The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1601  
Old 07-25-2020, 07:27 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,573
That is the style of policy they follow from other monarchies: provide photoshoots, instagram posts, videos. With this they take the wind out of the sails of eventual claims by media that "it is in the public interest too see children of public persons".

In any lawsuit the Judge will see: George to school, George with animals, George at the balcony during the Trooping, George with grandpapa, George with doggie, George with Charlotte and rule that eventual public interest in the private lives of the Cambridge children are more than met, dismissing any justification for infringement of basic European human rights of the Cambridges and the Sussexes on having respect for their private- and family life. Archie is still too young to have George's media record.
__________________

  #1602  
Old 07-25-2020, 09:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick View Post
The more they hide their child away, the more determined the press will be to photograph him and the more valuable those photos will be. Catherine and William are very shrewd in releasing one or two photos of each of their children on their birthdays but not much otherwise. That both satisfies the public appetite and keeps the paps away somewhat. I realise that Harry and Meghan have no obligation now to show their son to the world, but they are either not well advised or are not taking that advice in my opinion.

William and Catherine's children are obviously far more protected than Harry's family and they are generally considered off-limit, even by the British tabloid press.



By leaving the RF and moving to the celebrity capital of the world (LA), Harry has just exposed Archie to greater risk. Lawsuits, albeit justified in this case, won't discourage photographers from trying similar stunts in the future as long as the family remains unprotected.
__________________

  #1603  
Old 07-25-2020, 02:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
It's kind of a catch 22. If you put your children's pictures out there at all you're heavily criticized. Angelina got a lot of flack for selling her newborn's pictures for charity. And if you don't then the paps won't leave you alone.
  #1604  
Old 07-29-2020, 02:08 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,229
Several recent posts have been moved to the General News thread (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...0-a-47411.html). Let's now move on back to the Legal Actions here.
__________________
JACK
  #1605  
Old 07-29-2020, 02:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Has anyone hear this.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/duchess-of-sussex-forced-to-pay-67-000-after-losing-first-round-of-legal-battle-zzn80g0pj
  #1606  
Old 07-29-2020, 03:59 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,877
Most interesting to me was the following sentence: apparently, they are not willing to let the names of the 5 friends become public knowledge. Maybe they've found a way out of this lawsuit:
Quote:
Her bill was revealed as the court heard that forcing her to reveal the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to a US magazine would be “an unacceptable price to pay” for pursuing the legal action against the newspaper.
Source: The Times
  #1607  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:01 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post

Thanks for the link Poppy. Well that is a hefty price to pay. Some have suggested there were no five friends to start with, and that it was all her doing.
But surely the newspaper could reveal who the five friends are.
  #1608  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:08 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,229
Indeed, it is interesting information and a reminder of how costly bringing a court case like this can be - and this is only the preliminary / pre-trial hearings isn't it?
__________________
JACK
  #1609  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Well the lawyer mentioned a surname. Friend B. I am surprised it isn't on twitter. That will leak.
  #1610  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,554
Why does she not want to release the names?
  #1611  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:36 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,797
The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

That said -- I think most have a good idea who some of them are.
  #1612  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:38 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.
If they hadn't talked, the letter would probably never have been revealed (and at least not at that point), so 'little to nothing to do with the lawsuit' sounds a little too generous.
  #1613  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

That said -- I think most have a good idea who some of them are.
The MOS don't want it revealed. Or at least they seem uninterested. The point is over whether their names can be released in the process of the court case. Or whether they will be withheld.
  #1614  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
The friends went to People Mag anonymously. They didn't want the press in their business. Also not sure why they need to be revealed. One of them spoke of the letter, not all 5. So there is a point in asking why MoS wants them revealed so badly when they have little to nothing to do with the lawsuit.

That said -- I think most have a good idea who some of them are.
I have no idea.. but - if they dot want the press in their business, don't go talking to the Press. Dont speak to magazines....
  #1615  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:06 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
If they hadn't talked, the letter would probably never have been revealed (and at least not at that point), so 'little to nothing to do with the lawsuit' sounds a little too generous.
But not all spoke of the letter. Only one. And they didn't tell MoS to print the letter. They did that. That is the violation in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
The MOS don't want it revealed. Or at least they seem uninterested. The point is over whether their names can be released in the process of the court case. Or whether they will be withheld.
They clearly do want them revealed as it is MoS who is pursuing it. They making that very clear. We shall see how it plays out though.
  #1616  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
But not all spoke of the letter. Only one. And they didn't tell MoS to print the letter. They did that. That is the violation in question.



They clearly do want them revealed as it is MoS who is pursuing it. They making that very clear. We shall see how it plays out though.
They don't. She brought it up BUT their names would be released in the normal process of things. So they probably were just waiting for that and now are thinking. Well that will be more stories for us.
  #1617  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
They don't. She brought it up BUT their names would be released in the normal process of things. So they probably were just waiting for that and now are thinking. Well that will be more stories for us.
Is it possible that she will drop the case?
  #1618  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Is it possible that she will drop the case?
I think if this judgement goes against her that she might. I mean I would and use that as an excuse. If they go ahead and release their names, it will be bedlam.
  #1619  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,953
Apparently one attorney on TV just now stated that "in court the accused has the 100% right to face the accuser. This is true on both sides of the case." He assumed that the 5 individuals must present themselves in court to be cross examined under oath on whether or not they were given permission to acknowledge a personal letter written by Meghan to her father. Plus where they got a copy of this personal letter. He also stated that making a copy of a personal handwritten letter before mailing was quite odd, which will probably also be brought up in court. He stated that if he cross-examined Meghan, he would insist on knowing if she made copies of every piece of personal correspondence before mailing and demanded some immediate proof in court. Interesting viewpoint from a legal professor. So many twists and turns. Makes my head hurt.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
  #1620  
Old 07-29-2020, 06:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post
Apparently one attorney on TV just now stated that "in court the accused has the 100% right to face the accuser. This is true on both sides of the case." He assumed that the 5 individuals must present themselves in court to be cross examined under oath on whether or not they were given permission to acknowledge a personal letter written by Meghan to her father. Plus where they got a copy of this personal letter. He also stated that making a copy of a personal handwritten letter before mailing was quite odd, which will probably also be brought up in court. He stated that if he cross-examined Meghan, he would insist on knowing if she made copies of every piece of personal correspondence before mailing and demanded some immediate proof in court. Interesting viewpoint from a legal professor. So many twists and turns. Makes my head hurt.
Law differs between countries but 300 percent if this goes to court, each and everyone of them will be subpoenaed.

And yea all those are things a barrister would ripen into her about.
__________________

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 birth britain britannia british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles charles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness coronation crown jewels duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi hello! highgrove history japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia norway crown princely couple politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward sussex suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×