The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 11-10-2021, 09:44 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,545
Lance Armstrong however committed serious criminal offences to do with drugs in sport, and then sued for defamation.

That is a completely different case to Meghan, who IMO sued the Mail on Sunday after discussing things with lawyers and being told, I would guess, that the copyright issue to do with her father handing over her letter to a tabloid would have a great chance of success.


IMO she was both angry and deeply upset at what she’d endured from the Fail especially for a long time and that was her reason and motive. She didn’t sue over anything to do with Knauf, who appears to have contradicted his statement before Justice Warby on Thomas Marie’s letter, or whatever consultations he had with Scobie or over the biography FF. It was copyright and privacy issues only.
__________________

  #362  
Old 11-10-2021, 09:45 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 534
It cannot be overstated the importance of the revelation that Harry has just admitted that this couple's strategy is to create situations where they can then deliberately mislead people into believing falsehoods about their actions.

It's might be important or unimportant that they cooperated with FF, depending on your view of this couple. What is of the utmost importance is that they did it with the intention of leading their own supporters into believing they did not.

This is the definition of misinformation-- deliberately creating a false impression of a situation but making it appear as truth, knowing that you are causing people to walk away from a situation with a false idea. Do we know of anyone who campaigns against this?
__________________

  #363  
Old 11-10-2021, 09:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
It cannot be overstated the importance of the revelation that Harry has just admitted that this couple's strategy is to create situations where they can then deliberately mislead people into believing falsehoods about their actions.

It's might be important or unimportant that they cooperated with FF, depending on your view of this couple. What is of the utmost importance is that they did it with the intention of leading their own supporters into believing they did not.

This is the definition of misinformation-- deliberately creating a false impression of a situation but making it appear as truth, knowing that you are causing people to walk away from a situation with a false idea. Do we know of anyone who campaigns against this?
Thank you for pointing this out. Like you, I do not understand the couples' decision to mislead and create a false story.
  #364  
Old 11-10-2021, 09:58 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 534
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Thank you for pointing this out. Like you, I do not understand the couples' decision to mislead and create a false story.
I am simply stunned beyond belief by the whole thing.

The book had its own thread here when it was published. When people who read it commented that it was obvious that the couple had cooperated heavily in its writing, they were told repeatedly, "They couple have said they did not. So have the authors. What more do you want than a direct denial?" This was true over all other forms of social media.

So to find out all this time later that not only were the denials (by all involved parties) a lie, but the couple specifically sat down and planned it out so that they could say "we need to lie, but make it so that our lie is not technically a lie"? These are their own supporters that would be defending them in this way and would be the ones to be deceived by the lie. They were deliberately creating deception, then went about building a platform- nay, launching a "nonprofit," based on people and platforms who do this exact thing: creating deception and misconception.

What on earth does this say about this couple?
  #365  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:17 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,916
That they have issues and are not particularly trustworthy?

Which by itself has been evident for quite a while, even pre-FF.
  #366  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,545
As far as creating some sort of false dialogue it seems clear that Harry wanted the authors of FF to correct the ridiculous tabloid stories that were going around about forbidden tiaras and Meghan wanting St George’s to ‘smell modern’.


It’s not unknown for other royals in the BRF or indeed other families to cooperate indirectly (through friends, aides etc) with favourite authors on certain biographies so long as they themselves aren’t seen to be directly involved.

And when Harry wrote to Knauf in this email who was he agreeing with? If it’s Knauf then the aide himself may be responsible for the separation of the Sussexes from what was written in FF. If it had been Harry’s suggestion he surely would have termed the email in that way but would have started with ‘I want this…’

And, in a December 2018 email to the aide, he says Harry wrote: "I totally agree 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…especially around Markle/wedding stuff…"
  #367  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:30 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
It cannot be overstated the importance of the revelation that Harry has just admitted that this couple's strategy is to create situations where they can then deliberately mislead people into believing falsehoods about their actions.

It's might be important or unimportant that they cooperated with FF, depending on your view of this couple. What is of the utmost importance is that they did it with the intention of leading their own supporters into believing they did not.

This is the definition of misinformation-- deliberately creating a false impression of a situation but making it appear as truth, knowing that you are causing people to walk away from a situation with a false idea. Do we know of anyone who campaigns against this?
Did Harry confirm that he was aware of Meghan's cooperation with Scobie the entire time? I always half-suspected she did it without his knowledge.
  #368  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
Did Harry confirm that he was aware of Meghan's cooperation with Scobie the entire time? I always half-suspected she did it without his knowledge.
I'm pretty sure HighGoalHighDreams refers to this quote shared by soapstar:
Quote:
In a December 10 2018 email to Knauf, Harry wrote: “I totally agree 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…especially around Markle/wedding stuff…”
And also relevant:
Quote:
Knauf says “the book was discussed directly with the Duchess multiple times in person and over email” and that Meghan gave him “helpful” written “background reminders” briefing notes “for when you sit down with them”. Knauf says Harry also gave written pointers for the authors…
So, especially since this email dates from only 7 months after their wedding and Harry himself provided pointers to his staff for the sit down with the authors, I don't see any indication that Meghan would have done it behind his back.
  #369  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:43 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 302
^^^ Sigh. Welp, I'm done even trying to defend Harry. How could he ever have thought this was ok?
  #370  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:49 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,962
Harry knew. He was involved in the planning.

Quote:
A spokesman last year, for example, said they “did not collaborate with the authors on the book, nor were they interviewed for it.” However Knauf in his witness statement released today said that Meghan and Harry “authorised specific cooperation in writing in December 2018.”

Knauf added that he advised against putting the authors in touch with friends of the duchess, telling Harry “this was not a good idea” and that “being able to say hand on heart that we did not facilitate access will be important.”

However Meghan said in her response statement that when she suggested sending a blanket email to her friends asking them actively not to cooperate, Knauf had advised her to not do so.

Knauf emailed Harry that he would meet the authors to help with “factual accuracy and context.”

Harry replied saying: “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. The truth is v much needed and would be appreciated, especially around the Markle/wedding stuff but at the same time we can’t put them directly in touch with her friends.”

Knauf then contacted Meghan, emailing her a list of questions from the authors.

Knauf wrote: “If you’re happy I will see them later this week to set out the factual background and to provide more recent context.”

Meghan replied that evening, saying: “Thank you very much for the info below - for when you sit down with them it may be helpful to have some background reminders so I’ve included them below just in case. I know you are better versed at this than most but assisting where I can. I appreciate your support—please let me know if you need me to fill in any other blanks.”

Knauf then listed “the briefing points she wanted me to share with the authors in my meeting.”
Later Harry emails Knauf with more suggestions and volunteers to speak with the authors.

Quote:
Knauf then received an email from Prince Harry that said: “Also, are u planning on giving them a rough idea of what she’s been through over the last 2yrs? Media onslaught, cyber bullying on a different scale, puppeteering Thomas Markle etc etc etc. Even if they choose not to use it, they should hear what it was like from someone who was in the thick of it. So if you aren’t planning on telling them, can I ?!”

Knauf said he replied saying “Of course—I’ve never stopped!”

Knauf said Harry replied: “Oh how I hope they report on it properly. Good luck!”
Source
__________________
  #371  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:54 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Motor City, United States
Posts: 32
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.
  #372  
Old 11-10-2021, 11:02 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 302
IIRC, the original legal issue was that if Meghan had previously shared the letter with the media herself, it would be harder for her to claim Thomas Markle violated her privacy/copyright by doing so himself later. But at this point, I doubt the Mail is really interested in that. They're going to sell far more newspapers speculating about what else Meghan might have "forgotten" she did, and going over every public denial of everything with a fine-toothed comb to see what else might be lurking behind artful wording, then they'd have ever ended up paying here anyway.
  #373  
Old 11-10-2021, 11:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,545
Exactly, HenRach. The Appeals Court are there to give a verdict solely on the question of copyright and privacy. Copyright under English law holds that any private letters are the property of the author.

The issue of Jason Knauf speaking to the authors of FF is irrelevant to the case and IMO was introduced to facilitate tabloid headlines. And the newspaper’s lawyers had already withdrawn their previous allegations from their side that Meghan intended that letter to be a media sensation.
  #374  
Old 11-10-2021, 11:47 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 652
Frankly, the Knauf emails and assistance provided on drafting the letter to Thomas Markle, along with the proven lies about the Sussexes collaborating with the authors of FF, call into question whether Meghan ever really intended on the letter to her father being private. It's a slippery slope she's on here, and she must have really burned some serious bridges to have her own KP staffers providing these emails and statements to the court in defense of a British tabloid.
  #375  
Old 11-10-2021, 11:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,201
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: August 2021-

Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
I agree she didn’t forget about these conversations, but then why would she begin a lawsuit knowing that she was unable or unwilling to be entirely truthful throughout? Especially when the defendant was well funded and motivated enough to dig for as long as it took to find something like this?



All of this could have been forgotten by now; instead, the couple’s credibility is taking another serious hit and they’ve handed the MoS and the like the best kind of victory, no matter what happens with the appeal.


Agreed. It’s not believable that she just forgot IMO. She and Harry put a lot of time and effort into what she claims to have just forgotten.

Those are good questions though.

So far- none of the hits to their credibility have really hurt them though imo. They seem to be doing fine. Maybe they think the gamble is worth it.
  #376  
Old 11-10-2021, 11:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
It cannot be overstated the importance of the revelation that Harry has just admitted that this couple's strategy is to create situations where they can then deliberately mislead people into believing falsehoods about their actions.



It's might be important or unimportant that they cooperated with FF, depending on your view of this couple. What is of the utmost importance is that they did it with the intention of leading their own supporters into believing they did not.



This is the definition of misinformation-- deliberately creating a false impression of a situation but making it appear as truth, knowing that you are causing people to walk away from a situation with a false idea. Do we know of anyone who campaigns against this?


That is an excellent point. Thanks for pointing that out.
  #377  
Old 11-11-2021, 12:19 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,940
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #378  
Old 11-11-2021, 12:23 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.
That's exactly my thought on where the MoS is going with the Knauf emails. It calls into question whether Meghan ever intended on the letter to her dad being kept private.
  #379  
Old 11-11-2021, 12:27 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,201
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: August 2021-

Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
IIRC, the original legal issue was that if Meghan had previously shared the letter with the media herself, it would be harder for her to claim Thomas Markle violated her privacy/copyright by doing so himself later. But at this point, I doubt the Mail is really interested in that. They're going to sell far more newspapers speculating about what else Meghan might have "forgotten" she did, and going over every public denial of everything with a fine-toothed comb to see what else might be lurking behind artful wording, then they'd have ever ended up paying here anyway.


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?
  #380  
Old 11-11-2021, 12:31 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
That's exactly my thought on where the MoS is going with the Knauf emails. It calls into question whether Meghan ever intended on the letter to her dad being kept private.
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?"
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
archie mountbatten-windsor, duchess of sussex, duke of sussex, lili mountbatten-windsor


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 01:08 PM
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 09:05 PM




Popular Tags
18th birthday america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles charles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness crown jewels dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style genetics george vi hello! highgrove history japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia nara period noble families norway crown princely couple politics portugal prince harry prince of wales in jordan queen victoria royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tokugawa unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×