The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 11-15-2019, 04:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Anyone reading through these articles filed in this court case, and then jumping to conclusions, that the other not listed articles must be true then, would believe these articles regardless. Meghan and her lawyers obviously included these articles to support their claim, that publishing only half of Meghan's letter to her father, they had ill intentions, and were trying to paint Meghan in a negative, inaccurate light. And meghan/her team has proof to back up her claims. These articles also don't include other royals. They're about Meghan, articles painting her in a negative light constantly.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 11-15-2019, 04:54 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,638
It is an ugly situation. By piling on what in isolation would be NBD, they set out to undermine Meghan and establish the narrative that Meghan is nothing but an American wannabe-celebrity Diva with a taste for the high life.

Having established the baseline, they then built on it with the bath, the parking lot, stressing out Catherine, driving staff out of their jobs, driving Harry and William apart, all seems believable to many.

I am not surprised at their well-planned attack . . . they needed a new "Diana V Sarah" to drive up sales.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 11-15-2019, 05:23 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Well the publications can simply provide proof their many articles were accurate just like it seems Meghan will provide proof against their claims.

It’s about highlight how credible they are especially with regard to the letter. They claim they didn’t edit it when it seems someone did. They omitted pretty specific things to paint a picture of Meghan.

They will all get a chance to defend their case.
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 11-15-2019, 05:25 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Yes, I agree Ista, and I should clarify for others-- I do not mean to imply that Meghan (or anyone else) should have to turn a blind eye to "small," (relatively) incorrect things that were printed about her. I understand that these are necessary to include in the lawsuit because her legal team are painting a larger picture of mistreatment.

But now that it's become clear that even the "smaller" stories are going to be enumerated in the suit, it's going to become evident that some of the larger stories, with much more interesting implications, were true. While some will deny this logic, very few will believe that her legal team would go to the trouble of denying a story about an orange grove while leaving some of the much more sensational and harmful stories untouched. It's very unfortunate that Meghan is in this catch-22.

Incidentally, I think this is similar to the catch-22 Harry finds himself in. By fighting against stories that reporters gained access to by hacking his phone, he has to admit the stories (or at least their basis) are true when it might be far less comfortable not to do so. It is a terrible thing that he is being put in this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
Anyone reading through these articles filed in this court case, and then jumping to conclusions, that the other not listed articles must be true then, would believe these articles regardless. Meghan and her lawyers obviously included these articles to support their claim, that publishing only half of Meghan's letter to her father, they had ill intentions, and were trying to paint Meghan in a negative, inaccurate light. And meghan/her team has proof to back up her claims. These articles also don't include other royals. They're about Meghan, articles painting her in a negative light constantly.
That did not take long.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 11-15-2019, 05:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
That did not take long.
I'm confused here, why are you quoting your own and my posts?
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 11-15-2019, 05:53 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Not to speak for HGHD but I’m guessing she is pointing out how people will dismiss how not attacking every story could play out. Personally I see Meghan’s team only mentioning stories directly about her while purposely leaving out the ones with others unless they clearly seem to give permission to be included aka Samantha Cohen and Ava Burgess.
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 11-15-2019, 06:46 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: paris, France
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Not to speak for HGHD but I’m guessing she is pointing out how people will dismiss how not attacking every story could play out. Personally I see Meghan’s team only mentioning stories directly about her while purposely leaving out the ones with others unless they clearly seem to give permission to be included aka Samantha Cohen and Ava Burgess.
Well I personally do not understand this logic which seems totally absurd to me.

In a court of law, you don't attack every story you focus on the ones you can win, when you have won on the small cases and show how absurd these accusations were, you cast a shadow on the big allegations.
I guess it is a bit like "witness character" when you prove that someone is a liar on the stand thanks to small trivia in their life, to put into question their accusation in a bigger case.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 11-15-2019, 06:49 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,192
Possible more may come out too as things proceed.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 11-15-2019, 07:14 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,756
Right now I think the owners of the papers are a little nervous. They have a royal adversary that is ready to go to battle. Reputation ruin may be coming to the Mail in terms of subscriptions, ad revenue and online clicks are on the line If there is a massive court win for Meghan if could take a hit financially. To recover the owners would have to restore consumer confidence. I could see firings of the reporters who wrote the stories and the editors who green lighted them. Dad is not named in the suit but I could a narrative put out that Markle and the siblings lied and said reporters did not bother to fact check them and verify any document they submitted. If they were paid for intweviews see a spreadsheet or ledgers showing payoffs.
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 11-15-2019, 07:37 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJudith View Post
Well I personally do not understand this logic which seems totally absurd to me.

In a court of law, you don't attack every story you focus on the ones you can win, when you have won on the small cases and show how absurd these accusations were, you cast a shadow on the big allegations.
I guess it is a bit like "witness character" when you prove that someone is a liar on the stand thanks to small trivia in their life, to put into question their accusation in a bigger case.
I agree and thatís what they seem to be doing. Hearsay is hard to disprove but factual things reporting costs and items that donít exist can be. They are discrediting the papers but showing many examples of things they can physically prove. As you point out itís a smart tactic.
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 11-15-2019, 08:56 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,638
Rather like Piers Morgan was asked about this case this morning and in his hate rant, he included;
  • That $3million plus of taxpayers money spent on Frogmore Cottage.
  • Harry and Meghan are funded by the taxpayers.
  • Not going to Sandringham and skipping the weekly walk to church was insulting to HM and shortchanging the taxpayers. They are paid to be seen going to church on Christmas day.
He knows the property is "a listed property" (includes the garden) and it will, therefore, cost much more to renovate and how the rotating renovations work, e.g. Buckingham and Kensington Palaces. He knows that the Sussexes are paid by the PoW and the Sovereign grant pays for their tours at the request of the government, etc.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 11-16-2019, 08:27 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,756
@Marg - Piers Morgan has been one of Meghan's attackers over a course of a year, claiming she "ghosted" him after an alleged meet up in a bar. I will not be surprised the next court filings will have details the meeting and email correspondence between her and Morgan (if any) and tweets between them and he won't look good. I think he knows that is coming given the lawyers' strategy so he distracts with reovations and doing her "duty" to show up at Sandringham. Morgan used her father in interviews to attack her character. I know Meghan is keeping her dad out of this but her paternal family voluntarily gave damaging interviews about her. As I read the article the Mail is going to have to explain their sourcing and that includes the interviews. I still think the Mail's strategy is to claim the Markles lied and the paper took what they said in "good faith".
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 11-16-2019, 09:13 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
Right now I think the owners of the papers are a little nervous. They have a royal adversary that is ready to go to battle. Reputation ruin may be coming to the Mail in terms of subscriptions, ad revenue and online clicks are on the line If there is a massive court win for Meghan if could take a hit financially. To recover the owners would have to restore consumer confidence. I could see firings of the reporters who wrote the stories and the editors who green lighted them. Dad is not named in the suit but I could a narrative put out that Markle and the siblings lied and said reporters did not bother to fact check them and verify any document they submitted. If they were paid for intweviews see a spreadsheet or ledgers showing payoffs.
Ah ah ah ah nervous ? You're joking : it's pure gold for them. The main moto of the Mail is to sell, sell,and sell. Mail Online is the most visited website in the world. Any story is a good story, the truth doesn't matter, and they are sure ready to sacrifice one of their columnist to gain MORE publicity (remember Katie Hopkins ?).

And now seeing that the Sussexes are foolish enough to enter the dance, the owners must be celebrating big time with the prospect of HUGE profit from the good'ol clickbaits (because let's face it some people, people like you for that matter, will always be eager to post here , or on any social media, a direct link to any random Daily Mail story about the Sussexes).
So well done, you've just fed the beast, and it's hungry as ever. Good job.

"The never explain, never complain" moto is not cowardise , it's the most effective way to break this vicious circle, by distancing yourself from the heat of the action.

So now hold on to your hat because the pandora box is open and it's not gonna be smooth sailing for the Sterling Sussexes.

Good luck with that.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 11-16-2019, 09:22 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,192
The papers (owners and editors) would be foolish to not be nervous....this potentially is going to cost them a ton of money and lost positions possibly for some.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 11-16-2019, 09:38 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,735
The DM website has a ratio of around 13M visitors a SINGLE DAY.
You do the math.
They were even attacked by the First Lady of the United States and the legal costs were just peanuts in their ocean of profit. So no i guess they are not afraid, not at all.
The publicity around the Sussexes case will largely cover any costs and damages. That's how it works, that's how they play with your naivety, that's how, at the end, they always win.
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 11-17-2019, 09:06 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,638
I think this has the potential to become something a few are predicting, namely a major incident. At the very least I think the Levinson Enquiry is going to be revisited and the rules and recommendations sized up against the reality of what is actually happening.

I think time and "brave" new writers and editors has bred a carnivorous breed that survive on red meat and get away with it. I believe they think they are untouchable. However, does anyone remember 'The News of the World?
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 11-21-2019, 02:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I also believe that Meghan, with earning her nickname of "Tungsten" from her father-in-law, will *not* consider an out of court settlement but take the case to court and rip the MoS to shreds reputation wise and monetarily wise.
Just out of curiosity, where exactly (with named sources) has this sickeningly sweet little tidbit been both reported and officially confirmed? I only ask because when other stories come out with unnamed sources (particularly those that are not so complimentary), rabid supporters of the Sussexes are quick to point out that they can't believed because the source is unnamed, we have no official confirmation, no one really knows what happens behind closed doors, etc. However, I honestly don't recall ever hearing her referred to as such in public by the POW or any other family member and I don't recall this coming from a "named source" so therefore the same standards of belief should apply, yes? Or does that change simply because it's rather more complimentary than some of the other stories?

Frankly I think we should probably take most stories regarding the Sussexes with a grain of salt because, while inevitably some will have roots in fact, others won't. That's how this all works. I just think we should be clear about which "unnamed sources" and "unofficial" stories we should believe and which we shouldn't, particularly when the only difference there seems to be that some are complimentary and some aren't.
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 11-21-2019, 05:57 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
Just out of curiosity, where exactly (with named sources) has this sickeningly sweet little tidbit been both reported and officially confirmed? I only ask because when other stories come out with unnamed sources (particularly those that are not so complimentary), rabid supporters of the Sussexes are quick to point out that they can't believed because the source is unnamed, we have no official confirmation, no one really knows what happens behind closed doors, etc. However, I honestly don't recall ever hearing her referred to as such in public by the POW or any other family member and I don't recall this coming from a "named source" so therefore the same standards of belief should apply, yes? Or does that change simply because it's rather more complimentary than some of the other stories?

Frankly I think we should probably take most stories regarding the Sussexes with a grain of salt because, while inevitably some will have roots in fact, others won't. That's how this all works. I just think we should be clear about which "unnamed sources" and "unofficial" stories we should believe and which we shouldn't, particularly when the only difference there seems to be that some are complimentary and some aren't.
For me, I look to see if the information is consistent with what has been said about Meghan (friends/colleagues with names, Meghan herself) and her history before I start to believe a story (good or bad). Meghan worked for 7 years on a show and even now after it has ended no one has said anything but good things about her. As have other people who have worked with her since joining the BRF. Even her father has gone on record saying she isn't a mean person. So I find it hard to believe that her personality took a 180* since joining the family and that she is pretty much mean to everyone as the tabloids would have you believe. That doesn't mean she is perfect and has not made any mistakes but I don't believe the mistakes have been that bad either. I do believe she will speak up for herself and her causes, I see that as something good, not bad.

I also look at the standards that Meghan is being held to compared to others in the BRF... such as broken protocols. If others in the family are able to do it and are praised for it I'm going to call it out when Meghan gets degraded for the same actions. An example is how Meghan has been claimed to be too political because she champions for women and criticized left and right but Camilla & Sophie also champion women's causes and there is barely a blink in the media and when there is, it is praise. I have a problem with those double standards.

As Meghan said in the interview she knew it wouldn't be an easy role but she expected it to be fair and for the media not say untruthful things, especially when they have been told they aren't true. I also expect the media to be fair, accurate and have integrity in their reporting as well. If they had been there wouldn't be this lawsuit happening right now.

Meghan has also said that if she truly makes a mistake she would be the first to apologize.
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:22 AM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 610
Hmmm. I'm sure it's tempting to sue but now the media is on their tail. It reminds me of when George Clooney went off on the media and they turned their back on him when he walked on the red carpet promoting his latest movie and wouldn't photograph him. I suspect this is why they're suffering from bad press - they made the media angry. I think they should have stuck to the "never complain never explain" mantra.


Having said that they aren't the only ones who went after the media. Kate and William also went after the media. The media does seem to have it out for Meghan and Harry and I'm sure it's hurtful to them. But the media even says bad things about the queen - it's part of being a part of the royals.
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:57 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
Hmmm. I'm sure it's tempting to sue but now the media is on their tail. It reminds me of when George Clooney went off on the media and they turned their back on him when he walked on the red carpet promoting his latest movie and wouldn't photograph him. I suspect this is why they're suffering from bad press - they made the media angry. I think they should have stuck to the "never complain never explain" mantra.


Having said that they aren't the only ones who went after the media. Kate and William also went after the media. The media does seem to have it out for Meghan and Harry and I'm sure it's hurtful to them. But the media even says bad things about the queen - it's part of being a part of the royals.

I think there are times when the Sussexes should have followed "never complain never explain" but there is a difference between saying bad things and engaging in illegal activities. That's the reason for the lawsuits.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 abu dhabi american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen carolin chittagong commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll duke of sussex facts family tree games george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hill history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon sussex swedish queen taiwan tracts tradition uae customs unsubscribe videos wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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