Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[tommy100]

Seems almost like they are trying to shift the blame onto the "two senior royals" IMO. Not sure why though, advice isn't a command that must be obeyed.

 

[ACO]

I don't think they shifting blame. The Mail on Sunday claimed that staff members of KP also wrote the letter. It is just being explained in detail that it was not true. Meghan wrote it but due to protocols set in place, Jason Knauf included two senior royals in the loop and he basically looked over the letter. They were all aware but it was written by Meghan.

 

[evolvingdoors]

I mentioned that news. I am not seeing how MOS was right since they actually published the letter before Finding Freedom existed. Well over a year in fact. It was already in the public domain due to them. Meghan didn't object to her friend but it was already out there and that still has nothing to do with copyright.

As for the rest of the book they still deny talking or working with them. Nor do that even know what was said by the people they claimed to collaborate with on the book. Stated again in these documents.

Also they claimed members of KP wrote the letter with Meghan. That is not true per these documents either. In fact quite the opposite. What was stated was that Meghan was following protocol, wrote it on the suggestion of senior royals, and Knauf looked over before sending it out. As that is his job.

But you are right we are not lawyers. Curious if the trial will continue come January,.

you must have updated just as I was posting my post.
I think it definitely is going to trial.
This should be strong enough imo for ANL to use to give the Judge reasonable doubt about Meghan and her claims for Privacy. If she approved friends speaking with Omid to clear any misconception, she could have very easily approved her friends talking to People magazine (which can raise the question again of: without the article, would Thomas have given the letter to MoS..)
I don't know, letting other people review a very! private letter (I would never do that!) - so that kills the Privacy part of the lawsuit.
(there is also a part where she says she spoke with senior royals who provided advice but she does not say what the advice is. I'm thinking a letter wasn't the advice.)


Jason helping to write a very personal letter, in anyway, can also take away from the copyright if any parts that he wrote are in the letter she send and those have been in the excerpts that were posted by the MoS.

 

[ACO]

Jason didn't write any part of the letter.

“For the avoidance of doubt neither Mr Knauf (nor anybody else) created any part of the Electronic Draft or the Letter. The Claimant, and the Claimant alone, created the Electronic Draft, which she then transcribed by hand to her father as the Letter.”

This seems to be the new angle to try to state Meghan didn't hold copyright. We shall see how this plays out.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

This is really getting old. Every Tom Dick and Harry and Sallie and Mary sues each other. How about see no evil, hear no evil speak no evil. Put the three monkeys on top of your desk, one holds his eyes shut, the other his ears, the third his mouth. Look at them before you do anything. The Lawyers of course love it, they are getting rich.

 

[Katymcwaity]

Deleted........

 

[AC21091968]

Sorry ACO I think this is bigger news:

Meghan Markle admits giving personal information to the authors of Finding Freedom
In new court documents, the Duchess says she gave her own version of events to someone to be communicated to the authors


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-giving-personal-information-authors-finding/


So, MoS was right... man.
I think she just lost her case.

But i'm not a lawyer, so..


ETA, Jack Royston tweeter account:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329103362239963137

For those who are interested reading in the full Telegraph article that is behind a paywall. I found some screenshots:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Original Tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1329115972771450881

 

[AC21091968]

I know that this article is from The Sun, but if Meghan did mentioned being unprotected by the institution of the Royal Family in her court papers, then this would slightly contradicts the claim that she was given help by Palace staff to write the letter to her father.

Legal documents released as part of Meghan's High Court privacy battle with the publishers of the Mail on Sunday also revealed deep divisions between the Sussex's and the Royal Family over the couple's roles.

Meghan claims she was "unprotected by the institution" of the Royal Family while she was pregnant and left unable to defend herself against alleged press intrusion.

The documents state she was unable to carry out paid work, while other royals such as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were allowed to do so.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12004826/meghan-markle-beatrice-eugenie-paid-work/

In other words, Meghan wasn't fully "hang out to dry". Yes, you can argue that there are some individual palace staffs who did reach out and give advice, but that does not mean the overall Royal Family institution supported her. Nevertheless, it would not surprised me if there are members of the royal family who are not happy with Meghan dragging their Firm and palace staff into court papers. And don't get me started with Meghan pushing Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie and Prince Michael of Kent under the bus.

Links to the claim that Meghan had help from staff in writing the letter to her father that are not from The Sun, The Express, The Mail and The Mirror:
https://www.tatler.com/article/megh...s-markle-letter-privacy-battle-mail-on-sunday
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...yal-aides-to-write-letter-to-father-6tw9pdmdm
https://news.sky.com/story/duchess-...tter-to-father-court-documents-claim-12134762

 

[Curryong]

Meghan's court papers state that KP staff contributed suggestions and ideas, presumably to help. They don't say that Knauf or anybody else drafted the letter for her or the she showed the completed letter to anybody but Harry and Jason Knauf.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

Really why would Meghan need help to write a letter to her father? She Meghan is NOT a dumb person ,so she don't need the input from anyone who worked for her.

 

[AC21091968]

Victoria Murphy has written on Town & Country Magazine that according to Court documents, Meghan "allowed a friend" to tell Omid Scobie and/or Caroline Durand about the existence of the letter to Thomas Markle. I think Victoria Murphy picked this up from the Telegraph article, but then stated that Town & Country has seen the court document.

Meghan Markle Allowed Friend to Tell 'Finding Freedom' Authors a Letter to Her Father Existed, Documents Show
The Duchess is suing Associated Newspapers Limited for the alleged breach of privacy, infringement of copyright, and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 after it published extracts from a letter she wrote to her father
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...kle-finding-freedom-father-letter-permission/

 

[tommy100]

The whole thing gets murkier and murkier by the day. I do wonder if it occurs to Meghan and Harry that if they had let this go none of these revelations would have come out and the letter probably would have been forgotten by most people by now.

 

[yukari]

This is the excerpt of M’s court papers as shared on Jack Royston’s twitter as posted by evolvingdoors upthread (post #1858).

5. As stated at paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 above, neither the Claimant nor her husband co-operated with the authors to put out “their version of events” by means of the Book, nor did they meet with the authors, nor were they interviewed for the purpose of the Book, whether formally or informally. The Claimant was concerned that her father’s narrative in the media that she had abandoned him and had not even tried to contact him (which was false) would be repeated, when in fact she had tried to call him, and text him, and had even written a letter to him to try to persuade him to stop dealing with the media; and he had written back to her. Accordingly, she indicated to a person whom she knew had already been approached by the authors that the true position as above (which that person and several others who knew the Claimant already knew) could be communicated to the authors to prevent any further misrepresentation. She does not know what extent or in what terms this one item of information concerning her communication with her father was shared with the authors.

Then on different snapshot (from Jack Royston’s twitter):

2. Given the Claimant’s level of distress surrounding the form, frequency and content of the media coverage concerning her father, and as the newest member of the Royal Family who wanted to follow protocol, the Claimant sought advice from two senior members of the Royal Family on how best to address the situation.

3. In accordance with the advice that she had received from the two members of the Royal Family, the Claimant decided (in about the first week of August 2018) to write a private letter to her father in an attempt to get him to stop talking to the press.

4. Once it had been decided that the Claimant would write to her father, the Claimant informed Mr Knauf. Mr Knauf was not only a trusted advisor, who had spoken to the Claimant’s father repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the wedding, and was aware of the state of his health, but was also responsible for reporting (as was required by palace protocol) the fact that the Claimant was going to write to her father to more senior people in the Royal household, all of whom had to be kept appraised of any public-facing issues (the media spectacle surrounding Mr Markle being one such issue).

And another one from Victoria Murphy on T&C as posted by AC21091968 (post #1871) and quoted in post #1894 by ACO previously:

“Once it had been decided that the Claimant would write to her father, the Claimant informed Mr Knauf. Mr Knauf was not only a trusted advisor, who had spoken to the Claimant’s father repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the wedding, and was aware of the state of his health, but he was also responsible for reporting (as was required by palace protocol) the fact that the Claimant was going to write to her father to more senior people in the Royal households, all of whom had to be kept apprised of any public-facing issues (the media spectacle surrounding Mr Markle being one such issue),” the filing reads.

It continues, saying that Meghan “shared a draft of that Draft with her husband and Mr Knauf for support, as this was a deeply painful process that they lived through with her” but that, while Mr Knauf provided feedback, he did not provide “actual wording” as “this was a personal letter from father to daughter.”

“For the avoidance of doubt neither Mr Knauf (nor anybody else) created any part of the Electronic Draft or the Letter. The Claimant, and the Claimant alone, created the Electronic Draft, which she then transcribed by hand to her father as the Letter.”

My take: some time in summer 2018 Meghan approached two senior royals for advice (my guess on Charles and Camilla, since the Cambridges were most likely in Anmer or in Mustique). Whatever the advice was, she then decided (in about the first week of August 2018) to write a letter and once the draft was done, she showed it to Harry and Jason – whom as Communications Secretary, supposedly it’s his job to check incoming and outgoing letters thus his ‘feedback’ would be something more within working capacity, not the content itself. Therefore, this letter is Meghan’s and Meghan’s alone (copyright wise).

Problem is as stated in point 5 above, she’s aware and knew that her friends talked (hence she shared this letter or part of it to her friends) and further, their involvements in a book that would be published in near future. Although I’m not really sure how this will come into play.

 

[yukari]

Katie Nicholl also wrote an article about the Judge's ruling in Vanity Vair:
Meghan Markle Probably Won’t Have to Face Her Father In Court After All

This is the link to the document if you're interested:
Sussex -v Associated judgment - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

12. Ms Hartley describes Mr Markle as “an important witness”. I had wondered quite how important Mr Markle’s evidence really was to the defence case. It was not immediately obvious to me why he was considered to be important. Mr White QC accepted, in the course of his submissions, that any impression the public might have gained, from earlier reporting about this case, that it involves in substance a family battle between a daughter and her father would be inaccurate. He gave two main reasons why Mr Markle’s evidence matters. First, he said that the claimant had chosen to plead that a number of the allegations in the articles, reflecting Mr Markle’s version of events, are false. In addition, submits Mr White, Mr Markle’s Article 10 rights require consideration, so that “his reasons for bringing the Letter to the paper and seeking to have it published” are of importance. It seems that the defendant’s position is that Mr Markle’s reaction to the People article, the inferences he drew, and his feelings about these matters, are relevant to an assessment of the Article 10/Article 8 balance.

13. This second strand of reasoning will need some further thought at some stage in this case. The defendant has argued, successfully, that its own state of mind and motives are wholly irrelevant to liability and damages for misuse of private information, the tests being objective. Although the defendant’s motives for reproducing the Letter have been identified as a topic for disclosure, that is in relation to the fair dealing defence only. It is not immediately obvious how Mr Markle’s thoughts and feelings come into play.

14. At any rate, Mr Markle’s subjective thoughts and feelings do seem to be, on any objective view, a relatively minor aspect of the case overall. It is not suggested that Mr Markle’s evidence on those topics is an essential component of the defence case. More importantly, as Mr Mill QC has observed, there is no suggestion that Mr Markle would not be available to give evidence later next year. There is, in particular, no medical evidence suggesting that a delay would make his availability less likely. And the defendant accepts that it has a signed statement from Mr Markle. There is, I would add, no apparent impediment to the defendant taking a deposition or other form of independently recorded statement from Mr Markle in advance of the revised trial date, or to his giving evidence by video-link if not well enough to travel.

 

[muriel]

The whole thing gets murkier and murkier by the day. I do wonder if it occurs to Meghan and Harry that if they had let this go none of these revelations would have come out and the letter probably would have been forgotten by most people by now.

I have to agree with you. It just appears that a panoply of bad decisions have brought this couple to where they are!

 

[muriel]

Really why would Meghan need help to write a letter to her father? She Meghan is NOT a dumb person ,so she don't need the input from anyone who worked for her.

To me, this is not about "Meghan is NOT a dumb person" this is about exercising judgement judiciously, or not.

 

[Osipi]

To me, this is not about "Meghan is NOT a dumb person" this is about exercising judgement judiciously, or not.

I agree with you on this. If you're going to hang your underwear out to dry in the backyard, expect the neighbors to see all the holes in them.

They would have been far better off to never have started this mess in the first place.

 

[muriel]

They would have been far better off to never have started this mess in the first place.

I think a fair few of us had voiced that opinion at the time.

 

[yukari]

I agree with you on this. If you're going to hang your underwear out to dry in the backyard, expect the neighbors to see all the holes in them.

They would have been far better off to never have started this mess in the first place.

Or at the very least, if she had just stuck to copyright issue (without the "palace didn't support me" or dragging other royals into the mix), things wouldn't turn this bad.

I mean, sure her friends talked to People, but it's basically just hearsay. It's not the case with the MoS; they have the original letter, "copied" some part of it, and then printed it.

If I wrote a book, told my friend about it during one of our girls night and through them some of the plotline appeared in someone's blog, it would be hard for me to sue the blog owner. But if that blog owner had my unpublished manuscript and posted it in their blog without my consent then, copyright wise, it would be entirely different case.

The MoS goaded her with "because the public has rights to know" and she took their bait thinking she could use it to garner public sympathy with her "victim narrative" and so on and on.
What's with "this is a letter from a daughter to her father, why public needs to be privy about it? I marry a prince but I'm not a future queen so sod off, please"?

Now it really turns into circus ...

 

[Hallo girl]

I think a fair few of us had voiced that opinion at the time.

Maybe now people will appreciate why the royals in the most part follow the " never complain never explain ". guideline.

IMO a great deal if this mess is down to Meghan not being properly prepared or briefed if you want to put it that way in how the RF operate.
That is not her fault but IMO it is Harry, he knows how the family work all the rules , the protocol, who can earn money etc etc.
He is wealthy in his own right , doesnt need to earn money and to see in writing that Meghan is complaining that other family members can earn money but they couldn't is frankly embarrassing.
Or maybe it was their desire to not follow royal advisors that they then brought in PR machines etc who did not appreciate how the royals do things.
It is all a mess.

 

[muriel]

IMO a great deal if this mess is down to Meghan not being properly prepared or briefed if you want to put it that way in how the RF operate.
That is not her fault but IMO it is Harry, he knows how the family work all the rules , the protocol, who can earn money etc etc.

I have to disagree. My own gut instinct is that it was not about Meghan not being briefed by the Palace, it was just that she was not willing to listen to what the Palace or other family members were telling her.

I think you had the ingredients in place for the perfect storm:

> Harry was probably not particularly secure in his relationship with Meghan and wanted it to last, come what may

> Harry had insecurities of his own about the media, and the feeling they were out to get him. Not helped by Diana's difficult relationship with the media, the circumstances of his unfortunate death and the phone hacking scandal amongst others.

> The loose family / KP structure where H&M were not kept on a very tight leash from the beginning, and were free to define their work roles in the way that they wanted to

> Add in Meghan probably misunderstanding their social media following as being support for her personally rather than the institution

> Her unwillingness to let go of her North America / Hollywood advisory team, including new friendships with the likes of Oprah, who Meghan probably thought of as a role model for developing a "compassionate brand" that could be successfully monetised for personal gain

> Harry's inability to stand up to her and convince her of what can and cannot be done in the context of the role of the second son of the PoW and his wife, i.e. primarily a supporting role rather than a starring one.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Jason didn't write any part of the letter.

“For the avoidance of doubt neither Mr Knauf (nor anybody else) created any part of the Electronic Draft or the Letter. The Claimant, and the Claimant alone, created the Electronic Draft, which she then transcribed by hand to her father as the Letter.”

This seems to be the new angle to try to state Meghan didn't hold copyright. We shall see how this plays out.

Meghan has also proved she has no problems lying and twisting the truth to fir her needs, she literally lied to the court in September! saying she had no hand in FF but now we find out she gave permission to her friends to speak to Omid for the book.

So until Jason says what help exactly he gave, I don't believe her narrative, because she is has proven to be unreliable in her presentation of the truth.

Really why would Meghan need help to write a letter to her father? She Meghan is NOT a dumb person ,so she don't need the input from anyone who worked for her.

Dumb? well.. maybe not. But she obviously did need input because she sought it out.

Meghan fans need to decide: is Meghan a victim or a strong woman? i'm getting whiplash.

Maybe now people will appreciate why the royals in the most part follow the " never complain never explain ". guideline.

IMO a great deal if this mess is down to Meghan not being properly prepared or briefed if you want to put it that way in how the RF operate.
That is not her fault but IMO it is Harry, he knows how the family work all the rules , the protocol, who can earn money etc etc.
He is wealthy in his own right , doesnt need to earn money and to see in writing that Meghan is complaining that other family members can earn money but they couldn't is frankly embarrassing.
Or maybe it was their desire to not follow royal advisors that they then brought in PR machines etc who did not appreciate how the royals do things.
It is all a mess.

Do people who aren't the sussex squad seriously think the royal family would not have put her through lessons on protocol and the proper way to be right from the get go?
They literally contacted her after her photo op with the H&M necklace and said, we recommend to try and not draw too much attention, let it ride out.

She was 36 when she said yes and married in, not a naive 19 year old!! If she didn't bother doing her HW while they were still dating that's on her!

 

[Denville]

Doesn't this kind of show that Meghan never intended to stay as a full time royal and so thought that whatever rules there were or what advice her Palace staff gave her, the rules and guidance didn't necessarily apply to her..

 

[Heavs]

Even in FF Scobie contradicted the "Meghan wasn't supported by the institution" narrative by saying that Royal aides did provide advice (like don't wear jewellery because it baits the paps) but that they ignored it.

I suspect that they were offered a lot of advice but it wasn't what they wanted to hear so they ignored it and went their own way (Tom Bradby etc), saying to themselves that the palace were conservative fuddy duddies who didn't understand.

There also does seem to have been a culture clash in that again royal aides aren't there to be your Hollywood team of publicists, agents, managers etc. And the ladies of the BRF aren't necessarily going to be like the group she had in LA/Toronto and at her baby shower ready to run to the press on her behalf. They've all been through this drama themselves and handle it differently in the "never complain, never explain" model.

They believed their own hype and chafed at being considered 2nd priority, even though they were given important jobs and patronages.

The palace possibly could have handled things a bit differently and they are set in their ways.

 

[Hallo girl]

Do people who aren't the sussex squad seriously think the royal family would not have put her through lessons on protocol and the proper way to be right from the get go?
They literally contacted her after her photo op with the H&M necklace and said, we recommend to try and not draw too much attention, let it ride out.

She was 36 when she said yes and married in, not a naive 19 year old!! If she didn't bother doing her HW while they were still dating that's on her!

I am not saying they did not try and help her , I am sure they did, and probably because she was that bit older and had a career that she had total control over, she thought she knew better.
I still think Harry needed to take responsibility to ensure she fully understood what she was getting into. Meghan came in with a plan in her mind, not realising that what she wanted was different to the reality.

I am not sure if your Sussex Squad reference is directed at me , if it is please do not make assumptions.

 

[AC21091968]

I'm not quite sure where to put this post. Prince Harry became paranoid & suspicious of friends from the phone hacking scandals according to The Times. He is also claiming damages of more than £200,000.

Phone hacking stories left Prince Harry paranoid and suspicious
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...rince-harry-paranoid-and-suspicious-rqr879b0n

 

[Curryong]

I'm not quite sure where to put this post. Prince Harry became paranoid & suspicious of friends from the phone hacking scandals according to The Times. He is also claiming damages of more than £200,000.

Phone hacking stories left Prince Harry paranoid and suspicious
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...rince-harry-paranoid-and-suspicious-rqr879b0n

I remember newspapers at the time reporting that BOTH Princes were left with suspicions of friends and other contacts, and they planted false rumours with various friends in order to see whether these would be repeated in the Press.

Anybody would be suspicious if some plans and socialising with their friends was accurately being reported in tabloids. It just shows what the editors of these rags were and are capable of and how low they were and still are prepared to go.

 

[cathy50]

When Donald is gone the US an still rely on the Sussex couple to get one surprise after another ��
They both seem to need a lot of advice and not try lecturing others about how to live their lives, I sometimes feel so old when reading all this nonsense about these two spoiled childish brats.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Dumb move about the third party. Giving the go ahead to talk to Scobie and not clarifying is bad optics. It still doesn't let the tabloids off the hook or the royals. They were wrong. Now Dad is not being required to testify; testimony is viewed as unimportant.

 

[Hallo girl]

Dumb move about the third party. Giving the go ahead to talk to Scobie and not clarifying is bad optics. It still doesn't let the tabloids off the hook or the royals. They were wrong. Now Dad is not being required to testify; testimony is viewed as unimportant.

Not just bad optics. It also reflects on Scobie.
His response to questions 're their involvement in the book was always carefully worded which in itself was always questionable. So he was economical with the truth.

IMO it also draws into question how even handed the comments 're the royals and the courtiers are , who provided the detail etc.