Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120157139#Comment_120157139

From the famously moderate, unbiased and bastion of the truth, the New York Times. I think not.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120157860#Comment_120157860

How about Meghan making Charlotte/Kate cry? How about the row about Meghan demanding a tiera? Where did these stories come from?

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120157932#Comment_120157932

The grey suits that run the family?? Do they appear as lizards, perhaps? What a load of baloney

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158207#Comment_120158207

Damn those algorithms looking at your search history!

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158068#Comment_120158068

Page Six wasn't the problem. The problem was the Daily Mail who printed the letter in full which legal case Meghan won despite Jason Knauf (William's employee and recent recipient of an honorary reward) testifying on behalf of the Daily Mail against Meghan.

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158341#Comment_120158341

Or perhaps you mean that Meghan forgot about the exchanges she had with him.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158371#Comment_120158371

No, I mean why was Knauf testifying on behalf of the Daily Mail against Meghan (his employer) in the first place?

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158371#Comment_120158371

they didn't forget about it but it's irrelevant.

meghan won, the daily mail's publisher lost hard.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158306#Comment_120158306

there is no doubt the article is correct, harry is right.

some of us have known it from the start given what is known about the RF.

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158322#Comment_120158322

The tiara one was from a biography I believe. Robert Jobson on Charles. Meghan and Harry initially spoke about the selection of the tiara and that book subsequently included a different version of events. Presumably the author spoke to the people involved in such fittings and they were free to talk. In the end who really cares if Harry was saying what his wife wants is what she will get. The only people who seem to care are Harry and Meghan (he devotes three pages of the book to the tiara story).

The crygate one originated from someone involved in those preparations presumably and reasonably got out via gossip. You can't control that. Again who cares about who made who cry except the Sussexes. Valentine Low talked about how Harry once requested an apology from the top dogs at the BBC after someone on Question Time quipped about how "Hugh Cutsem and Harry then smokes 'em" or wtte. Given how he writes about extensive drug taking in the book then why the hell would he demand an apology for someone saying something plausible. With that in mind the BBC suits told him someone making a joke did not warrant any apology.

The likely reason to my mind is that he is utterly thin skinned and so egotistical that he couldn't let go of a slight. It's perhaps a good insight into why this is so boringly prolonged. For example, no one gives a **** about the tabloids running trolling stories about stuff like avocados. The only ones who care are the Sussexes and those swayed by their victimhood. See the NY Times article which references the avocado story all over again.

There's a world of difference between people talking freely of their own accord to people like authors looking for solid sources and a co-ordinated smear campaign which is what Harry and Meghan are inferring happened.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158306#Comment_120158306

It has a better reputation for responsible journalism than pretty much all of the British rags. As well as that it is the most widely read newspaper in the world with an average daily circulation of about 14.5 million.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158250#Comment_120158250

Surprising that you would reject the New York Times and read some of the other rubishy, ad heavy, unknown newspapers.

You obviously have no interest in reading something in case you might learn something that doesn't support your very set opinions.

JoChervil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158341#Comment_120158341

The Daily Mail piece was the answer of her father to correct information contained in that leak. Jason Knauf didn't testify in the original case and with this court order protecting the source of the leak she won this case only on technicalities, which US lawyers are perfect in using.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158250#Comment_120158250

Here is a link to the twitter feed of the article's author who provides a free link to the actual article. Some really interesting comments on that thread and its good to see the author of the article interacting with posters. Perhaps you might like to respond to the article there now that you have actually had an opportunity to read it.

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1618236595727138817

Multipass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158507#Comment_120158507

You’re confusing the American legal system with the British. Witnesses don’t testify on behalf of either side, they testify to the court. The same court Meghan lied to, oops I mean forgot to tell the truth to.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158782#Comment_120158782

The court / judges ruled that it was not necessary to publish the letter and that it was not in the public interest as contended by Daily Mail (or Ass. Press). The DM wanted the case to go to trial and appealed the decision. To get an appeal, they needed 'new' evidence which is why Knauf was brought into it. Knauf is described here as the Sussexes Communications Secretary, so he was testifying against his (former) boss. The judge ruled that his (new) evidence was irrelevant to the case (evidence that Meghan had communicated with the writers of book by mandating Knauf to respond to the authors queries).

Bottom line is that the judges ruled in favour of Meghan initially, DM appealed saying they had new evidence (Knauf). The judge ruled that new evidence was irrelevant and that it was unlikely that the verdict would change and so denied the DM their request to go to trial.

There were no technicalities or US lawyers involved in this case as it was in an English courtroom, under English law, not American law.

The DM lost their case and had to pay damages (undisclosed) and an apology on the front page of the DM (which they did on 26 Dec.)

Link to BBC summary of case: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59502787

Multipass

Apparently there’s another book coming from one or other of the Overseas couple. They’re not going to stop this giant vengefest about not being given what they wanted. Because that’s all this is about - not race, not leaks, not how many sausages William got, it’s because they were not allowed to be half in, half out ie all the dressy events and status without having to visit any of the boring little people in schools and community centres. Another book, yet another version of their ‘truth’, how many versions will this be?

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158986#Comment_120158986

Knauf claimed that both legal teams had requested him to testify. Meghan's legal team deny this and say that they had not, though Knauf claimed that Meghan's team had requested help from him in preparing the legal case (which is not the same as asking him to make a statement).

Seems some of those involved also use similar terminology to me: Quote from Daily Mail!

'The Sussexes’ former PR chief has rejected claims that he gave evidence against Meghan to a court ‘with the authority’ of Prince William.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158995#Comment_120158995

I think the main thing was that they didn't want to live in the UK and thought that they could live and work in one of the Commonwealth countries. Not sure how glamorous that would be since many of the Commonwealth Countries wouldn't be particularly glamorous.

When Edward abdicated, he was appointed Governor of the Bahamas for a few years. But not only did this lot pull their security at short notice, they didn't even tell that they were doing it and had to find out from one of the security people what was happening.

You don't have to read it or talk or buy their books about their truth. You have a choice.

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159022#Comment_120159022

The relevant words in your post are, “their truth”. The trouble is that “their truth” and the actual truth aren’t the same thing.

Oh, and Meghan’s gone ever so quiet….

JoChervil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120158992#Comment_120158992

But it was an american court, which made this protective order for her friends (or her), who leaked this information to Page Six, the magazine all this letter issue started from and this fact was crucial to the case...

So she won on technicalities.

Multipass

….

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159046#Comment_120159046

My response to you is the same as to Multiass (which is who I was responding to) and that is - you don't have to read any of the books coming out, just as the British tabloid press don't need to be pubishing 50 articles a day on whether Harry should or should not be invited to the cornation!

And why are you complaining because Meghan has gone quiet - its all very confusing because you seemingly are sick and tired of hearing of them, yet when you don't hear from Meghan you seem to be a bit unhappy about it.

Multipass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159022#Comment_120159022

According to Harry in his book, Camilla suggested he become governer general of Bermuda! They had their plans made for Hollywood by then, the media deals were being discussed. The security being pulled at short notice is a lie, this would all have been laid out at the Sandringham summit. How exactly do you think UK taxpayer funded police security would work for someone living permanently overseas? The entitlement and arrogance of this man is astounding.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159160#Comment_120159160

The Mail on Sunday published large extracts directly from a letter that Meghan had written to her father. Page Six didn't do that. They published comments that friends of Meghan had told them (similar to how the British Press generally operate with 'a source close to the Palace says ...... etc. etc. Its how Tom Bower gets away with being sued in how he writes his book by using ''sources said in Daily Mail that Prince Harry said ....... ) and then protecting these witnesses. Meghan beat the press at their own game.

The judgement would still have been the same in that Meghan's copyright was breached and they had to pay substantial damages for that (including her legal fees which amounted to about £2 million). The Mail on Sunday were trying to argue that it in was the 'public interest' that it was published when in fact it wasn't.

The Mail wanted to get a trial because that way they could turn the whole thing into a circus and get days and weeks of copy for their newspaper (and still lose the case, but they would have made more money from the publicity).

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159314#Comment_120159314

So they didn't want to be Gov. General of Bermuda (a nothing job). Maybe they see how that worked out for Edward. They wanted an ambassadorial role in the Commonwealth, but William didn't want that to happen because they would outshine him. We all saw how Will & Kate's trip to the Caribbean went (completely overshadowing Charles & Camilla trip to Ireland which apparently Charles was none too happy about)!

jm08

Interesting to see that William's former Private Secretary during the whole Meghan & Harry episode, Simon Case is up to his neck in it at the moment in his role as Cabinet Secretary in Downing street.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/five-scandals-involving-simon-case/

valoren

The ANL case was about breach of privacy. The argument from ANL was that the letter was written with the expectation that it would be released. It took until the appeal for Knauf to confirm this with receipts (i.e. writing it in a way to pull at the publics heart strings via using personal words like "Daddy"). It is obvious from what was provided to the court that Knauf was assisting Meghan in the mutual expectation that the letter might/would be leaked potentially. Given how the recipient Thomas Markle wasn't exactly media shy then this was a reasonable assumption on their end hence Knauf assisting with crafting the letter with that in mind to protect Meghan. The initial verdict was that ANL used an excessive amount of the letter in print. That judgement was upheld during the appeal. It never went to trial but the argument from ANL effectively amounted to suggesting how a letter written in the reasonable expectation of being made public is private. It was, in their eyes, in the public interest. They were also likely trying to determine the sequence of events which lead to Thomas Markle delivering them the letter, a letter which was addressed to him and which he was free to do what he wanted with it in effect. In my mind the People magazine article and quotes were a provocative nudge/prompt against Thomas Markle. He had the letter but after six months he had kept it private. He hadn’t tried to cash in on it. He went to ANL with it ostensibly to get his side of the story out and they printed an excessive amount.

Multipass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159407#Comment_120159407

That’s just so ridiculous, ‘a nothing job’ - how entitled and obnoxious. Harry’s whole book was poor poor me, I got the smaller half of the room….in a goddamn CASTLE! Rich, spoiled, whining little brat. Here’s an idea, he could get an actual job.

jm08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159497#Comment_120159497

Well, first of all the Gov. General of the Bahamas at the moment is a Bahamian and a black man. He was appointed in 2019.

Secondly, the Prime Minister of the Bahamas recommends who should be appointed. It not in the gift of the British monarch.

Camilla was showing her true racist, machievilian self by proposing that the Governorship of the Bahamas could be taken from a local black man (Sir Cornelius Smith) and gifted to a member of the Royal family just because she is a bit uneasy that the game is up for her and her upgrading of her image.

When Edward was Gov. General, the Bahamas was not independent, so basically now Gov. Gen job is mainly ceremonial (i.e., a nothing job in a tax haven).