something? In this specific post, I responded to you statement that said "Pictures taken constantly, with rude words shouted, at close range or in dangerous situations, or in private places are one thing." by stating that this was not at all what Meghan experienced. Quite the contrary.

That doesn't mean that the media wasn't abusive in other ways; both can be true: she was almost always received with great enthusiasm on the one hand and on the other hand the articles in the press were very critical and many times (extremely) unfair; sometimes the criticism was justified in my opinion (but I am sure opinions will differ in this respect).

The first (people shouting at you: either in anger or as 'fans') cannot be ignored; it is however possible (although hard; it requires a lot of self-discipline) to ignore the second. If the 'abusiveness' goes up another level -to 'threats'-; it would of course be necessary to know about it, so appropriate measures can be taken. But that's a different issue.

 

[Somebody]

It also made me realise how annoying it must be to live your life with security officers following your every move only 3 metres behind you. I guess one gets used to it, but royals must crave the ability to just go for a walk with their dogs without being constantly watched....

I agree; I would also assume that at some point you get somewhat used to it (at least; the person that I knew with full-time security did get used to it - although he had only one person not two following his every move). That's probably why they like to be 'at home' as in that case the security guards can be slightly further away and therefore less intrusive. The guards would need to keep a much closer eye out whenever they are in public (including 'privately out in public').

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

She's an actress.....she loves the media attention to her as a personality and as to her career; what she doesn't like is the media attention to her life, which - in her position - she's going to have to deal with.

Archie doesn't look very comfortable.......

Of course she loves the attention, nothing is a coincidence here... we did not see them for 6 weeks in canada, they can be private if they want to. This was a shot for the paps, possibly even pre arranged, smiling with Archie and the dogs, playing the game has already begun, well see if Harry is happy to join in.
Big night for will and kate, even better to steal the headlines. So predictable!
and yes, the actress still has not learned how to hold her kid properly.

 

[Pranter]

[...] if you didn't see the twitter link to the atty guy in Canada I posted a few posts ago..go check him out. Very interesting info on privacy laws in B.C.




LaRae

 

[texankitcat]

HA, somebody in the SR camp did do their research didn't they!

No wonder she was smiling.

 

[Elenath]

By the way if you didn't see the twitter link to the atty guy in Canada I posted a few posts ago..go check him out. Very interesting info on privacy laws in B.C.




LaRae[/QUOTE]

I read that link. I don’t know that much about privacy laws in the UK (or lack there of), but I wonder if these laws are the reason they moved to Vancouver Island.

I read an article in the Guardian today about a UK based paparazzi who said taking photos wasn’t about the photos anymore. It was about creating stories in line with the narrative the editor wanted to sell. Despicable person this guy is.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/feb/07/confessions-of-the-paparazzi-review

 

[Humbugged]

Sure - but on what grounds..?

It's against the law in BC



http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96373_01

Unauthorized use of name or portrait of another

3 (1) In this section, "portrait" means a likeness, still or moving, and includes
(a) a likeness of another deliberately disguised to resemble the plaintiff, and
(b) a caricature.
(2) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person to use the name or portrait of another for the purpose of advertising or promoting the sale of, or other trading in, property or services, unless that other, or a person entitled to consent on his or her behalf, consents to the use for that purpose.
(3) A person is not liable to another for the use for the purposes stated in subsection (2) of a name identical with, or so similar as to be capable of being mistaken for, that of the other, unless the court is satisfied that
(a) the defendant specifically intended to refer to the plaintiff or to exploit his or her name or reputation, or
(b) either on the same occasion or on some other occasion in the course of a program of advertisement or promotion, the name was connected, expressly or impliedly, with other material or details sufficient to distinguish the plaintiff, to the public at large or to the members of the community in which he or she lives or works, from others of the same name.
(4) A person is not liable to another for the use, for the purposes stated in subsection (2), of his or her portrait in a picture of a group or gathering, unless the plaintiff is
(a) identified by name or description, or his or her presence is emphasized, whether by the composition of the picture or otherwise, or
(b) recognizable, and the defendant, by using the picture, intended to exploit the plaintiff's name or reputation.
(5) Without prejudice to the requirements of any other case, in order to render another liable for using his or her name or portrait for the purposes of advertising or promoting the sale of
(a) a newspaper or other publication, or the services of a broadcasting undertaking, the plaintiff must establish that his or her name or portrait was used specifically in connection with material relating to the readership, circulation or other qualities of the newspaper or other publication, or to the audience, services or other qualities of the broadcasting undertaking, as the case may be, and
(b) goods or services on account of the use of the name or portrait of the other in a radio or television program relating to current or historical events or affairs, or other matters of public interest, that is sponsored or promoted by or on behalf of the makers, distributors, vendors or suppliers of the goods or services, the plaintiff must establish that his or her name or portrait was used specifically in connection with material relating to the goods or services, or to their manufacturers, distributors, vendors or suppliers.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I’m with you. Unfortunately I don’t think they’ll be left alone and we’ll be seeing more pap photos in the years come. Especially if Meghan and Harry spend time in Los Angeles where the paps are all over the place.

Paparazzi will follow them wherever they go, sadly. Even though the Sussexes are aiming to live a more private life, they will never be able to enjoy a more "toned-down" life like the minor and extended members of the BRF because of who they are in the family "order".

 

[carlota]

Now they complain about the pictures that were taken of Meghan (yet she looked beaming on the pictures but now they want to sue)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51197099

 

[Fem]

It's against the law in BC

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96373_01

If it's against the law, then SUE THEM. Not "issue a warning", thus creating MORE press coverage for yourself.

It's honestly that simple.

 

[ladongas]

If it's against the law, then SUE THEM. Not "issue a warning", thus creating MORE press coverage for yourself.

It's honestly that simple.

If you’ve ever been involved in a lawsuit, you know how extremely stressful and time-consuming they are. Sometimes they are settled before trial, but frequently the threat of a suit- issuing a warning- corrects the unwanted behavior.

 

[ACO]

I totally agree - it's one thing to be photographed when out in a public space (and that element I hope is more often than not unobtrusive), the problem lies with how the photograph is portrayed as can be seen in the article.

It is good to see Meghan looking well and relaxed.

People seem to want her to stay inside crying in a corner or something. It’s a bit much. I’m glad she living her life.

 

[_Heather_]

People seem to want her to stay inside crying in a corner or something. It’s a bit much. I’m glad she living her life.

I'm not sure anyone wants her to stay inside crying in a corner. However, we've all seen those pictures and she was not only tolerating the press, she was beaming for them. She literally could not have looked any happier to be seen and photographed by them. Then she wants to throw around threats of a lawsuit? Please. She doesn't need to stay inside crying in the corner but if you want the world to believe that you're unhappy to be pictured on your "private" walk then stop grinning for the photographers like the cat who got the cream.

 

[New_Leaf]

Hello newbie here, and funnily enough, both a Vancouverite and Vancouver Islander. One of the first things that popped into mind when all of this first developed was "How long will it take until the tabloids gets in trouble?" Canada generally gives more power to people to claim their privacy was invaded. I took a semester of Law 12 in high school and one of the cases the class discussed was a woman who was then threatening to sue or suing (I don't remember) because she appeared for two seconds in a 1 minute, 20 second ad without her permission (She won in the end). It's a completely different case in a different province, but in a purely law perspective, it would be interesting how this would play out.

 

[Osipi]

All I'll say is that a picture paints 1000 words and a lot of them have already been said. We have no idea what the cause of a beaming smile is. For all we know, Archie could have said "Da Da" for the first time.

Its always "Da Da" first rather than "Ma Ma". I can attest to that.

 

[Beryl]

I'm not sure anyone wants her to stay inside crying in a corner. However, we've all seen those pictures and she was not only tolerating the press, she was beaming for them. She literally could not have looked any happier to be seen and photographed by them. Then she wants to throw around threats of a lawsuit? Please. She doesn't need to stay inside crying in the corner but if you want the world to believe that you're unhappy to be pictured on your "private" walk then stop grinning for the photographers like the cat who got the cream.

She wasn't smiling for the cameras. The Paparazzi were hiding in the bushes with telephoto/long lens. She had no idea they were there.

 

[Pranter]

I saw today that the reason for the warning was actually due to long range lens taking pics inside their home thru windows etc, causing a security risk. Much like the drone situation they had in the U.K.


LaRae

 

[Elenath]

All I'll say is that a picture paints 1000 words and a lot of them have already been said. We have no idea what the cause of a beaming smile is. For all we know, Archie could have said "Da Da" for the first time.

Its always "Da Da" first rather than "Ma Ma". I can attest to that.

And if you look at the video she's looking away or down at Archie most of the time. I guess he was babbling. The press again took the images to supports their narrative. And yes, it was a long range lens.

 

[Jacknch]

Several photos were recently taken of the Duchess of Sussex out walking. One of these photos has been singled out as contentious and has lead to a number of posts containing back and forth bickering and speculation. Consequently, these posts have been edited/deleted.

Members are reminded to contact one of the Moderators or Administrators directly by PM if they have an issue with Moderator actions rather than make inferences within the thread.

 

[Jacknch]

Further to the above note, the The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Step Back as Senior Royals: January 2020 - The Royal Forums thread is now closed, pending a new thread being opened in the next few days.

Please be reminded that this General News thread is to discuss general news and information relating to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Therefore, do not attempt to bring any of the discussion over from the "Stepping Back" thread as such post will be deleted without notice. This is particularly the case in connection with what the Sussex's could, should or would have done or will do in light of the decisions they have made.

Nowithstanding the above, newspaper/magazine articles, media reports and other verifiable sources etc offering NEW information concerning the Sussex's may be discussed in this thread. Thank you.

 

[QueenMathilde]

If it's against the law, then SUE THEM. Not "issue a warning", thus creating MORE press coverage for yourself.

It's honestly that simple.

Tom Cruise went the "Sue them" route and he only ended up looking weirder. I think they should just take the high ground and ignore the media.


On a media topic has everyone seen the Ellen statement where she says she'd love to interview Meghan? I think that means that there's no interview yet.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Since I can’t locate any threads about pets, this is an interesting article. It is about them leaving- but what specifically caught my interest was the part about Bogart.
The woman being interviewed is a royal historian and biographer Sally Bedell Smith (a woman who has studied the royal family for nearly 20 years), apperantly her son adopted Bogart litter sibling (now named Otto), the two pup siblings even had play-date in 2013.
She, like many others- myself included, has a major question mark as to why Bogart did not join Meghan in Britain and the weird secrecy around the lack of reason provided as to why he did not.
She wonders, as did I, why now that she is back in Canada she has not taken the steps to reunite with him.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/01/harry-meghan-exit-royal-expert

The big Meghan mystery that remains.

The first tremor of disquiet for me came when she decided to leave her rescue mutt, Bogart, behind in Canada when they got engaged. And the reason I know a little bit more about this is that Bogart has a brother named Otto, and Otto belongs to my son who lives in L.A.… I’m obsessed with the Bogart story because I think it tells a lot. Bogart is a mutt, as is Otto. They were adopted. [Otto and Bogart had one play date, during which Smith’s son said that Meghan was “perfectly nice and loved Bogart.”] Then in November of 2017, she only takes her other dog, Guy, who is a purebred beagle, with her to England. Poor Bogart, who by the way, at the time was only five—which in dog years is exactly the same age as Meghan. He was 35. So unless he was sick, which they didn’t say, he was perfectly capable of flying. He still would be today…. Now she’s back in Canada, and there was a picture of her with Guy and her black lab, and the question is where is Bogart? Why haven’t they been reunited?

I mean, I know Meghan and Harry had a little cottage [in Windsor], but then they went and adopted a big dog, so that sort of doesn’t make sense. But it’s sad. I mean, if you looked at her in her former Instagram, it was flooded with images of her little Guy and Bogart—“Here are my adorable fellows. I just miss them so much when I’m away.” And now Bogart is in Canada and so is she, and where’s Bogart? My son would be willing to adopt him and bring him into the fold with his brother. He can be in Malibu again.

 

[Dalriada]

OMg what a snub to the New Queen Mum Oprah but not surprising: Megs is planning to give her first interview to Ellen because she feels they are 'kindred spirits and host understands her pain and suffering'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10813...w-to-ellen-because-host-understands-her-pain/

 

[victor1319]

Since I can’t locate any threads about pets, this is an interesting article. It is about them leaving- but what specifically caught my interest was the part about Bogart.

I hope, I understand this right and it is about a dog, who did not made the journey to England... Why?

In England they have animal plagues, but some, which ripple for example Europe, they have not. The most important is rabies (?) or "Tollwut" as we say in Germany.

And they don't want to have these plagues and because of this, the UK has very strict laws about the importation of animals.

 

[Fem]

I hope, I understand this right and it is about a dog, who did not made the journey to England... Why?

It was said that the dog was too old to fly overseas and had some health issues - he stayed with Meghan's good friends in Canada. No further information available.

 

[Queen Claude]

Sally Bedell Smith is a respectable and thorough royal biographer but she lost me with the dog comments. I don't know why Bogart was left behind, and if I did know why, I may disagree or second-guess Meghan's decision. Regardless she re-homed him and just because she is back in Canada (which is a huge country by the way and she may not be anywhere near Bogart's new home) does not mean that she can or should re-claim Bogart.

 

[Jacknch]

The discussion about Bogart took place a long time ago and it was concluded he was not well enough to travel to the UK. Whatever the reason, let's avoid the snarky/sarcastic comments and move on.

The http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/royals-and-their-pets-13876.html thread is where we can discuss royal pets generally.

 

[Gawin]

OMg what a snub to the New Queen Mum Oprah but not surprising: Megs is planning to give her first interview to Ellen because she feels they are 'kindred spirits and host understands her pain and suffering'


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10813...w-to-ellen-because-host-understands-her-pain/

Oh for crying out loud this is nothing more than tabloid gossip. And it clearly states Ellen may have been joking.

Good grief!!

 

[Marengo]

A number of off-topic posts taking this thread from 'General News' to a rehash of the "Stepping Back" thread have been removed.

Please keep on topic. Off-topic posts will be removed, and posters found to be repeating this behaviour will be suspended.

 

[eya]

"Not a bad #celebsighting on our flight from #SFO to #SeaTac as Prince Harry and Princess Meghan head up the west coast to Seattle."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1228433413729705984