The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1181  
Old 07-01-2020, 06:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
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.
I said basically true.. meaning that the gist of what they say is correct....
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1182  
Old 07-01-2020, 06:27 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: xx, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
It shouldn't be too long until the documents are released in full. I've just checked and can only find the May hearing documents atm but hopefully we can read them soon.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1183  
Old 07-01-2020, 06:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,654
So, if I understand it correctly (assuming DM got the gist of it right), Meghan claims that her friend's representation of the letter was entirely false.

Quote:
“After the wedding she wrote him a letter. She’s like, ‘Dad, I’m so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship.’
She claims that she didn't ask to stop victimizing her, that she never said she had only one father and that the purpose wasn't to repair their relationship but only to get him to stop talking to the press...
Reply With Quote
  #1184  
Old 07-01-2020, 06:48 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,161
I thought Princess Eugenie worked for an Art Gallery or something like that.
Princess Michael of Kent is of retirement age, but she has written quite a few books. The sort of history books that require a lot of research. I think she may be still active with her patronages the Court Circular would be a good place to look for this.
Princess Beatrix has had various jobs I believe.
I would think living within the grounds of the Windsor Estate and KP grounds shows that you are very protected. It is only the media where you could say you are not protected.
Reply With Quote
  #1185  
Old 07-01-2020, 06:50 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,654
And the other part I don't understand. Why is it even relevant how much money her wedding made and whether there are other members of the royal family working? What does that have to do with the case.

And stating in legal documents that the royal family didn't support her is quite a blow to the BRF. She really wants to burn all bridges left.

And her friends that talked to the press were just defending her because she couldn't defend herself? But somehow she had no idea they would? That doesn't fly with me. So, I am very interested in the exact wording because they surely must have known that she would be ok with it. If not, they would have been out of her inner circle immediately, as that is how the royals tend to operate. So, it's clear that she approved of them talking (probably except for them mentioning the letter); as finally someone was defending her... but at the seem time she needs to claim complete ignorance.
Reply With Quote
  #1186  
Old 07-01-2020, 06:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,360
I'm not getting too much into it all (and I do struggle to see what this all has to do with copyright) but I think the comments she didn't have support while pregnant from the RF will hurt HM and Charles, even more so as it is made in legal docs and made public. Its all quite sad really.
Reply With Quote
  #1187  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:07 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,161
My apologies to all and to Tommy re your post 1180. I miss read your post re Eugenie, Beatrice and Prss Michael of Kent. I am still on my first coffee of the morning and haven't got the brain into gear yet. I thought you said they don't work. Whereas the article said they Do paid work.
Once again my apologies. I feel like a dufus.
Reply With Quote
  #1188  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:13 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I' not getting too much into it all (and I do struggle to see what this all has to do with copyright) but I think the comments she didn't have support while pregnant from the RF will hurt HM and Charles, even more so as it is made in legal docs and made public. Its all quite sad really.
Meghan is really playing with fire now. Does she honestly think that painting TQ and the rest of the BRF in negative light is a winning strategy?

Also, the Royals that work are below Harry in the line of succession and have not been provided a tax-payer renovated residence.
Reply With Quote
  #1189  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Meghan is really playing with fire now. Does she honestly think that painting TQ and the rest of the BRF in negative light is a winning strategy?

Also, the Royals that work are below Harry in the line of succession and have not been provided a tax-payer renovated residence.
Plus they have approved jobs really. Suitable for who they are. Bea am Eug couldn't have been doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers. They do posh jobs and their jobs appear flexible to work with the family commitments. They are often at receptions at Buckingham House and Eug particularly accompanying the Queen at times. And Princess Michael writes historical books.
Reply With Quote
  #1190  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:18 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,775
The section on Dad stood out. DM is alleging Meghan is not claiming Dad victimized her but allowed the press to manipulate him. Sounds to me by allowing he was a willing participant. I want to see the actual documents. Remember this is the defendant putting out its side.
Reply With Quote
  #1191  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:21 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I said basically true.. meaning that the gist of what they say is correct....
It has to be basically true because it the DM has everything to lose and nothing to gain by completing making this story up-given the legal nature
Reply With Quote
  #1192  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 994
Also Beatrice and Eugenie work for a Gallery and technology company. They aren't planning on launching their own "brand" and wanting to earn money through their names, although I'm sure it doesn't hurt their careers in many ways.

If Beatrice for example suddenly started selling HRH Bea of York branded clothing or items you can bet there would be a massive fuss, even worse because of her parents reputations. Just as there was over PR girl Sophie using her connections and Edward his to make documentaries.

It just looks like foot stomping over not being able to use Sussex Royal, which shows they were counting on using it to help fund themselves. If they had actually been planning a retreat from public life or for hypothetical art gallery and the like jobs, then they might have been able to keep them for everyday use.
Reply With Quote
  #1193  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,360
Harry and Meghan have been allowed to earn their own money and have jobs - the RF has just put limitations in place with regard to using their royal status and HRH titles to do so.

If Eugenie tried setting up "HRH Princess Eugenie Art Gallery" or Beatrice opened "HRH Princess of the UK Consultancy Ltd" the Palace would step in.

From what I can say no one has told them they can't work, simply that they can't use the royal symbols to do so.

The only anomaly IMO is Princess Michael being allowed to use her title on her books, but back in the 80s / 90s it seemed all the royals had books out (though normally for charity) and as the Michaels get no public money and weren't in the succession I think no one batted an eye lid. For surely one of the biggest things to learn when in the RF is that if you stay quiet and keep a low profile you get away with a lot more.
Reply With Quote
  #1194  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:36 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Also Beatrice and Eugenie work for a Gallery and technology company. They aren't planning on launching their own "brand" and wanting to earn money through their names, although I'm sure it doesn't hurt their careers in many ways.

If Beatrice for example suddenly started selling HRH Bea of York branded clothing or items you can bet there would be a massive fuss, even worse because of her parents reputations. Just as there was over PR girl Sophie using her connections and Edward his to make documentaries.

It just looks like foot stomping over not being able to use Sussex Royal, which shows they were counting on using it to help fund themselves. If they had actually been planning a retreat from public life or for hypothetical art gallery and the like jobs, then they might have been able to keep them for everyday use.
The York girls careers have literally nothing to do with who they are. Quite feat really. They managed nicely, much like Princess Margaret's children.

That a Meghan married into a situation she didn't understand and where she found herself out of depth, I sympathise with. I also think she is probably a lot more intelligent than many if not most royals. But this isn't the way to do it. Get a therapist, work through it and recreate your life in the manner you want. She is lucky to be able too. Just doesn't look like that is what they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Harry and Meghan have been allowed to earn their own money and have jobs - the RF has just put limitations in place with regard to using their royal status and HRH titles to do so.

If Eugenie tried setting up "HRH Princess Eugenie Art Gallery" or Beatrice opened "HRH Princess of the UK Consultancy Ltd" the Palace would step in.

From what I can say no one has told them they can't work, simply that they can't use the royal symbols to do so.

The only anomaly IMO is Princess Michael being allowed to use her title on her books, but back in the 80s / 90s it seemed all the royals had books out (though normally for charity) and as the Michaels get no public money and weren't in the succession I think no one batted an eye lid. For surely one of the biggest things to learn when in the RF is that if you stay quiet and keep a low profile you get away with a lot more.
Well they did really. They wanted to work part time. The royals said no. Now they are not royal.

Isn't that the truth with everything. Princess Michael was pretty hated until Di and Fergs came along. A bit too grand which stood for too Germanic, far better educated than other royal women and her father was a nazi. Apparently. We must remember that Bea was the first Princess to University. And she is just over thirty. And educated women scare people. Apparently.
Reply With Quote
  #1195  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
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.
You are correct, no way would her friends have spoken without her permission, they would have had nothing to gain from doing so and everything to lose in a social sense. I think though that Meghan used, at least some of them, exquisitely ie she knew that she would be disposing of them sooner rather than later so she allowed them to talk and back her up and then dropped them (Mulrooney?) to their immense shock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
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 think it was Prince Michael who was mentioned in the documents not his wife but, either way, the whole thing is very distasteful. Why on Earth did Prince Harry allow other family members to be dragged into him and Meghan's fight with the papers? I think the Queen will be livid.
Reply With Quote
  #1196  
Old 07-01-2020, 07:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
I think it was Prince Michael who was mentioned in the documents not his wife but, either way, the whole thing is very distasteful. Why on Earth did Prince Harry allow other family members to be dragged into him and Meghan's fight with the papers? I think the Queen will be livid.
Well he writes books toon a bit and is quite an expert on the Romanovs who he is related too. Incredibly knowledgeable when I do hear him speak. They are an impressive pair and apart from their home and being the landed wealthy they aren't that cash rich. He also does consultancy. Whatever that means. But he was never expected to be a working royal either but he did see service and has always done a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
You are correct, no way would her friends have spoken without her permission, they would have had nothing to gain from doing so and everything to lose in a social sense. I think though that Meghan used, at least some of them, exquisitely ie she knew that she would be disposing of them sooner rather than later so she allowed them to talk and back her up and then dropped them (Mulrooney?) to their immense shock.
Well I think the give away is these friends are not from the same social circle. Sooooo. I would love them to call the journalist to give evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #1197  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:08 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
......

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.

It is hard to understand what possible connection this has to the copyright issue - which I believe is what the one of the problems the judge had with some of the claims which were disallowed - he didn’t rule either way on whether there was a campaign against Meghan by the media just that it was unrelated to the current action she is taking.

It appears that Meghan is using this action to air out all her grievances with the tabloids. She may view this as her opportunity to give her version of events but she’s going to burn some powerful bridges if she’s not careful - they have chosen as a couple to base themselves in a fickle world where their appeal and power is derived from Harry’s connections. If he’s publicly cutoff from those connections his worth and therefor THEIR worth to those people is going to diminish pretty quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #1198  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,154
It was “mandated” by Kensington Palace “that all friends and family of [Meghan] should say ‘no comment’ when approached by any media outlet, despite misinformation being provided to the UK tabloids about her,” the document states.

“This shared frustration amongst the claimant’s friends left everyone feeling silenced, as it appeared that other so-called sources were able to disseminate false statements about the claimant, while people who knew her best were told they needed to remain silent.

AdvertisementHide
“The claimant believes that is probably because of this reason, as well as concerns about the press intrusion by the UK tabloids, that a few friends chose to participate and they did so anonymously”.

This obsession with the media. It's therapy and mental health support which was rightly needed to deal with them.
Reply With Quote
  #1199  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 645
Umm hard to claim her family was ‘mandated’ not to talk to the media beyond no comment when all they did for months was talk to the media. I presume they mean her mother and friends were ADVISED to not speak to the media, which seems pretty sound advice really. Also pretty sure the Kensington palace don’t get to ‘mandate’ anything to private individuals. Especially when those private individuals probably weren’t even citizens of the UK.

This really smells of an attempt to portray Meghan as the victim of the bullying grey men Diana contended with but it falls flat when one remembers Meghan was no sheltered, uneducated virginal 19 year old when she married. She was a divorced almost 40 year old American woman with a college education who had been independent for many many years.
Reply With Quote
  #1200  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:58 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
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
So she threw the BRF under the bus...I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed. I almost don’t know what to say anymore...
__________________

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 american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen buckingham palace china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing countess of snowdon cpr doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii facts family life family tree fashion and style games george vi hochberg hypothetical monarchs imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery kids movie list of rulers luxembourg mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee pless prince constantijn prince dimitri prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima random facts resusci anne royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon thai royal family uae customs united states united states of america videos wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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