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

[Moran]

I don't think it's surprising at all. The dragging of the issue itself is in ANL's favour. They want to discuss it, make noise, generate news. And if they can win at the end - sure, it would be nice but this isn't their primary objective, IMO.

[Moonmaiden23]

Exactly. They want to keep this lawsuit on the front burner...perhaps out of a desire for revenge.

The more it stays in the spotlight the more embarrassing and unflattering for the Sussexes.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Exactly. They want to keep this lawsuit on the front burner...perhaps out of a desire for revenge.

The more it stays in the spotlight the more embarrassing and unflattering for the Sussexes.

Of course. Especially when the court practically said that the five friends and People lied to make Thomas Markle look bad.

Perhaps Meghan forgot that she sent her friends to discredit her father? She said she didn't but can her memory be trusted? After all, the court victory she's currently celebrating specifically said that she had suffered a memory loss. Was that the only case of it?

The tabloids will have a feast day over this. And since it came from the court and not white, pale, stale courtiers, Meghan can't wield her favourite weapon - to cry that it was a lie designed to discredit her.

It would have been so much better if they had just kept silent. The letter "scandal" had run its course and people were far more sympathetic to Meghan at the time. But the Sussexes just can't leave it at this, it seems.

[A-Bik]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

:p
The more it stays in the spotlight the more embarrassing and unflattering for the Sussexes.

I really don't think it's as embarrassing for the Sussexes.

The Daily Mail is so notorious, that as there as many who are happy that the Sussexes are being tailed; there are equally as many content to see the Mail get its comeuppance. So score draw.

The paper's reputation is such that whatever they attack Meghan with will continue to be more or less, preaching to the choir at this point.

Anyway almost all legal eagles that this Supreme Court appeal is more about dragging this out for as long as possible, than the likelihood of a Supreme Court hearing, nevermind a win.

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree the Daily Mail has no equivalent in the world with the same outreach and the same intense malice. Even when Meghan's position was purely angelic in a crystal clear innocence, the DM is able to portay her as the reïncarnation of the Wh*re of Babylon, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth (Revelations 7, verse 5). The DM is pure evil, with a poisonous pen.

[Somebody]

In Meghan's response, accusing the MoS of 'making a straightforward case extraordinarily convoluted in order to generate more headlines and sell more newspapers' stands out to me. Especially, since it was Meghan herself who convoluted the straightforward case (copyright) into a war against the tabloids - which she is even doing in this statement as she keeps talking about 'harmful practices' and a 'daily fail' instead of the very specific and limited case at hand. So, I am afraid that while true that they 'feast' on dragging this case along, she is as much to blame for convoluting this case as the tabloids are.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Moran

Of course. Especially when the court practically said that the five friends and People lied to make Thomas Markle look bad.

Perhaps Meghan forgot that she sent her friends to discredit her father? She said she didn't but can her memory be trusted? After all, the court victory she's currently celebrating specifically said that she had suffered a memory loss. Was that the only case of it?

The tabloids will have a feast day over this. And since it came from the court and not white, pale, stale courtiers, Meghan can't wield her favourite weapon - to cry that it was a lie designed to discredit her.

It would have been so much better if they had just kept silent. The letter "scandal" had run its course and people were far more sympathetic to Meghan at the time. But the Sussexes just can't leave it at this, it seems.

The court more precisely said that AT BEST this was an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part. This to me suggests that they don't really buy that argument but aren't pursuing it further because 'it did not bear on the issues'.

Originally Posted by A-Bik

I really don't think it's as embarrassing for the Sussexes.

The Daily Mail is so notorious, that as there as many who are happy that the Sussexes are being tailed; there are equally as many content to see the Mail get its comeuppance. So score draw.

The paper's reputation is such that whatever they attack Meghan with will continue to be more or less, preaching to the choir at this point.

Anyway almost all legal eagles that this Supreme Court appeal is more about dragging this out for as long as possible, than the likelihood of a Supreme Court hearing, nevermind a win.

It's not the Daily Mail that was sued (although Meghan samed to make a word play on them by using 'daily fail'). What is embarrassing is not the publications by the tabloids but the fact that it was proven that Meghan LIED in court.

So, portraying it as 'irrelevant' because the defendants are a tabloid, seems a way of dodging the real issue, which is that Meghan's portrayal of a situation cannot be trusted.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Somebody

The court more precisely said that AT BEST this was an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part. This to me suggests that they don't really buy that argument but aren't pursuing it further because 'it did not bear on the issues'.


It's not the Daily Mail that was sued (although Meghan samed to make a word play on them by using 'daily fail'). What is embarrassing is not the publications by the tabloids but the fact that it was proven that Meghan LIED in court.

So, portraying it as 'irrelevant' because the defendants are a tabloid, seems a way of dodging the real issue, which is that Meghan's portrayal of a situation cannot be trusted.

Agreed and now as you stated "that her portrayal of a situation cannot be trusted" IMO, it has dealt a significant blow to her credibility.

[Ghost]

I found this article in the telegraph to be interesting:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...chess-sussexs/

[angieuk]

I thought she had not cooperated with the FINDING FREEDOM book; but now apparently she is saying she may have??

Why is she then not suing about the bullying claims?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Pinocchio.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-lawsuit.html

[Somebody]

Apparently, children in Manchester had to do a school project on racism based on how Meghan was treated by the press. See The Telegraph (archive).

Originally Posted by angieuk

I thought she had not cooperated with the FINDING FREEDOM book; but now apparently she is saying she may have??

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Pinocchio.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-lawsuit.html

Yes, see the many posts in this thread about Meghan lying in court about not cooperating/passing on information, now -after proof was given that she did- indicating that she 'forgot' that she gave very specific instructions to one of her staff members.

Originally Posted by Ghost

I found this article in the telegraph to be interesting:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...chess-sussexs/

Archived link.

Interesting indeed. I didn't expect this court case to result in calls for new laws to 'rebalance' the balance between freedom of speech and privacy.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Apparently, children in Manchester had to do a school project on racism based on how Meghan was treated by the press. See The Telegraph (archive).

I saw this a few days ago. I noticed the nature of the supplied options for answer. All in Meghan's favour.

If there was an option including information about Meghan's memory lapse when the court asked an uncomfortable question, I didn't see it. Until one is provided and given the overall presented perspective, I'd say it was incredibly one-sided.

I feel it's pretty safe to guess that the teachers compared Meghan's treatment by the press with Catherine's treatment now, not in the years the press literally chased Catherine and brought her family down.

They didn't compare Meghan's press with the one Camilla the Blonde received for years.

I'm not impressed.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Erin9

Agreed.

I don’t think it has hurt them business- wise/financially.

But- both of their reputations have taken something of a hit to win this. Neither came out of this looking good imo- manipulative, conniving and liars/perjurers are words that come to mind. My guess is this will follow them- on some level- for a long time.

But has it? Really? I personally don't think it changed a thing based off the reactions I have seen from the various global medias. If you supported her, you likely still do. If you don't think much of her... nothing has changed.

I see plenty of people who don't care one way or another praising her for just wining against a tabloid they hate. I see a lot of that. So I don't think her reputation has been damaged whatsoever.

It pretty much is what it is.

[A-Bik]

The Guardian verdict

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...bloid-culture#

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ay-by-surprise

[Curryong]

I am very very glad that this notorious newspaper group was not allowed leave to appeal. It’s a blow against rancid tabloid journalism. And appeals to the Supreme Court are very very rarely granted. Hope the apology is on the front page of the Mail onSunday soon.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by ACO

But has it? Really? I personally don't think it changed a thing based off the reactions I have seen from the various global medias. If you supported her, you likely still do. If you don't think much of her... nothing has changed.

I see plenty of people who don't care one way or another praising her for just wining against a tabloid they hate. I see a lot of that. So I don't think her reputation has been damaged whatsoever.

It pretty much is what it is.

I agree to a point, few people will change their minds based on this. The vast majority of people don't feel strongly one way or another. But the allegation of perjury will be raised repeatedly the next time she makes another complaint about the royal family. People in the middle who would otherwise be sympathetic to her will likely be more skeptical.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I agree to a point, few people will change their minds based on this. The vast majority of people don't feel strongly one way or another. But the allegation of perjury will be raised repeatedly the next time she makes another complaint about the royal family. People in the middle who would otherwise be sympathetic to her will likely be more skeptical.

Good points US Royal Watcher and yes I believe that the majority of people really don't have strong feelings one way or another, but should she or Prince Harry make another complaint about anything ie an alleged lack of support from the BRF or the staff/courtiers it is likely to raise skepticism.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I agree to a point, few people will change their minds based on this. The vast majority of people don't feel strongly one way or another. But the allegation of perjury will be raised repeatedly the next time she makes another complaint about the royal family. People in the middle who would otherwise be sympathetic to her will likely be more skeptical.

She didn't commit perjury, no matter how much people want to claim it. And even with that I don't think most people think that deeply about it. I see a lot of her critics very much focusing on it but honestly not even the judges did. As I said I just don't think it moved the needle one way or another. And I would bet the next couple of weeks will prove it.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by TLLK

Agreed and now as you stated "that her portrayal of a situation cannot be trusted" IMO, it has dealt a significant blow to her credibility.

I don't know about that, it's not like she had much credibility before.

When she gave that interview with Oprah, I remember reading that there were 17 inaccurate allegations in it.
So why would anyone be surprised now?

[angieuk]

I still think she would have been a great asset to the Royal Family, carrying out public engagements; but it all turned sour very quickly.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ome-court.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...xpression.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-father.html