Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I question this situation because

A; if these papers were lodged in a U.K. court nearly 3 months ago why are we just hearing of it now? Not a single British paper has reported on this.

B; Isn’t Meghan’s title wrong in “court documents”?

C; How can they sue in an English court when at the time they weren’t here and they’re also not here now?

Published in the DM today. Which i’m Guessing if the original from where the Irish website for it.

9C4D348C-AD16-4D9F-80F1-042FB58C2700.jpg

AAC3DBB7-56CB-44CE-B959-A14A9A465F5E.png

IIRC there were pictures of Archie with her, out walking, soon after they moved to Canada...I agree that they haven't given a clear message.
. I've often said that they claim Archie is a private person and yet they put out pics on Social media, they did that video on his birthday which I coudl not see the point of.
I agree that they keep giving mixed messages, but all the same, Archie IS a baby and should not be photographed except by his parents consent. Its possible that they have to put the suit in his name.. I dont know abot the law but that is a possibility...

Those are the pictures being sued for. The ones where she was walking on, reported, public property with the dogs, happily smiling to the cameras while Archie was in a carrier looking like he was about to fall off.

The thing is how privacy was not intruded upon because: a) theybwere in public, b) we already knew what he looks like (this isn’t like with Pippa son where his face is always blurred) because his parents shared pictures and him in the flash with the public - similar to the Cambridge and other royal family member kids faces being shown. C) his face wasn’t even shown in the published pictures, so in what way was his privacy breached?

And since then they have shown his face and body publicly using him for PR.
It’s now way past “mixed messages” it’s pure hypocrisy.

One more comment: they are suing in the UK because it was published by a British paper.
As mentioned though, Archie would have had far more privacy in the UK than in the US! Where celebrity babies and kids are constantly being pictured and published.
 
Last edited:
This just seems like them trying to keep their names in the news. You cannot claim any expectation of privacy on public property. They seem to be more upset that a BRITISH paper published them than the pictures being taken.
 
It is their behaviour and court cases that is keeping them in the headlines, the British public are not that bothered about them. They want privacy let them have total privacy. They need to keep themselves out of the press.
 
He has privacy, he will have even more if his parents will cease to use him for PR purposes.
In the year since he has been born the majority of times we have seen this kid was by pictures and videos his own parents published.
No one forced them to do a video with him for his birthday!

You do not scream you want your kid to have privacy but than use him for publicity sake.
This lawsuit is no exception.
Any celebrity will tell you the only way to disappear from public radar is to totally disappear from public radar, drop off completely. You don’t tweet, you don’t leak information to your mouthpieces and use PR companies, you don’t do PR videos at all.
And most of all: you don’t file so many lawsuits!

Can they sue on behalf of the child? Sure.
Should they in this case? No.

This lawsuit is foolish, most of all because there is no evidence any privacy was breached.

And if Meghan felt so compelled to sue, she could have done so solo without adding her one year old innocent child name to the lawsuit.
This is what seeking attention looks like.


A while back on another board they took pictures of Angelina Jolie's children and Gweneth Paltrow's children but blurred Gweneth's children's faces and not Angelina's. I asked why and was told that Angelina sold her baby's pictures at birth and since she herself put them out there under UK law any reporter could. Gweneth hadn't put Apple's face out there (she has since) so they had to blur it. I don't know if this is really the legal standard or not but Harry and Meghan did put Archie's picture out there themselves so going by that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue to keep his picture private when they're out walking on public property.
 
A while back on another board they took pictures of Angelina Jolie's children and Gweneth Paltrow's children but blurred Gweneth's children's faces and not Angelina's. I asked why and was told that Angelina sold her baby's pictures at birth and since she herself put them out there under UK law any reporter could. Gweneth hadn't put Apple's face out there (she has since) so they had to blur it. I don't know if this is really the legal standard or not but Harry and Meghan did put Archie's picture out there themselves so going by that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue to keep his picture private when they're out walking on public property.

Bingo.

Also, I could have read it wrong, but they seem to be suing the paper and not the agency who took the pictures.
 
which pictures are these based on? those with meghan smiling, with archie in a carrier and with her dog? she didn't seem to mind back then and seemed fairly happy.
 
which pictures are these based on? those with meghan smiling, with archie in a carrier and with her dog? she didn't seem to mind back then and seemed fairly happy.



Those are the ones yes.

Can anyone explain why Henry is not listed and why Meghan is a litigation friend and not parent/guardian?
 
If the Sussexes share your sentiment, they are going to be deeply disappointed by this aspect of their move to the United States. (I realize this particular alleged dispute is about pictures taken in Canada.) One major trade-off they have made with their move is that Archie is far less protected in terms of media exposure. They will find that pictures of him taken in public in the US are fair game in our media. They will face a simple, if not an easy, choice: hide him away as he grows up, or accept that he will be photographed and those pictures will be published freely here.

I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...
 
I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...

Denville, I won't pretend to be an expert on our privacy laws, which vary state to state and potentially at the federal level, and don't want to play Google lawyer and mislead you. However, generally, our media privacy laws are far more liberal here in the US. The children of celebrities are photographed often and, unlike in the UK, their faces are not pixelated. Although certainly laws have evolved since then, think of Michael Jackson covering his children's faces whenever they were in public. Our press will be able to take and publish photos of Archie.

This is true for many aspects of our press, not just photographs of children. We do not pixelate on nearly the same scale, have much more leeway in printing information about ongoing court cases, and online outlets can keep open comment sections about issues where UK publications cannot. Each of these things will potentially affect the Sussex couple moving forward, although of course will not be a cultural shock for Meghan in the way they will be for Harry.
 
I thought that children had protection under US law from being photographed in public...


The only law in the US that I know of that protects them all is the Jennifer Aniston law (that's not what it's called) where they took pictures of her topless sunbathing in her own yard. She sued and won and they said the paps couldn't shoot you without your knowledge in your own back yard. The blurry face of the children laws are in the UK. In the US they don't blur the faces of the children that I've ever seen. I think if avoiding the paps was their goal they would have done better to stay in the UK. LA is paparazzi central.
 
I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.
 
Its not at all the same. Meghan and Harry made a point of saying that they didn't want Archie's birth to be done in the same way that was usually done with royal babies.. they were not going to show him off when she came out of hospitial etc. Then they go and put pix of hm on social meida. Other royals have accepted that tehir children are going to be shown off to the press and public to a certain extent.. and have not made a point of saying that their children are private people..
Moreover meg and Harry left their role as working royals 3 months ago and are now leading a different life.. so why show off the child? He is no longer the son of a working prince.. but of a businessman...
 
I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.


The issue here is the fact Megan and Archie were in public when the photos were taken. If they’d photographed them in their own backyard then I would agree there was an issue.

It’s on a similar scale of the polo photos that were taken in the U.K. last year. In public, all the children “on display” and pictures weren’t an issue.
 
The issue here is the fact Megan and Archie were in public when the photos were taken. If they’d photographed them in their own backyard then I would agree there was an issue.

It’s on a similar scale of the polo photos that were taken in the U.K. last year. In public, all the children “on display” and pictures weren’t an issue.

That is a good point with regards the polo, why didnt they sue then, we couldnt really see his face then either , the truth be told you cannot even tell if it is Archie in the Canadian photograph. Meghan is walking her dogs wearing a baby carrier with a baby in it but you couldnt identify the baby as Archie. You can assume it is him but you couldn't identify him.
 
Without knowing the law, I am *guessing* that there is a distinction in the UK between public events and people (children) in public going about their daily business. This would seem to account for why we see pictures of the royal children at, for example, polo matches, but not being dropped off at school or on a shopping trip.
 
Its not at all the same. Meghan and Harry made a point of saying that they didn't want Archie's birth to be done in the same way that was usually done with royal babies.. they were not going to show him off when she came out of hospitial etc. Then they go and put pix of hm on social meida. Other royals have accepted that tehir children are going to be shown off to the press and public to a certain extent.. and have not made a point of saying that their children are private people..
Moreover meg and Harry left their role as working royals 3 months ago and are now leading a different life.. so why show off the child? He is no longer the son of a working prince.. but of a businessman...

William and Kate still want privacy for their children. I doubt they'd agree with having photographs taken of them when they're all shopping. Point is, private or otherwise, parents decide how much they want to show of their children. Everyone has different limits. It's not for anyone else to decide how they let us see him (or not). I'd be different for me if they had some type of social media account where they post photo's of each other every day.

Another things that bugs me is that I've seen other people criticize them for not showing him. Meaning they are hiding him and Meghan supposedly shipped him off with a nanny (or surrogate depending on you believe in conspiracies).

And it still eaves me with the feeling they can't really do anything right.
 
I don't really get this discussion here. The Cambridges have put their children on social media, aren't they allowed some privacy in their private lives? Charles and Diana put William and Harry, well not on social media, but their faces were in the papers and on tv. They were given privacy. We've seen more of George, Charlotte and Louis in the last three months than of Archie, yet the Sussexes are the only ones criticized for using him for publicity. Double standard much.

It seems like this is one more case of, everyone's allowed to do it, but not the Sussexes.


I think we're talking more about what legally the media can do not whether or not the should. The media SHOULDN'T stalk children but if they can they will. And the situation might be worse for them in LA than if they'd stayed in England.


Now that I think about it there is a law called "John's Law" that was enacted after a reporter broke JFK Jr's arm trying to grab him to take his picture. But I'm not sure what it covers. I think this also covered president's children getting more secret service protection.


Oh and I'm going to add on there was some deal with Reece Witherspoon and her children where a man who had been accused of sex crimes had turned paparazzi and was stalking her then 10 year old daughter trying to get pictures. She was taking him to court saying that he shouldn't be allowed near her daughter. But I don't know how that turned out either.
 
Last edited:
We all have to remember that the pictures in question were taken in Canada and published by, apparently, a British newspaper.

US Law has nothing to do with it?
 
Without knowing the law, I am *guessing* that there is a distinction in the UK between public events and people (children) in public going about their daily business. This would seem to account for why we see pictures of the royal children at, for example, polo matches, but not being dropped off at school or on a shopping trip.

There is. A huge difference.
 
I am not sure how much is ' by law' and how much is by agreement, but we do not see any real photographs of the Cambridge children other than those released by the palace or as somebody said earlier the polo or an event i.e trooping the colour.

I think I am right in saying that William put out a statement some time ago warning the paps that it was becoming dangerous the lengths that some were going to in the pursuit of a photograph of the children.

They were hiding and jumping out etc, undercover tactics that could in effect have been a kidnapper or worse and there was a risk that somebody could be seriously hurt in the process.
What I read in to that was that the security could not be sure if it was a photographer or somebody with more sinister intent and there could be repercussions.
 
William and Kate still want privacy for their children. I doubt they'd agree with having photographs taken of them when they're all shopping. Point is, private or otherwise, parents decide how much they want to show of their children. Everyone has different limits. It's not for anyone else to decide how they let us see him (or not). I'd be different for me if they had some type of social media account where they post photo's of each other every day.

Another things that bugs me is that I've seen other people criticize them for not showing him. Meaning they are hiding him and Meghan supposedly shipped him off with a nanny (or surrogate depending on you believe in conspiracies).

And it still eaves me with the feeling they can't really do anything right.

yes and William and Kate have set their limits. They have agreed that
"yes we know they are royal, and there is public interest and we are willing to release some photos of them.. as it is part of our duty as working royals. "
So they do release photos, moslty taken by Kate.. so as to minimise the intrusion on their kids' lives.. and if the children are out at public events such as a royal wedding, like Harry's or Trooping the colour, they will expect the cameramen to take pictures. But private things like going shopping, taking the kids to school are off limits.

Even so I've seen a lot of criticisims of W and K for their not allowing too many photos and for preferring to release photos that Kate took...
However Harry and Meghan have siad form the beginning in essence..
"Yes we are royal and we expect a certian public interest in our doings.. but our son isn't. he's a baby, he's a private individual and we are not going to show him off when he comes out of hospitial. etc etc.. We are not even going to tell you who his godparents are.. or where he was born"

Then they go and publish pics of him on social media, they do that video of hm being read to (why?)
AND now since A was born, they have dropped out of royal working life..and so there is NO obligation to show Archie off at all.. so why do it??
 
Doesn't matter as to why ..he's their child and if they, THEY, choose to share a photo that is their right to do so. They've shared one clip of him in recent months. Past that you aren't seeing him.


LaRae
 
Exactly. If Harry and Meghan on *their* terms want to show their son that is their right. We saw Archie for his birthday. Other than that we have not seen that child. Just like W & K... they can do as they please in regard to their children. We literally have zero say.
 
Some of this is new to me, so I take it all this has been in the press before.
 
Meghan and her team apparently name Beatrice, Eugenie and Princess Michael in their documents, naming them to refute the suggestion members of the royal family don't work

Meghan and her legal team say she was "unprotected by the institution" referring to the RF

they say her five friends went to People without her knowing and that had she have known she would not have allowed them to talk about the letter

they claim the wedding generated £1billion for the UK economy which "far outweighed" the contribution of the taxpayers money to security
 
Meghan and her team apparently name Beatrice, Eugenie and Princess Michael in their documents, naming them to refute the suggestion members of the royal family don't work

Meghan and her legal team say she was "unprotected by the institution" referring to the RF

they say her five friends went to People without her knowing and that had she have known she would not have allowed them to talk about the letter

they claim the wedding generated £1billion for the UK economy which "far outweighed" the contribution of the taxpayers money to security

I read that and found it all deeply unpalatable.

As if she didnt sanction those friends. And she doesn't get it. The wedding is supposed to bring in money. That is why you got a beautiful home, expensive clothes.

Sounds like a petty child. As for the other three working...that is hardly the same. They do not receive 2 mill a year for their work or have been gifted a home. The support the family yes and have a wealthy life because of it but they dont work for the royals.

As for being nominally funded that is just pathetic. Charles has essentially been let keep the Duchy of Cornwall which is run in the public interest really to often give people a change to create a farming life etc.

The royals essentially own nothing themselves. Balmoral and Sandringham. The rest is the states.
 
Last edited:
I read that and found it all deeply unpalatable.

As if she didnt sanction those friends. And she doesn't get it. The wedding is supposed to bring in money. That is why you got a beautiful home, expensive clothes.

Sounds like a petty child. As for the other three working...that is hardly the same. They do bot receive 2 mill a year for their work or been gifted a home. The support the family yes and have a wealthy life because of it but they dont work for the royals.

As for being nominally funded that is just pathetic. Charles has essentially been let keep the Duchy of Cornwall which is run in the public interest really to often give people a change to.create a farming life etc.

The royals essentially own nothing themselves. Balmoral and Sandringham. The rest is the states.

I agree, I don't like the tone this is taking now. Meghan, Harry or both of them are also bringing other royals into it and questioning their role and activities within the family. This will NOT be appreciated by the people concerned nor by the Queen I expect and the papers will have a field day with it.
 
I’ve stayed out of the online debates surrounding this couple due to the extreme elements found on both sides but my god could Meghan have possibly sounded any more entitled and out of touch in the arguments presented by her legal team.

The argument that their wedding generated economic growth and the reference to other royals demonstrates, to me a continuation of her lack of understanding of the purpose and functionality of the BRF. It gives credence to the arguments that she was in not way prepared to marry into the BRF with the objective of having a public role. Her assertion that she was left unprotected by ‘the institution’ is a joke. Is she a child, is she not capable of defending herself, where was her husband during this time? Why not address this supposed campaign by the media? Harry did just this at the beginning of their relationship when they felt the media were using racial tones in their reporting so clearly it’s possible. Additionally the very fact that these legal proceedings are happening demonstrate that they had the ability to defend themselves if they perceived that they were being unfairly treated by the media. Others have to deal with the press themselves yet for some reason when it’s Meghan it’s the responsibility of the BRF. If her friends were so concerned for her mental health then it would have been better for them to advice to to stop reading the tabloids, engage in professional mental health services and use official and legal channels to address any incorrect stories rather than run to the American media and further add to the drama. Honestly for the most part her whole argument reads like the nonsense peddled by her extremist Twitter fanatics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom