The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
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: 10,651
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1602  
Old 07-25-2020, 09:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1603  
Old 07-25-2020, 02:54 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 610
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1604  
Old 07-29-2020, 02:08 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,687
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
Reply With Quote
  #1605  
Old 07-29-2020, 02:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
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
Reply With Quote
  #1606  
Old 07-29-2020, 03:59 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,496
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
Reply With Quote
  #1607  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:01 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,137
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1608  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:08 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,687
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
Reply With Quote
  #1609  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:16 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
Well the lawyer mentioned a surname. Friend B. I am surprised it isn't on twitter. That will leak.
Reply With Quote
  #1610  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,484
Why does she not want to release the names?
Reply With Quote
  #1611  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:36 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1612  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:38 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,496
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1613  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1614  
Old 07-29-2020, 04:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,484
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....
Reply With Quote
  #1615  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:06 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1616  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1617  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,484
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?
Reply With Quote
  #1618  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1619  
Old 07-29-2020, 05:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,920
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
Reply With Quote
  #1620  
Old 07-29-2020, 06:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,086
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.
__________________

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
abdication abu dhabi american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen carolin chittagong commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll duke of sussex facts family tree games george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hill history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) 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 serbian royal family snowdon sussex swedish queen taiwan tracts tradition uae customs unsubscribe videos wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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