Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Curryong]

It is purely a copyright issue in spite of the newspaper group lawyers muddying the waters with stuff about FF and Thomas Markle's statement about hurt feelings 'forcing' him to hand over his daughter's letter to a Sunday tabloid.

The main thing I got from yesterday's proceedings, apart from Mr Markle's motivations, was that, in spite of the 'Palace four's' assertions that they don't wish to take sides, (and personally I have doubts about at least one of them) someone senior in the Royal Household saw fit to have regular communications with the editor of a Sunday tabloid.

Whatever he/she thought of Meghan these actions speak volumes to me about the supposed loyalty and discretion of some in the RH/KP towards both their employers and the position he/she/they held or hold.

 

[yukari]

It is purely a copyright issue in spite of the newspaper group lawyers muddying the waters with stuff about FF and Thomas Markle's statement about hurt feelings 'forcing' him to hand over his daughter's letter to a Sunday tabloid.

The main thing I got from yesterday's proceedings, apart from Mr Markle's motivations, was that, in spite of the 'Palace four's' assertions that they don't wish to take sides, (and personally I have doubts about at least one of them) someone senior in the Royal Household saw fit to have regular communications with the editor of a Sunday tabloid.

Whatever he/she thought of Meghan these actions speak volumes to me about the supposed loyalty and discretion of some in the RH/KP towards both their employers and the position he/she/they held or hold.

To be fair, both sides have a hand in muddying the case. Meghan's legal team is not completely clean either (what with bringing the "no support" and later admitted of receiving advice, dragging unrelated other non-working royals, leaking info to certain reporters).

And royal staff selling out their employers to tabloid (or stealing stuff like the recent theft few months ago) happens way before Meghan join BRF, it's not new. I remember watching an old documentary on youtube about this so called staff loyalty some years ago.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I know, I am not shocked at the behaviour of some aides, and many staff have over the years planted stories in the tabloids on their employers' behalf over the years as well.

However, according to the SM editor this person held a senior position in the Royal Household, higher than the drones who inhabit lesser positions, and would be someone who you would hope would be beyond taking regular calls from the editors of notorious tabloids and spilling the beans in a malicious stream.

Many didn't believe the assertions made by Lacey in his book that several in the more senior ranks in the Household were gunning for Meghan from the beginning and to me this evidence from yesterday confirms it.

 

[evolvingdoors]

I could be wrong, but I think @evolvingdoors was talking about how Meghan said that she didn't have anything to do with Finding Freedom, but she eventually admitted that she gave private information to the authors via a third party.

as well as others points that have been mentioned by others, such as claiming she wrote the letter herself, but now we find out others assisted in it. etc.

I think the mistake Meghan made was not naming her father in the suit. Markle was not forced to give that letter to the Mail. He gave it to the paper of his own free will and I see no evidence of extortion. Meghan tried to say Markle was manipulated by the press but the judge didn't buy it. If this goes to trial she may have no choice but to go after him.

That was the only smart thing she did, not naming her father. If she had gone after him it would have turned into an even major **** show, and in today covid it would have looked very bad, especially if he would have suddenly died from the stress.
If she now goes after him after all this time, and what has been (ie her changing her story, FF, and others helping in writing the letter that is now obvious was meant to be seen by the public) she may just finally seal her faith in hollywood as persona non grata.

I don't think suing her father over the letter was what she wanted. It wasn't even about this letter. And I don't think it would have gone over very well with the public that she wrote a letter to her Dad and then sued him when he gave it to the MoS. Which he clearly did of his own free will as well as talking to many other outlets.

What she/they really wanted was to go after the tabloid press in general and try and make this a trial of their time in the UK, which we can see from how they tried to hang a lot of other things on it and the judge didn't go for it at all and the waters got muddier and muddier with the Scobie "revelations".

They used this one as the starting point for all that because they were probably advised this was the clearest case they had a chance of winning because copywrite is supposedly not he said/she said which this turned into anyway -which they still might win I suppose.

I think the win depends on whether the judge decides aides assisting in writing the letter means they own a piece of the copyright.. and if they do whether they are okay with the lawsuit.

 

[soapstar]

A few posts have been deleted. Let’s stick to the facts presented so far in the case and not get into rumors. Thanks.

 

[Madame Verseau]

I read Thomas Markle's witness statement. He called up the Mail and turned over the complete letter to the paper and told them to print excerpts. So much for being a victim of the media as Meghan claimed in court; this negates that belief. And Dad claims in the witness statement he was not paid for the letter. I find that hard to believe considering he was paid for Pap-gate and the Channel 5 "documentary". Dad better pray there is no proof to the contrary because that's blowing up credibility again and committing perjury, if that's the right legal term.

 

[evolvingdoors]

I read Thomas Markle's witness statement. He called up the Mail and turned over the complete letter to the paper and told them to print excerpts. So much for being a victim of the media as Meghan claimed in court; this negates that belief. And Dad claims in the witness statement he was not paid for the letter. I find that hard to believe considering he was paid for Pap-gate and the Channel 5 "documentary". Dad better pray there is no proof to the contrary because that's blowing up credibility again and committing perjury, if that's the right legal term.

Actually one does not cancel the other. He could also be a victim of the media- falling pray because he wasn't protected as he should have, and provided the letter on his own accord when his own daughter friends went on to attack him in an international publication.


So far the only ones who seem to have provided false statements are Meghan and potentially Omid. I highly doubt ANL lawyers would risk any aspect of Thomas statement being false.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

Hope everyone can keep their lies in check. This is a he said, she said, it said. If one don't want to be called a liar down the road don't write, or record anything, sit down with the person and actually talk, you know words coming out of your mouth, don't have so called friends do you job. This is really getting stale and extreme and leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. It only shows how DISFUNCTIONAL they all are. Say sorry and put this mess to bed already and go on with their lives, Amen.

 

[Hallo girl]

Hope everyone can keep their lies in check. This is a he said, she said, it said. If one don't want to be called a liar down the road don't write, or record anything, sit down with the person and actually talk, you know words coming out of your mouth, don't have so called friends do you job. This is really getting stale and extreme and leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. It only shows how DISFUNCTIONAL they all are. Say sorry and put this mess to bed already and go on with their lives, Amen.

So true, nobody wins with all this, oh technically one party will win the case but the outcome is a no win. Careers, characters, reputations all put under the spotlight from both sides.

Do any of you think that this could have been avoided if the families had all met up before the engagement announcement.
I do feel sorry for Thomas Markle he was living away quietly when his world caved in. He was door stepped by the press, followed, and yes he made mistakes and accepted money but the press probably convinced him that one story and they would all go away. He probably didn't realise for one minute what was going to happen until it was too late.
I do believe more should have and could have been done to support him. Maybe a personal visit rather than text and phone calls would have worked better. Only my opinion of course.

 

[Denville]

So true, nobody wins with all this, oh technically one party will win the case but the outcome is a no win. Careers, characters, reputations all put under the spotlight from both sides.

Do any of you think that this could have been avoided if the families had all met up before the engagement announcement.
I do feel sorry for Thomas Markle he was living away quietly when his world caved in. He was door stepped by the press, followed, and yes he made mistakes and accepted money but the press probably convinced him that one story and they would all go away. He probably didn't realise for one minute what was going to happen until it was too late.
I do believe more should have and could have been done to support him. Maybe a personal visit rather than text and phone calls would have worked better. Only my opinion of course.

I think Meghan should certianly have visited him.. rahter than expected him to cope alone with the press and to arrange his coming to her wedding all at long distnace.. having said that, He doesn't seem a very stable man, and it seems like for whatever reasons, he and Meghan soon ended up at odds with each other .. and its hard to resist the conclusion that he wanted money... Perhaps he thought that his daughter marrying royalty would mean that she'd set him up with a comfortalble income and it didn't materialise.. but I think its definitely a case where boht are at fault.. Thomas more than her...

 

[Lori138]

I read Thomas Markle's witness statement. He called up the Mail and turned over the complete letter to the paper and told them to print excerpts. So much for being a victim of the media as Meghan claimed in court; this negates that belief. And Dad claims in the witness statement he was not paid for the letter. I find that hard to believe considering he was paid for Pap-gate and the Channel 5 "documentary". Dad better pray there is no proof to the contrary because that's blowing up credibility again and committing perjury, if that's the right legal term.

This is the part that I don't understand. How could privacy have been invaded if the recipient of the letter was the one that gave it to the press? The recipient is ultimately the owner of said letter IMO and if he chose to make it public, so be it.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

This is the part that I don't understand. How could privacy have been invaded if the recipient of the letter was the one that gave it to the press? The recipient is ultimately the owner of said letter IMO and if he chose to make it public, so be it.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.

The recipient of the letter is the owner of the physical piece of paper on which the letter is written. The author is the owner of the words.

 

[Madame Verseau]

No. Thomas Markle does not get a pass. If there are calls for accountability Markle goes to the front of the line. He chose to escalate this mess by going to the media three years ago to get at Meghan and he used Archie as emotional blackmail in the press to try to force a conversation. Complaints about not seeing Archie were in earlier filings. The baby should have been left out of this PERIOD. Markle's willingness to weaponize an infant grandson - while apparently showing no interest in the five other adult grandchildren - is beyond the pale. This does not shoe a wayward man. No sympathy no as Markle currently tries to shop around a "documentary" about Meghan that he is involved.

 

[TLLK]

This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.

The recipient of the letter is the owner of the physical piece of paper on which the letter is written. The author is the owner of the words.

However we have recently learned that there more authors/contributers owners of the words than was previously presented. I believe that this is the crux of the argument the MoS has presented to Justice Warby.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Meghan is not obligated to pay Markle's bills unless it's court ordered. And if he only sees Harry as an ATM machine I would say would fracture any relationship.

I would like to see the whole letter Meghan submitted to the High Court unredacted and made public. I have a feeling the excerpts that were not published put Markle in a bad light.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

However we have recently learned that there more authors/contributers owners of the words than was previously presented. I believe that this is the crux of the argument the MoS has presented to Justice Warby.

Oh, certainly. This is one of many arguments being raised.

I was responding to a poster who said that, in her opinion, Thomas Markle owned the contents of the letter because he was the recipient. Whether a person who receives a letter becomes the owner of the content under UK law is not a matter of opinion.

 

[TLLK]

Oh, certainly. This is one of many arguments being raised.

I was responding to a poster who said that, in her opinion, Thomas Markle owned the contents of the letter because he was the recipient. Whether a person who receives a letter becomes the owner of the content under UK law is not a matter of opinion.

Thank you for your reply.? Now I understand your comment.

 

[Curryong]

Reading the extracts of the letter to Thomas Markle which have already been published by this tabloid is bad enough, without the complete text, which would almost certainly continue similar sentiments and appeals by Meghan. And the faux sympathy shown by the MoS/DM in articles like that below is truly sickening.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-true-tragedy-Meghan-Markles-rift-father.html

In what universe can a newspaper claim that this letter's publication for the public to peruse is 'in the public interest' ? Apart from their own muckraking and the promotion of more attacks on Meghan as a public figure, for profit of course.

 

[Queen Claude]

Hope everyone can keep their lies in check.

This should be the tagline for this entire matter. ?

 

[RJC]

I don't particularly like the extended Markle family and the way they've tried to gain publicity and make money from this whole scenario. I don't think I'll ever understand though why Meghan wouldn't pick up the phone and speak directly to her father or need 'help' to write a letter to him. But I understand that's not the point of this legal action.

 

[AC21091968]

I think the debate between freedom of press v.s. privacy laws has definitely re-surfaced. And it's going to be more rigorous and controversial if there are more court cases between the press and (mostly) public figures. There has already been multiple debates on press freedom in both House of Commons and House of Lords.

Had this been a local newspaper or small publishing website (in the UK) releasing Meghan's letter, it would have been very different. I don't think there would even be a court case, because it would make Meghan look terrible as the person who ruined the business of a relatively small news publication both financially and in terms of reputation.

But because the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday has the highest circulation in 2020 and previous public figures have taken legal actions against them, there is more possibility for Harry & Meghan to sue them. For a non-subscription publication, The Mail (excluding Mail+) itself has been doing quite well for the past couple of years (not just COVID-19 lockdown period) compared to other news publication (i.e. Guardian, Buzzfeed, Huffington Post or even Daily Mirror)

UK national newspaper ABCs: Mail on Sunday reports smallest circulation decline in 2020
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures

I'm still undecided on the court case looking through both sides.

 

[Hallo girl]

No. Thomas Markle does not get a pass. If there are calls for accountability Markle goes to the front of the line. He chose to escalate this mess by going to the media three years ago to get at Meghan and he used Archie as emotional blackmail in the press to try to force a conversation. Complaints about not seeing Archie were in earlier filings. The baby should have been left out of this PERIOD. Markle's willingness to weaponize an infant grandson - while apparently showing no interest in the five other adult grandchildren - is beyond the pale. This does not shoe a wayward man. No sympathy no as Markle currently tries to shop around a "documentary" about Meghan that he is involved.

I agree Thomas Markle has made mistakes, some of them public mistakes, probably mistakes that there will be no going back from. I just wonder about the chicken and the egg, did the mistakes come first or did he make the mistakes because of how he perceived he was being treated. The truth is none of us actually know, we all have our own opinions, and maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I just see a man that was getting on with his life in a quiet fashion, who was suddenly in the middle of a media fire storm and probably thought he could handle it but didn't. I watched a documentary and he was being door stepped by the press, followed everywhere he went, even followed in to the grocery store making notes of what he was buying.
He didn't do anything to deserve that.
I also wonder if some of these errors he made with the media was out of desperation.
He has lost contact with his daughter, never met his son in law and will probably never see his grandson. I think he has been punished enough without us all throwing in our opinions on a man we do not know.

 

[Denville]

I don't particularly like the extended Markle family and the way they've tried to gain publicity and make money from this whole scenario. I don't think I'll ever understand though why Meghan wouldn't pick up the phone and speak directly to her father or need 'help' to write a letter to him. But I understand that's not the point of this legal action.

Unless T Markle was refusing to take her calls I agree...

 

[RandyDrx]

I agree Thomas Markle has made mistakes, some of them public mistakes, probably mistakes that there will be no going back from. I just wonder about the chicken and the egg, did the mistakes come first or did he make the mistakes because of how he perceived he was being treated. The truth is none of us actually know, we all have our own opinions, and maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I just see a man that was getting on with his life in a quiet fashion, who was suddenly in the middle of a media fire storm and probably thought he could handle it but didn't. I watched a documentary and he was being door stepped by the press, followed everywhere he went, even followed in to the grocery store making notes of what he was buying.
He didn't do anything to deserve that.
I also wonder if some of these errors he made with the media was out of desperation.
He has lost contact with his daughter, never met his son in law and will probably never see his grandson. I think he has been punished enough without us all throwing in our opinions on a man we do not know.

That really reminds me of Kate in 2007, when she had cameras shoved in front of her face. Do you remember which documentary that you watched?

 

[Alison H]

It's not what the case is about, but I think it must have been incredibly difficult for him. TV shows, sports clubs, etc, give up and coming stars training on how to deal with the media, and they've also got the whole organisation behind them. Individuals have got no-one. And it's very unusual for anyone to get married without meeting their partner's dad beforehand, unless there are serious constraints of time and money, or they're already estranged, which didn't apply in this case. I think he probably was desperate. He's handled things badly, but someone should have been advising him, and Harry and Meghan should have seen to that.

 

[Queen Claude]

I don't know exactly when it happened, but it was reported that someone was supposed to work with Thomas Markle but he refused the offer / did not allow access. We now know that Thomas and Harry never met, and in retrospect, it may have possibly helped things if it a face-to-face visit between Meghan, Harry and Thomas been arranged either before or shortly after the engagement. Perhaps if a rapport had been built, Thomas would have been more amenable to getting the "help" he was being offered. I will add this in, I do think that Thomas is set in his ways which would have required Harry and Meghan to do things on his terms, e.g., meet up in LA, Rosarito or somewhere in between.

My recollection, from the point when the story broke that Harry and Meghan were dating, Thomas was quietly living in Rosarito and when the engagement was announced he and Doria issued a joint statement, and in between Meghan posted a picture on Instagram of the three of them having Thanksgiving dinner together. All that to say is that while it is not hard for me to believe that Thomas was/is a challenging person to deal with, a considerable amount of time elapsed between when he came under scrutiny when the story broke that Meghan and Harry were dating (Fall 2016) to the point he went rogue and participated in the staged photos (Spring 2018), which when it got exposed shortly before the wedding (May 2018), set off a chain of events culminating in estrangement and a lawsuit.

 

[Denville]

Who was supposed to hlep him? Someone from BP? Someone hired by Harry or Meghan? Is there evidence that he refused the help?

 

[Curryong]

In the article below it states that the Telegraph's Royal Correspondent wrote through a source (presumably within KP) that Kensington Palace is 'continuing to help and support Mr Markle' in his experiences with the British media.

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/kensington-palace-support-thomas-markle/

Meghan and Harry's emails etc which have become public since the court battle, support the contention that they both kept on advising him to not speak to the media right up to the eve of the wedding, and the article above also states that the Sussex team at KP wrote to the tabloid editors asking that they leave Thomas alone.

And, after Jonny Dymond criticised KP....

.@BBCNews understands but is unable to confirm that @KensingtonRoyal, the office and residence of Prince Harry, did offer assistance to Thomas Markle in the months running up to #RoyalWedding2018

— Jonny Dymond (@JonnyDymond) May 17, 2018

 

[TLLK]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55888361

The Duke of Sussex has accepted an apology and "substantial damages" from the publishers of the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online over claims he "turned his back" on the Royal Marines.


Two articles alleged Prince Harry had not been in touch with the Marines after stepping down as a senior royal.


In a statement to the High Court, a lawyer for Harry called the allegation "baseless, false and defamatory".


He will donate the damages to the Invictus Games Foundation, she said.


Harry sued Associated Newspapers for libel over two "almost identical" articles published in the newspaper and online last October.


They claimed he had "not been in touch by phone, letter nor email since his last appearance as an honorary Marine" in March.


The prince's lawyer told the court that Harry had in fact made "repeated and concerted efforts" to support the Royal Marines and other parts of the armed services - even though he had been forced to step back from his ceremonial roles.

This article shares the amount that Prince Harry was awarded.


https://www.newsweek.com/prince-har...ticisms-ordered-pay-mail-sunday-costs-1565800

The judge also said the prince's lawyers had asked the Mail on Sunday to pay "manifestly disproportionate" legal costs of £35,000 ($48,000).
Instead, Matthew Nicklin ordered the newspaper to pay just £2,500 costs in relation to the lawsuit.
The duke has himself been ordered to pay a portion of the tabloid's fees, though only in relation to the argument over what costs should be paid.
The Mail on Sunday also paid Prince Harry what his lawyer described as "substantial damages," which the duke donated to the Invictus Games Foundation.

 

[Curryong]

I'm sorry that Harry has been told to pay some of the court costs of a rag that libelled him and was forced to concede that they did so in a legal judgement. That is quite unjust IMO.

However, in spite of the grudging and negative article linked above, it's clear that the Mail on Sunday did traduce him (there's a surprise!) and had to pay substantial damages. That the Invictus Games Foundation will benefit from this judgement is the best news of all.