The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1201  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:26 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
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.

“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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
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.
Isn't that exactly what Meghan advised her father to do: do not talk to the media when approached?! I would hope that Meghan gave the same sound advice to her family members and friends that she was in touch with; and not suddenly use other rules for those that would speak 'in favor' of her. If the friends sensed (or knew) that Meghan was unhappy with the 'don't talk to the media' rule because she wanted her story to be told; they would have known that Meghan would be happy for them to talk.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:29 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,721
Here's one mag that look like they got some of the filings


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tow...t-unprotected/

After looking at this, the wedding revenue should have been left out and the HRH business. The judge may toss those out because of relevancy. As for the details of Dad's wedding arrangements it comes off that Meghan is mad her father trashed her in the press. Given the arrangements Dad got a hotel room and clothes and a minder. Doria got to stay at Nottingham Cottage and met the queen and senior royals. Dad may been hacked off over that, hence the hit pieces. Whatever the issues with families those should have been left out of court but it still doesn't justify how the press treated Meghan and had the BRF intervened more this may have not come to this. We may never know at this point.

@Somebody - I think Meghan is saying her friends went to People without her knowledge.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:47 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: xx, United Kingdom
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
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.

So which is it?
Meg WANTED her family/friends to be able to speak out (she's saying she's upset Kensington Palace told them to say "No comment")
or
Meg DIDN'T want them to speak out (She wrote to her Dad because she was angry he didn't say "No comment")

She's mad because her dad DID speak and mad because her friends 'COULDN"T...
She cuts her Dad out of her life (and Archie's life) because he spoke... but DIDN'T cut the 5 friends out of her life when they spoke...

Basically as long as she can control exactly what you say she's cool with it

Makes the whole 'I didn't know they spoke' angle seem pretty ridiculous to me
Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:48 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 468
If they're going to cause this much trouble they need to take the steps to strip both of them of their titles and Charles needs to stop giving them money. Let them really be on their own.
Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:49 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
@Somebody - I think Meghan is saying her friends went to People without her knowledge.
As I said previously. I would be very interested in the exact wording. Meghan could have been purposefully kept in the dark on them talking to People while at the same time having made hints that indicated that she would be happy if they did talk to the media (given how Meghan is both trying to argue that it was rather logical for them to do so while also stating that 'she didn't know'); for example, she could have made clear to them that 'nobody was defending her' and that she 'so much hoped someone would be willing to do so' but that, unfortunately, 'KP said that nobody should talk'. Not everything needs to be explicitly stated for friends to know what she'd like them to do without her being in a position to state just that.

Again, the fact that they remained close friends and how she seems to be defending them in the court case while throwing the BRF under the bus makes the above a rather likely scenario imho.
Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 07-01-2020, 08:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,271
I said a while back that I sympathised with Meghan's father and I was shot down in flames for saying so. He's not perfect but by her own affirmation he was a wonderful father to her and then was just 'dropped'.The list of people who were very close to her who have claimed this also happened to them is long indeed and I believe their stories to be true. Harry has hitched his wagon to Meghan's though and seems prepared to take his family down alongside her as she clearly has no time for the whole royal institution. Sad times indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 07-01-2020, 09:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,306
From the Town and Country article linked above by Madame Verseau.

The latest court documents also provide further specifics on the attempts Meghan says she made to contact her father in the run-up to the wedding, describing how “Friend A witnessed the Claimant’s many calls to her father during the week of the wedding, from Nottingham Cottage, as well as from wedding rehearsals and pre-wedding events in Windsor and from Windsor Castle, all of which were ignored or declined.”

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/so...t-unprotected/
Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 07-01-2020, 09:10 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
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.
Another way to look at this is they are lashing out for exactly what you say in the last few lines— they’ve figured out just how limited their brand is (it will not bring in anywhere near the money they thought it would)
Reply With Quote
  #1209  
Old 07-01-2020, 09:19 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Another way to look at this is they are lashing out for exactly what you say in the last few lines— they’ve figured out just how limited their brand is (it will not bring in anywhere near the money they thought it would)

The Hollywood crowd and the silicon valley crowd will support them no matter what they do. They fantasize about being royalty. But seriously if they are going to create issues within the royal family I don't see where the queen or charles has a choice. They have to cut them off. I don't care what they do to Princess Michael but Bea and Eugene have never done anything to them and they have problems of their own.
Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 07-01-2020, 09:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
The Hollywood crowd and the silicon valley crowd will support them no matter what they do. They fantasize about being royalty. But seriously if they are going to create issues within the royal family I don't see where the queen or charles has a choice. They have to cut them off. I don't care what they do to Princess Michael but Bea and Eugene have never done anything to them and they have problems of their own.
Princess Michael hasn't done anything to them either but it was her husband who was mentioned in the court papers anyway not her.

P.S.I am shocked that Harry has turned on his family like this. I don't think there will ever be a way back for him now, even if his marraige fails.
Reply With Quote
  #1211  
Old 07-01-2020, 09:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Ireland
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
The Hollywood crowd and the silicon valley crowd will support them no matter what they do. They fantasize about being royalty..

Arguably this only applies if they are SEEN to be royalty, if they are publicly associated with the BRF - hence their desire to remain half in. It’s also demonstrated by their need to release the information that they had video called the Queen on her birthday. Without being able to show up and stand with her on the balcony at Buckingham palace how else do they reinforce their royal status. Their worth is based on Harry (and Archie) being royal. That’s all they have to sell. While they may get by for awhile, people have short attention spans, no new pic or stories of them with the BRF and they loose their major appeal. They will always have limited appeal but maintaining that top level global fame they appear to desire will be unattainable without continuing public association with BRF members. In private Harry (and Archie) will always be members of the BRF but without the public association Hollywood, at least the Hollywood they clearly want, won’t be interested. Meghan burning bridges like this may generate interest and sympathy in the short term but she should be really focusing on the long term implications.
Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 07-01-2020, 09:47 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 232
In my assessment, this is an extremely poorly formulated lawsuit and I can only imagine that Meghan is ignoring legal advice by pressing ahead. What she is attempting to do is in contrast to established privacy law cases, and is still trying to have her cake and eat it too by not fully disclosing all material facts.

The bizarre arguments about Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and Prince Michael of Kent miss the mark widely: none of them receive funding from the Sovereign Grant or represent the Queen in any formal way. And never have. Contrast that with Meghan and Harry who were to be 'working royals' with a full schedule like the Gloucesters and Kents and Cambridges etc, but who wanted to be 'half in, half out' on their road to 'financial independence'...all so convoluted it's clear nobody knew what they were actually talking about.

You mark my words, this case must settle. If it proceeds to Court it will be a spectacular failure for the Sussexes and they will be more disgraced than they already are. And they will owe Associated Newspapers a fortune in legal fees. A fortune they do not have. And I would also suggest that there is a very real risk that their actions will lead to someone being accused of perjuring themselves...
Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 07-01-2020, 10:00 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
The Hollywood crowd and the silicon valley crowd will support them no matter what they do. They fantasize about being royalty. But seriously if they are going to create issues within the royal family I don't see where the queen or charles has a choice. They have to cut them off. I don't care what they do to Princess Michael but Bea and Eugene have never done anything to them and they have problems of their own.
@amelia in reply #1214 said it very well. Hollywood fantasize about associating with Royalty and the connections they get. H&M cannot introduce their friends to his father, grandmother etc. in a public setting that will generate massive PR.

Think of their “friendships” with the Clooneys. The Clooneys are now involved with The Prince’s Trust. Massive payoff for them in terms of publicity and prestige. Their is no such payoff possible for anyone associating themselves with H&M anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 07-01-2020, 10:34 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
In my assessment, this is an extremely poorly formulated lawsuit and I can only imagine that Meghan is ignoring legal advice by pressing ahead. What she is attempting to do is in contrast to established privacy law cases, and is still trying to have her cake and eat it too by not fully disclosing all material facts.

The bizarre arguments about Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and Prince Michael of Kent miss the mark widely: none of them receive funding from the Sovereign Grant or represent the Queen in any formal way. And never have. Contrast that with Meghan and Harry who were to be 'working royals' with a full schedule like the Gloucesters and Kents and Cambridges etc, but who wanted to be 'half in, half out' on their road to 'financial independence'...all so convoluted it's clear nobody knew what they were actually talking about.

You mark my words, this case must settle. If it proceeds to Court it will be a spectacular failure for the Sussexes and they will be more disgraced than they already are. And they will owe Associated Newspapers a fortune in legal fees. A fortune they do not have. And I would also suggest that there is a very real risk that their actions will lead to someone being accused of perjuring themselves...

I hope The Queen doesn’t have to have another Paul Burrell/ah yes now I remember moment in order to save their skins Lord Royal.

Too many people watching for that bird to fly again.
Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 07-01-2020, 11:47 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,721
The mistake was Meghan trying to turn this lawsuit into a privacy/defamation combo. They should be two separate cases. If Meghan backs out the vicious press wins. I hope she and her lawyers regroup and take a new tact.
Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 07-02-2020, 12:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
Here's one mag that look like they got some of the filings


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tow...t-unprotected/

After looking at this, the wedding revenue should have been left out and the HRH business. The judge may toss those out because of relevancy. As for the details of Dad's wedding arrangements it comes off that Meghan is mad her father trashed her in the press. Given the arrangements Dad got a hotel room and clothes and a minder. Doria got to stay at Nottingham Cottage and met the queen and senior royals. Dad may been hacked off over that, hence the hit pieces. Whatever the issues with families those should have been left out of court but it still doesn't justify how the press treated Meghan and had the BRF intervened more this may have not come to this. We may never know at this point.

@Somebody - I think Meghan is saying her friends went to People without her knowledge.

What could the Royal Family do?

In 1981 The Queen called the editors of the British papers to BP to ask them to stop hounding Diana. At that time the media was a lot more deferential than they are today.

How did that go down? The media didn't stop hounding Diana.

If the Queen couldn't do anything in 1981 what does anyone think she could do in 2018 when the media isn't as deferential - and nor is the public?
Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 07-02-2020, 12:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
The Hollywood crowd and the silicon valley crowd will support them no matter what they do. They fantasize about being royalty. But seriously if they are going to create issues within the royal family I don't see where the queen or charles has a choice. They have to cut them off. I don't care what they do to Princess Michael but Bea and Eugene have never done anything to them and they have problems of their own.
Charles is never going to cut his son off....and that’s the sad thing about it. Harry supporting Meghan is tantamount to also throwing his family under the bus, but he knows that even if his brother remains distant from him, his father won’t...and either will the Queen.. There has to be the fear that if they act too harshly (from Harry’s POV), Harry may cut them off. He’s chosen his wife over his family - his father, brother, grandparents - so his loyalties are with Meghan.
Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 07-02-2020, 01:02 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Charles is never going to cut his son off....and that’s the sad thing about it. Harry supporting Meghan is tantamount to also throwing his family under the bus, but he knows that even if his brother remains distant from him, his father won’t...and either will the Queen.. There has to be the fear that if they act too harshly (from Harry’s POV), Harry may cut them off. He’s chosen his wife over his family - his father, brother, grandparents - so his loyalties are with Meghan.
Don't be so sure..especially now that they brought other members of the family into their none sense. The crown will not bend over for the 6th in line and his wife. The Crown must win and it will win.. In the 90s nobody thought the queen would call for the divorce of Charles and Diana but she did and they didn't expect her to take away Dianas HRH but she did.
Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 07-02-2020, 01:06 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Lion View Post
I hope The Queen doesn’t have to have another Paul Burrell/ah yes now I remember moment in order to save their skins Lord Royal.

Too many people watching for that bird to fly again.
It's a very different fact pattern here. In the Burrell case there was a clear gap in information where The Queen could intervene that would turn the tide of the point of the prosecution pursuing him.

In this case, this lawsuit is wholly Harry and Meghan's invention. They chose to instigate this litigation and they chose to conduct this litigation as they have. There is nowhere for The Queen to intervene. They are on their own.
Reply With Quote
  #1220  
Old 07-02-2020, 01:12 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
The mistake was Meghan trying to turn this lawsuit into a privacy/defamation combo. They should be two separate cases. If Meghan backs out the vicious press wins. I hope she and her lawyers regroup and take a new tact.
I agree that from a litigation standpoint the two facets of this case being heard together are a mess and would have been better pursued separately. However, I do not think there is a valid case in either case.

The judge has already tossed elements of the case and the most recent admonishment from the bench about their disclosure being "vague" does not bode well for them.

In my view, Meghan has not been defamed. In order to succeed she must prove that the press made defamatory statements that are untrue and that the press knew them to be untrue. She has not clearly defined what she says is untrue. And even if she had been defamed, the damages for defamation of a sort not connected to criminal accusations are very low and can usually be remedied with a simple retraction, which newspapers often do.

In terms of the privacy case - the case law established in Campbell v. Mirror and Zeta-Jones/Douglas v. HELLO! are not going to support her position. Once that People Magazine article was released (and as I alluded to earlier, I think there is a real risk of perjury if the party line is the Sussexes had no knowledge of that article...the risks under cross examination in Court are massive), it brought the contents of the letter into the public domain, at which point, because they are public figures, it can be said to be of public interest and comment on it being fair with the letter's disclosure.
__________________

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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication abu dhabi althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry bangladesh belgian royal family castles chittagong cht clarence house diana princess of wales dna dutch history dutch royal family emperor facts family tree games habsburg hill historical drama house of bourbon house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau intro jacobite jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers lithuanian castles maxima mbs memoir nepalese royal jewels netflix netherlands nobel prize norway norway history palaces palestine popularity princely family of monaco princess margaret random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding russian court dress snowdon spain spanish history spencer family sweden swedish royalty thailand tracts uae customs unsubscribe visit from sweden wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×