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

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I expect the British Supreme Court fully underlining the outcome, as this is totally in line with earlier jurisprudence in diverse Courts of Justice in various European countries, as well in diverse appeals to the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg (which the UK has left in the meantime) and to the ECHR Court of Justice in Strasbourg, to which the UK is fully participated into since 1950.

Of course they will. The only thing is that ANL can go further in disclosing proofs. After two years of trials there is nothing that has changed in the public opinion about tabloids, on the other hand Meghan has lost a lot of her trustworth. That is all that matters, in my opinion. Even the verdict was phrased in such a way to say that ANL was right to publish fragments of the letter in order to counter the defamation of Thomas Markle in the People article, but they overdid it. Not that they were wrong, but that they published too much.

[Hallo girl]

The bottom line is nobody knew about the letter until the People magazine article. The article that was instigated by the 5 friends. To be fair she stated she knew nothing about them approaching the magazine.
ANL want a trial not a decision by judges, they want stuff out there. That is what the appeal was about.

[irish_royalist]

Originally Posted by fabaunty

I realise that this may seem a ridiculous question , however , considering the lady's latest press release , could anyone please enlighten me as to why the lady continues to title herself as the divorced wife of the Duke of Sussex ? Is this simply american english ?

It's not surprising really - she likes to use and abuse her own title, but she (and presumably her husband) seems to have little knowledge of how titles work in the UK.
In her latest statement, she referred to "Lord Jonathan Rothermere" - of course there is no such person. Presumably she is referring to Jonathan Harmsworth - known as the 4th Viscount Rothermere, or Lord Rothermere.

[Alison H]

Titles do tend to get mangled. I've just read Barbara Taylor Bradford's latest book, and, for someone born and bred in the UK even though she's lived in the US for years, she's made the most horrendous mess of even fairly basic things! I can understand that Meghan might not know how British titles work, because it's not something that someone not British *would* know, but you would rather think that Harry would! Or at least that someone would proof read the statements before they were released.


Not another appeal, please! I'm fed up to the back teeth with this case.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

The bottom line is nobody knew about the letter until the People magazine article. The article that was instigated by the 5 friends. To be fair she stated she knew nothing about them approaching the magazine.
ANL want a trial not a decision by judges, they want stuff out there. That is what the appeal was about.

However, what she states is not necessarily true... as she has proven. She must have indicated that she was fine with her friends coming to her defense (whether she specifically instructed her friends to mention that she wrote a letter to her father isn't clear - as unless there is written proof she will most likely deny it even if true) - if they would have done this behind her back, they would no longer be her friends.

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by irish_royalist

It's not surprising really - she likes to use and abuse her own title, but she (and presumably her husband) seems to have little knowledge of how titles work in the UK.
In her latest statement, she referred to "Lord Jonathan Rothermere" - of course there is no such person. Presumably she is referring to Jonathan Harmsworth - known as the 4th Viscount Rothermere, or Lord Rothermere.

Yes, I noticed that too. I thought that perhaps she did it on purpose. A featured columnist at the DM is calling her Princess Pinocchio.

Speaking of Lord R., now 10 Downing St. has said that they would be looking very closely at the freedom of speech issues regarding this verdict. Perhaps a hat-tip to Lord R., a Tory Donor?

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Somebody

However, what she states is not necessarily true... as she has proven. She must have indicated that she was fine with her friends coming to her defense (whether she specifically instructed her friends to mention that she wrote a letter to her father isn't clear - as unless there is written proof she will most likely deny it even if true) - if they would have done this behind her back, they would no longer be her friends.

She did defend their right to remain anonymous . I thought that strange that you would defend people who discussed your private letter with a magazine. Without your knowledge.

[UglyAmerican]

Originally Posted by Marengo

With that reasoning I wonder how many of us here would be fit for kindergarten as over the years I have encountered many references to the Daily Mail as Fail on this forum.

I don't see why the Duchess needs to gracious about the DM, as the magazine still is far from gracious towards her. It may be smarter to be so and it may be in her own interest to smoothe things over, but considering the tabloid's campaign against her it is only human to enjoy a hard won court battle.

Her having made her own mistakes or lapse of memory at convenient times does not detract from the fact that in this particular case the tabloid has behaved abominably, which is supported by a court ruling.

I've used all kinds of terms on here that I'd be rightly fired for including in a formal statement. Using them in an appropriately informal setting doesn't indicate immaturity. Not understanding that there's a difference between what's acceptable in informal settings and what belongs in a press release does. I know the Mail/Fail has used names like "Duchess Difficult" and "Me-Gain" in its stories, but has it ever done so in its statements about the lawsuit? If it did, then IMHO it shouldn't have.

Remember Scobie's claim from a few months ago about how Meghan's staff wasn't willing to work with her and do things the way she wanted them done? I think this provides some useful context to those claims. If Meghan thinks juvenile insults are appropriate to include in official statements, it's not surprising that those tasked with actually writing those statements were reluctant to follow those directions.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

Yes, I noticed that too. I thought that perhaps she did it on purpose. A featured columnist at the DM is calling her Princess Pinocchio.

Yes - these are a few quotes from the Princess Pinocchio article:

'Statement from Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.' You might think this a curiously regal way of doing things for a woman who spends her entire time trashing the Monarchy and smearing the Royal Family for being disgusting callous racists.

Indeed, she was so convinced the letter might be published that she even deliberately used certain words to manipulate the public's emotions when they read it. Knauf told the court: 'She also asked a specific question regarding addressing Mr Markle as 'daddy' in the letter, saying 'given I've only ever called him daddy it may make sense to open as such (despite him being less than paternal), and in the unfortunate event that it leaked it would pull at the heart-strings'.'

The former aide said Prince Harry told him: 'I totally agree that we have to be able to say we didn't have anything to do with it.' This is the same Harry now leading a global campaign against 'disinformation'.

That's why they co-operate with drooling sycophants like that odious little weasel Omid Scobie, one of Finding Freedom's authors, but sue everyone else that dares to raise even a questionable eyebrow at their constant hypocrisy.

I wouldn't disagree with a single word of that, but it's very unedifying and undignified that we've got this war going on between the Sussexes and the media. It's just going backwards and forwards, and it's not making anyone look very good. Why do they claim that they had nothing to do with the Finding Freedom book, when it's so obvious that they did? And why tell lies in the Oprah interview, when it was so easy to disprove what they were saying about the title? It's all such a shame, when they had a platform to do a lot of good.

[A-Bik]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Yes - these are a few quotes from the Princess Pinocchio article:

'Statement from Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.' You might think this a curiously regal way of doing things for a woman who spends her entire time trashing the Monarchy and smearing the Royal Family for being disgusting callous racists.

Indeed, she was so convinced the letter might be published that she even deliberately used certain words to manipulate the public's emotions when they read it. Knauf told the court: 'She also asked a specific question regarding addressing Mr Markle as 'daddy' in the letter, saying 'given I've only ever called him daddy it may make sense to open as such (despite him being less than paternal), and in the unfortunate event that it leaked it would pull at the heart-strings'.'

The former aide said Prince Harry told him: 'I totally agree that we have to be able to say we didn't have anything to do with it.' This is the same Harry now leading a global campaign against 'disinformation'.

That's why they co-operate with drooling sycophants like that odious little weasel Omid Scobie, one of Finding Freedom's authors, but sue everyone else that dares to raise even a questionable eyebrow at their constant hypocrisy.

I wouldn't disagree with a single word of that, but it's very unedifying and undignified that we've got this war going on between the Sussexes and the media. It's just going backwards and forwards, and it's not making anyone look very good. Why do they claim that they had nothing to do with the Finding Freedom book, when it's so obvious that they did? And why tell lies in the Oprah interview, when it was so easy to disprove what they were saying about the title? It's all such a shame, when they had a platform to do a lot of good.

It's a mistake to use Piers Morgan as a barometer of anything on this matter.

Notwithstanding his own very unfortunate past actions as a newspaper editor, he works for the paper Meghan is suing.

[Curbside]

Originally Posted by Moran

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.

Catherine and Camilla didn't have racist things printed about them.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by Curbside

Catherine and Camilla didn't have racist things printed about them.

The very fact that the children thought Catherine could do no wrong in the eyes of the press reveals that the teachers only gave the press she has been receiving in the last few years and not when she was a newlywed like Meghan.

IOW, they only showed the children the positive things.

[Curbside]

Originally Posted by Moran

The very fact that the children thought Catherine could do no wrong in the eyes of the press reveals that the teachers only gave the press she has been receiving in the last few years and not when she was a newlywed like Meghan.

IOW, they only showed the children the positive things.

The lesson was about racism. What does racism have to do with Kate and Camilla? If the lesson had been about sexism, that would be different, wouldn't it? If you're teaching about racism, why bring up instances when the press was sexist?

[Moran]

Originally Posted by Curbside

The lesson was about racism. What does racism have to do with Kate and Camilla? If the lesson had been about sexism, that would be different, wouldn't it? If you're teaching about racism, why bring up instances when the press was sexist?

Then why bring Catherine into it at all? If it was all about racism and Catherine should not have been brought into this at all, why they did bring her with the false pretense that she had it all going great for her, like, always?

Or has there been any article comparing stellar Catherine against slouch Meghan on the basis of Catherine being white? If so, I certainly missed it.

[iceflower]

The Duke of Sussex reacted to The Sunday Times report about the "cash for honours" scandal involving the Prince of Wales:


** Message **


And as Chief Impact Officer at the mental health company BetterUp he had a Q&A with the Fast Company:


** fastcompany: Prince Harry says quitting can be good for your mental health **

[iceflower]

According to the latest press reports the Duke of Sussex „has backed efforts to scrap visa fees for foreign-born UK veterans who want to remain in the country“:


** standard article: Harry ‘supports bid to remove visa fees for foreign-born UK veterans’ **

[iceflower]

The Duchess of Sussex was photographed while shopping in Montecito this week:


** EXCLUSIVE: Duchess's day out! Masked up Meghan goes undercover with ..**

[Alisa]

The Sussexes Xmas card
https://www.instagram.com/p/CX0_1VTI...dium=copy_link

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by Alisa

The Sussexes Xmas card
https://www.instagram.com/p/CX0_1VTI...dium=copy_link

It is the first photo where we can see Lilibett.

[ACO]

Archie and Lili! Redheads. Too cute.