The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1981  
Old 01-20-2021, 08:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,007
It is purely a copyright issue in spite of the newspaper group lawyers muddying the waters with stuff about FF and Thomas Markle's statement about hurt feelings 'forcing' him to hand over his daughter's letter to a Sunday tabloid.

The main thing I got from yesterday's proceedings, apart from Mr Markle's motivations, was that, in spite of the 'Palace four's' assertions that they don't wish to take sides, (and personally I have doubts about at least one of them) someone senior in the Royal Household saw fit to have regular communications with the editor of a Sunday tabloid.

Whatever he/she thought of Meghan these actions speak volumes to me about the supposed loyalty and discretion of some in the RH/KP towards both their employers and the position he/she/they held or hold.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1982  
Old 01-20-2021, 08:53 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It is purely a copyright issue in spite of the newspaper group lawyers muddying the waters with stuff about FF and Thomas Markle's statement about hurt feelings 'forcing' him to hand over his daughter's letter to a Sunday tabloid.

The main thing I got from yesterday's proceedings, apart from Mr Markle's motivations, was that, in spite of the 'Palace four's' assertions that they don't wish to take sides, (and personally I have doubts about at least one of them) someone senior in the Royal Household saw fit to have regular communications with the editor of a Sunday tabloid.

Whatever he/she thought of Meghan these actions speak volumes to me about the supposed loyalty and discretion of some in the RH/KP towards both their employers and the position he/she/they held or hold.
To be fair, both sides have a hand in muddying the case. Meghan's legal team is not completely clean either (what with bringing the "no support" and later admitted of receiving advice, dragging unrelated other non-working royals, leaking info to certain reporters).

And royal staff selling out their employers to tabloid (or stealing stuff like the recent theft few months ago) happens way before Meghan join BRF, it's not new. I remember watching an old documentary on youtube about this so called staff loyalty some years ago.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1983  
Old 01-20-2021, 09:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,007
Yes, I know, I am not shocked at the behaviour of some aides, and many staff have over the years planted stories in the tabloids on their employers' behalf over the years as well.

However, according to the SM editor this person held a senior position in the Royal Household, higher than the drones who inhabit lesser positions, and would be someone who you would hope would be beyond taking regular calls from the editors of notorious tabloids and spilling the beans in a malicious stream.

Many didn't believe the assertions made by Lacey in his book that several in the more senior ranks in the Household were gunning for Meghan from the beginning and to me this evidence from yesterday confirms it.
Reply With Quote
  #1984  
Old 01-21-2021, 05:19 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
I could be wrong, but I think @evolvingdoors was talking about how Meghan said that she didn't have anything to do with Finding Freedom, but she eventually admitted that she gave private information to the authors via a third party.
as well as others points that have been mentioned by others, such as claiming she wrote the letter herself, but now we find out others assisted in it. etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I think the mistake Meghan made was not naming her father in the suit. Markle was not forced to give that letter to the Mail. He gave it to the paper of his own free will and I see no evidence of extortion. Meghan tried to say Markle was manipulated by the press but the judge didn't buy it. If this goes to trial she may have no choice but to go after him.
That was the only smart thing she did, not naming her father. If she had gone after him it would have turned into an even major **** show, and in today covid it would have looked very bad, especially if he would have suddenly died from the stress.
If she now goes after him after all this time, and what has been (ie her changing her story, FF, and others helping in writing the letter that is now obvious was meant to be seen by the public) she may just finally seal her faith in hollywood as persona non grata.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
I don't think suing her father over the letter was what she wanted. It wasn't even about this letter. And I don't think it would have gone over very well with the public that she wrote a letter to her Dad and then sued him when he gave it to the MoS. Which he clearly did of his own free will as well as talking to many other outlets.

What she/they really wanted was to go after the tabloid press in general and try and make this a trial of their time in the UK, which we can see from how they tried to hang a lot of other things on it and the judge didn't go for it at all and the waters got muddier and muddier with the Scobie "revelations".

They used this one as the starting point for all that because they were probably advised this was the clearest case they had a chance of winning because copywrite is supposedly not he said/she said which this turned into anyway -which they still might win I suppose.
I think the win depends on whether the judge decides aides assisting in writing the letter means they own a piece of the copyright.. and if they do whether they are okay with the lawsuit.
Reply With Quote
  #1985  
Old 01-21-2021, 09:36 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,745
A few posts have been deleted. Let’s stick to the facts presented so far in the case and not get into rumors. Thanks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1986  
Old 01-22-2021, 07:03 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
I read Thomas Markle's witness statement. He called up the Mail and turned over the complete letter to the paper and told them to print excerpts. So much for being a victim of the media as Meghan claimed in court; this negates that belief. And Dad claims in the witness statement he was not paid for the letter. I find that hard to believe considering he was paid for Pap-gate and the Channel 5 "documentary". Dad better pray there is no proof to the contrary because that's blowing up credibility again and committing perjury, if that's the right legal term.
Reply With Quote
  #1987  
Old 01-23-2021, 11:32 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I read Thomas Markle's witness statement. He called up the Mail and turned over the complete letter to the paper and told them to print excerpts. So much for being a victim of the media as Meghan claimed in court; this negates that belief. And Dad claims in the witness statement he was not paid for the letter. I find that hard to believe considering he was paid for Pap-gate and the Channel 5 "documentary". Dad better pray there is no proof to the contrary because that's blowing up credibility again and committing perjury, if that's the right legal term.
Actually one does not cancel the other. He could also be a victim of the media- falling pray because he wasn't protected as he should have, and provided the letter on his own accord when his own daughter friends went on to attack him in an international publication.


So far the only ones who seem to have provided false statements are Meghan and potentially Omid. I highly doubt ANL lawyers would risk any aspect of Thomas statement being false.
Reply With Quote
  #1988  
Old 01-23-2021, 12:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: tacoma, United States
Posts: 639
Hope everyone can keep their lies in check. This is a he said, she said, it said. If one don't want to be called a liar down the road don't write, or record anything, sit down with the person and actually talk, you know words coming out of your mouth, don't have so called friends do you job. This is really getting stale and extreme and leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. It only shows how DISFUNCTIONAL they all are. Say sorry and put this mess to bed already and go on with their lives, Amen.
Reply With Quote
  #1989  
Old 01-23-2021, 12:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS View Post
Hope everyone can keep their lies in check. This is a he said, she said, it said. If one don't want to be called a liar down the road don't write, or record anything, sit down with the person and actually talk, you know words coming out of your mouth, don't have so called friends do you job. This is really getting stale and extreme and leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. It only shows how DISFUNCTIONAL they all are. Say sorry and put this mess to bed already and go on with their lives, Amen.
So true, nobody wins with all this, oh technically one party will win the case but the outcome is a no win. Careers, characters, reputations all put under the spotlight from both sides.

Do any of you think that this could have been avoided if the families had all met up before the engagement announcement.
I do feel sorry for Thomas Markle he was living away quietly when his world caved in. He was door stepped by the press, followed, and yes he made mistakes and accepted money but the press probably convinced him that one story and they would all go away. He probably didn't realise for one minute what was going to happen until it was too late.
I do believe more should have and could have been done to support him. Maybe a personal visit rather than text and phone calls would have worked better. Only my opinion of course.
Reply With Quote
  #1990  
Old 01-23-2021, 02:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
So true, nobody wins with all this, oh technically one party will win the case but the outcome is a no win. Careers, characters, reputations all put under the spotlight from both sides.

Do any of you think that this could have been avoided if the families had all met up before the engagement announcement.
I do feel sorry for Thomas Markle he was living away quietly when his world caved in. He was door stepped by the press, followed, and yes he made mistakes and accepted money but the press probably convinced him that one story and they would all go away. He probably didn't realise for one minute what was going to happen until it was too late.
I do believe more should have and could have been done to support him. Maybe a personal visit rather than text and phone calls would have worked better. Only my opinion of course.
I think Meghan should certianly have visited him.. rahter than expected him to cope alone with the press and to arrange his coming to her wedding all at long distnace.. having said that, He doesn't seem a very stable man, and it seems like for whatever reasons, he and Meghan soon ended up at odds with each other .. and its hard to resist the conclusion that he wanted money... Perhaps he thought that his daughter marrying royalty would mean that she'd set him up with a comfortalble income and it didn't materialise.. but I think its definitely a case where boht are at fault.. Thomas more than her...
Reply With Quote
  #1991  
Old 01-23-2021, 03:29 PM
Lori138's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I read Thomas Markle's witness statement. He called up the Mail and turned over the complete letter to the paper and told them to print excerpts. So much for being a victim of the media as Meghan claimed in court; this negates that belief. And Dad claims in the witness statement he was not paid for the letter. I find that hard to believe considering he was paid for Pap-gate and the Channel 5 "documentary". Dad better pray there is no proof to the contrary because that's blowing up credibility again and committing perjury, if that's the right legal term.
This is the part that I don't understand. How could privacy have been invaded if the recipient of the letter was the one that gave it to the press? The recipient is ultimately the owner of said letter IMO and if he chose to make it public, so be it.
Reply With Quote
  #1992  
Old 01-23-2021, 03:49 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori138 View Post
This is the part that I don't understand. How could privacy have been invaded if the recipient of the letter was the one that gave it to the press? The recipient is ultimately the owner of said letter IMO and if he chose to make it public, so be it.
This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.

The recipient of the letter is the owner of the physical piece of paper on which the letter is written. The author is the owner of the words.
Reply With Quote
  #1993  
Old 01-23-2021, 04:43 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
No. Thomas Markle does not get a pass. If there are calls for accountability Markle goes to the front of the line. He chose to escalate this mess by going to the media three years ago to get at Meghan and he used Archie as emotional blackmail in the press to try to force a conversation. Complaints about not seeing Archie were in earlier filings. The baby should have been left out of this PERIOD. Markle's willingness to weaponize an infant grandson - while apparently showing no interest in the five other adult grandchildren - is beyond the pale. This does not shoe a wayward man. No sympathy no as Markle currently tries to shop around a "documentary" about Meghan that he is involved.
Reply With Quote
  #1994  
Old 01-23-2021, 05:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.

The recipient of the letter is the owner of the physical piece of paper on which the letter is written. The author is the owner of the words.
However we have recently learned that there more authors/contributers owners of the words than was previously presented. I believe that this is the crux of the argument the MoS has presented to Justice Warby.
Reply With Quote
  #1995  
Old 01-23-2021, 05:19 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
Meghan is not obligated to pay Markle's bills unless it's court ordered. And if he only sees Harry as an ATM machine I would say would fracture any relationship.

I would like to see the whole letter Meghan submitted to the High Court unredacted and made public. I have a feeling the excerpts that were not published put Markle in a bad light.
Reply With Quote
  #1996  
Old 01-23-2021, 05:27 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
However we have recently learned that there more authors/contributers owners of the words than was previously presented. I believe that this is the crux of the argument the MoS has presented to Justice Warby.
Oh, certainly. This is one of many arguments being raised.

I was responding to a poster who said that, in her opinion, Thomas Markle owned the contents of the letter because he was the recipient. Whether a person who receives a letter becomes the owner of the content under UK law is not a matter of opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #1997  
Old 01-23-2021, 07:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Oh, certainly. This is one of many arguments being raised.

I was responding to a poster who said that, in her opinion, Thomas Markle owned the contents of the letter because he was the recipient. Whether a person who receives a letter becomes the owner of the content under UK law is not a matter of opinion.
Thank you for your reply. Now I understand your comment.
Reply With Quote
  #1998  
Old 01-23-2021, 09:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,007
Reading the extracts of the letter to Thomas Markle which have already been published by this tabloid is bad enough, without the complete text, which would almost certainly continue similar sentiments and appeals by Meghan. And the faux sympathy shown by the MoS/DM in articles like that below is truly sickening.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ft-father.html

In what universe can a newspaper claim that this letter's publication for the public to peruse is 'in the public interest' ? Apart from their own muckraking and the promotion of more attacks on Meghan as a public figure, for profit of course.
Reply With Quote
  #1999  
Old 01-23-2021, 09:44 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS View Post
Hope everyone can keep their lies in check.
This should be the tagline for this entire matter.
Reply With Quote
  #2000  
Old 01-23-2021, 10:04 PM
RJC's Avatar
RJC RJC is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 272
I don't particularly like the extended Markle family and the way they've tried to gain publicity and make money from this whole scenario. I don't think I'll ever understand though why Meghan wouldn't pick up the phone and speak directly to her father or need 'help' to write a letter to him. But I understand that's not the point of this legal action.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication america anastasia anastasia once upon a time archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography bridal gown britain british british royal family china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll dubai duke of sussex facts family life fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery king edward vii king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mary: crown princess of denmark meghan markle nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal ancestry royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech suthida taiwan tradition uae customs united states of america wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:14 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×