The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1381  
Old 07-06-2020, 03:11 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 901
Well it wouldn't be surprising if he did since he's the one who gave/sold the later to the MoS in the first place, co operated with other papers/GMB and has seemingly taken every opportunity to oppose his daughter since the wedding fiasco and "tell his side of the story".
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1382  
Old 07-06-2020, 03:14 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I'm taking this with enough salt to turn a freshwater lake into a briny pond but from a quick research, it seems Cosmopolitan is usually reliable with reliable sources but don't quote me on that because I've never actually read the magazine.

Anyways... according to this article, Thomas Markle will be testifying in the court case. On the side of the defendant against his own daughter.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...ocialflowFBCOS
So the article you linked talks about the Channel 5 program he cooperated on back in January 2020.

This is the link directly to Cosmo's own article, which actually sites US Weekly ,about TM's supposed testifying:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...-meghan-court/

Both Cosmo and US Weekly articles were written just days after the exit announcement, and site nothing more than each other as sources.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1383  
Old 07-06-2020, 03:20 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,636
Thanks. Obviously I didn't check the dates on the links.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1384  
Old 07-09-2020, 07:15 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 255
Apparently Meghan is seeking an injunction against Mos so they canít name the 5 friends who spoke to People magazine

https://twitter.com/jack_royston/sta...683136512?s=21
Reply With Quote
  #1385  
Old 07-09-2020, 07:35 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Well they were named in the confidential section of the hearing. That was done for a reason. I don't see how they can threaten that at all. That is kind of witness intimidation. Shall be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Reply With Quote
  #1386  
Old 07-09-2020, 08:28 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katymcwaity View Post
Apparently Meghan is seeking an injunction against Mos so they canít name the 5 friends who spoke to People magazine

https://twitter.com/jack_royston/sta...683136512?s=21
All this litigation must be costing a lot. Hope Harry has some of his capital left at the end of this process.
Reply With Quote
  #1387  
Old 07-09-2020, 08:42 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: xx, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?
Reply With Quote
  #1388  
Old 07-09-2020, 08:53 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by phss View Post
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?
All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.

If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.
Reply With Quote
  #1389  
Old 07-09-2020, 09:34 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by phss View Post
Legally speaking, can they actually keep the names secret indefinitely?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
All 5 women really have no bearing on this case. It is one friend, "Friend A", who mentioned the letter. Not the others. So trying to say they are the "center of the case" is a bit of a reach. It is about copyright. Not their interview.

If they are not called as witnesses then there is really no reason for the public to know who they are. If any are called then that will be publicly known unless something happens to prevent that. And the MoS trying to reveal them before a trial date has even been set could play a major role in that decision.
As the matter is subjudice and none of us really know all the facts of the case, I would advice caution in what is said.
Reply With Quote
  #1390  
Old 07-09-2020, 10:27 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.

There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.

This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.

The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.
Reply With Quote
  #1391  
Old 07-09-2020, 10:30 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Legally I would say there is little change of these women being kept anonymous.

There are no minors or vulnerable people involved. In doubt it will be granted. And even if it was, like in the days of a super injunction where things were only granted to protect minors, it will leak out anyway.

This really makes me think they didn't think through this at all.

The current Johnny Deep trial is a prime example. How many people have been mentioned. But he brought this case for other reasons than libel.
Is there a need for them to be named?
Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 07-09-2020, 10:35 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Is there a need for them to be named?
If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.

This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.

And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.
Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 07-09-2020, 10:42 AM
LadyGlendower's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: City of Light, France
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katymcwaity View Post
Apparently Meghan is seeking an injunction against Mos so they canít name the 5 friends who spoke to People magazine

https://twitter.com/jack_royston/sta...683136512?s=21
Everyone has already to a great extent figured out who they are. Cringeworthy move by Meghan's team. MOS may just have them on the ropes in this legal battle.
Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 07-09-2020, 10:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.
I think he is well aware that the relationship is over in the same way that so many people who have been close to Meghan have discovered (Jessica Mulrooney being the latest) ie when Meghan drops you it is always for good.
Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 07-09-2020, 10:55 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyGlendower View Post
Everyone has already to a great extent figured out who they are. Cringeworthy move by Meghan's team. MOS may just have them on the ropes in this legal battle.
They don't care. There will be little winnings in this. Libels dont bring in cash anymore. The reason to take them needs to be about something else.

When newspapers get caught out, pictures that were blatant breaches of privacy or comments in articles. They settle out of court and publish apologies. Says a lot that they refused to in this instance.

There is little point in using for libel if it isn't to stop repeat behaviour in the future. Such as intrucive picture.

The MOS are having a great time. And they are also currently being sued by Depp. At least I think it's the same parent company.
Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 07-09-2020, 10:58 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
Well I'm sure that will do wonders for the relationship with his daughter en her family. If there was any hope of reconciliation he can kiss that goodbye.
What about her? He never mentioned the letter till her friends mentioned it.

She is bringing the court case and if he gives evidence, he will be subpoenaed anyway. This is all on her.
Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 07-09-2020, 11:00 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
If they give evidence then they will be named. As is what happens when the court case does not involve minors or vulnerable people. If they dont, then probably there is no need to say anything.

This isn't a privacy concern. it is judicial and legal and as a result of the need for justice to be seen to be done, transcripts are public documents. Unless sealed by the courts. Which can happen particularly when minors are involved.

And I would reject Meghans call to sensitivity. Don't start the court case then.
I think the fact we donít see more of this kind of action from Royals etc is that it gets very messy and it probably reflects how upset Meghan is that she is running the gauntlet. The MoS will delighted about the stories that the whole thing generates.
Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 07-09-2020, 11:01 AM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 399
"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."

It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.

Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."

It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.
Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 07-09-2020, 11:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,478
I dont blame Meghan for fallng out with her father... but it is probalby "for good" and there wotn be any reconcilation.
Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 07-09-2020, 11:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
"These five women are not on trial, and nor am I."

It seems that Meghan wants to change the way media reporting around trials works in general. Surely many would agree with her, myself among them. It is often trial by media for anyone and everyone involved (or not) in the case. Witnesses, family members on both sides, friends of those involved, colleagues-- all people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand are dragged under the microscope and can suffer terrible effects. Most importantly, this very often happens to the victim.

Unfortunately, "I'm not on trial here" is not a legal argument, nor is Meghan any different from anyone else who finds themselves at the center of a public trial undergoing scrutiny. She will and should get no special protection. This harkens back to "I thought it would be fair" and screams "Give me special treatment."

It is terrible that people considering whether to pursue legal action have to consider what effect it will have on the people involved. But a legal filing that basically says, "I shouldn't have to put up with this" is petulant.
Yes it's appalling, but I save my empathy for women who bring rape trials and have to undergo the most horrendous cross examination. Or for families of murder victims who must sit through them. She brought this case presumably because she thought they would settle. She should have known better.

And unfortunately she is on trial because to win this outright the newspaper have to to make it a reasonable assumption that she intended that letter to be public.
__________________

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
abdication american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen chittagong commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dubai duke of sussex facts games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hill history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels norway prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tracts tradition uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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