The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024

[Elenath]

I posted here ages ago the interview by a London Met Police Chief, who dealt with threats to Harry and Meghan while they were living in England. He emphasised and reiterated that those threats (and there were many that were investigated) were real and dangerous. It’s been discussed on this thread several times.

https://www.businessinsider.com/threats-against-meghan-markle-disgusting-and-very-real-uk-officer-2022-11#:~:text=The%20outgoing%20Metropolitan%20Police%20assistant,family's%20safety%20in%20the%20UK.

‘Disgusting’ plots against Meghan Markle investigated by police

‘If you’d seen the stuff that was written ... you would feel under threat all the time,’ says Neil Basu

www.independent.co.uk

Also, Anybody who has been on the Internet since 2016 can write about threats made about Meghan by British people and others who quite frankly are rabid haters of the woman.

I'm mostly active on Quora and you have no idea how many people I encounter there who think she should be killed. Most say in a kind of roundabout way, but not all. So yes, there are some extremely crazy haters out there and I can understand she doesn't think it's worth the risk.

 

[Elenath]

Didn't in one of his hacking lawsuits (I'm too lazy to check which one), Harry claimed that there's a "secret agreement" between "the Palace" and the press so he could only filed it after he left as his reason for passing the statute of limitation? And now in this interview he said he talked a lot with the late Queen before she passed and she gave her support. And then Harry also said that after the half-in-half-out fiasco, he'd been blocked from seeing his grandmother meaning there's no "a lot meetings", but only "few". So does this mean the "a lot of talks of support" from the Queen happened pre-2019? If the late Queen (the boss of "the Palace") gave her OK pre-2019, what's with filling the lawsuit past its time limit because "the Palace" didn't give him an OK prior?

In a way Omid's book jeopardized Meghan's privacy lawsuit, let's see whether Harry unintentionally jeopardizing his own lawsuit by doing this interview ...

He has said before they were in touch over the phone. Talking to someone doesn't mean it has to happen in person and I'm sure she had her own private phone others had no control over.

I for one think it's a bit weird other people controlled who she met with. Supposedly without her knowing it.

 

[Hallo girl]

He has said before they were in touch over the phone. Talking to someone doesn't mean it has to happen in person and I'm sure she had her own private phone others had no control over.

I for one think it's a bit weird other people controlled who she met with. Supposedly without her knowing it.

What makes you think she had no control over who she met?

 

[shady lady]

I can't recall any incidents in the UK where Meghan's safety was threatened. But the US is where her and Harry's "near-catastrophic" car chase occurred, where they were chased by another paparazzo (as seen in their documentary), and where a drone was flown over the home they were borrowing from Tyler Perry. It seems to me they're considerably less safe in the US, but feelings > facts, I suppose.


Well, as he said during one of his interviews promoting Spare, he would apologize if someone told him what he did wrong. Apparently, nothing's occurred to him yet.

Quite so. I can recall no reports of real time incidents taking place in the UK where MM's safety was threatened, either imagined or actual.

She would be quite safe in the UK if she came over, but she doesn't want to because she knows that (with very few exceptions) nobody wants her here, including the BRF, and if she shows her face in public she will get booed, because of her lies and bad behaviour. Using security, and using past cases where four people (in two separate pairs) were rightly prosecuted and convicted of plotting - not doing -, out of a population of some 67 million people, are very poor excuses IMO.

Remember: HLM The Queen was actually shot at (as was Charles in Australia). Did she flee the country and claim it was unsafe for her ever to return? Nope. She (and Charles) kept calm and carried on. MM has never come even close to being in the same kind of danger, only from the words and actions of herself and her husband.

 

[Hallo girl]

Meghan appeared to be happy enough to cuddle strangers from the crowd, She didn't appear to have any fear when she lived here.
Watching the programme, it appeared, I could be wrong, that Harry was linking the safety issue with the newspapers. I am not aware of any newspaper publishing anything remotely that would threaten her security.
Now he could be actually meaning social media, which is a totally different ball game, and without drawing specific comparisons, other members of the family have/ are experiencing that.
What I took from programme overall was that Harry would like to shut down any story about him and his wife unless approved by them. That is not a free press. It was unpleasant what happened to both William and Harry when they were young, the media were everywhere and lessons have been learnt. They were not allowed to be young men sewing their wild oats. Their parents needed to take some responsibility for that.

The hacking etc was very wrong, and am not in anyway supporting that, but the example he gave was a true story that happened in a public place. It had nothing to do with hacking. Smoking pot in a pub.
Taking young women to a room in Las Vegas, allowing himself to be photographed with them, that had nothing to do with hacking, He was an idiot.

 

[shady lady]

Meghan appeared to be happy enough to cuddle strangers from the crowd, She didn't appear to have any fear when she lived here.
Watching the programme, it appeared, I could be wrong, that Harry was linking the safety issue with the newspapers. I am not aware of any newspaper publishing anything remotely that would threaten her security.
Now he could be actually meaning social media, which is a totally different ball game, and without drawing specific comparisons, other members of the family have/ are experiencing that.
What I took from programme overall was that Harry would like to shut down any story about him and his wife unless approved by them. That is not a free press. It was unpleasant what happened to both William and Harry when they were young, the media were everywhere and lessons have been learnt. They were not allowed to be young men sewing their wild oats. Their parents needed to take some responsibility for that.

The hacking etc was very wrong, and am not in anyway supporting that, but the example he gave was a true story that happened in a public place. It had nothing to do with hacking. Smoking pot in a pub.
Taking young women to a room in Las Vegas, allowing himself to be photographed with them, that had nothing to do with hacking, He was an idiot.

Well said. I think yet again it's a case of "recollections may vary".

IMO, there is nothing these two won't say or do to try and twist things, to try and get what they want.

 

[Curryong]

It is perfectly clear when you listen to the Met police counter terrorism chief speaking about threats to Meghan and Harry that it involved far more incidents than two couples behaving in that way.

Also, very early on, in 2018

White powder letter sent to Meghan Markle treated as racist hate crime

Scotland Yard says letter sent with powder is being investigated by counter-terrorism officers

www.theguardian.com

 

[shady lady]

And it is perfectly clear that MM was happy to hug a complete stranger during the walkabout after HLMTQ's death, not to mention winding the window down to display herself on another occasion in 2022. If she was so worried about her safety, why did she do those things???

But let's not delve any further into the past and get the thread shut down

 

[Curryong]

On those two occasions Meghan obviously felt safe enough to do those things. Police officers may well have been present nearby. That however does not remove the ‘real and credible’ threats she and Harry were facing during their time as working royals that the Met was taking very seriously indeed. Threats that certainly weren’t imaginary or dismissed by the authorities.

 

[Elenath]

What makes you think she had no control over who she met?

The number of articles and people here who keep saying Harry was stopped from visiting her even though they were, apparently, in touch.

And it is perfectly clear that MM was happy to hug a complete stranger during the walkabout after HLMTQ's death, not to mention winding the window down to display herself on another occasion in 2022. If she was so worried about her safety, why did she do those things???

But let's not delve any further into the past and get the thread shut down

All the royals hug people when on a walkabout and despite this they still get full-time security. Hugs I guess don't mean there are no threats. The late queen went on walks and horse riding, all with security, Catherine and William go places and mingle, apparently they still need security.
What I'm trying to say is, the fact that she did those things doesn't mean there were (are) no threats.

 

[shady lady]

The number of articles and people here who keep saying Harry was stopped from visiting her even though they were, apparently, in touch.


All the royals hug people when on a walkabout and despite this they still get full-time security. Hugs I guess don't mean there are no threats. The late queen went on walks and horse riding, all with security, Catherine and William go places and mingle, apparently they still need security.
What I'm trying to say is, the fact that she did those things doesn't mean there were (are) no threats.

Ah, but apparently MM is some sort of "mega target" in her and PH's minds, she's in far more danger than anyone else (it would seem), so surely in the interests of self-preservation, it's better to be safe than sorry? Especially in light of what MM and PH had been saying and doing, and especially as she was no longer a working royal undertaking duties where interaction with the public are necessary.

My best guess is that the opportunities to "be seen" were more important than her safety, so she couldn't have been that concerned. And let's not forget the Netflix cameras rolling away in the background

Let's cut to the chase: all this talk by H&M about it not being safe here is all part of the games they are playing to try and get their own way. That's my opinion, anyway.

And on that note I am off out to enjoy the sunshine. Have a good day everyone

 

[Hallo girl]

The number of articles and people here who keep saying Harry was stopped from visiting her even though they were, apparently, in touch.

It was Harry who claimed he was stopped from seeing her, he questioned if she was surrounded by the right people.

 

[Hallo girl]

Deleted

 

[Mirabel]

I would guess Meghan has received some threats (most public figures do since there are so many crazy stalkers), but no more than any other members of the BRF.
IMO, she and Harry use this as an excuse for her to avoid coming to the UK, which is clearly something she does not want to do- ever.

Is she afraid of getting booed? It has happened before, and while it can't be pleasant, it was hardly life-threatening,

 

[TLLK]

I would guess Meghan has received some threats (most public figures do since there are so many crazy stalkers), but no more than any other members of the BRF.
IMO, she and Harry use this as an excuse for her to avoid coming to the UK, which is clearly something she does not want to do- ever.

Is she afraid of getting booed? It has happened before, and while it can't be pleasant, it was hardly life-threatening,

I agree that it's unpleasant that booing would not be considered by security to be life threatening. IMO I believe that both Meghan and Harry do not want a repeat of the booing heard at the 2022 Jubilee Service.

 

[Erin9]

I agree that it's unpleasant that booing would not be considered by security to be life threatening. IMO I believe that both Meghan and Harry do not want a repeat of the booing heard at the 2022 Jubilee Service.

I really don’t buy security is the reason Meghan won’t come to the UK. She was clearly fine coming in 2022. What exactly changed since then? I think she simply doesn’t want to come. This is the excuse.

I can buy security is an issue for Harry. He seems paranoid on the subject to me. He sure sounded that way in his latest interview.

 

[akina21]

Quite so. I can recall no reports of real time incidents taking place in the UK where MM's safety was threatened, either imagined or actual.

She would be quite safe in the UK if she came over, but she doesn't want to because she knows that (with very few exceptions) nobody wants her here, including the BRF, and if she shows her face in public she will get booed, because of her lies and bad behaviour. Using security, and using past cases where four people (in two separate pairs) were rightly prosecuted and convicted of plotting - not doing -, out of a population of some 67 million people, are very poor excuses IMO.

I suspect "Security" is Meghan's Get out of returning to the UK free card. Harry obviously wants to return in some form but Meghan doesn't and to avoid being the bad guy preventing Harry from leaving the US with the kids she claims to be unsafe and in need of the kind of 24/7 security she knows Harry can't provide. It's why Harry is fighting RAVEC but also assuming that his father could just give him this type of security.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Meghan appeared to be happy enough to cuddle strangers from the crowd, She didn't appear to have any fear when she lived here.
Watching the programme, it appeared, I could be wrong, that Harry was linking the safety issue with the newspapers. I am not aware of any newspaper publishing anything remotely that would threaten her security.
Now he could be actually meaning social media, which is a totally different ball game, and without drawing specific comparisons, other members of the family have/ are experiencing that.
What I took from programme overall was that Harry would like to shut down any story about him and his wife unless approved by them. That is not a free press. It was unpleasant what happened to both William and Harry when they were young, the media were everywhere and lessons have been learnt. They were not allowed to be young men sewing their wild oats. Their parents needed to take some responsibility for that.

The hacking etc was very wrong, and am not in anyway supporting that, but the example he gave was a true story that happened in a public place. It had nothing to do with hacking. Smoking pot in a pub.
Taking young women to a room in Las Vegas, allowing himself to be photographed with them, that had nothing to do with hacking, He was an idiot.

I think that Harry must believe that due to whatever “gentlemen’s agreement” the palace has with the press - access for certain things then privacy for other things - that the palace somehow “controls” the press and can shut down any story they don’t like. This is utterly ridiculous and not how the press works at all

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

With all the horrific gun violence we have here in the US, I would posit that anyone would be safer in the UK than in the US, simply due to the obscene number of guns we have here in the US and our inadequate mental health system.

 

[Hallo girl]

There were unfortunate photographs of Harry leaving nightclubs etc which understandably did upset him, he felt he had no private life at all. Other members of the family appeared to have tried to keep things away from cameras.

 

[Hallo girl]

I think that Harry must believe that due to whatever “gentlemen’s agreement” the palace has with the press - access for certain things then privacy for other things - that the palace somehow “controls” the press and can shut down any story they don’t like. This is utterly ridiculous and not how the press works at all

Nowadays I would say the children are better protected from the press than in previous years.
There is the agreement of the first day of school then that is it, the press stay away. I do not know about foreign photographers etc but the British press appear to respect that. Obviously days out at say Wimbledon or the polo then they are on show so fair game.
That is why Meghans comment that she would not be able to do the school run in the uk was slightly off .

 

[Alison H]

Unfortunately, any public figure is subject to threats, to witness recent events in the US, Slovakia and Denmark, and the trial here in the UK of a man who was planning to rape and murder TV presenter Holly Willoughby. It's horrible. But other public figures just get on with their business.

 

[tommy100]

There were unfortunate photographs of Harry leaving nightclubs etc which understandably did upset him, he felt he had no private life at all. Other members of the family appeared to have tried to keep things away from cameras.

Yes, and you can argue this both ways- they should be able to go out to clubs in private OR that Harry (and others in RF) went to the same “it” nightclubs week after week in the middle of London. No one was climbing over gates or garden fences to “catch” them. Diana and Fergie went out clubbing in fancy dress to avoid being caught by the paps in the 80s so it wasn’t a new problem. The issue then was Harry didn’t want to not go to the most hip trendy nightclubs but felt he should be entitled to do so without being photographed going in or out.

 

[tommy100]

Nowadays I would say the children are better protected from the press than in previous years.
There is the agreement of the first day of school then that is it, the press stay away. I do not know about foreign photographers etc but the British press appear to respect that. Obviously days out at say Wimbledon or the polo then they are on show so fair game.
That is why Meghans comment that she would not be able to do the school run in the uk was slightly off .

One of the few times Archie had been pictures was on his way to preschool with Meghan in America

 

[Hallo girl]

One of the few times Archie had been pictures was on his way to preschool with Meghan in America

Rather ironic isn’t it. Having said that , was it a lucky shot by a member of the public or was it a professional door stepping them.

 

[Hallo girl]

Yes, and you can argue this both ways- they should be able to go out to clubs in private OR that Harry (and others in RF) went to the same “it” nightclubs week after week in the middle of London. No one was climbing over gates or garden fences to “catch” them. Diana and Fergie went out clubbing in fancy dress to avoid being caught by the paps in the 80s so it wasn’t a new problem. The issue then was Harry didn’t want to not go to the most hip trendy nightclubs but felt he should be entitled to do so without being photographed going in or out.

That is so true. You could understand his desire to go to the ‘it’ places of the time.

 

[tommy100]

Rather ironic isn’t it. Having said that , was it a lucky shot by a member of the public or was it a professional door stepping them.

It was credited to a professional agency and very close in if I recall correctly

 

[Hallo girl]

It was credited to a professional agency and very close in if I recall correctly

The security let Meghan down that day.

 

[tommy100]

Or did they do as instructed some more cynical people may ask

 

[EllieCat]

Remember: HLM The Queen was actually shot at (as was Charles in Australia). Did she flee the country and claim it was unsafe for her ever to return? Nope. She (and Charles) kept calm and carried on. MM has never come even close to being in the same kind of danger, only from the words and actions of herself and her husband.

I would imagine Princess Anne would have a thing or two to say about her own experience of being shot at too. I'm sure it never occurred to her to leave the UK for her own safety.