The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1461  
Old 07-10-2020, 05:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
what do you mean by people like him? Royals? Or Diana's sons? I agree that they seem to have over estimated thier popularity. If they had stuck the royal job for a few more years, its possible that if they sitill chose to leave they would be better liked
I think he saw that love people had for his mother. Who was divorced from the royals and thought they would continue to love him too.

But all of that is false. People were rude about Diana, she was on the down in popularity particularly that last summer, there was guilt because she had been treated as a sub person and now she was dead. There were a lot of things and really thankfully Harry is happy, healthy, wife, baby. He is fine. Diana was largely alone.

People just shrugged and went okay. I was in a managers room today and saw a Meghan and Harry wedding pictures coloured by a child. I pointed it out and we both started laughing. Like when they mattered.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1462  
Old 07-10-2020, 05:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 819
Diana's been gone a long time. Yes, she was very popular amongst some people, but no-one much under 30, and I think Harry is aiming for an audience of younger people, has any real recollection of her.


He did make that speech in March in which he referred to himself as Diana's younger son, but I'm not sure that anyone thinks of him like that any more. That's no disrespect to Diana: it's just that 23 years is a long time.


Maybe he thinks they do?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1463  
Old 07-10-2020, 05:37 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Yeps. She set herself up for this. I think the decision to sue in the first place was based more in emotion than clear rational thought. A lot of things about the Sussexes seem to be trending this way lately. Sheesh.
I, respectfully, disagree. They filed the case in anticipation of a quick settlement and a bad press, poor hounded H&M narrative. This was what historically happened in these cases. She tried to drop the case when DM refused to settle, but they would not let her. The emotions came in, when multiple plans started failing and they wanted and needed a public forum to lash out.
Reply With Quote
  #1464  
Old 07-10-2020, 05:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
Diana's been gone a long time. Yes, she was very popular amongst some people, but no-one much under 30, and I think Harry is aiming for an audience of younger people, has any real recollection of her.


He did make that speech in March in which he referred to himself as Diana's younger son, but I'm not sure that anyone thinks of him like that any more. That's no disrespect to Diana: it's just that 23 years is a long time.


Maybe he thinks they do?
Everyone was huge on Diana but she was treated badly and the.reaction to her reflected that.

Harry probs thought affection for him would come through her and really he is nearly as old as.she was when she died. And you can't and shouldn't live as the tragic child forever. Disturbs me that he peddled it.
Reply With Quote
  #1465  
Old 07-10-2020, 05:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,306
If this had been a simple copyright case she would have had more chance of winning.

By adding all of this extra stuff they are simply creating more drama and making it more certain that, even if they win on the copyright, its likely they will have the other elements being brought in thrown out which will give the media the opportunity to say they have "lost".

I truly wonder who is advising them, personally I suspect it is either their PR company as its certainly keeping them in the headlines and giving "airtime" to their narrative. But if they are taking the advice of lawyers, I think the lawyers are seeing them more as cash machines rather than getting the best result for their client. Or they may be instructing the lawyers based on their own deep feelings of what they feel they deserve and should get.
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 07-10-2020, 06:19 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 399
I am curious where the idea- often repeated here and elsewhere on social media- that Meghan "tried to drop the case" but the DM won't "let" her came from. Meghan is the plaintiff here. You cannot force someone to continue suing you. Once the complaining party decides to no longer pursue the complaint, that is it.
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 07-10-2020, 06:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
I am curious where the idea- often repeated here and elsewhere on social media- that Meghan "tried to drop the case" but the DM won't "let" her came from. Meghan is the plaintiff here. You cannot force someone to continue suing you. Once the complaining party decides to no longer pursue the complaint, that is it.
I wondered that as well, or were the defendants asking for costs if it was dropped.I do not know about any of these things, but would be interested if anybody knew the answer.
Reply With Quote
  #1468  
Old 07-10-2020, 07:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
They wanted to settle out of court, the mail refused. They could drop the case of they wanted but they decided to keep going. The mail have never forced them to do anything
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 07-10-2020, 07:08 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,639
This makes the most sense to me. They weren't trying to totally drop the case but were pushing to settle out of court. The MoS had every right to refuse and demand it go to court.

Perhaps its another case of things not going the way they planned for things to go and rushing to figure out what the next step is going to be. Sound familiar?
__________________
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
  #1470  
Old 07-10-2020, 07:10 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,699
Who actually stated that the Sussexes wanted to settle out of court but the newspaper group refused? The Sunday Fail in its paper, their lawyers, the Sussex lawyers, both sides together? Who, and when did this occur?
Reply With Quote
  #1471  
Old 07-10-2020, 07:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Who actually stated that the Sussexes wanted to settle out of court but the newspaper group refused? The Sunday Fail in its paper, their lawyers, the Sussex lawyers, both sides together? Who, and when did this occur?
Court documents I think. Stating they tried to broach a settlement twice and were rebuked. They would have expected to settle to be honest. It's the way of things. You get a nice five figure settlement which you promptly donate to charity and get good press for being pleased the newspaper know they did wrong. But it is generally about things that were legally no goes. Bugging. Pictures on private land. Things like this people don't usually take these things to court and when they do. Show trial.
Reply With Quote
  #1472  
Old 07-10-2020, 07:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Everyone was huge on Diana but she was treated badly and the.reaction to her reflected that.

Harry probs thought affection for him would come through her and really he is nearly as old as.she was when she died. And you can't and shouldn't live as the tragic child forever. Disturbs me that he peddled it.
I’m tired of Harry manipulating audiences for their affection by playing on Diana’s memory ...he isn’t just her son, he’s Charles’ as well, but referencing his mother will make people get misty and care about what he’s saying, even if he’s not an “expert”.

I agree, it’s not healthy. Harry’s identity should not be tied so completely to that of his mother; they are/were different people.
Reply With Quote
  #1473  
Old 07-10-2020, 09:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,699
He has spoken about his mental health in regard to his mother's death but not constantly at all. When has Harry mentioned his mother recently apart from the Diana Awards?

William also speaks about Diana on occasions but neither do it continuously. And as for public perceptions for years the media rattled on about 'Diana's boys', linking them in the public mind with her memory constantly. Even now there are references to 'seeing Harry following her coffin'. Harry doesn't write those articles himself.

Having been in the process of trying to break her in 1997 in their usual way, the Press then elevated Diana to sainthood (I do believe she did one hell of a lot of good in her lifetime all the same) in order to divert the criticism from themselves at the time of her death. That was hardly the fault of either of the Princes.
Reply With Quote
  #1474  
Old 07-10-2020, 09:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,699
Well, Meghan certainly wasn't trying twice to settle with the newspaper group in December. See below.

https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/m...t-legal-claims

And in fact I can't find references to her trying to settle elsewhere online though I will keep on looking.
Reply With Quote
  #1475  
Old 07-10-2020, 11:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
He has spoken about his mental health in regard to his mother's death but not constantly at all. When has Harry mentioned his mother recently apart from the Diana Awards?

William also speaks about Diana on occasions but neither do it continuously. And as for public perceptions for years the media rattled on about 'Diana's boys', linking them in the public mind with her memory constantly. Even now there are references to 'seeing Harry following her coffin'. Harry doesn't write those articles himself.

Having been in the process of trying to break her in 1997 in their usual way, the Press then elevated Diana to sainthood (I do believe she did what hell of a lot of good in her lifetime all the same) in order to divert the criticism from themselves at the time of her death. That was hardly the fault of either of the Princes.
This is all fair.. I do remember the press referring to William and Harry as “Diana’s Boys”.....Charles who?

Even in America, it seems as if there’s a desire to build people up, tear them down, and then see them built up again....
Reply With Quote
  #1476  
Old 07-10-2020, 11:19 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
I am curious where the idea- often repeated here and elsewhere on social media- that Meghan "tried to drop the case" but the DM won't "let" her came from. Meghan is the plaintiff here. You cannot force someone to continue suing you. Once the complaining party decides to no longer pursue the complaint, that is it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I wondered that as well, or were the defendants asking for costs if it was dropped.I do not know about any of these things, but would be interested if anybody knew the answer.
Me three. If Meghan as the claimant wanted to drop the case then I don't see how the defendant could stop her. Her only concern would be that they would go after her for their legal costs but even that does not make sense because if she continued the case then she is racking up legal cost on her side and risking that she will have to pay the defendant's legal cost if she loses.

My vague recollection, and I'm not sure how credible the reports were, is that at different points, the claimant and defendant wanted to settle but in all instances, agreements could not be reached on the terms of the settlement.
Reply With Quote
  #1477  
Old 07-11-2020, 02:59 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 242
Meghan is the Claimant. At any point, she could withdraw her claim. There is little concrete evidence that either side has wanted to settle, but it is very clear that the Defendant, Associated Newspapers Limited, is not afraid of attacking the legal basis for this litigation at every point they can. And so far, they have been successful. If Meghan really wanted to drop this case, she could withdraw her claim. Period. What Meghan cannot do is force Associated Newspapers to settle on terms she deems appropriate. Settlement is a mutual exercise.

Meghan is represented by David Sherborne, an excellent lawyer who has a very strong reputation in media law. He previously acted for Sarah, Duchess of York, in her phone hacking case involving News International, which resulted in a favourable settlement and public apology in Court to the Duchess.

In unrelated litigation, Sarah sued News Group (involving the cash for access News of the World scandal) and it dragged on in the Courts for years and then, suddenly, she withdrew her claim. Nobody knows what the actual result of it was (dropped entirely or settled, it will always be a mystery) - but it is clear evidence that a claimant, be they royal, ex-royal, or otherwise, can discontinue litigation at will.
Reply With Quote
  #1478  
Old 07-11-2020, 03:05 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,687
Indeed, if a plaintiff wanted to withdraw their complaint they could do so by serving a discontinuance notice to the Court, subject to certain criteria and rules set out in this link:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part38

If the discontinuance is allowed, the plaintiff would have to pay the defendants costs - again subject to the Court's approval set out in the link.

In general, I think we have seen many cases like this where it has been settled out of Court.

The parties may well have tried to settle and not come to an agreement - and that could be for a number of reasons: such as the defendant believing the plaintiff has no case against them or the the plaintiff believing the settlement offer provided by the defendant does not reflect the grievance.

In all honesty, even if they wanted to, the newspaper can't force Meghan to continue the proceedings if she didn't want to. That's not to say she wants to continue it, but it seems both parties to the case have been given legal advice that their argument is worth pursuing and defending.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1479  
Old 07-11-2020, 04:35 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
Meghan is the Claimant. At any point, she could withdraw her claim. There is little concrete evidence that either side has wanted to settle, but it is very clear that the Defendant, Associated Newspapers Limited, is not afraid of attacking the legal basis for this litigation at every point they can. And so far, they have been successful. If Meghan really wanted to drop this case, she could withdraw her claim. Period. What Meghan cannot do is force Associated Newspapers to settle on terms she deems appropriate. Settlement is a mutual exercise.

Meghan is represented by David Sherborne, an excellent lawyer who has a very strong reputation in media law. He previously acted for Sarah, Duchess of York, in her phone hacking case involving News International, which resulted in a favourable settlement and public apology in Court to the Duchess.

In unrelated litigation, Sarah sued News Group (involving the cash for access News of the World scandal) and it dragged on in the Courts for years and then, suddenly, she withdrew her claim. Nobody knows what the actual result of it was (dropped entirely or settled, it will always be a mystery) - but it is clear evidence that a claimant, be they royal, ex-royal, or otherwise, can discontinue litigation at will.
He is currently representing Johnny Depp, although the press seem more interested in Depp's cross examination. And it will have been her solicitors that hired him. And if I remember rightly she is being represented by Schillings.

I don't know where people get the idea that she is either forced to go to court? This isn't a criminal case taken by the CPS.
Reply With Quote
  #1480  
Old 07-11-2020, 04:44 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,084
I assume that the 'forced to go the court' is because of the feeling that the media have been so vicious and vile, they left Meghan no other choice than to go to court (so forced her mentally if you will)

that said, imo she is undermining her own case by dragging the, seemingly, unrelated stuff into it, i think her case would have been much stronger with a clear topic..
__________________

__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names british royal family buckingham palace canada carolin cht coronavirus cpr duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon elizabeth ii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen louise queen maud resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress settings spain stuart thailand thai royal family videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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