Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Elenath

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??

[Pranter]

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

[ACO]

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.

[Katymcwaity]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-article.html

I presume this story is just for clicks as its mainly a rehash?

[Hallo girl]

Some of this is new to me, so I take it all this has been in the press before.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Katymcwaity

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-article.html

I presume this story is just for clicks as its mainly a rehash?

It seems that she has named the 5 friends that are an integral part of this lawsuit.

[tommy100]

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

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by tommy100

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.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by poppy7

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.

[Amelia]

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.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Amelia

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.

She doesn’t care of people in the UK think of her, only the US. She’s trying to portray herself a victim of everyone that she’s ever come into contact with because she thinks being a victim endears her to the US public

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Amelia

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.

Is this actually what the Legal team have said, or is it a suppositon?

[poppy7]

The friends are referred to by letter but ai even know who most are from the Wedding. No way they spoke without her sanction. Would you?

Most ofnitnin regard to the other royals and the wedding is in quotes so I guess they are quoting verbatim.

Cash cow for the media this.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Denville

Is this actually what the Legal team have said, or is it a suppositon?

According to the article above, this is what the legal team is claiming in the filing

[Pranter]

I'd like to see a copy of the legal filing to see exactly what was filed.


LaRae

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

According to the article above, this is what the legal team is claiming in the filing

I presume its basically true.. after all if the article has gotten it wrong it will come out in the court case so... I'd say they have the basics right?

[tommy100]

BTW all the bits i included in my post were with direct quotes from the legal papers from at least two sources - the DM and the Sun. I'm not biggest fan of either but not many seemed to be reporting it at the time, the DM I take with a hue pinch of salt. But thats why I took direct quotes only.


What confuses me is what does the working royal being paid, wedding bringing in money for the economy or lack of support from the RF have to do with the copyright issue I thought this was about?!? I'm obviously missing something.

[evolvingdoors]

I am, I believe, officially lost for words.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Denville

I presume its basically true.. after all if the article has gotten it wrong it will come out in the court case so... I'd say they have the basics right?

Yes, because the DM never prints anything that isn’t 100% accurate, and they have never been known to embellish stories in order to get more clicks.

[tommy100]

Okay quotes from the Court docs I can find (I know the sources are all those that are now "banned" by H&M but I think the others are not covering the case, probably until the outcome is known)

"As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself" (Mirror)


[the wedding was]not, in fact, publicly funded, but rather personally financed by HRH The Prince of Wales'.

The submission added: 'Any public costs incurred for the wedding were solely for security and crowd control to protect members of the public, as deemed necessary by Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police. (Daily Mail)

"several member[s] of the Royal Family do ‘undertake paid work’ including, for example, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York and Prince Michael of Kent". (The Sun)

[Meghan] "was also the founder of the commercially successful lifestyle website The Tig" (the Sun and DM)