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

[B__ll]

Originally Posted by ACO

Samantha can file all the lawsuits she wants. Good luck to her not having it thrown out. I read her filing and it basically boils down to she is upset that Meghan won't acknowledge her. She also contradicts herself quite a bit in the actual statements. It reads as if she is her own attorney (and she might be). She should focus on fixing her own relationship with her kids and stop obsessing about a half sibling who hasn't been in her life for years.

As for the NAACP award? I do have to chuckle at people being upset over it and even having the nerve to attack the organization for selecting them. And that Bishop Swan literally was praising sexual predator Bill Cosby and talked down the women who were his victims. His opinion is not one I care about.

Filing lawsuits is an expensive and frivolous exercise in futility.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

As you are discussing the contents of the filing in this thread, could you post it here?

Here it is. It is about 15 pages long.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...399340.1.0.pdf

Originally Posted by B__ll

Filing lawsuits is an expensive and frivolous exercise in futility.

It is expensive. It is also your choice. She has all the rights to do it and good luck to her but I hope she can actually back what she is seems to be upset about. Because Samantha has spent 5 years ranting all over the media about Meghan and there is plenty evidence against a lot of the things she seems upset about.

[Curryong]

Indeed there is. Samantha has contradicted herself about Meghan and her early years again and again. (I started reading her tweets when she first began rubbishing her half-sister, which coincidentally started at the time Meghan was first dating Harry. Funny, that!) And I have serious doubts as to whether Samantha’s lawsuit will ever in fact reach any Florida courtroom.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Indeed there is. Samantha has contradicted herself about Meghan and her early years again and again. (I started reading her tweets when she first began rubbishing her, which coincidentally started at the time Meghan was first dating Harry. Funny, that!) And I have serious doubts as to whether Samantha’s lawsuit will ever reach any Florida courtroom.

Samantha may hever see the inside of a courtroom on this but it does open the doors to more paid tabloid interviews and perhaps TV appearances airing her gripes. Makes me wonder sometimes if litigating wrongs and airing complaints in the public domain run in the Markle family. It is what it is though.

[UglyAmerican]

Thanks for linking to the filing.

The stuff about losing custody is pretty bad, and thanks to Meghan's previous lawsuit, there's no doubt that she said it and intended it for broad publication. The same is true of the claim about Samantha changing her surname to "Markle" only after Meghan began dating Harry. That one, she said on Oprah. I'm singling out those two, which I've commented about previously, because it will be very easy to prove whether or not they're true. Name changes and custody decrees are both legal documents that would be on file with the relevant local court. It shouldn't be too difficult to prove who lived where when, either.

The rest of it may all be petty tit-for-tat, but unless both of the above statements are true, I don't think this case is going to go away quietly. Maybe I'm wrong, and Meghan (or her staff) did all necessary research before making those claims. But I don't think so, because the child custody claim was made in a document she prepared herself and that Knauf advised against sharing with Scobie. And she didn't even research the basic rules for titles before making claims about them on Oprah, so I rather doubt she was calling courthouses and looking up name change documents.

[ACO]

Samantha did change her name back to Markle though. Until 2017 she was very publicly going by "Samantha Grant" and there are plenty of interviews (TV and print) and her own social media accounts to prove it. Even the likes of Piers Morgan (who is no fan of Meghan) pointed that out. She was all over the place, which works against her narrative. If she cashed one check as "Samantha Grant" -- good luck to her.

As for losing custody? There are legal doc about that too. I don't know about her two older children (they were NOT raised by her and they were in fact in the custody of their father) but her youngest was removed from Samantha's home. Her daughter actually gave an interview with her grandmother about how bad it was living with Samantha. There was a whole legal situation (where again shows her last name wasn't legally Markle). The public records were pulled up by the media.

I also thought it odd how she claimed she never took money from the press (she has), didn't contract the media (she has and many of the royal reporters have called her about about this), and didn't set up media for her father (she has and literally went on TV taking credit for the photo ops scandal).

Make it make sense.

[caethi]

Originally Posted by ACO

Samantha did change her name back to Markle though. Until 2017 she was very publicly going by "Samantha Grant" and there are plenty of interviews (TV and print) and her own social media accounts to prove it. Even the likes of Piers Morgan (who is no fan of Meghan) pointed that out. She was all over the place, which works against her narrative. If she cashed one check as "Samantha Grant" -- good luck to her.

As for losing custody? There are legal doc about that too. I don't know about her two older children (they were NOT raised by her and they were in fact in the custody of their father) but her youngest was removed from Samantha's home. Her daughter actually gave an interview with her grandmother about how bad it was living with Samantha. There was a whole legal situation (where again shows her last name wasn't legally Markle). The public records were pulled up by the media.

I also thought it odd how she claimed she never took money from the press (she has), didn't contract the media (she has and many of the royal reporters have called her about about this), and didn't set up media for her father (she has and literally went on TV taking credit for the photo ops scandal).

Make it make sense.

I don't know if Samantha has a case or not. What I do know, however, is that people are neither all good nor all bad, and most of the time each person on either side of a conflict owns some aspect of the truth. She seems to be someone who has struggled with many aspects of her health, and that struggle could have a major effect on how she views the world and her place in it. I don't criticize Samantha's legal action, just as I don't criticize H and M's legal actions. I genuinely feel sorry for family members who feel that the only way they can find peace is to go to court. If I could, I would advise a less adversarial strategy, more along the lines of mediation, but both sides are pretty entrenched and both need public wins, so I guess it is too late for anything less than an all out legal challenge and perhaps ensuing battle, should a court action actually take place. Sad.

[iceflower]

Blog Real has found the following:

Originally Posted by Blog Real

Prince Harry was seen this Saturday, the 5th, at the Stockyards Championship Rodeo in Fort Worth, Texas, USA.

https://twitter.com/scobie/status/15...kle_3387967%2F

[iceflower]

A spokesperson of the Duke of Sussex today said that the Duke of Sussex will not return to the UK for the Service of Thanksgiving on March 29:


** dm article **

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by iceflower

A spokesperson of the Duke of Sussex today said that the Duke of Sussex will not return to the UK for the Service of Thanksgiving on March 29:


** dm article **

He should be ashamed hat does not come to honor his grandfather. Both he and Meghan should be there.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Stefan

He should be ashamed hat does not come to honor his grandfather. Both he and Meghan should be there.

I agree. But I suspect H&M think they need a higher level of protection than HM, the Pow & DoC and W&C!

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by iceflower

A spokesperson of the Duke of Sussex today said that the Duke of Sussex will not return to the UK for the Service of Thanksgiving on March 29:


** dm article **

To be honest, I don't think Harry will be overly missed at this Service of Thanksgiving and only reflects poorly on him and his lack of regard and respect for his grandfather he professed to love so dearly. It will only serve to further distance himself away from his family and the nation of his birth. His choice.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Osipi

To be honest, I don't think Harry will be overly missed at this Service of Thanksgiving and only reflects poorly on him and his lack of regard and respect for his grandfather he professed to love so dearly. It will only serve to further distance himself away from his family and the nation of his birth. His choice.

You have summed the situation very well Osipi as always. I don't think anybody here really expected him to come and to be honest not all that bothered.
It is unfortunate as it only widens the gap.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by iceflower

A spokesperson of the Duke of Sussex today said that the Duke of Sussex will not return to the UK for the Service of Thanksgiving on March 29:


** dm article **

While it is very unfortunate, it makes sense from their perspective as Harry would significantly undermine his own position in the case he started against the Home Office if he (and Meghan) would return.

[Denville]

Surely he couldd come without Meghan if he is saying htat he is chiefly worried for her and hte children

[Sionevar]

Harry says 'he still hopes to visit the Queen as soon as possible'.

Why not come to the memorial service then? Is it the security thing? How long is that going to take to resolve? What if 'as soon as possible' turns out to be a year?

Get on a plane, man. Go see your grandmother while she's still alive. She's at the age where she could literally die at any time. If you're serious about wanting to see her, stop arsing around and just do it.

[rominet09]

He really thinks his absence will be a horrifical blow to this event. I don't think it is and I think that the royal family is complete without him and would be relieved by his absence.

[Sionevar]

Originally Posted by rominet09

He really thinks his absence will be a horrifical blow to this event. I don't think it is and I think that the royal family is complete without him and would be relieved by his absence.

I think, in some ways, him not being there will actually make things easier. Yes, there will be some distracting discussion about his absence, but nowhere near as much as if he was there on his own, or if Meghan was with him. If he turned up, a lot of people would spend the whole service scrutinizing body language and expressions, speculating on what that means about who's speaking to who, and who isn't.

At least this way, once the initial talk about him not being there is over, the focus can just be on the service, as it should be.

[AC21091968]

Chris Ship has updated that Harry is planning to fly to Europe for the Invictus Games at The Hague, Netherlands in mid-April. Ship also mentioned the reason of Harry not attending Thanksgiving Service is his safety in the UK without the access to security intelligence, according to Harry's lawyers.

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
UPDATE: Prince Harry is planning to fly to Europe for @InvictusGamesNL in mid-April in The Hague. But he’s not going to Prince Philip’s Thanksgiving at end of March.
As his lawyers claimed, he’s l concluded he isn’t safe in UK without the access to intelligence he has asked for.
9:37 AM · Mar 12, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...13500538404868

[Marengo]

Posts about the news of the Duke of Sussex not attending the Thanksgiving service for the life of his late grandfather have been moved from the Thanksgiving thread to this one.

We do not want the Sussex-non attendence to be discussed in the Thanksgiving thread.
If this thread is closed that means that the topic can not be discussed at all. You can find the reasoning for that explained under the opening post of this thread and repeated below:

Due to the constant closures of the Sussex threads up until this point, the moderating team have made the decision to change how we will be facilitating Sussex-related discussions moving forward.


The Sussex News thread will remain closed until a new piece of information or news is published. The thread will then be opened by a moderator, and the thread will remain open for a period of 48hrs for discussion on the news only. Once the 48hr period has ended, the thread will return to its previous closed status.

Should the thread descend into bickering, personal attacks or off-topic commentary during that 48hr period, it will be closed immediately and reset to waiting for a new piece of information/news.

When a new piece of information or news comes through, please PM the entire British Moderating Team who will open the thread for posting.


The negative atmosphere in previous Sussex threads was caused by endless repetitive discussions on things which happened up to four years ago, the Sussex couple's exit from the BRF, over-analysis of their behaviour, and arguments back and forth between those who like and those who dislike the Sussexes. Some lines of discussion were like a dog with a bone, no-one willing to let go of the fight, to the detriment of the thread.

To be brutally honest, these threads were not pleasant to read and the behaviour exhibited childlike. That posters felt themselves above the rules and routinely ignored moderator direction further emphasised this.

As such, the following aspects are considered off-topic going forward:

• Rehashing of events from 2017-2021, unless DIRECTLY relevant to the new information
• Unsubstantiated gossip, rumour, speculation, hearsay and innuendo. Social media is not a source. All new information must be accompanied by a link to a media outlet.
• Debates over titles or stripping of titles
• Accusations or inference of racism towards the subject, other members or the media
• Aggressive, sarcastic or disruptive tones
• Agenda-driven posts or posts deemed to have intent to disrupt the thread
• Bickering, arguing or back-and-forth discussions to the exclusion of others
• Post that otherwise add nothing of merit, interest or benefit to the discussion

Those who do not comply with these new rules will be suspended, and then banned from TRF if they repeat offend.

These rules apply to ALL Sussex-related threads.