Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Duchess_Watcher]

And so all of those who absolutely believed Omid Scobie when he categorically denied having help from Meghan or both Harry and Meghan? It was the only possible answer to the amount of personal information revealed in the book.

It is almost like all the conspiracy theorists who don't believe that Covid is real and not a threat. You believe Omid Scobie but deny a pandemic. Just my two cents.

It shocks me anyone believed Omid or Meghan. The details are too personal, I always said she either TOLD someone and wanted it leaked or she did it herself.

Just pathetic.

 

[muriel]

It shocks me anyone believed Omid or Meghan. The details are too personal, I always said she either TOLD someone and wanted it leaked or she did it herself.

Just pathetic.

I don't think many believed that Omid has not been briefed by Meghan. The book sold because it was gossip first hand.

 

[AC21091968]

It shocks me anyone believed Omid or Meghan. The details are too personal, I always said she either TOLD someone and wanted it leaked or she did it herself.

Just pathetic.

I agree that Meghan must have some indirect input (via third party) to Finding Freedom, especially in the journey of accessing tiara (i.e. the number of steps and route to the vault) and Harry & Meghan's private trip to Africa. I don't think a historian, royal biographer and royal commentators would know that much detail on the jewellery vault (not the name of the jewellery itself, but the storage arrangement), which is mostly hidden from the public. The primary sources of this comprehensive information that I could only think of are Harry & Meghan (most likely) and the courtiers (less likely). I do worry about a security breach on possibly leaking Palace details either by Harry & Meghan or palace staff.

I don't think many believed that Omid has not been briefed by Meghan. The book sold because it was gossip first hand.

I think Omid kind of shot himself in the foot when the author's note/acknowledge of Finding Freedom mentioned that he had spoken to the Sussexes

'We have spoken with close friends of Harry and Meghan, royal aides and palace staff (past and present), the charities and organisations they have built long-lasting relationships with and, when appropriate, the couple themselves.'

His interview leading up to the book release haven't been great either, especially with the Times interview, where he spoke to interviewee with a younger age compared to other websites or even his own twitter feed.

Times interview with Andrew Billen: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...urand-meghan-markle-finding-freedom-k77lsclgn
Tweet from Andrew Billen confirming that Omid told him that his age is 33:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1286942634242715649

Screenshot from the Beta Companies website, showing that he is 39: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Edwce2KX0AI7Jhi?format=png&name=large

Picture Originally from the tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1286935487626858496

Screenshot of deleted tweet by Omid on celebrating day 2 of being 27 on 5th July 2008. This indicate that he is now 39: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeUocGWUEAA53N2?format=png&name=small

Picture originated from a tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1289481366095052801

 

[muriel]

I agree that Meghan must have some indirect input (via third party) to Finding Freedom, especially in the journey of accessing tiara (i.e. the number of steps and route to the vault) and Harry & Meghan's private trip to Africa. I don't think a historian, royal biographer and royal commentators would know that much detail on the jewellery vault (not the name of the jewellery itself, but the storage arrangement), which is mostly hidden from the public. The primary sources of this comprehensive information that I could only think of are Harry & Meghan (most likely) and the courtiers (less likely). I do worry about a security breach on possibly leaking Palace details either by Harry & Meghan or palace staff.

I think you are right, the level of detail in that book could only have come from one of the principals.

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

[.....] She gave out information that was too personal for it not to come from her or through a third party. She tried to be slick and that means she threw the entire monarchy under the bus. Something was up when she claimed to know nothing about the Royals but there was a photo of her at the Buckingham Palace when she was younger and apparently followed blogs on them.

[......]

And I honestly think Doria is one of those third party sources. She can frame it off as she confided in her mother. She couldn't leave without having her story told, and it's sad.

 

[Denville]

I thought that Meghan's side had admitted that she did put out a lot of the information to Omid Scobie.

 

[yukari]

Is there any (actual) proof that what's written in FF is true? Like the vault details, the pee-pee story etc?
I mean, there's several point in the book that has been proven incorrect (I won't repeat it here, there's a dedicated thread for it), so there's a possibility that those above are incorrect too.

I personally have this friend who really love to gossip and in a very details way that it seemed to be true fact while actually it isn't. I know because I heard a story about me from another friend who heard it from that blabbermouthing friend which I later clarified that most of it is not true, only correct generally (which yes, I mentioned it in passing during one of our group outing) but the details are far from truth. Why I'm still friend with this one? Because other than the loose-lip tendency (and wild imagination), this friend is more or less harmless.

What I understand from M's court statement, she's aware that couple of her friend had been approached by Scobie and told him story, but she didn't know how much they told him. Same thing may happen in the case of friends talking to People mag about the letter.

For now, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn't lie in her latest statement which mean the point that she (and Harry) didn't contribute to the book still stand.

As for her claim of no support from the palace, IIRC it said that she didn't feel supported when she's pregnant, means it's after August 2018. Say, the palace actively gave her advice/support in the first few months after marriage, but then for whatever reason they let her be after that or it also could be that their "support" was not the kind that she wanted (insert culture clash here) hence she didn't feel supported. In this case her last statement about being given advice is not contradicting the earlier one of no support.

I really hope that's what actually happen. But then again, who know ....

 

[Denville]

Odds are that she ok'ed her friends talking to Omid, but can say, as Diana said of Morton that she had never talked to Omid....

 

[ACO]

I thought that Meghan's side had admitted that she did put out a lot of the information to Omid Scobie.

No. The documents state Meghan never talked to authors and had nothing to do with the book. Also made clear she never discussed the letter nor presented it to anyone outside KP. And she wasn't aware of what was discussed between her friend and the authors.

What it did state was that she was aware a friend was approached by the authors. That is also not new information as we already knew Meghan was aware her friends spoke to the authors. Omid stated he spoke to over 100 people including those connected to the other royals. That was already cited in earlier documents. So not exactly the breaking news they are claiming it to be.

The only new info was the fact she had two senior royals in the loop. That came out from the Mail on Sunday claiming KP staff wrote the letter therefore Meghan doesn't hold the copyright.

 

[Denville]

No. The documents state Meghan never talked to authors and had nothing to do with the book. Also made clear she never discussed the letter nor presented it to anyone outside KP. And she wasn't aware of what was discussed between her friend and the authors.

What it did state was that she was aware a friend was approached by the authors. That is also not new information as we already knew Meghan was aware her friends spoke to the authors. Omid stated he spoke to over 100 people including those connected to the other royals. That was already cited in earlier documents. So not exactly the breaking news they are claiming it to be.

The only new info was the fact she had two senior royals in the loop. That came out from the Mail on Sunday claiming KP staff wrote the letter therefore Meghan doesn't hold the copyright.

Of course she wasn't going to say taht she spoke to Omid direclty.

 

[muriel]

Oh Meghan, all the lies and half truths are slowly coming back to roost!

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

There is a very big difference between "Omid spoke to friends of the couple" and "Meghan authorized friends of hers to give specific information to the authors with the intent of having her 'side of the story' printed in the book." This is absolutely new information.

In fact, if you go back and read the book-specific thread, you will find that when people suggested that Meghan had done such a thing, her supporters responded with, "She has denied doing any such a thing! What more does she have to say? Why do people call her a liar?"

 

[tommy100]

Its been pretty clear all along the DM has been happy to go along with the case because it knows it can get enough stories from it to make it worth while and now they have indeed hit gold with evidence Meghan appeared to lie about how involved with the book she was.

I really do wonder if anyone is advising Harry and Meghan , the lawyers will be rubbing their hands of course but if H&M had staff they could rely on they would or at least should be advising them to drop it now.

 

[Ista]

Several posts have been deleted or edited as being off topic, insulting, or overly speculative.

 

[muriel]

I really do wonder if anyone is advising Harry and Meghan , the lawyers will be rubbing their hands of course but if H&M had staff they could rely on they would or at least should be advising them to drop it now.

They can have the best advisers around them, but at the end of the day, the responsibility for their actions rests squarely and exclusively with Harry and Meghan only. I am surprised at how they have, in the short while they have been married, and on numerous occassions, displayed spectacularly poor judgement. This lawsuit is a case an example; an ill-thought through adventure that will, no doubt, cause more harm to them than good.

 

[rominet09]

They can have the best advisers around them, but at the end of the day, the responsibility for their actions rests squarely and exclusively with Harry and Meghan only. I am surprised at how they have, in the short while they have been married, and on numerous occassions, displayed spectacularly poor judgement. This lawsuit is a case an example; an ill-thought through adventure that will, no doubt, cause more harm to them than good.

... and will excite the tabloids press even more against them ! Dead end street in my opinion.

 

[Curryong]

Let's not pretend here that the British newspaper group being sued is some harmless lambkin innocently grazing in pastures, minding its own business and being stalked by a big bad wolf personified by Harry and Meghan.

British tabloids are the most ruthless in the world. They have defamed countless numbers of people, paid out huge sums to innocent people they have slandered over the decades and worse, engaged for years in egrarious behaviour like hacking the phones of royals, celebrities and ordinary people alike, even a person who turned out to be a murder victim.

Meghan was traduced constantly in tabloid stories during her years in Britain in countless stories that had no truth in them at all. In fact I've never seen persecution, and I deliberately use that word, like it in my (long) lifetime. Finally she had had enough, and has chosen to sue this newspaper group over their printing of a letter she wrote to her father.

Whatever you may think of Meghan, what possible excuse in the public interest, such as 'right to know' could be used by these tabloids to reproduce a private letter which was sent and received between two family members? That's the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

It's Meghan that is suing this newspaper group, not the other way round, and IMO it's their actions that should ultimately be judged in court (and in the court of public opinion) not the person who has brought the action.

 

[Lee-Z]

Personally I'm fine with her sueing the gossip mags and I hope she wins that part.

But I can't deny that I'm very turned off by the fact that somehow this case got embellished with naming other royals like P.Beatrice and Eugenie and P.Michael of Kent, for reasons that have nothing to do with the media topic as such.

And as this is still not subtracted, I'm finding it harder and harder to give Meghan any "benefit of doubt" (and by extension Harry, because he is letting his own family members get dragged into it)

 

[poppy7]

Let's not pretend here that the British newspaper group being sued is some harmless lambkin innocently grazing in pastures, minding its own business and being stalked by a big bad wolf personified by Harry and Meghan.

British tabloids are the most ruthless in the world. They have defamed countless numbers of people, paid out huge sums to innocent people they have slandered over the decades and worse, engaged for years in egrarious behaviour like hacking the phones of royals, celebrities and ordinary people alike, even a person who turned out to be a murder victim.

Meghan was traduced constantly in tabloid stories during her years in Britain in countless stories that had no truth in them at all. In fact I've never seen persecution, and I deliberately use that word, like it in my (long) lifetime. Finally she had had enough, and has chosen to sue this newspaper group over their printing of a letter she wrote to her father.

Whatever you may think of Meghan, what possible excuse in the public interest, such as 'right to know' could be used by these tabloids to reproduce a private letter which was sent and received between two family members? That's the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

It's Meghan that is suing this newspaper group, not the other way round, and IMO it's their actions that should ultimately be judged in court (and in the court of public opinion) not the person who has brought the action.

There are more worthy victims of their actions. They published a load of nonsense about Meghan. Compared to what they have done that is nothing. And ultimately it was her friends who mentioned the letter to the media first. It's her who collaborated on a quite frankly juvenile book.

Whatever, the media have treated people appallingly. I don't even think Harry and Meghan had it that bad. They goaded them and it became toxic.

 

[yukari]

Personally I'm fine with her sueing the gossip mags and I hope she wins that part.

But I can't deny that I'm very turned off by the fact that somehow this case got embellished with naming other royals like P.Beatrice and Eugenie and P.Michael of Kent, for reasons that have nothing to do with the media topic as such.

And as this is still not subtracted, I'm finding it harder and harder to give Meghan any "benefit of doubt" (and by extension Harry, because he is letting his own family members get dragged into it)

Second that.

It's wrong for MoS to publish her letter without her consent, but on the other hand she should also stick to copyright issue instead of reacting to their (MoS) bait and dragged everyone else whom had nothing to do with it.
Somehow, at this point, ironically it seems like Meghan become the one who need to do the defence in this court battle while the reality she's the one who's sueing.

And all this claim that Meghan "instructed" her friends to the media makes me wonder, how much power does Meghan have over this so called "friends" that she can "order" them to do her bidding? I mean I've never heard about her pre-Harry, but some ppl keep saying she's a Z-list actress or something. Was/is she some sort of leader in her circle of friend with her status that she can "order" several adult women with their own mind to do what she said? Or if she was just a follower, did her short relationship with Harry back then (I'm talking about August 2018) was enough for her to usurp the "former leader" in that group? Because I have this feeling that back then, say JM for example, it's more likely than M was known as JM's friend than JM as M's friend (if you know what I mean). So in this case, could M really "order" JM to do anything (either to talk or not to talk to the media)?

 

[lucien]

Ignore them,totally.

 

[QueenMathilde]

This lawsuit seems to be going on a long time. Is it getting near an end?

 

[Queen Claude]

Meghan requested a summary judgement, if she prevails then it will be over in January 2021.

She also requested the trial be delayed which the judge agreed to, so if she does not win the summary judgement, then the trial will take place in Fall 2021.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Let's not pretend here that the British newspaper group being sued is some harmless lambkin innocently grazing in pastures, minding its own business and being stalked by a big bad wolf personified by Harry and Meghan.

British tabloids are the most ruthless in the world. They have defamed countless numbers of people, paid out huge sums to innocent people they have slandered over the decades and worse, engaged for years in egrarious behaviour like hacking the phones of royals, celebrities and ordinary people alike, even a person who turned out to be a murder victim.

Meghan was traduced constantly in tabloid stories during her years in Britain in countless stories that had no truth in them at all. In fact I've never seen persecution, and I deliberately use that word, like it in my (long) lifetime. Finally she had had enough, and has chosen to sue this newspaper group over their printing of a letter she wrote to her father.

Whatever you may think of Meghan, what possible excuse in the public interest, such as 'right to know' could be used by these tabloids to reproduce a private letter which was sent and received between two family members? That's the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

It's Meghan that is suing this newspaper group, not the other way round, and IMO it's their actions that should ultimately be judged in court (and in the court of public opinion) not the person who has brought the action.

So Amen to that. Excellent post.
I hope the Sussexes will be able to hurt the disgusting vultures of the "tabloids" .

 

[Hallo girl]

There is a very big difference between "Omid spoke to friends of the couple" and "Meghan authorized friends of hers to give specific information to the authors with the intent of having her 'side of the story' printed in the book." This is absolutely new information.

In fact, if you go back and read the book-specific thread, you will find that when people suggested that Meghan had done such a thing, her supporters responded with, "She has denied doing any such a thing! What more does she have to say? Why do people call her a liar?"

With the amount of law suits they raised I thought they would have sued Omid Scobie for stuff in that book, but they cannot sue if it is all true, which raises the question how did he know some of that personal stuff.
If it all came from their friends without permission then they need to re evaluate their friendships. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Denville]

With the amount of law suits they raised I thought they would have sued Omid Scobie for stuff in that book, but they cannot sue if it is all true, which raises the question how did he know some of that personal stuff.
If it all came from their friends without permission then they need to re evaluate their friendships. Just my opinion of course.

Its unlikely that their friends talked without an Ok from Meg and harry.. but once you OK people to talk you can't always control what they say...

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

They can't sue Omid because Meghan is a direct source that gave him information and if she sued him, he'd expose her but she exposed herself already. They don't want privacy, but they want to pick and choose what comes out from Team Sussex.

 

[TLLK]

According to this article the Duke has filed a lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday.


https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-sues-uk-tabloid-libel-sixth-lawsuit-year-mail-sunday-1552754

Prince Harry is suing the same U.K. tabloid publisher as Meghan Markle—in the couple's sixth lawsuit in just more than a year, Newsweek can reveal.
The Duke of Sussex has launched a libel case against Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online.
Papers were filed at the High Court in London on November 27, though little additional information is available as the lawsuit is still in its infancy.
The prince's legal team at Schillings threatened the Mail on Sunday with legal action in October over claims he had not kept in touch with the Royal Marines since March, when he moved to America.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Whelp, TLLK beat me to it.


So this lawsuit number 6 in one year?

[...]

 

[Fem]

And the award for the best reason to sue someone goes to...

The prince's legal team at Schillings threatened the Mail on Sunday with legal action in October over claims he had not kept in touch with the Royal Marines since March, when he moved to America.

I do want to point out that it's still not confirmed that the lawsuit is about this story, but even the fact their legal team was threatening with legal actions over it is laughable enough on its own. Well, that, or just sad.

[...]