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

[Curryong]

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.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

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?

 

[TLLK]

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.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

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?

 

[Prinsara]

That they have issues and are not particularly trustworthy?

Which by itself has been evident for quite a while, even pre-FF.

 

[Curryong]

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…"

 

[UglyAmerican]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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:

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:

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.

 

[UglyAmerican]

^^^ Sigh. Welp, I'm done even trying to defend Harry. How could he ever have thought this was ok?

 

[soapstar]

Harry knew. He was involved in the planning.

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.

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

 

[HenRach Dominion]

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.

 

[UglyAmerican]

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.

 

[Curryong]

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.

 

[Sunnystar]

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.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: August 2021-

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.

 

[Erin9]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Sunnystar]

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.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: August 2021-

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?

 

[Moran]

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?"

 

[AC21091968]

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.

I think the Mail of Sunday is definitely using the Knauf's emails for maximum gain like indicating that Meghan had her father's letter to be made public in mind or passing details to Omid Scobie for Finding Freedom via third party. At this point, the MoS is doing anything to appeal the decision including the copyright of the letter.

I found it even unbelievable that Meghan could just forget that she contributed to Finding Freedom via third party, especially when she wrote a lengthy email to Knauf. The email conversation also does not make Harry look good either with their intent to mask their contribution whilst "make the record straight" so to speak.

“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.”

 

[iceflower]

Here are some more photos and videos of the gala:


** rex gallery **


** gettyimages: NY: 2021 Salute To Freedom Gala **


** dm article: Harry jokes about his American Dream in speech to Salute to Freedom gala **

 

[Osipi]

To add one last thought to this discussion before I leave this topic be, I sincerely think that if Meghan had really intended her letter to her father to remain solely between the two of them, she would have handwritten it (involving no one else) and mailed it herself to her father. No one would have been the wiser about anything until Thomas Markle decided to give it to the MoS to print. There would have been no question about the fact that her privacy and the copyright was breached.

Time for me to bow out of the conversation and wait for the next exciting episode of whatever happens next with this couple.

 

[Alison H]

It's just embarrassing. All right, everyone forgets things, but forgetting that you'd told an aide to brief an author about your private business for a book intended to make headlines around the world isn't exactly the same as forgetting to post someone's birthday card or forgetting that you meant to pop into the shop for a pint of milk on your way home from work. As if she really "forgot". Why tell such an obvious lie?

 

[Claire]

I would rather say disgusting. Essentially it is a organised plan and no matter how anyone wraps it up - no one creates organised plans to get the truth out.
I do worry about the integrity of all involved.

 

[AC21091968]

At one point in the interview between Meghan and New York Times editor, Andrew Ross Sorkin, the allegation of bullying was touched on. Sorkin was being vague about the British tabloid releasing stories about Meghan mistreating her employees. Unless he was referring to the rumours amongst gossip columns during the Sussex's Oceania tour in 2018, he was completely wrong in referring The Times as the tabloid. This was the article written by Valentine Low released before the Oprah interview this year. Meghan then followed Sorkin's vague question by stating not reading tabloid and with a "cigarette" warning. She did not exactly address The Times' article on the bullying allegation, instead she criticised the tabloid in general.

Sorkin: I’ve read great things about you as a boss, and if you read the tabloids you can read all sorts of crazy things about being a boss. Do you feel like you have to do it differently, and specifically given your role, do you feel like you have to do it differently?

Meghan: Well firstly, I would urge you not to read tabloids, because I don’t think that’s healthy for anyone. Hopefully one day they will come with a warning label like cigarettes do like ‘this is toxic for your mental health'. I think that the way that I have now moved, as my husband and I have started to build this together on our own, we’re just doing it the same way that we would want if we were employees of it, right – so to treat people the way you want to be treated.

This part of the interview got a mention on GB News, even Valentine Low responded on twitter by replying to a user. If Sorkin really did put The Times in the tabloid category, I'm surprised a journalist in the New York Times could even messed it up.

valentinelow @valentinelow
Prince Harry has called the news media - the ones he doesn't like - 'pirates with press cards'.
It's got a ring to it, I have to say.
9:23 AM · Nov 10, 2021·TweetDeck

Toria @toriaa_h
Replying to @valentinelow
Apparently you're tabloid too Valentine x
9:25 AM · Nov 10, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

valentinelow @valentinelow
Replying to @toriaa_h
And there was me thinking I was one of the 'professional honest journalists who respect and uphold the values of journalism'.
9:33 AM · Nov 10, 2021·TweetDeck​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1458201121344872453

 

[Somebody]

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.

Could part of their case also be that the MoS 'responded' to the inaccurate characterization of the letter and that Meghan most likely did support her friends talking to People (including referencing the letter). Whether that is sufficient ground to publish the letter is a second question but if this would be part of their strategy and statement Meghan makes on her friends could be considered untrustworthy as she previously failed to 'remember' very relevant details about those close to her cooperating with the press to get her view out (which seems to be what happened in the People article).

See also:

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?

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?"

And perjuring yourself seems pretty significant and problematic... If you are willing to go that far to create a different narrative, I do agree that your statements cannot be trusted.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I'm sorry but Meghan is lying when she said she forgot that she cooperated with the book. If she were sincere, she would have corrected the record as soon as she realized that she mislead the court. There is no way her memory was completely surpressed until she was forced to admit her lie.

I don't know about the UK, but I have always felt that perjury in civil cases is an underprosecuted crime in the US. There are too many cases of someone lying in court at best, they are wasting everyone's time and at worse, they are responsible for unjust court decisions. How much better off would we all be if people would admit they ran the red light or knew about research that a drug caused a certain side effect, so those injured don't have to waste time and energy fighting for their rights. I believe that the real threat of a prosecution would deter many people from perjuring theirselves and result in much better and more fair legal outcomes.

The revelation that she lied underoath completely undercuts her credibility about anything she has ever said.

 

[muriel]

I'm sorry but Meghan is lying when she said she forgot that she cooperated with the book. If she were sincere, she would have corrected the record as soon as she realized that she mislead the court. There is no way her memory was completely surpressed until she was forced to admit her lie.

I don't know about the UK, but I have always felt that perjury in civil cases is an underprosecuted crime in the US. There are too many cases of someone lying in court at best, they are wasting everyone's time and at worse, they are responsible for unjust court decisions. How much better off would we all be if people would admit they ran the red light or knew about research that a drug caused a certain side effect, so those injured don't have to waste time and energy fighting for their rights. I believe that the real threat of a prosecution would deter many people from perjuring theirselves and result in much better and more fair legal outcomes.

The revelation that she lied underoath completely undercuts her credibility about anything she has ever said.

I think you really have hit the hammer on the head when you say that "The revelation that she lied underoath completely undercuts her credibility about anything she has ever said"

 

[Alison H]

I think the idea is to prove that Meghan's claims about wanting privacy were untrue. If she lied about being involved with the book, then it's very possible that she also lied about not intending the letter to be made public. The other argument, as I understand it, is that she couldn't reasonably expect Thomas Markle to keep the letter private when it proved that allegations made against him, of freezing her out, were untrue.

What a mess. And there are two young children who've never met their grandfather, and probably never will do.