The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I have a sincere question here. Is it possible that the MoS is now using Knauf's emails to raise a questionable doubt on how much Meghan really meant to keep the letter to her father private? Does that figure into an appeal where the judge has already laid down a decision? I take it the MoS is still fighting the copyright issue? Just wondered if a shown reasonable doubt in the appeal could help to overturn the decision of the court?

Yet... the more that this case drags on and the more that is discovered to add to the story, the more profit the MoS is making. They're laughing their way to the bank.

I think the Mail of Sunday is definitely using the Knauf's emails for maximum gain like indicating that Meghan had her father's letter to be made public in mind or passing details to Omid Scobie for Finding Freedom via third party. At this point, the MoS is doing anything to appeal the decision including the copyright of the letter.

I found it even unbelievable that Meghan could just forget that she contributed to Finding Freedom via third party, especially when she wrote a lengthy email to Knauf. The email conversation also does not make Harry look good either with their intent to mask their contribution whilst "make the record straight" so to speak.

“I totally agree that we have to be able to say we didn’t have anything to do with it. Equally, you giving the right context and background to them would help get some truths out there.”

[iceflower]

Here are some more photos and videos of the gala:


** rex gallery **


** gettyimages: NY: 2021 Salute To Freedom Gala **


** dm article: Harry jokes about his American Dream in speech to Salute to Freedom gala **

[Osipi]

To add one last thought to this discussion before I leave this topic be, I sincerely think that if Meghan had really intended her letter to her father to remain solely between the two of them, she would have handwritten it (involving no one else) and mailed it herself to her father. No one would have been the wiser about anything until Thomas Markle decided to give it to the MoS to print. There would have been no question about the fact that her privacy and the copyright was breached.

Time for me to bow out of the conversation and wait for the next exciting episode of whatever happens next with this couple.

[Alison H]

It's just embarrassing. All right, everyone forgets things, but forgetting that you'd told an aide to brief an author about your private business for a book intended to make headlines around the world isn't exactly the same as forgetting to post someone's birthday card or forgetting that you meant to pop into the shop for a pint of milk on your way home from work. As if she really "forgot". Why tell such an obvious lie?

[Claire]

I would rather say disgusting. Essentially it is a organised plan and no matter how anyone wraps it up - no one creates organised plans to get the truth out.
I do worry about the integrity of all involved.

[AC21091968]

At one point in the interview between Meghan and New York Times editor, Andrew Ross Sorkin, the allegation of bullying was touched on. Sorkin was being vague about the British tabloid releasing stories about Meghan mistreating her employees. Unless he was referring to the rumours amongst gossip columns during the Sussex's Oceania tour in 2018, he was completely wrong in referring The Times as the tabloid. This was the article written by Valentine Low released before the Oprah interview this year. Meghan then followed Sorkin's vague question by stating not reading tabloid and with a "cigarette" warning. She did not exactly address The Times' article on the bullying allegation, instead she criticised the tabloid in general.

Sorkin: I’ve read great things about you as a boss, and if you read the tabloids you can read all sorts of crazy things about being a boss. Do you feel like you have to do it differently, and specifically given your role, do you feel like you have to do it differently?

Meghan: Well firstly, I would urge you not to read tabloids, because I don’t think that’s healthy for anyone. Hopefully one day they will come with a warning label like cigarettes do like ‘this is toxic for your mental health'. I think that the way that I have now moved, as my husband and I have started to build this together on our own, we’re just doing it the same way that we would want if we were employees of it, right – so to treat people the way you want to be treated.

This part of the interview got a mention on GB News, even Valentine Low responded on twitter by replying to a user. If Sorkin really did put The Times in the tabloid category, I'm surprised a journalist in the New York Times could even messed it up.

valentinelow @valentinelow
Prince Harry has called the news media - the ones he doesn't like - 'pirates with press cards'.
It's got a ring to it, I have to say.
9:23 AM · Nov 10, 2021·TweetDeck

Toria @toriaa_h
Replying to @valentinelow
Apparently you're tabloid too Valentine x
9:25 AM · Nov 10, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

valentinelow @valentinelow
Replying to @toriaa_h
And there was me thinking I was one of the 'professional honest journalists who respect and uphold the values of journalism'.
9:33 AM · Nov 10, 2021·TweetDeck

https://twitter.com/valentinelow/sta...01121344872453

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion

Unless there is more to the case that I am not remembering, I don't understand what the Mail of Sunday's end goal is.

So they prove that HRH The Duchess of Sussex did assist in the writing of Finding Freedom and wrote her letter to her father with the understanding that it might be leaked.

With regards to the latter, expecting that it might be leaked does not mean that she purposely went out of her way to make sure it was leaked. If I left my purse in the car thinking that it could be possibly stolen and someone steals it, I could be criticized for negligence but not for setting it up to be stolen in the first place.

With regards to the former, at worst HRH The Duchess of Sussex has perjured herself (because "I forgot" is never a good excuse), showed that she is willing to work with the media when it benefits her (who doesn't), and hurts her credibility.

The case, however, is about the publishing of a letter that's the legal copyright of HRH The Duchess of Sussex that the Mail on Sunday published with her consent. Even if the paper showed that HRH The Duchess of Sussex is willing to play ball with the media, they would have to prove that she or one of her proxies gave them permission to publish her letter. If they had undeniable proof of that, they wouldn't be in an appeals case in the first place.

Unless there is more to the case than the publishing of the letter, HRH The Duchess of Sussex's participating in Finding Freedom is irrelevant other than her perjuring herself for the sake of a non-issue. She should have just admitted it in the first place and pointed out that it was irrelevant.

Could part of their case also be that the MoS 'responded' to the inaccurate characterization of the letter and that Meghan most likely did support her friends talking to People (including referencing the letter). Whether that is sufficient ground to publish the letter is a second question but if this would be part of their strategy and statement Meghan makes on her friends could be considered untrustworthy as she previously failed to 'remember' very relevant details about those close to her cooperating with the press to get her view out (which seems to be what happened in the People article).

See also:

Originally Posted by Erin9

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the Mail’s focus.

Now it’s:

What else has Meghan “forgotten”? (I rolled my eyes reading her statement. Not believable at all IMO. I realize she had to say that. She couldn’t admit it was deliberate. It just looks so bad when reading her statement that she just forgot followed by clear evidence of ALL of the time, thought, and strategy that was put into a subject that Meghan now claims to have just conveniently forgotten about.)

What else was carefully worded with intent to deceive?

Originally Posted by Moran

If so, it would shed a new light on the weird (to me, at the time) inclusion of the 5 friends in the case at all. I was rather surprised when the possibility of them being involved in the procedures arose at all. But perhaps the MoS did and does (provided that they are allowed to do so) intend to cross-examine them and ask questions like, "Did HRH The Duchess of Sussex ever talked to you how cruelly she was treated by her father and if only the media knew about the letter, all would be well?" With the emails Knauf provided, it wouldn't be hard to spin a positive reply into, "You see? That's FF No2! And the Duchess might have forgotten about this meeting as well! What privacy are we talking about when she urged her friends to share about the letter publicly after her father didn't leak?"

And perjuring yourself seems pretty significant and problematic... If you are willing to go that far to create a different narrative, I do agree that your statements cannot be trusted.

[US Royal Watcher]

I'm sorry but Meghan is lying when she said she forgot that she cooperated with the book. If she were sincere, she would have corrected the record as soon as she realized that she mislead the court. There is no way her memory was completely surpressed until she was forced to admit her lie.

I don't know about the UK, but I have always felt that perjury in civil cases is an underprosecuted crime in the US. There are too many cases of someone lying in court at best, they are wasting everyone's time and at worse, they are responsible for unjust court decisions. How much better off would we all be if people would admit they ran the red light or knew about research that a drug caused a certain side effect, so those injured don't have to waste time and energy fighting for their rights. I believe that the real threat of a prosecution would deter many people from perjuring theirselves and result in much better and more fair legal outcomes.

The revelation that she lied underoath completely undercuts her credibility about anything she has ever said.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I'm sorry but Meghan is lying when she said she forgot that she cooperated with the book. If she were sincere, she would have corrected the record as soon as she realized that she mislead the court. There is no way her memory was completely surpressed until she was forced to admit her lie.

I don't know about the UK, but I have always felt that perjury in civil cases is an underprosecuted crime in the US. There are too many cases of someone lying in court at best, they are wasting everyone's time and at worse, they are responsible for unjust court decisions. How much better off would we all be if people would admit they ran the red light or knew about research that a drug caused a certain side effect, so those injured don't have to waste time and energy fighting for their rights. I believe that the real threat of a prosecution would deter many people from perjuring theirselves and result in much better and more fair legal outcomes.

The revelation that she lied underoath completely undercuts her credibility about anything she has ever said.

I think you really have hit the hammer on the head when you say that "The revelation that she lied underoath completely undercuts her credibility about anything she has ever said"

[Alison H]

I think the idea is to prove that Meghan's claims about wanting privacy were untrue. If she lied about being involved with the book, then it's very possible that she also lied about not intending the letter to be made public. The other argument, as I understand it, is that she couldn't reasonably expect Thomas Markle to keep the letter private when it proved that allegations made against him, of freezing her out, were untrue.

What a mess. And there are two young children who've never met their grandfather, and probably never will do.

[UglyAmerican]

I don't think there's any real doubt that Meghan was lying, not just forgetful. But if she had sincerely forgotten that she'd done it, I think their public denials would have been more sweeping and general: "We had nothing to do with FF" rather than just "We never spoke with Scobie." I remember commenting on that phrasing at the time. If they'd genuinely forgotten that they'd cooperated with the book, I don't think they'd have used that careful phrasing that seemed to intentionally not address the possibility of using someone else as a mouthpiece.

[Hallo girl]

The only winners will be the lawyers, did you see how many were in that court room all on mega bucks per hour. As someone pointed out further up the thread , the MOS did print the letter and as a result may still lose the appeal.
If only the couple had let the article go it would have been chip wrappings long ago, but we now have a situation where by Meghan has admitted an oversight that she failed to recall that she had e mail conversations with her communications staff with regards the letter and the cooperation with the book. The optics are bad, yet she appeared to have remembered to tell a friend that she had e mails with regards the royal family, the same friend who popped on UK Tv the morning after the Oprah interview to tell the world about the e mails,

The MOS want the decision knocked back and for the case to go to trial, that is what they always wanted and Meghan fought against. What we are hearing now is what they wanted to present at a trial, that is why they went to the appeal court .

It doesn't matter who wins the case, whether the decision is upheld or it goes to trial, Pandoras box is open, we now all know from Meghans own words what took place. That is what the MOS wanted.
We know know why the MOS refused to settle out of court they wanted the day in court.

Recollections may vary.....priceless,

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by Erin9

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the Mail’s focus.

Now it’s:

What else has Meghan “forgotten”? (I rolled my eyes reading her statement. Not believable at all IMO. I realize she had to say that. She couldn’t admit it was deliberate. It just looks so bad when reading her statement that she just forgot followed by clear evidence of ALL of the time, thought, and strategy that was put into a subject that Meghan now claims to have just conveniently forgotten about.)

What else was carefully worded with intent to deceive?

Fits in very nicely with "recollections may vary" doesn't it?

It was either say "sorry I forgot" or admit to perjury.

The MOS now have it out in the High Court that Meghan and Harry "forget" things and have deliberately planned ways they can get away with lying and misinformation (Harry's email to Jason) Highly ironic given the many times Harry has brought this up over the last few years including just a couple of days ago.

Any time they say anything now it gives the DM and anyone else more of a rein to say "we don't believe you, did you *forget* again?"

I think ANL are going to lose this appeal but I don't think they mind because they've successfully brought up a lot of evidence that would have come up at a full trial and got the Sussexes to admit to being "forgetful" in court. Which they can now use for years to come.

This is exactly why most public figures don't sue. Especially as the letter itself did not make Meghan look bad at all. Because she knew it was going to get released one way or another.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Claire

It doesn't explain how the authors of the book also forgot about the cooperation.

Excellent point!

[Curryong]

Meghan’s own explanation in court documents of how she felt she had to write the letter, an explanation that spoke about the pressure from other royals.

In her own court documents, Meghan accused senior royals of putting pressure on her and Prince Harry to stop her dad's attacks.
She suggested the family only became concerned over the "public attacks" when Mr Markle began to criticise them.
Meghan writes: "I was especially sensitive to this as I had very recently married into the family and was eager to please them.

"It is correct that ... the situation was putting significant pressure on my husband, both externally and by his family, and I felt strongly that I needed to do something about it.
"I felt that, even if my attempt to stop my father talking to the media failed, at least my husband would be able to say to his family that I had done everything I could to stop it."
'Refusal to meet dad'

As the attacks became more prominent, Meghan said she was told by a Palace aide she should fly to Mexico and meet Mr Markle in person.
But she says in the witness statement: "It seemed to me, however, that, even had I
wanted to, it was completely unrealistic to think that I could fly discreetly to Mexico, arrive unannounced on his doorstep...to a location and residence I had never visited or known in a small border town that had been descended upon by the press, and somehow hope to speak privately to my father without causing a frenzy of media attention and intrusion that could bring yet more embarrassment to the Royal Family."

Instead, she reignited the discussion over how to "deal with the concern surrounding" her dad and "his dealings with the media" while visiting a senior royal named as B.
Meghan said: "While my husband and I were sitting with Senior Member B, I was told that Senior Member A was on the telephone and wished to speak to me.
"The telephone was passed to me and we had a discussion about the situation in the presence of Senior Member B and my husband.
"Once the call ended, we continued discussions with Senior Member B, and it was only after these discussions, and in accordance with the advice that I received from the two senior family members, as stated in my Re-Amended Reply, I decided, that I would write a letter to my father."

It was previously claimed by her lawyers in court she sent her estranged father the "heartfelt" five-page letter in 2018 after they reached "breaking point".

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16...s-credibility/

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Heavs

Fits in very nicely with "recollections may vary" doesn't it?

It was either say "sorry I forgot" or admit to perjury.

The MOS now have it out in the High Court that Meghan and Harry "forget" things and have deliberately planned ways they can get away with lying and misinformation (Harry's email to Jason) Highly ironic given the many times Harry has brought this up over the last few years including just a couple of days ago.

Any time they say anything now it gives the DM and anyone else more of a rein to say "we don't believe you, did you *forget* again?"

I think ANL are going to lose this appeal but I don't think they mind because they've successfully brought up a lot of evidence that would have come up at a full trial and got the Sussexes to admit to being "forgetful" in court. Which they can now use for years to come.

This is exactly why most public figures don't sue. Especially as the letter itself did not make Meghan look bad at all. Because she knew it was going to get released one way or another.

It does indeed.

This may be a case of the Sussexes winning the battle, but losing the war. Now everyone knows just how deceitful and how “forgetful” they can be.

I’m just shaking my head that they laid all this out in an EMAIL. How utterly foolish. They literally wrote out their very detailed, planned intentions to deceive. They wanted to shape their image, but wanted to be able to deny involvement. Nice.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I am sure no one would question or doubt that Meghan was indeed under tremendous pressure, indeed pressure that few of us could conceptualize. But my genuine question is... what does this change? To me, the fact that she is an admitted liar and perjurer is not changed by what led her to lie. Her other statements before and since this time are no more reliable because of the factors that led to her falsehoods, nor is this couple's hypocrisy any less startling.

Perhaps others here, like me, can imagine being driven to cooperate with an unauthorized biography given the depths of pressure Meghan was under. Maybe we can even imagine then trying to coordinate an effort to cover that up (I am being kind) in order to retain supporters.

But the reasonable actions of a person led to publicly lie to their supporters or commit perjury is not then to found an entire nonprofit (Meghan and Harry) on notions that are utterly and totally undermined by these actions; nor are they to launch a campaign against "misinformation" (Harry) when you have just engaged in years of concerted misinformation yourself. That shows a level of callousness and a lack of basic understanding that is difficult for many of us here to comprehend.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by muriel

I think you really have hit the hammer on the head when you say that "The revelation that she lied underoath completely undercuts her credibility about anything she has ever said"

I agree. Very succinct sum up.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Erin9

It does indeed.

This may be a case of the Sussexes winning the battle, but losing the war. Now everyone knows just how deceitful and how “forgetful” they can be.

I’m just shaking my head that they laid all this out in an EMAIL. How utterly foolish. They literally wrote out their very detailed, planned intentions to deceive. They wanted to shape their image, but wanted to be able to deny involvement. Nice.

A long, long time ago I asked my dad about the mother of all modern political scandals, namely: "if you knew you were doing something illegal, why would you tape it?"

His response: “They didn't think they'd get caught.”

Still applies.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

I am sure no one would question or doubt that Meghan was indeed under tremendous pressure, indeed pressure that few of us could conceptualize. But my genuine question is... what does this change? To me, the fact that she is an admitted liar and perjurer is not changed by what led her to lie. Her other statements before and since this time are no more reliable because of the factors that led to her falsehoods, nor is this couple's hypocrisy any less startling.

My genuine question is... why should we believe the touching story she's spinning now about stress and the RF? It might be true but even if it isn't... what is she supposed to say - I did it willingly and I was fully cognizant of what I was doing and the effect I wanted to achieve? Blaming pressure and other people is the only way she can try to save face.

So, once again: why should we believe it? We were meant to believe her equally firm statement that she had nothing at all to do with the book a year ago.