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

[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 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/ar...oating-champagne-away-Princess-Pinocchio.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...eal-privacy-ruling-Meghan-Markle-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.

I found this article in the telegraph to be interesting:


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...scrutiny-privacy-laws-meghan-duchess-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]

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]

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/comment...ail-on-sunday-duchess-sussex-tabloid-culture#

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...war-may-have-taken-mail-on-sunday-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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...kle-really-wanted-fight-truth-come-court.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...L-COMMENT-dark-day-truth-free-expression.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-trial-refused-publication-letter-father.html

 

[Curryong]

The Fail columnists squealing loudly about this verdict, I see. All the barrack room lawyers coming out arguing against the verdicts of four judges, including the three in the Appeals Court. Bit different to the vindictive glee the journalists employed by this newspaper group would have exhibited if it had won.

 

[Marengo]

I suppose a sense of reflection from the DM on the verdict is too much to ask for. In the end they were convicted of wrongdoing and it would suit them to aknowledge that. Instead they try to distract by fuming about the Duchess. They may or may not be right about some claims, but that is beside the point.

 

[Camsterlaird]

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.

Why is she so drawn to attention-seeking? She is bringing the Royal Family into disrepute ... perhaps that is her agenda.

 

[Alison H]

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?

A lot of what she said to Oprah was a pack of lies, notably what she said about Archie's title.

Does anyone genuinely doubt that Meghan and Harry co-operated with Finding Freedom? There was some very personal stuff in it, which surely they couldn't have got from anyone else. Unless you're about 14, do you describe every single moment of a first date to your friends? And do you tell people all about your toilet arrangements whilst you're on safari? And would her friends really have told an author all that information without her agreement?

I don't think she had any credibility before, as you say, so this hasn't changed things.

We just seem to be in a vicious circle here. The more she wages war on the press, the more they'll wage war back. If you act like Princess Anne and ignore it, or like William and Kate and work with them, then the press stop attacking you.


What's got lost in all this is the ruined relationship between a father and a daughter who were once very close, and that's extremely sad. Meghan's willing to devote all this energy to a dispute with a newspaper, but, unless there's something going on behind the scenes - which, from what Thomas says, they're isn't - no energy at all into trying to repair that. Very sad.




Regarding what happened at Birchfields Primary School - which I know quite well, because I went to school myself near there - unfortunately it's not the first time that a school's done something like that, although not necessarily with Meghan. Another school recently showed children "circles of influence" suggesting that some religious groups were powerful and privileged. Obviously none of this is Meghan's fault, but it's unfortunate that teachers are using some of the issues involved to push their own agendas. Everything's got so polarised, and it's not pleasant for anyone.

 

[Moran]

Meghan's victory lap around the stands of public opinion yesterday was telling. She's unable to be gracious when winning. She just needs to gloat as if she had revised everyone's opinion about her. She had to turn this technical win into a great admission of court that she had been right and a victim. Tooting her own horn how she fought for justice for us all when we all saw the emails she conveniently "forgot" about. We all saw how many times she amended her statements and then crowned it all by scrambling for an excuse why she lied. After this, she behaves like she's an innocent victim who never put a foot wrong?

The Daily Fail reference was yet another fail for Meghan. He pushed me first is a level of maturity fit for a kindergartener. And at the same time when her hubby was roaring like a lion that Megxit was an insult against her when it was clear that it was a wordplay. But these two never miss the chance to make this "strong, feminist fighter" a victim of insults.

Good that they're constantly telling us what a strong feminist Meghan is because I sure don't see it in her behavior. At any time.

 

[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.

 

[Moran]

I sure wouldn't be referring to any media as Fail in an official statement. Especially when I'm winning. It isn't about the tabloid, it's about my own ability to rise to the occasion.

That's about the level of maturity I expected from Meghan, BTW. I've said here that I find her overall manners appalling.

Stooping to the level of a tabloid isn't much of a recommendation.

The court ruling said that AT BEST she had had a memory lapse. IOW, that's the most favourable interpretation. They were tactfully silent about the worst scenario but I won't be surprised if Meghan didn't get this.

As I said, manners, manners. It's all about manners.

In this particular case, the court ruling stated that Meghan's letter wasn't loving, so her defence of a loving daughter desperately to reach out to her father fails spectacularly.

In fact, it even said that a tiny part of the letter would have sufficed to expose Meghan's true intentions.

 

[Alison H]

I've heard people refer to Her Majesty as "Queenie". People often refer to the Cambridges as "Will and Kate", or to the Duchess of York as "Fergie", or to Prince Andrew as "Air Miles Andy". The US tabloids used to talk about "Chuck and Di". That hardly makes it appropriate to use any of those terms in an official statement about a legal case. (Not to mention the fact that it was grammatically incorrect, and that the word used in the context concerned should have been "failure" rather than "fail"!)

 

[A-Bik]

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.

Exactly.

It's bizarre for me to keep reading inferences - only here - that the infamous Daily Mail(!) is now a victim of Meghan.

I can only assume that must be due to huge disappointment Meghan won her case, twice now.

 

[TLLK]

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/...kle-really-wanted-fight-truth-come-court.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...L-COMMENT-dark-day-truth-free-expression.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-trial-refused-publication-letter-father.html

Yes she would have been a great asset to the monarchy but sadly it was not the path the Sussexes chose to follow.

 

[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 ?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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.

I'm not a British lawyer, so perhaps she didn't commit perjury under British law. However, in the U.S., answers to interrogatories and depositions are under oath, and lying under oath is perjury. I think it is obvious she lied and apparently, so does the court.

 

[ACO]

I'm not a British lawyer, so perhaps she didn't commit perjury under British law. However, in the U.S., answers to interrogatories and depositions are under oath, and lying under oath is perjury. I think it is obvious she lied and apparently, so does the court.

Well for one she was not under oath. Nor did the court claim she lied. That wouldn't hold up in the US either. These were statements provided and one deemed as clarification. It is a reason that despite the media being fixated on that (and I get it) that the legal system is not. In fact the judges said both sides providing more clarification with addition statements helped them determined that Meghan actually didn't want the letter being public. In the end Knauf actually helped Meghan win.

 

[Camsterlaird]

Meghan's victory lap around the stands of public opinion yesterday was telling. She's unable to be gracious when winning. She just needs to gloat as if she had revised everyone's opinion about her. She had to turn this technical win into a great admission of court that she had been right and a victim. Tooting her own horn how she fought for justice for us all when we all saw the emails she conveniently "forgot" about. We all saw how many times she amended her statements and then crowned it all by scrambling for an excuse why she lied. After this, she behaves like she's an innocent victim who never put a foot wrong?

The Duchess of Sussex has clearly upset a lot of Royalists ... perhaps we should just ignore her rantings, and concentrate on the remainder of the Royal Family - don't give her oxygen, she might get the message then.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Well for one she was not under oath. Nor did the court claim she lied. That wouldn't hold up in the US either. These were statements provided and one deemed as clarification. It is a reason that despite the media being fixated on that (and I get it) that the legal system is not. In fact the judges said both sides providing more clarification with addition statements helped them determined that Meghan actually didn't want the letter being public. In the end Knauf actually helped Meghan win.

To be utterly clear to all of here who may not work as litigators or in the legal system:

When a panel of three judges says that your statement was "at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory," they are calling you out for lying.

 

[Ghost]

A pyrric victory. ANL is considering an appeal at the Supreme Court of Justice.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The UK has left the EU, but it has not left the European Convention on Human Rights.

With this verdict actually standing EU and Continental jurisprudence has been enshrined into British Law. The clash between the right on enjoying a private life versus the right of free press was already settled in various European cases, almost always won by publicly known and and also by royal citizens.

The case is relatively simple, ECHR article 8.1 could not be more crystal clear:
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Meghan: my right on respect for my private and family life ( her relationship with her father! ), my home and my correspondence ( her letter! ) has been enormously infringed.

The DM: She is a public person, the public wants -and has the right- to know all!

Justice: the assumed appetite by the public "to know all" does not justify the destroying of the Duchess' basic right on having respect for her family and private life, her home and her correspondence.

Apart from Meghan, this new verdict enshrined into British jurisprudence actually helps and protects other individuals. A future lawsuit against a media outlet can now direct to the case Sussex vs ANL.

 

[A-Bik]

A pyrric victory. ANL is considering an appeal at the Supreme Court of Justice.

The 3 most senior judges in the land have spoken.

The Daily Mail are not going to win an appeal. In time, they may even be considered vexatious litigants.

I'll be surprised if they got a Supreme Court hearing.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

A pyrric victory. ANL is considering an appeal at the Supreme Court of Justice.

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.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Well for one she was not under oath. Nor did the court claim she lied. That wouldn't hold up in the US either. These were statements provided and one deemed as clarification. It is a reason that despite the media being fixated on that (and I get it) that the legal system is not. In fact the judges said both sides providing more clarification with addition statements helped them determined that Meghan actually didn't want the letter being public. In the end Knauf actually helped Meghan win.

I find it interesting that the UK allows people to provide statements and clarifications to a court regarding an element of the case without being under oath or under any legal obligation to tell the truth.