Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[poppy7]

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.

 

[Betsypaige]

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.

 

[Curryong]

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.

 

[Curryong]

Well, Meghan certainly wasn't trying twice to settle with the newspaper group in December. See below.

https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/...trate-duchess-of-sussex-in-court-legal-claims

And in fact I can't find references to her trying to settle elsewhere online though I will keep on looking.

 

[Betsypaige]

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....

 

[Queen Claude]

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.

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.

 

[Lord_Royal]

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.

 

[Jacknch]

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/procedure-rules/civil/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.

 

[poppy7]

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.

 

[Lee-Z]

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..

 

[poppy7]

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.

At his leaving speech to Sentable. In his reported speech to that bank. During his interview in October.

William really doesn't talk about her and when she is mentioned, as in with Mary Berry at Christmas, he emphasises that is role model within the family is really his grandmother. William loves his mother but I think he has always had a clearer eyed vision of her and her relationship with the press. Harry doesn't seem to have been able to deal with quite so rationally.

 

[Pranter]

IIRC William just brought his mother up in a soon to be released documentary....they both reference their mother in speeches and discussions. It's their mother, they should be able to do that without negative commentary.


https://www.insider.com/prince-will...t-brought-back-princess-diana-emotions-2020-5


LaRae

 

[Lumutqueen]

IIRC William just brought his mother up in a soon to be released documentary....they both reference their mother in speeches and discussions. It's their mother, they should be able to do that without negative commentary.


https://www.insider.com/prince-will...t-brought-back-princess-diana-emotions-2020-5


LaRae

Just to say this documentary has aired already, it’s been on BBC1 and repeated on various channels.

 

[poppy7]

IIRC William just brought his mother up in a soon to be released documentary....they both reference their mother in speeches and discussions. It's their mother, they should be able to do that without negative commentary.


https://www.insider.com/prince-will...t-brought-back-princess-diana-emotions-2020-5


LaRae

In that documentary he was particularly asked by a footballer who was a new father whose own parent had left/died when he was young. He wanted to know how William had coped when he became a parent and having lost a parent. William duly obliged and answered. Different situation entirely.

 

[Pranter]

Just to say this documentary has aired already, it’s been on BBC1 and repeated on various channels.

Ah I hadn't seen that it aired yet! Just that it was coming!



LaRae

 

[Pranter]

In that documentary he was particularly asked by a footballer who was a new father whose own parent had left/died when he was young. He wanted to know how William had coped when he became a parent and having lost a parent. William duly obliged and answered. Different situation entirely.

Ah so for it to be okay they have to be asked about it. So nice to know the rules that they are supposed to be using when it comes to discussing how their mother and her death affected their lives. Who knew?



LaRae

 

[Denville]

Ah so for it to be okay they have to be asked about it. So nice to know the rules that they are supposed to be using when it comes to discussing how their mother and her death affected their lives. Who knew?



LaRae

Not sure what this has to do with the court case, but yes, I think that it is better if Will and harry wait till invited to speak about their mother to strangers.

 

[Claire]

Okay - I really think that Harry and Meghan have employed the expertise of reputation advisors. You have to remember that we - the people of this forum are not the target market of their campaign. And yes - I am cringing when I say campaign, but essentially it is what it is.
Meghan was following the advise of her 'advisors' to do this so that there will also be a history that she was vilified by the racist British Press who used her father against her and even escalated when she was pregnant knowing she couldn't defend herself and the palace wouldn't either. This is what people on the internet find when they will see this in years to come - and this is what millennium in American and the third world will see. Bring up Diana, mental health and any perceived vulnerability is part of that and thier target market is eating it up.

It is pretty much the same with everything Meghan and Harry are doing at the moment - they are playing a role for an audience. If they have hired a top notch public figure reputation advisor they really know what they doing and in less then a year we will see that popularity and that public opinion in the US will be amazing. And I think that it is believed that will filter to the same age group back the UK .

 

[Denville]

Okay - I really think that Harry and Meghan have employed the expertise of reputation advisors. You have to remember that we - the people of this forum are not the target market of their campaign. And yes - I am cringing when I say campaign, but essentially it is what it is.
Meghan was following the advise of her 'advisors' to do this so that there will also be a history that she was vilified by the racist British Press who used her father against her and even escalated when she was pregnant knowing she couldn't defend herself and the palace wouldn't either. This is what people on the internet find when they will see this in years to come - and this is what millennium in American and the third world will see. Bring up Diana, mental health and any perceived vulnerability is part of that and thier target market is eating it up.

It is pretty much the same with everything Meghan and Harry are doing at the moment - they are playing a role for an audience. If they have hired a top notch public figure reputation advisor they really know what they doing and in less then a year we will see that popularity and that public opinion in the US will be amazing. And I think that it is believed that will filter to the same age group back the UK .

Do you really think so? They are not getting an easy ride in the British press and while of course they have some supporters, both in the US and in the UK i think that there is a general feeling that they are rather spoilt people who walked out on their job..
I don't think that they will be allowed to bring up this stuff about "Meg not being protected" in court, as its nothing to do with the case. So they'll have to rely on social media to bring it up (as the Brit Press isn't friendly to them)
and many will say "what are they going on about, they tried to introduce all this in the court case and it had nothing to do with the court case."

 

[LadyGlendower]

Okay - I really think that Harry and Meghan have employed the expertise of reputation advisors. You have to remember that we - the people of this forum are not the target market of their campaign. And yes - I am cringing when I say campaign, but essentially it is what it is.
Meghan was following the advise of her 'advisors' to do this so that there will also be a history that she was vilified by the racist British Press who used her father against her and even escalated when she was pregnant knowing she couldn't defend herself and the palace wouldn't either. This is what people on the internet find when they will see this in years to come - and this is what millennium in American and the third world will see. Bring up Diana, mental health and any perceived vulnerability is part of that and thier target market is eating it up.

It is pretty much the same with everything Meghan and Harry are doing at the moment - they are playing a role for an audience. If they have hired a top notch public figure reputation advisor they really know what they doing and in less then a year we will see that popularity and that public opinion in the US will be amazing. And I think that it is believed that will filter to the same age group back the UK .

So far, popularity in the US for the Sussexes seems to be declining and the perception of Meghan as a manipulator is increasing. The millenials in the US seem to be indifferent and any enthusiastic support resides in never say die boomer Diana fans. IMO this lawsuit should have been dropped early on. Now it looks like they may never realize a ROI in either a legal or a PR sense.

 

[DuchessMia]

By what metrics are you basing your assertion that their popularity in the US is declining? The majority of people in the US aren’t concerned about Meghan & Harry. They are here, living their lives like the rest of us. We don’t dislike them. We have no reason to. They’ve done nothing to us to warrant a decline in their popularity. Most don’t understand what she could have done to garner such ill will. Most chalk it up to either racism or xenophobia, and then they go about their day worrying about COVID and the upcoming election.

And to stay on topic, the MoS is trash and has no legal standing to reveal the friends’ names unless they are willing to reveal their palace sources for their stories.

 

[poppy7]

Advisors can be wrong too.

Particularly American advisors who were advising Meghan in the British culture. Well that didn't work. I don't k ow, it depends where this comes to trail. People may have little interest in it at all. But going by the Depp. It's a blow by blow soap opera.

 

[poppy7]

Ah so for it to be okay they have to be asked about it. So nice to know the rules that they are supposed to be using when it comes to discussing how their mother and her death affected their lives. Who knew?



LaRae

Nothing to do with the legal case. But it matters. He doesn't give speeches to banks about it. Bring himself up as 'Diana's boy.' Doesn't mention it in documentaries designed to get him sympathy.

They are two different characters and William appears to have moved past letting it define him or letting it define his concept of himself. Like he says. He lost a parent too young but he wasn't going to let all the love she gave them go to waste and let it destroy him.

Harry is still stuck in that period. Seemingly
Very PTSD.

 

[caethi]

Nothing to do with the legal case. But it matters. He doesn't give speeches to banks about it. Bring himself up as 'Diana's boy.' Doesn't mention it in documentaries designed to get him sympathy.

They are two different characters and William appears to have moved past letting it define him or letting it define his concept of himself. Like he says. He lost a parent too young but he wasn't going to let all the love she gave them go to waste and let it destroy him.

Harry is still stuck in that period. Seemingly
Very PTSD.

I agree. If PTSD is part of what makes Harry tick, recovery is a long road. In Harry's mind, fighting back against the press may help him feel more in control of his life. Of course I have no knowledge whether that is the case. I would think that starting legal proceedings was a step not taken lightly. Aside from challenging the letter publication and protecting Meghan, perhaps on some level Harry is fighting for his own peace of mind. Just speculation.

 

[Eskimo]

I was the one that bought up that Meghan tried to drop the case and the MoS would not let her. I was under the impression that both parties had to agree to drop a case and that is why this was. However, it seems that both parties could not reach agreement on dropping the case for whatever reason and that is why it continues.

This does not change me assertion that at one point both parties wanted out of this case. The fact that an agreement could not be reached does not change that.

 

[Osipi]

The thing is that no one has the right to determine what Harry talks about or doesn't talk about. Its called freedom of expression. When it comes to backing mental health issues, it makes sense to Harry to connect with the issue by talking about his own mental health. He's perfectly free to do so. It can also be determined that speaking out now about something that has laid buried all these years is part of his own healing.

When it comes to reasoning about what is expressed, the only person we can really cross examine is ourselves. ?

In all things, even this legal action, we're on the outside looking in and forming opinions. We opine on what seems to be for us. Makes for good discussions to see things from a variety of different angles. ?

 

[Eskimo]

The thing is that no one has the right to determine what Harry talks about or doesn't talk about. Its called freedom of expression. When it comes to backing mental health issues, it makes sense to Harry to connect with the issue by talking about his own mental health. He's perfectly free to do so. It can also be determined that speaking out now about something that has laid buried all these years is part of his own healing.

When it comes to reasoning about what is expressed, the only person we can really cross examine is ourselves. ?

In all things, even this legal action, we're on the outside looking in and forming opinions. We opine on what seems to be for us. Makes for good discussions to see things from a variety of different angles. ?

That is where we disagree. A member of the BRF does not have the right to talk about anything they want in exchange for the public monies spent on them.

We are in uncharted territory here. Does the fact that H&M deciding not to be working royals give them the right to speak about anything they want? There is no clear cut answer for that and the rules of the game continue to evolve.

 

[Lumutqueen]

That is where we disagree. A member of the BRF does not have the right to talk about anything they want in exchange for the public monies spent on them.

Sorry, but what exactly legally prohibits them from having “the right” to talk about “anything”?

Whilst the BRF stay silent on many things, I don’t even think the apolitical elements of being a member of the RF are enshrined anywhere in “dos and dont’s”.

Also the Sussexes are not having public money spent on them, haven’t since March 2020. Unless you refer to them talking prior to this date of course.

 

[Osipi]

Sorry, but what exactly legally prohibits them from having “the right” to talk about “anything”?

Whilst the BRF stay silent on many things, I don’t even think the apolitical elements of being a member of the RF are enshrined anywhere in “dos and dont’s”.

Also the Sussexes are not having public money spent on them, haven’t since March 2020. Unless you refer to them talking prior to this date of course.

And... even then, the *only* public money directly paid was for their security.

To amplify what "right" one has to determine how to express oneself, a favorite quote of mine that relates to this comes from a man that formulated this belief under a much more "restrictive" existence. Viktor Emil Frankl was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, and a Holocaust survivor, of Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Kaufering and Türkheim.

He writes "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way."

I do believe that this quote applies to Harry as well as to each and every one of us.

 

[poppy7]

I was the one that bought up that Meghan tried to drop the case and the MoS would not let her. I was under the impression that both parties had to agree to drop a case and that is why this was. However, it seems that both parties could not reach agreement on dropping the case for whatever reason and that is why it continues.

This does not change me assertion that at one point both parties wanted out of this case. The fact that an agreement could not be reached does not change that.

The Mail really didn't want out of the case. The case wasn't settled because the mail refused to and probably issue an apology. And Meghan obviously didn't want to withdraw the case.