The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1321  
Old 07-03-2020, 04:21 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 3,451
A series of off topic and/or completely speculative posts and responses have been either deleted or edited. Please keep posts on the topic of this thread, which is Harry and Meghan's legal action against the press, it's not the place for more generalized or speculative discussion.

Further off topic posts will also be deleted.
__________________

  #1322  
Old 07-03-2020, 04:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
I don't believe they will ever come back to the royal family.
Meghan and the firm is just not a good fit. I believe Meghan is far too independent, head strong, opinionated, and just different for the royal family and Palace officials to deal with.

[....]

I think all we can hope for now is for the Sussexes and the royal family to exist independently and have a distant but harmonious relationship.

I don't think "a good fit" is something that can be unambiguously decided a priori. Instead, I see it as a process which depends on how much effort each involved part puts into it.
__________________

  #1323  
Old 07-03-2020, 04:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,540
Back to the same "reasons"...IMO Meghan actually got quite favourable treatment by the Queen and RF, certainly no less treatment than others who have married in recently.

-she was invited to Sandringham at Christmas before the wedding
-she and Harry were given a church wedding unlike Charles and Camilla just years prior (the rules did permitted C&C to as well back then)
-the Queen encouraged he own Assistant Private Secretary to become their Private Secretary to support and guide them
-Meghan was invited on a day trip with the Queen much sooner than any other royal married in

These are just the examples we know off.

What I always find tricky is when Meghan is held to the same account or standards or expected to follow the same rules as others this is somehow presented as "racist". Asking Meghan to stick to the same media guidelines as other members of the family is not racist, it is holding her to the same as everybody else in the RF.

I really do wonder about the purpose of this court case, if it was kept as a simple copyright issue I believe Meghan may have had more chance of getting the verdict she wanted. All of this extra "baggage" around it just seems to muddy the water. It also means it is more likely the media will present the claim as being "lost" if the judge strikes out or disagrees with aspects of it, even if ultimately they "win" the copyright claim.
  #1324  
Old 07-03-2020, 04:57 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
I believe Meghan is far too independent, head strong, opinionated, and just different for the royal family and Palace officials to deal with.
I'm reminded of Prince Philip except he didn't have the option of leaving the firm for a different life.
  #1325  
Old 07-03-2020, 05:17 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
As you said the lawsuit is Meghan’s lawsuit, not Harry.
No matter what Harry feels on the record he is not the one doing these accusations!

And as others mentioned: Harry is blood, Meghan is not and has proven once again she can not be trusted to not trash the family if she does not get her way.
She does not seem to have any loyalty but to herself. And this is dangerous for a family like the royal family.

If I were in the queen and Charles shoes I would never again trust this woman, let alone welcome her back into the family fold.
Yes and there's no way there's a lawsuit without Harry's full support. Making Meghan into the bad guy is flat wrong. They are in this together.

I've not seen any evidence of Meghan trashing the family. Nor do I see evidence of her disloyalty. Making these extreme statements does not add anything to the discussion especially with the basis of them is grounded mostly in tabloid stories.



LaRae
  #1326  
Old 07-03-2020, 07:17 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
I'm conflicted on this whole situation. I sympathise with Harry and Meghan due to Harry's past relationship with the press, but at the same time if they wanted a private life away from the cameras; then moving to celebrity hotspot LA and doing business partnerships seems to contradict their original wishes.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #1327  
Old 07-03-2020, 07:20 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
@Pranter - agreed. Meghan is coming for KP staff
  #1328  
Old 07-03-2020, 07:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,540
I think it's KP too. And considering that for over a year from the time of the return from the Australian tour negative stories about Meghan were coming out in online tabloids at the rate of about three a day (I know because I noted it down at the time) it's ridiculous for the Times source to say that KP Press officers didn't deny these stories because they were true. What, all of them? The ones coming out hourly, daily, week after week, month after month?

They did not defend Meghan against any of these multiples of stories. They didn't defend her on ones that were true, nor on ones that had a germ of truth and they certainly didn't come out and defend her on any stories that were made up by journalists and were quite obvious untruths. Nor did the people at BP for that matter, after the Sussexes split from the Royal Foundation and moved offices.
  #1329  
Old 07-03-2020, 08:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I think it's KP too. And considering that for over a year from the time of the return from the Australian tour negative stories about Meghan were coming out in online tabloids at the rate of about three a day (I know because I noted it down at the time) it's ridiculous for the Times source to say that KP Press officers didn't deny these stories because they were true. What, all of them? The ones coming out hourly, daily, week after week, month after month?

They did not defend Meghan against any of these multiples of stories. They didn't defend her on ones that were true, nor on ones that had a germ of truth and they certainly didn't come out and defend her on any stories that were made up by journalists and were quite obvious untruths. Nor did the people at BP for that matter, after the Sussexes split from the Royal Foundation and moved offices.
They don't about anyone. They were Harry's staff too back in the day. Why they would choose to be vindictive I don't know. They certainly didn't deny ALL stories because they were true. Perhaps the Times has one in particularelation or a strand of stories in mind. But they never denied any of the,most. That has been the policy for centuries so no one ever knows and nothing gets flamed.
  #1330  
Old 07-03-2020, 10:36 PM
duchesschicana's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, United States
Posts: 296
......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I cant' believe they seem to be taking this tack but I suppose we'll see when the case comes to court, if the reports are accurate. But can they honestly, can Harry honestly believe that he and Meghan are the same as Beatrice or Princess Michael? Does he not realise that the reason the queen did put a stop to Edward and Sophie's business activities was that they weren't working out well and the 2 were too close to the Crown.. so they had to behave in a certain way. Business for a full or part time working royal is a no no. He and Meg were meant to be full time royals. That means there are restrictions on what they can do and one of the things they can't do is earn a "professional income" or participate in big scale business activities.
Meg may honestly not realise this fully, I dont like her but Im trying to cut her some slack.. as she was new to England and the RF.. but Harry? He must know.
I was talking about this with my friend from Norfolk, like don't they get it? His York cousins were never going to be working full time royals no matter how much thier father allegedly wanted that. They did not have thier own peerage and titles in their own right. Not like the York gals were plastering their royals monograms on stuff to sell on Etsy. They eventually worked well with thier jobs they have currently. They dont even use HRH on their work profiles, for example Bea goes by Beatrice of York. They are the daughters of the 2'nd son of the monarch, non working royals and eventually pushed lower and lower in rank. Harry was the 2n'd son of the heir and future monarch,a working royal, with a peerage of the UK, very different situations.

This may be Meghan's lawsuits, but Harry is definitely backing up his wife as a husband should, I guess, but Harry is too blame too if he didn't educate her on his country and how his family works. Concerning the 'instituation didnt protect Meghan' thing and if he promised her certain things and made her believe should could step over 'the institution' and come out looking like a million bucks. If he always wanted a way out, he did have a part in this and maybe encouraged planted the seed of a non working royal life away from the UK if this is how things even happened.

They both come off as spiolt with these lawsuits though, my friend hated to agree to this as she loves Harry and these lawsuits come off as tone deaf during these times.

I'm only speculating in my part.
  #1331  
Old 07-03-2020, 11:09 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,540
Not all untrue stories published about Meghan in the tabloids are/were opinion pieces. Many were produced by journalists as being factual, ie avacados linked to rape, war, murder in the farming of but only when Meghan eats them apparently, the Sun story about the deprived Windsor staff and their car park abutting FC, the yoga studios, tennis courts etc at the Cottage which a bit of checking would have shown to be false and which the journalists must have known were lies. The people at KP/BP never came out and pointed the latter out though they must have known that such stories were adding to the faux outrage fermented by the Press about the cost of Frogmore Cottage.

We don't know exactly who this KP source is who supposedly spoke to the Times. Did he/she dislike Meghan from the beginning and is venting now? I have no doubt that Meghan did cause a stir among the staff at the KP office who were used to advising and answering only to the Cambridges, with Harry going along with most things that were arranged whether happy about the set up or not. I happen to think he was not happy but that's just my opinion. Harry's wife would have caused a shake up no matter who she was, IMO.

However, to portray that as Meghan causing all out war and multiple weeping and walkouts among the staff at KP and her own team when we know that people like Sam Cohen and Amy Pettingell stayed for ages with the Sussexes beyond their original contracts is a bridge too far for me. It smacks of KP staff defending themselves, no matter what.
  #1332  
Old 07-04-2020, 12:09 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
@Curryong. It does come off as KP staff as defending itself AND afraid to explain themselves in court.
  #1333  
Old 07-04-2020, 03:06 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,960
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...grievance.html


This topic will keep us all busy for many months to come. I wonder when H&M will stop digging while already standing in a deep hole.
  #1334  
Old 07-04-2020, 03:15 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,545
Exactly. Just stop digging.


Also, I quite appreciate that this is about things which happened long before the pandemic, but all this whingeing and divisive talk when the world is going through such a difficult time just doesn't look good.
  #1335  
Old 07-04-2020, 03:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...grievance.html


This topic will keep us all busy for many months to come. I wonder when H&M will stop digging while already standing in a deep hole.
The main thing to remember when reading these articles is that they were written by journalists employed by the organisation that is being sued.
  #1336  
Old 07-04-2020, 04:02 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,269
i always dismissed the Daily Mail (and other media outlets) as pure gossip and clickbait (usually don't even read it), but since the details from this lawsuit are starting to get clear from the official papers i'm starting to think there might be some truth in the gossip (somewhere deep down).
This is the first time in over a year i clicked a DM link
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #1337  
Old 07-04-2020, 05:13 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...grievance.html


This topic will keep us all busy for many months to come. I wonder when H&M will stop digging while already standing in a deep hole.
I like Richard Kay....and I agree with everything he said. I don’t even know where to begin, but I suppose saying that Meghan is a “royal pain in the behind” would be appropriate.

To me, this is the crux of the matter. It’s ridiculous for Meghan to be so thin skinned as to stamp her feet and whine that the BRF isn’t defending her against criticism. Charles and Camilla loved through hell so many years ago, but they dealt with it. Everyone in the BRF has been criticized at one point or another, but they get on with it. As far as I’m concerned, she’s not fit for the BRF, and I feel for them because now I do think “Finding Freedom”, with a title that makes it seem H and M believed they were prisoners, will attempt to “settle scores”. In fact, this is what I believe she’s doing now. Admittedly I’m not following the details of the case, but what on earth does any of this garbage being spewed by her counsel have to do with her case against the Daily Mail? I loathe this woman..and I DO feel sorry for HM and Charles. I would say good riddance, except that she’s over here in the States...
Quote:
Putting to one side the preposterous numbers quoted, there is a huge distinction. Is she really saying that the Palace should respond every time something was said somewhere that she disliked or disagreed with,’ says a former lady in waiting.

‘As an actress how did she react to an unkind review? It is petty and unrealistic.’


She now opens up the very real possibility of her one-time staff being called as witnesses for the High Court case.

Sources close to Meghan insist that her criticisms do not relate to individual members of the Royal Family but the ‘institutional processes’ that, say friends, ‘let her down’.

This will be of scant comfort to the Queen and Prince Charles, who embraced Meghan.

‘They have every reason to feel let down as more and more details of this case are made public,’ says a figure close to the Queen. ‘The welcome they gave her was unmatched.’
  #1338  
Old 07-04-2020, 05:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchesschicana View Post
I was talking about this with my friend from Norfolk, like don't they get it? His York cousins were never going to be working full time royals no matter how much thier father allegedly wanted that. They did not have thier own peerage and titles in their own right. Not like the York gals were plastering their royals monograms on stuff to sell on Etsy. They eventually worked well with thier jobs they have currently. They dont even use HRH on their work profiles, for example Bea goes by Beatrice of York. They are the daughters of the 2'nd son of the monarch, non working royals and eventually pushed lower and lower in rank. Harry was the 2n'd son of the heir and future monarch,a working royal, with a peerage of the UK, very different situations.

This may be Meghan's lawsuits, but Harry is definitely backing up his wife as a husband should, I guess, but Harry is too blame too if he didn't educate her on his country and how his family works. Concerning the 'instituation didnt protect Meghan' thing and if he promised her certain things and made her believe should could step over 'the institution' and come out looking like a million bucks. If he always wanted a way out, he did have a part in this and maybe encouraged planted the seed of a non working royal life away from the UK if this is how things even happened.

They both come off as spiolt with these lawsuits though, my friend hated to agree to this as she loves Harry and these lawsuits come off as tone deaf during these times.

I'm only speculating in my part.
I don't know. I find them hard to understand. But to be insinuating as they seem to be that that they are upset because other royals are allowed to work, is just wrong. Harry should know that there is a line between royals who work for the firm and those like Bea and Eugenie who don't, who don't get money from the Sovereign grant and who are free to do a job and who do occasionally do a bit of charity work or appear with the queen but aren't working royals. Or Charles who does sell things but does so on behalf of his Duchy for his charities. Harry must know there's a difference. Perhaps Meghan can't see the difference, I can sort of understand that, but Harry should know better and should have explained it to her.
I dont know.
DOES He not understand the difference either which I honestly have to say mean's he's not that bright...or willfully refuses to understand. Or he DOES really want out of royal life and now he's using these reasons such as his own depression Meg's depression and their desire to have a more free and independent life, and to earn their own money, as excuses..
  #1339  
Old 07-04-2020, 05:52 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,086
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...grievance.html

I liked her at one time.

But leaving out all her maternal and paternal family for one day, i.e. her wedding day, was horribly selfish of her.

Jessica M friendship has now also been dissolved.

The upcoming Court case; will only cause more bitterness for all parties concerned.

If LA doesn't work out for them maybe they could try the Bahamas.

Like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor; I don't see them ever returning to LIVE in the UK.
  #1340  
Old 07-04-2020, 07:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I don't know. I find them hard to understand. But to be insinuating as they seem to be that that they are upset because other royals are allowed to work, is just wrong. Harry should know that there is a line between royals who work for the firm and those like Bea and Eugenie who don't, who don't get money from the Sovereign grant and who are free to do a job and who do occasionally do a bit of charity work or appear with the queen but aren't working royals. Or Charles who does sell things but does so on behalf of his Duchy for his charities. Harry must know there's a difference. Perhaps Meghan can't see the difference, I can sort of understand that, but Harry should know better and should have explained it to her.
I dont know.
DOES He not understand the difference either which I honestly have to say mean's he's not that bright...or willfully refuses to understand. Or he DOES really want out of royal life and now he's using these reasons such as his own depression Meg's depression and their desire to have a more free and independent life, and to earn their own money, as excuses..
Particularly since Harry and Eugenie were so close. I would be annoyed if I was dragged into an court case for no reason.
__________________

Closed Thread


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
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness coronation dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history ingrid-alexandra japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia nara period noble families politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen victoria royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit suthida thai royal family tokugawa unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×