Skip to main content

Open Post Part 2: The Sussex Lawsuit

There are more than 200 responses to Open Post Part 1: The Sussex Lawsuit, which means that Google Blogger can get a little difficult to work with.

Let's continue here.

You can read the original Sussex lawsuit at this link.

You can read Piers Morgan's response here.

Comments

abbyh said…

Thank you Nutty for this.

I think something (or somethings) which were not out there before and have now surfaced or threatened to surface which is driving the timing.

And or that they really believe their PR and that they are building on strength to use this to control negative PR by this show of threat.

The DM certainly had a number of positive articles on her. They moderated many articles.

The bully behavior to the critics defeats the concept of Diana 2.0, humanitarian and general all around wonderful person. It does, however, demonstrate the worst traits of woke, SJW and general bossy tyrant.
RoyalT said…
I’m surprised at how much support they are getting. Using his dead mother (again) as tragic media victim really pays off for him. I hope William is disgusted by this as many of us are.

There has been no bullying or relentless attacks from the media. All reports have come about from their OWN actions. I hope the Mail wins. And then brings Megamerch down big time.
Sandie said…
The article by Piers Morgan is quite mild, but what is interesting is that he confirms that not only was Buckingham Palace not consulted about this lawsuit, but they were not informed. It's a mess!
Girl with a Hat said…
RoyalT - I don't see much support.

I thought I couldn't dislike more than I did yesterday. It's surprising how she can make me find ways to find more dislike for her. The British people feel the same way. They are totally repulsed.
Artemisia19 said…
Piers was quite generous in his positive assessment of the tour but is bewildered by the timing of the lawsuit. It’s like a passive-aggressive move on their part.
Girl with a Hat said…
My jaw dropped when I read this sentence by Harry: My deepest fear is history repeating itself. I've seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person.


Harry, isn't that what you two did with Archie, the poor dead girl, Bishop Desmond Tutu? They just don't get it. They are thick as two planks of wood.
Nelo said…
Piers is saying they didn't inform anyone at Buckingham Palace about the lawsuit while Mills of Sky News is saying they informed the Queen and Charles. Harry and Meghan used the press for one week to get good PR, then on the last day of their tour, they say the good PR they got during the tour shows the press double standards. I don't understand, please can someone explain this reasoning to me. My theory in the previous thread is that they were vexed by Kate's profile which Sunday Mail published last Sunday in which shots were taken at Meghan.
Sandie said…
Yes, Nelo, I also saw that And Rhiannon Mills from Sky News says the Queen and Prince Charles were informed about the lawsuit. I wonder why Piers Morgan is so adamant that they were not. Anyway, if he is wrong, I hope he issues a correction to sort out the confusion.
The Suckasses are such a stereotype, it's almost funny if it hadn't been so irritating. It's playing out like a typical story of the Kings brother, the evil dim always angry prince and his greedy, old but obsessed about her beauty wife.

I had read a while back, ether here or maybe another forum, a poster basically said on day2 that the positive publicity from the SA tour will make them complacent soon enough and by the end of the tour they won't be able to help themselves and definitely do something dramatic. It's so true, this shit show is predictable.

The Archie card was used to assuage the public who called MM out on leaving him to travel for a tennis match and a wedding. That's also why she is always seen carrying him and not Harry. It's why she always mentions that their schedule is planned around the baby's , and when noone made note of it, she kept mentioning that till they wrote a damn article about it.

The rewears and going to the artists Hamlet and buying jeans their, that's to deflect from her overspending and hypocrisy about environmental issues. A lot of people made of the stupid brown trench dress saying she basically has the same one but didn't rewear as she can't fit into it, lo and behold wears her older longer brown trench dress for her engagement today's. She/someone is definitely reading blogs such as this one and LSA because she has pointedly done a.few things to prove the harshest criticism wrong.

The only thing she can't/won't compromise on is her feud with her father. That's now the only negative comment that still remains on their Ig comments section. And they used a clever way of tackling that by suing Dm over the letter publication. That helps them reiterate that the press and her father are both evil and out to get her.
Girl with a Hat said…
Nelo, that sounds about right for Meghan.
Jen said…
Well, right away I disagree with Piers, this tour was not a success and they DID put a foot wrong in many instances. But he's right that THEY are solely to blame for their bad press.
Artemisia19 said…
Meanwhile, Harry looks like he is going on 45. He’s never going to be at peace in this relationship. He’s aged so much since the wedding. I always thought he was cute redhead, so he’s decline is so apparent to me.
RoyalT said…
@Artemisia19

He looks shattered today. She’s smiling like the Cheshire Cat but he looks absolutely miserable.
Sarah said…
They have only themselves to blame for their bad press. All she had to do is call her dad and have him show up at the wedding. She could still fix that mess by having lunch with her dad and releasing a picture of him with Archie. The rest of their negative press is based on their rampant hypocrisy and self entitlement.
She doesn't even HAVE to make real peace with her dad, she just have to look like she has made peace with him. Just photo, some phony smiles, issue a statement, maybe do a pap walk with him at a cafe in Windsor. That should be so easy. Just like getting oictures with children, talking at women's round table conferences, attending Wimbledon with Kate.

Wonder what actually happened behind the scenes for that sort of animosity to be there between a dad and daughter. Mind you, both are sleazy and famehungry, so they should get along like two peas in a pod. This whole lawsuit scene though... *Eyeroll*
Nelo said…
Two ITV Royal Reporters were on GMB this morning and said the palace knew nothing about the lawsuit; that they only found out like the rest of us. I guess thats where Piers got his info.
I saw this on LSA: "Lawyers for both H&M and Mail have been in contact since February 2019 Failed to reach an out of court settlement, high court filed the suit on Monday which meant the suit would’ve been made public today (Wednesday) so the Sussex’s felt forced to publicly acknowledge it. If it ends up at a hearing/trial H&M may have to give evidence. Consequences and fall out could affect the whole Royal Family.''
Jen said…
@Nelo, it's altogether possible that Mills @ Sky is wrong about BP being made aware. I just cannot fathom them allowing this to be released. This is a hit piece against the press. Why antagonize those who can do you the most harm?
Nelo said…
Brendan O'Neil, the editor of Spiked has hit out at H and M. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/02/harry-and-meghans-war-on-press-freedom/. The fact that they couldn't reach an out of court settlement is an indication that DM feel they have a case. But H and M decided to go ahead of them to publish this letter to take control of the narrative.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Artemisia19 said…
This is such a stupid move. Every time Harry has a hissyfit, social media brings up all stupid things they have done. The baby shower. The private jets. I’m even seeing memes with Harry wearing the Nazi armband. Piers is right. They just upended all the positive press they got from the tour. Again, the letter was published how many months ago? It doesn’t take that long to file a lawsuit.
Jen said…
If they refused to settle, it means there's more to the story that we aren't aware of. What we DO know is the letter was published, and based on what most here have said about UK law, it would appear H&M have a case. With the news that the DM is not settling, it means there's something we've not been made aware of that changes everything. Maybe they DO have information on how People magazine received their information for the article they did where her "friends" quoted the letter. Maybe as someone else intimated, there are no "friends" and it was actually MM who gave them the information, if not the entire letter, thus eliminating the "privacy" and "Copyright" aspect of the letter? All pure speculation, but it's plausible.
Artemisia19 said…
@RoyalT

I know. The body language between these two is so transparently off. He rarely looks relaxed with her.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
HappyDays said…
@Nelo: Just because HM and Charles are aware of the suit and allowing it to go forward doesn’t necessarily mean they approve. It could be just be a case of them knowing H&M (mostly Meghan) are determined to sue, even if it further tarnishes their public image. You have to let your kids learn from their mistakes, even if they are adults. It could also be a part of some sort of long-term strategy by the palace. Because Meghan is a narcissist, she likely holds grudges forever. She would look incredibly bad suing her dad fir releasing the letter, so she’s going to the next alternative, the UK media. I wonder id she will go after People magazine in court. I’m guessing not.

What’s disturbing about this is that Meghan is playing on Harry’s emotions from his mother’s death by gouging open any healing that may have taken place for Harry in the years since she died. As a young boy, Harry couldn’t save Diana. I the inability to protect his mother is likely a key part of Harry’s wounds and anger issues.

Meghan is cruelly reopening his wounds to the fullest by playing damsel in distress so Harry can rescue and protect the fragile little Flower Meghan as a substitute for his mother. Meghan knows it is a weakness, so she exploits it to the hilt for herself.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
LavenderToast said…
@Alice, Surrrey James Your (paraphrased) quote "Wonder what actually happened behind the scenes for that level of animosity to exist between a daughter and a dad: I don't think with a Narc like Meghan that such animosity has to exist in reality; she can have a simple slight and blow it out of proportion if it suits her narrative. I think when she didn't get the positive press and adulation she wanted she had to manufacture her being a 'victim' of bad press and being bullied. She is going to contrive circumstances one way or another to try to seem like Diania 2.0 or at least be portrayed as the Best Royal in the BRF. I believe she wants to be the best even among celebrities because of her statement about "breaking the Internet". She is a megalomanic IMHO.
Girl with a Hat said…
Elle, I disagree. You can file whatever case you want, but it's up to the judge to decide whether or not your case is good. It can be dismissed completely at the beginning of the trial. So, you don't have to have a good case to file. Also, plenty of lawyers who have bad cases go ahead and file with bad/dishonest testimony and evidence and claim jurisprudence that doesn't apply.

I was recently involved in a case where the opposing lawyer outright lied and cited selected parts of jurisprudence to the judge, whereas the next paragraph which wasn't cited completely invalidated his argument.

Law isn't about who is right and who is wrong. It's a set of rules, and the person who can best use these rules to their advantage wins.
Girl with a Hat said…
I found it telling that in their statement, they never said that "ALL proceeds from the judgement would go to anti-bullying charities". Just that "proceeds" would go to the charities. They could give the charities 1 pound and still be telling the truth.

Is this a money grab by the Sucks Sexes?
JL said…
I for one am angry that I am being told what to think and feel about her and that I am labelled a bully . “If you don’t accept the PR narrative I have laid down for you about how great I am, then you are a bully and I will shut you down.” This is fascism. She is a dictator.
Nelo said…
Ellen has voiced support for the legal action against DM. It would be better if their new celebrity friends sit this one out. What if the Sussexes lose? Why did the DM refuse to settle out of court? Is it possible they have an ace up their sleeves? Already I've read four opinion pieces including one from Tom Sykes saying this is an unwise decision even though he said legal action had been long considered by the palace and copyright laws are very serious in the UK. Sykes said DM will make sure that the entire process is painful for the Sussexes. At the end, he says you should not kick the hornet's nest, which is what MEGHAN has done.
SwampWoman said…
@ Mischi: Is this a money grab by the Sucks Sexes?

Based on their previous actions, I would say yes, it is.

Girl with a Hat said…
there are some Hollywood celebrities that sue all the time - Tom Cruise is one of them. But then again, the press have invented a lot of stories about him, and the laws in the US are quite different to those in the UK.

I wonder if she is getting guidance from one of those litigious celebrities.
Fifi LaRue said…
It seems that Markle is setting up the process to exit the UK by claiming that she is bullied because of her race. She appears to have no respect for PH. PH continues to deteriorate in clothing choices, and personal grooming. He expresses verbal confessions of depression; he looks unhappy for the most part when he and Markle are together. I predict Markle will leave the UK within the year, and move to Los Angeles where she expects to be a star.
Beth said…
I'm not sure why they chose to sue the DM for something that was published months ago. In fact, I don't know why they would sue at all over this. That letter was clearly crafted and written in ridiculous, flowery calligraphy in anticipation of it eventually being published. It's not the newspapers that are causing her grief; it's social media. Some of the posts and comments are brutal. She has stated that she doesn't read what's written about her but I don't believe it for a second. If nothing else, any PR people in her employ certainly read the blogs and their comments. Hello there, Sunshine Sachs!
I can't imagine what these nasty comments do to a self-absorbed, narcissistic personality but it must be causing angst in the extreme. I imagine she cries and rages to Harry and threatens to leave him if it doesn't stop. "This is NOT what I signed up for. I am supposed to be adored by all and allowed to wear a tiara anytime I want and to spend as much as I want on designer clothes. Isn't that what being a Princess of the United Kingdom is all about?" This is Haz's way of trying something, anything, in a desperate attempt to appease her. Speaking of Harry, WTF is wrong with him in this video? Drunk, all hopped up on pills, hungover, all of the above? https://ladygreyhound93.tumblr.com/post/188084727725
@Elle ... Yeah the whole thigh-gap thigh-brow craze made famous by the Kardashians. Although I do thing she is a little pigeon toed, the way she clomps around like a colt is so embarrassing to watch. (Oh my, this was a personal attach on her Highness...damn I might be so jealous of her unparalleled beauty. I'll just go and plant some trees to offset my jealousy induced carnon footprint. **Yaaaawn!!**).
Girl with a Hat said…
Beth, apparently the two sides have been negotiating about a settlement since the letter was published.

I do think, however, that this is may be about keeping herself in the news with all the news about Brexit overshadowing her.

If that's the case, expect to hear about other strange actions from now until October 31st and beyond, if Brexit does happen. We can't have Megsie overshadowed by a national emergency, now, can we?
HappyDays said…
I had to laugh at Harry (the statement someone wrote for Harry) talking about being ‘commoditised.’ The entire purpose of breaking away from the foundation with William and Kate to create the Sussex Royal foundation and the Sussex Royal IG account was to create the Sussex Royal brand for themselves, which is exactly what Harry was disparaging in his statement. They have ‘commoditised’ themselves. These two are hypocrites of the highest order.
@Beth ... Lol Harry looks like he needs an antacid. All the stress giving him acidity and gas.

On a more serious note, I wonder how things are over there. It must be quite tense between the sucks and the royal reporters on the tour right now. I'm guessing the RR won't be allowed to ask any questions related to the lawsuit, and they would not be entertained even if they do. The RRs must be pissed!
Beth said…
@Mischi, no we certainly cannot have Megsie overshadowed by anything. I'm curious as to what you think. How long until MM ups and flees England? Will Harry go with her or will it be the end of the fairytale?
SwampWoman said…
@AliceSJ I'll just go and plant some trees to offset my jealousy induced carbon footprint. **Yaaaawn!!**).

If they are money trees, I will allow it. (grin)

@HappyDays I had to laugh at Harry (the statement someone wrote for Harry) talking about being ‘commoditised.’ The entire purpose of breaking away from the foundation with William and Kate to create the Sussex Royal foundation and the Sussex Royal IG account was to create the Sussex Royal brand for themselves, which is exactly what Harry was disparaging in his statement. They have ‘commoditised’ themselves. These two are hypocrites of the highest order.

Very well put. I think the outrage is that the peasants are stating the obvious mixed with a large dose of how DARE the press not shut up and pay?

Girl with a Hat said…
Beth, I'm not sure. I don't know what's happening behind the scenes. I think she will want to bring up her profile in the American market and will do that by playing the SJW in the UK for a while.

I was afraid she was pregnant but after seeing her today, I think she may have tried to play the is she pregnant game with the press but no one was biting. Her belly has shrunk considerably since yesterday.

We can all breathe a sigh of relief, and that includes Harry and Archie, that she doesn't seem to be expecting.
CookieShark said…
At face value, I don't understand the lawsuit. The letter debacle was months ago. Why call attention to that again? In the context of them trying to get out ahead of some other information, it makes more sense. Perhaps they are trying to get a super injunction so that the photo on the H&M website or the rumors of her making paid appearances in SA cannot be discussed in the press. I feel for her PR team at this point. It appears they are hamsterwheeling stories out like "The tour was based around Archie's feeding times," which is tough to stomach given her choice to fly to the States to watch a tennis match.

If MM is breastfeeding, and the tour is truly based around his feeding times, then all she had to do was let Harry take the lead and go to events after Archie ate, or pump and leave a bottle with the nanny. Was Archie's nap time a priority for the tour as well? It's much harder to predict than breastfeeding, in my opinion. Or was this only something the nanny thought about?
Girl with a Hat said…
wow, Harry really looks high in these pics.

https://twitter.com/sage1411/status/1179391390209495040
Beth said…
Mishi, I totally agree that she was trying for a media frenzy of speculation of the "is she or isn't she?" variety. So much for her claims of boots on the ground, ready to work and make a difference. If that were actually the case she wouldn't be playing stupid games which take the focus of her work. She just can't help herself apparently.
Jen said…
@HappyDays, I had to laugh at Harry (the statement someone wrote for Harry) talking about being ‘commoditised.’ The entire purpose of breaking away from the foundation with William and Kate to create the Sussex Royal foundation and the Sussex Royal IG account was to create the Sussex Royal brand for themselves, which is exactly what Harry was disparaging in his statement. They have ‘commoditised’ themselves. These two are hypocrites of the highest order. (I hope this comes out in italics)

This is the reason why I don't think Harry even wrote the darn thing. While he truly is clueless, she is the one that did everything with the Sussex Royal this and that. I imagine, for the most part, he wasn't even aware that she did most of the things she did until it was made public. I think even with this lawsuit, my thinking is she made the move to sue, and he found out the same way we all did. Which is why he looks like excrement today, and she's beaming from ear to ear.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
While I DO believe they both do drugs in regards to that clip of Harry stepping up on the podium posted above, my take is that he’s ‘put his back out’. I move the same way when that happens to me.
Humor Me said…
I do not get this lawsuit. Why isn't MM going after "People "also for releasing the letter? Is it because the People article was flattering to her, while the MoS article was the whole letter? To me, you cannot have it both ways in the press with the exact same letter. Once it is out, it is out. Thomas had and sold it.
None of this makes sense, from the Firm on down either....
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nutty Flavor said…
@HumorMe, US copyright law and fair use law are very different than their British versions.

The libertarian political site Spiked Online has a vicious take on the Sussex lawsuit:

"There is a striking irony in The Harry and Meghan Show. This pair present themselves as a new kind of royal: chilled out, PC, green, more likely to visit a Peckham radio station run by struggling youths than a cake-making charity run by women with blue-rinsed helmet hair. And yet scrape away their chilled, chatty veneer and what we have here are two of the most elitist and snobby royals in the Windsor household. And that’s saying something.

"Consider Prince Harry’s outrageous statement about the tabloid press, published yesterday. Its censoriousness and elitism are staggering. It echoes the pre-1960s period in which the monarchy arrogantly assumed it could bully the media into telling only happy, agreeable stories about royal personages. It drips with contempt for the tabloid press in particular. Harry describes Meghan as ‘one of the latest victims of [the] British tabloid press’, which apparently pumps out ‘relentless propaganda’ that is designed to ‘manipulate you, the reader’.

"Oh gracious prince, please save us gullible plebs from manipulation by evil newspapers! What a pompous ass he is."

It continues in the same vein. Not for the lily-livered.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/02/harry-and-meghans-war-on-press-freedom/
Nutty Flavor said…
More from the Spiked Online piece:

"What Harry refers to as tabloid ‘bullying’ is really just strong, colourful criticism. Criticism of Harry and Meghan’s lifestyles, of their hypocrisy (remember when they lectured us about the environment and then flew around on private jets?), of their PC nonsense, of their extravagance. This legal action seems designed to send a message that such heated coverage is unacceptable. Who do these people think they are?"
Nutty Flavor said…
Final paragraph from Spiked:

"Harry and Meghan are fair game for criticism and ridicule. If you are going to be a woke royal who spouts eco-pieties from the pulpit of Vogue magazine and then takes a private jet to lounge about in Elton John’s house in France, you’re going to get a lot of flak. Suck it up."

HappyDays said…
Narcissists CAN’T take criticism on any level. I think Meghan is attempting to choke off any legitimate criticism of her in the public arena. Playing the race card hasn’t worked, so she resorted to the letter. He father could be liable because he released the letter without her permission, which she hoped he would do, but because he is in the US and she’d look even worse suing her own father, so she’s suing the media that she had courted all her professional life. Because she controls Harry so well, he’s going along with the suit. He has to.
@unknown ... Of course he put his back out. He has been so busy stooping so low low low, depths of Earth's bowels low trying to be the world's best husband and most intelligent prince ever!

He looks exhausted though, and grumpy again. Must have been quite a night post the statement being out out, with the frantic back stage crisis management that must have gone on across SA and UK. Good thing Meg's got fillers. Crises or not she will always look fresh as a petal (not!)
SwampWoman said…
@HappyDays, her father lives in Mexico. He's elderly and probably has nothing besides his monthly retirement check, so I doubt an attorney would even attempt a lawsuit when a win would bring them nothing. He's already squandered his money on her education.
SwampWoman said…
@Alice @unknown ... Of course he put his back out. He has been so busy stooping so low low low, depths of Earth's bowels low trying to be the world's best husband and most intelligent prince ever!

He needs to step up his yoga. That kama sutra must not be working out for him.
Beth said…
@Happy Days. I am fairly sure that Thomas Markle owned the physical letter so he can't be sued. The DM is being sued for copyright infringement for publishing it without permission.
As predicted Piers Morgan has written an article. I totally agree with what he has to say...they’ve petrol bombed any good press they’ve received.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7528951/PIERS-MORGAN-Harry-Meghan-brought-negative-press-yourselves.html
Unknown said…
@Alice...Lol! Right you are!
TTucker said…
Nutty and Nutties, It would be interesting to interview Meghan's BFF, Amal Clooney, on this since she was appointed UK's Envoy on Media Freedom. Her role is to highlight assaults and restrictions on journalists, and defend freedom of expression. I guess Amal is quite embarrassed since she advocates for free and independent media, which serves democracy by holding the powerful to account.
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
What I don’t understand is if they started this action in February, immediately after the letter was posted, why has the MonS and the DM continued since that time to post one positive Harkle article after another?
bootsy said…
In case people are wondering why the Daily mail has given fawning coverage in the last few days, and yet MM/PH are suing the Mail on Sunday I might be able to shed some light on that.

I should add that this is based on Private Eye articles from a few years ago (I stopped subscribing).
Basically the editors of the DM and the Mail on Sunday (yes they are different people with different editorial views and standpoints on various issues) absolutely hate each other. Don't be fooled into thinking they are the same corporate entity.
@Alice, ‘Well, right away I disagree with Piers, this tour was not a success and they DID put a foot wrong in many instances. But he's right that THEY are solely to blame for their bad press.’

Oh yes, I agree too, hardly a success, and the PR SS keep trying to convince us otherwise! Lol
Unknown said…
@BJLK, I don’t understand, given the list of legitimate faults you listed, how a few days of wearing affordable clothing could swing you over Meghan’s side.
@Bootsy, totally agree, also the online DM has a different editor from the printed version.
Nutty Flavor said…
Harkle articles bring clicks, clicks bring advertisers.

As much as I'd like to see the DM and the MonS ignore the Sussexes entirely and see how they like it, there's just too much money involved.

Right now there are almost 10,000 comments on the DM article about the lawsuit. Assuming that most of those posters clicked several times to see themselves and see what everyone else was saying, that is a lot of eyeballs to sell to advertisers.

Not sure how many lurkers the DM has, but for example, on the first half of this thread on this blog we had 4000 clicks but just 200 comments.

If the 20:1 ratio is the same for the DM, we're looking at 200,000 clicks on a single Harkle story. Probably many more.


Jen said…
@BJLK, I disagree that she was "impeccable," considering her lack of foresight in to learning what is required when attending a mosque. Also, it might do her well to inquire about customs in another country when she plans to ask people to sit on the floor. Just mentioning a few things she did wrong while in country....
SwampWoman said…
Thank you, Nutty, for that Spiked Online piece. I really appreciate acerbic humor!

Oh, dear. I've just realized that I have spent waaay too much time reading all of the comments and the links online re this silly lawsuit. In the meantime, I was SUPPOSED to be coding some projects for the CNC machine AND buying a washing machine to replace the one that expired with a whimper yesterday (observing moment of silence for washing machine). So far, I have done neither. I must tear myself away from the computer and go expiate my sins now.

It would be really useful if MM merched some household appliances but I don't suppose royalty does laundry.
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
@SwampWoman ... I have some washing machine worse myself, plus I need a new dryer. I hope she doesn't start merching home appliances, because I would just give up and go to the lake to do my washing. I'm still mourning my all too fresh divorce with belted shirt dresses.
Of course the lunatics over at Celebitchy are gushing over how smart Meg is and how great this is because all the hatred is solely because of her skin color. What is with those people? They’re deranged.
Girl with a Hat said…
@BJLK, impeccably? really? displaying Archie and the control she exerted over his little limbs? And the fact that she used him to merch? And Archbishop Tutu as well? And merching her visit to the dead girl's memorial?

I don't think so.
Girl with a Hat said…
@Astra, speaking of lunatics, you should see what Lainey, Meghan's salad tosser wrote today. That the opposition to Meghan is solely racist. That mentioning the fact that she comes from Compton is racist, even though she does comes from Compton. Hilarious!
@Nutty, ‘US copyright law and fair use law are very different than their British versions.’

Thank you for this, it got a bit frustrating to see other posters applying another countries laws as the UK’s. I commented on your last post how this lawsuit is seen under U.K. law. It was from what I heard this morning on a radio programme.



Jen said…
@Astra Worthington, while there are is (hopefully) a small number of folks who dislike her because of her mixed race, there is a larger number who dislike her because of HER.

I imagine there is also a contingent of white women (probably most of the ladies on celebitchy) who have a case of white guilt, therefore feel the need to point out how her life has been SO horrible because she's mixed (even though her life has been better than most folks) and therefore every slight against her is because *GASP* she's mixed and therefore scream RACISM. They will never see anything she does as being "wrong" because she's so perfect, and look at them for being so tolerant and kind for sticking up for the mixed race girl. In their minds, they are the heroes for calling out racists!

That's what I see when I got to that site, anyway.....
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
@BJLK, nope I am not nitpicking.

First of all, Meghan's Mirror has the info before it even appears. There were instances where we couldn't even see what she was wearing clearly in press photos, but Meghan's Mirror had all the info about company, model number, etc.

Secondly, what mother holds her child that tightly and prevents him from moving his arms so that photographers can see her face?

I think you're one of those Meghan sugars.
Girl with a Hat said…
@Jen, you nailed it about white guilt.

I had to share an apartment in Geneva with an African-American woman and some African interns working at the WHO. I got along famously with the Africans. I always do. I come from a very sociable country and I can relate to people who have the same type of background.

The African American woman, however, would try to pull stuff like claiming the living room as her new bedroom. The reason she thought she could get away with it because she thought she could play on my white guilt. But my ancestors were poor peasants and half of them came from countries where we weren't involved in colonialism, let alone slavery. In fact, they were like slaves in their own countries, so that s**t didn't work with me. She was very puzzled as I think she had been getting away with this all of her life.
bootsy said…
@BJLK I agree with you, she hasn't done or said anything that puts her in a bad light on this tour. There have been awkward moments e.g. her getting everyone to sit and nobody wanting to, but nothing bad really.

R,e, merching: I'm not sure if you saw HandM's ad featuring Archie/MM and PH so whilst there is no direct merching link at the moment, there is definitely some strange stuff going on which is previously unheard of.

The only thing that has gone wrong is the Range Rover story which only serves to show their 'do as I say don't do as I do' fake preachy image in an even brighter light.

As for PH, not sure what he has done on this trip really?
abbyh said…

Impeccable, no.

The attire at the mosque was inappropriate (hair not covered well, arms showing) and I believe she touched men who were not her husband (to shake hands or hug). This is not done. Ever. Just because she might have done something similar in LA does not mean it is acceptable outside LA, outside the USA.

The getting women to sit on the floor when culturally they only get to sit on the floor is funerals is ... well rude at best. It would be almost as if I invited you over for dinner but made you all sit in the laundry room, not formal dining room.



BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Louise said…
BJLK:
"The media release information about Meghans clothes the minute the stories hit. ". This is incorrect. No one can beat the speed with which Meghan's Mirror posts her items, with direct links to the shopping sites. They have even posted a link to the tea cups that she allegedly used to serve tea to her make up artist.
@BJLK ‘yes i did see the H@M advert, i thought it was a tad strange, but maybe they were just using it as a marketing technique, a bit like flybe did when they tweeted out the picture of the cambridges using their airplanes. The picture has gone from the h and m website which suggests they used it without permission.’

So you don’t think it was weird how Meghan was holding up so called used clothes of Archie’s and then making sure everyone got a good look......a bit like her ‘Deal or No deal’ gig she had. We didn’t see Catherine standing by the Flybe ad on the plane and pointing at it. Something was very off with the whole Archie and H&M clothes. The royals aren’t allowed to advertise, but it does appear that Meghan tries to monetise on anything she can get away with...seems she didn’t for this.
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mimi said…
We don’t hate THEM. We hate what they SAY and DO.......because it is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
bootsy said…
@BJLK I understand that the Range Rover thing is normal procedure. If they didn't keep preaching about the environment and sustainability to us plebs then it wouldn't be a problem. Sadly flying a gas guzzling Range Rover to Africa transport them on a PR trip does make them look a tad hypocritical. Because they're hypocrites:)

The HandM stuff is not conclusive but it's DEFINITELY odd. You're right that the DM has links to clothes that she wears (think they do it for many other people too).
But HandM would know that they can't use images like that and yet they did. Considering that MM seems intent on monetising her 'status' then it looks like something odd is going on but nothing conclusive at all. Yet.

Good balanced posts though. I have been accused of being some sort of plant for not going full on into some of the theories. I have no idea whether MM held her baby incorrectly, or that it doesn't recognise her etcetc. I firmly believe it's that sort of stuff that gives the idea that she is being bullied a bit of ammunition IMO. Others clearly disagree, and we're all entitled to that.
Fairy Crocodile said…
Hi again and thank you for your posts. They are extremely interesting and enlightening. English is not my first language. Please help me understand a couple things in Harry's statement that puzzled me. He says "The positive coverage...for the last week...exposes double standards". Why and would he prefer non stop negative press? Wouldn't this be "vilification" he complains about? Further down he laments about "unlawfully published letter in destructive manner" only to say further the actual crime is "omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences and even singular words". This seems to imply the letter published as a whole and in her favour is fine, which contradicts his earlier sentiments. Don't know who wrote this but this mince seems to point at serious mental issues.
Mimi said…
H& M have been in business how long? And they are were/are not aware of advertising policy when it comes to Royals?
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
@BJLK You continue to ignore her gross disrespect of Muslim customs while in a mosque. This is a mis-step. Her visit wasn't "flawless." Even if we ignore everything else, this is a classic example of how she cannot acknowledge that when in Rome... She's not a kid. She's a thirty-eight-year-old woman. She can spend the three minutes it would have taken to Google how to appear in appropriate attire at a mosque. Hair completely covered. Arms covered. No PDA of any kind. No shoes. How hard is that? I am not a religious person in the least, but when I am in the presence of other people who ARE religious, I am respectful of their customs. ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM AN INVITED GUEST!
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Louise said…
BJLK: "However all her clothing on this tour were either recycled, ethical, african designers, and they were all under £200. That is a good start and she should be praised for it."

She wore one dress from an African designer and what does "ethical" clothing even mean? Clothes and textiles are one of the biggest pollutants on the earth, sucking up water and fuel , polluting the waterways and filling the landfills. There is nothing about clothing that is ethical. I love fashion but never pretend that it is good for the environment or humanity.

As for everything being under 200 pounds, this is not factually true. The green dress that she wore yesterday, for example, was close to $500 Canadian. But besides that, there was an article from a South African journalist commenting on how insulting it was that she dressed down for them.
Mimi said…
Even markle knew that the dress she wore to Mischa’s wedding wouldn’t be a good choice to wear to a mosque!!!!
bootsy said…
@BJLK Hahahaha can't say I noticed her hair, I'm not that switched on to the coverage!

Yes of course, her wearing 90k dresses and having million dollar baby showers flies in the face of her woman of the people schtick. She clearly thinks people are stupid but I've noticed one thing that is the same in politics nowadays. In the Blair/Clinton years it was all about occupying the middle ground and wooing the floating voter. Now politicians, and MM/PH, are all about not bothering about the middle ground, or trying to change the minds of people who don't like them. They have realised that the audinece that likes them is enough to sustain them. It doesn't matter what they do, if they can blame racism/sexism then enough people will nod in agreement wothout looking at anything the pair would have done in order to attract criticism. Same with the all female Ghostbusters film (it was terrible and women happened to be in it)-forget trying to win over everyone, just make sure that 'your' audience is on board and that will sustain you.

Hope that makes sense, I haven't proof read it!
Louise said…
For me, the biggest mis-step of the holiday was her photo at the memorial for the young murdered South African girl, a photo taken by her own photographer and posted on her Instagram account of what was billed as a "private" visit. (Those bogus "private" and "secret" visits and gestures is another story... if it's on your IG account, it's not a secret!)

Wearing tight blue jeans with a sleeveless, semi transparent top with black bra showing was so inappropriate and disrespectful... and un Royal.
Jen said…
@Bootsy, I happened to find the Ghostbusters movie to be quite funny, but agree that it wasn't that great overall. Still, humor is better than nothing, and it did make me laugh.

Many here are of the opinion that everything MM does is for attention. That doesn't mean we aren't willing to give her the benefit, we just see it for what it is...PR machinations. She dressed "down" in SA, but not because she felt she had been overdoing it, but rather because she was told it would help her image. I'm sorry, but you don't get a gold star for doing something because someone said you'd be more popular if you do. She doesn't really want to change, but knows she has to in order to get the adoration she desires.
Chiland said…
Harry today ‘ I’ve visited five or six countries in the last nine days.’ No Harry, you’ve been to four. Apparently he has lost the ability to count.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nutty Flavor said…
Personally, I think the strongest evidence that H&M was involved with the photo shoot is that Harry looked great that day.

Nice suit, nice shoes, hair in place. It looks like H&M sent a stylist to make sure the prince looked good for the paid product placement and the ad.

It's not like Harry was looking good only to meet Desmond Tutu. Today, meeting Nelson Mandela's widow, the blue suit was back but the stylist was not. Rumpled hair, no tie.
Girl with a Hat said…
charade, everyone can their conclusions but when we are arguing about things that are patently obvious, then you know that person cannot be convinced, and has some other agenda. So why come to a gossip site about Meghan if someone thinks she can do no wrong? To make us change the subject and question ourselves.
Marie said…
But meeting the President and First Lady of SA, Harry was wearing a tie with the blue suit. Hard to make sense of it all.
Unknown said…
Glowworm here (sorry about the ‘unknown’ designation - I can’t figure out how to change that) anyway, @Mischi, you are absolutely correct. The agenda of that poster was evident from the very first comment...”didn’t put a foot wrong”...yeah, right.
Love this blog, Nutty, and all of you! 🐛
Nutty Flavor said…
@BJLK, I think it's fine that you have an alternate point of view - this is not Celebitchy. Not everyone has to believe the same thing.

However, you are wrong about the requirements for a non-Muslim visiting a mosque.

Long sleeves are required for both men and women who visit mosques, as are long skirts and/or trousers. Meg's short sleeves were a no-go.

(One of many sources I found in a quick search: https://www.learnreligions.com/etiquette-of-visiting-a-mosque-2004463)

Actually, the same is true for many Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches - tourists are discouraged from wearing shorts, for example.

--------
As for her hair during the mosque visit - as I said on the day Meg and Harry visited, how much hair should be covered depends on the local tradition.

In Pakistan, for example, the scarf is loosely draped and the hair at the front of the head can be clearly seen; in other places, it must completely cover the head.

What is inappropriate is to have "sexy hair" on your mosque visit, with pretty tendrils dripping out the front as Meg did. This would have been a good time for the bun hairstyle she wore on several other days of the South African trip.

I can't believe that Meg's Foreign Office lackey, Fiona McUnspellablename, didn't give Meg some better guidance about what to wear to the mosque. Maybe she did and Meg did not listen.

Jen said…
@Mischi, I question myself all the time...it's when I answer my own questions that I wonder if I'm a tad crazy. :)

Again, we are all here because we see her machinations for what they are, purely PR bunk. She's not innocent or naive, she's a calculated liar who can no longer keep track of all the lies.

@Nutty, I think you are absolutely right about the Archbishop Meet n Greet being set up by H&M, Harry did look put together that day, and has not looked that good since. Does make you wonder.....
Nutty Flavor said…
Speaking of "not putting a foot wrong on this trip", I think it was interesting that Piers Morgan started out his diatribe about the lawsuit with a few paragraphs about what a huge success the trip has been and how big the crowds were.

The trip has not gone well - even if you forgive all Meg's missteps, Harry has been an embarassing mess. The crowds were not big, and from every independent report we've received, the South Africans were not impressed.

I wonder why Piers wrote that. Party line? Soften the blow? Part of lawsuit defense? Mysterious.
Sandie said…
Re. the Mosque visit: The Muslim community has been in South Africa for more than 400 years,so the Islamaphobia and extemism that is experienced in the West is not a problem in South Africa. Muslims in the Cape are also not homogeneous. Some women do not cover their har at all, some partially cover it or only on some occasions (ancd then partially) and some fully cover their hair. Plus, the Bo-Kaap is a tourist area and that particular mosque is on the tourist route because it is the oldest in South Africa. My personal opinion that she did not look great in that dress and hollywood-style scarf, but the Muslims, although dressed very traditinally and conservatively themselves, were not offended by how she was dressed. (They were probably more offended by their snooty attitude to the food and drink, and, no, there was no health danger on that table. ✌)
Unfortunately, the engagement was supposed to be about highlighting the importance of inter-faith respect, tolerance and co-operation (and Cape Town is a good example of how that can be achieved, albeit after hundreds of years) and that message was completely lost and thus the engagement achieved nothing other than another photo opportunity for Megsy.
This lawsuit is going to be messy and dominate the headlines, and is going to be all about poor Megsy. I think folk in the BRF have drunk the koolaid and will support her in this (horrible bullying press, rather than looking at the actual issue, that she is accusing the media outlet of publishing a redacted letter rather than the full letter, plus another couple of complaints they have strung together, and that the media outlet to give her the payout, apology, plus whatever else she demanded, and so she has decided to proceed with a lawsuit). It is messy 🤦‍♀️
Girl with a Hat said…
Jen, I question myself and then when my mind is made up, it's made up. Unless some new evidence comes out, there's no sense in questioning yourself.

In fact, questioning yourself like that is a symptom of gaslighting which is a narc specialty
Girl with a Hat said…
Sandie, I think she looked awful at the mosque visit. She looked like someone's badly dressed greatgrandmother. The buttpads were also a slap in the face of the community she was supposedly honouring by wearing a winter scarf on her head with her tendrils delicately teased out.

I doubt anyone saw her accoutrement as a sign of respect.
bootsy said…
@ Nutty That's a great point about PH looking well groomed at the Tutu visit.
It's frustrating that there is no hard evidence rather than just joining dots. If MM wasn't what she is (imagine it was Kate Middleton) then it's arguable that our musings would look a bit paranoid. But due to her actions over the last few years then it all adds up.

If she is merching then I hope she gets found out extremely quickly. Her and PH will be done here and they can move to the USA.

As an aside, please can people stop sniping at those who don't go in at the same level of criticism as some posters on here. It doesn't help the tone of the blog, we're all roughly on the same page and it's ok to have a different opinion, it doesn't mean you're some sort of spy.
Girl with a Hat said…
I read somewhere that the Muslim community in SA is extremely small, and if she wanted to choose a religious minority to visit, there were many others which are much larger she could have chosen, like the Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu community. People were asking why she has this fixation on Muslims
Girl with a Hat said…
bootsy, I can write that I think someone is here to sow dissent if I want.

Weren't you the one insisting that Harry's grey suit was perfectly ok when people are calling him "Duke of the wrinkled suit" on twitter?
Nutty Flavor said…
Also, just to carry on the theme of the media repeating "the trip has been a huge success" mantra, the one place I have *not* seen it is Spiked Online, which is a place Ken Sunshine's tendrils probably haven't reached yet.

As someone who's worked in the media industry, it's always fascinating to me to watch big media brands destroy themselves via PR placements or just lazy reporting, whether it's Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, People, CNN, the New York Times, or the DM.

Of course, no one really ever trusted the DM in the first place, so it didn't have as far to fall.
GatorGirl said…
@Nutty re: the Piers piece. I don’t agree with everything he says, but appreciated how he started his piece soft and complementary and then went full force with calling M&H out on their major missteps thus far. The only thing better than his piece are the comments.

I also agree that the best press M&H could hope to have is of the reconciliation between M & her dad. How about sending the press a family shot of baby Archie sitting on Grandpa Markle’s knee with H&M looking happy in the background towards the grandson-grandfather interaction??
Marie said…
@bootsy, I agree with you regarding the sniping at people who don't have such extreme opinions and insinuating that they have some nefarious agenda. I used to visit a blog covering Meghan's wardrobe because I actually liked some of her outfits, like what she wore on her Ireland tour. But the constant jumping on people for airing any opinion that was not complete gushing praise about how wonderful and thoughtful and poised and refreshing Meghan was, and the eventual editing by the moderator of certain comments just made me sick of it all. Turned me to the dark side, I suppose ;) So let people have their different opinions, as Nutty said. Because it's good to be a little more open-minded and inclusive than some of the Meghan fanatics. And if it makes some people feel better, even a broken clock is correct twice a day :D
CookieShark said…
@ Marie, this is why it's hard for me to believe that H&M did not know their photos would be on the H&M website (ugh). The same day he is dressed to the nines is the day those photos are posted online? I suppose it could be a coincidence.

By her own admission, and I believe this was on her Tig blog but I could be wrong, MM's father treated her well. I suspect she has lots of hostility towards her father because he has said things that contradict what she says about her college tuition. He has also said he has bank statements to prove that he did pay for it. So who is lying?

Doria appears to be the favored family member, but she never speaks to the press and only pops up here and there. I think it is very telling that her own family tried to warn Harry not to marry her. Usually family will cover for each other or ignore faults. According to them, she tore their family apart. And what has happened?
Button said…
To me it is rather telling that they announce this at the end of their tour in SA. As Piers mentioned they were getting rather favorable press, although I don't agree with that observation. What are they hoping to accomplish by taking on the press? If it is true that this was started back in February, and the Mail on Sunday refused to pay damages then that tells me they ( MoS ) may have other tidbits that the public are not privy to. Yet again, though, why are the Gruesome Twosome choosing now to play this card? Is it for money? As an aside I saw some photos of Harry today. My goodness he looks rough, and he almost fell over climbing up the stairs to a platform. Oy.
Unknown said…
I've been reading this blog since the beginning and I enjoy all your comments and critism. However, I find some commenters are very closed-minded about other's opinions. I agree about the general feeling around here, but I have to say that it sometimes go over the top. Everyone who's on this site agrees that MM is a negative addition to the RF, but calling out a good move from her doesn't mean that people are defending her or calling her a saint. I really hope everyone will come around and be able to respect everyone's opinions! Ok so that was my two-cents about this blog. I will go back to silent mode and hope to see harmony here :)
Nelo said…
Valentine Low of the Times and Camila of Telegraph have written about this issue. I usually read in between the lines to know the thought process of the RF. Low, a veteran RR says that BP sees H and M as a global brand and that the US market is 'as important if not more important' than Britain. This means that the RF is not as hurt with the Sussexes as we assume they should be. Even though Low says that BP aides were embarrassed when Harry released the letter this morning.
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
Unknown, I don't mind other opinions but to constantly go over all her actions and to re-analyse things which are obviously big gaffes on her part as though they were positives is obviously a ploy to get discussion stuck in a rut and to avoid discussing the biggest story to date which is the lawsuit.

Honestly, when 10,000 people say that Harry's suit is a disgrace and another 10,000 say that she looked a mess at the mosque, do you think that we need to discuss it any further? And to do so plays into their ploy of stopping any criticism of her, so I will continue to ignore these people. They are not here to further discussion but to bog it down.
punkinseed said…
I'd like to suggest that you all read Dr Elizabeth Loftus. She's an expert on topics such as eye witness testimony, video and audio, photos etc. and explains how so many things are not even close to what they may seem.
I learned about her in my college days and while studying to become a paralegal. I'd was so naïve until I read her books and expert testimony in court. Even so much as a cursory glimpse of Loftus will help you understand the gas lighting Megs uses to get what she wants all the time, every day, no matter who she has to ruin in the process. She has to have "command."
Those of you who are disagreeing about Meg's on here are cracking me up. You remind me of my sisters when they all go at it, one of whom is a full blown narcissist like Megs. And that sister can't stand Megs either because as she says, "It takes one to know one..." ha haa haaa.
Unknown said…
@mischi Exactly! Ignore them! You also ignite fire by responding over and over! There is no need for this kind of tension here. Throlls will be throlls. If you jump in they will continue only to get you to escalate the situation. Being the bigger person is the way to go! ;)
MaLissa said…
Uh guys? I've just gone into royal.uk the BRF site and The Duchess of Sussex's page isn't there anymore. You can find Harry's and his bio but not Meghan's. Also an interesting read - https://spectator.us/please-america-take-meghan-markle-back/
Artemisia19 said…
I’m not getting they are a global brand, at least not in the United States. Seriously, no one talks about them here. You see their photos in the supermarket aisles but no one really reads those magazines unless you are at the hair salon. The younger generation don’t buy magazines because they look to Instagram. As far as the more mainstream press, there is way to much going on in the US. And the celebrity culture is losing its magic because it’s all corporate now.
BJLK said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
Hi Nutty

I don't know when I made that comment about the book on Camilla and that particular statement that Camilla had made. About ' heart being shattered into a million pieces' or something like that. First I thought the author was Penny Junor, then corrected and possibly added Caroline Graham.

In any event ,that went unnoticed, now I take back my comment about not caring too much about the letter and legal action.

Felicia said…
Okay, I’m going to be bitchy here.

Why the flying f$&k does she stuff her bra with huge padding one day, remove it the next, stuff it even more the following day, shampoo (not that it looks like the wigs get shampooed,) rinse, repeat? When many days she has been wearing the exact same type of wrap trench dress, so the padding or lack of padding just makes her look like an actress in a budget movie with zero wardrobe staff? She looks bizarre!

Same for the butt padding. The big butt one day, no butt the next, oh! The butt is back for part of the day. Now it’s gone again is utterly insane. She appears severely mentally disabled, mentally ill, or on major illegal substances to pull that stuff.

Lastly, those squinty little beady black bat eyes (and that’s a discredit to bats, who are cute!) are annoying as heck. She has NO pupils and most of the time she is so busy squinting with fake smiles that her eyes look even more narrowed, and there is ZERO white area to her eyes. Very unsettling. Where is the more dignified and serious-looking woman who took perfectly fine photos (although admittedly most were with sex kitten poses and clothes,) a woman with open eyes, identifiable pupils and visible white areas to her eyes? Suddenly she needs a major eye lift because she has morphed into Renee Zelwegger. (Although Renee always looked natural and pretty with her original and distinctive narrow eyes; and she actually let her eye lift treatments lapse so she could look more like herself again; and she looks great now.)

Okay, this is REALLY lastly....what is up with the chicken cadaver legs? It’s like someone removed her entire calf muscle. Major deformity made much worse with toweringly high heels since she can’t walk in them and they only draw more attention to one of her more alarming and hideous physical features.

It doesn’t matter what you’re born with, but surely since she has literally spent her entire childhood and adulthood studying flattering lighting and camera angles and makeup and facial expressions and wardrobe, she should have a much more out together look by now? She’s had three years with Harry to perfect an image and style.

She really is Ms. Can’t Do Right or perhaps the Duchess of Dysmorphia, she is so disconnected from the reality of her own body and how it moves through space. Perfectly normal in a non-celebrity; utterly abnormal in a major public figure groomed by Hollywood to always “find her light.”

End rant.
Unknown said…
The Camilla I was referring to is the Duchess of Cornwall.
Nutty Flavor said…
Funny piece on Spectator US: “Please America, take Meghan Markle Back.”

https://spectator.us/please-america-take-meghan-markle-back/
PaulaMP said…
Mischi: Well spoke too soon, you were right, they just forced me to disable Ad Block. Booo hiss
Nelo said…
Sorry, I need to correct what I earlier stated. Low didnt say that BP aides were taken by surprise because of the letter, he said throughout the SA tour, Harry was distant and cold towards the press pack and that the RR could sense that something was about to happen. He said there was rancour between Harry and the press pack and the BP aides had to intervene.
Ava C said…
Ooohhh Nutty do tell us (when you can) what Spectator US says. I've run out of free articles this month. I can see it's Rod Liddle so should be excoriating.
Unknown said…
Ma publication a été effacée. Je n'en reviens pas. Vous êtes toutes des enfants de maternelle. Chacun a droit à son opinion. Certaines sont drastiques et d'autres sont plus mitigées. Je vois bien qu'ici on doit être drastiques sinon on se fait museler. Continuez de médire sur eux, en attendant, ils continuent à faire parler d'eux et être plus importants que chacune d'entre vous. Le Petit Prince ne vous a pas choisies. Il en a choisi une autre. Vous agissez en femmes jalouses.
LavenderToast said…
BLJK said "Meghan has behaved impeccably on this tour, nobody can deny that."

EXCUSE ME...we who have noticed her inappropriate or otherwise strange behaviour are nobodies?! I most assuredly think not!

1. My sister is a Muslim and she stated Meghan's attire and actions at the Mosque was unacceptable and disrespectful,
2. Chiding (even controlling) women (Mothers no less) to sit on the floor. I would of been very insulted to sit on the floor even if it had been the Queen of England demanding.
3. Hogging the limelight away from Prince Harry.
4. Making her 'private ' visit to the young female murder victim memorial captured on film and for her own self-aggrandizement.
5. Her hypercritical pronouncements regarding family when she publically shames her father who generously supported her for so many years and provided her a loving home in which to flourish..
6.. Her inappropriate low cut clothes revealing cleavage when little boys and girls are being in very close proximity to her physically. Can she not dress modest?!

As a 67 yr. old Mother of three, I have never seen any Mother hold a calm baby so forcibly, grabbing its little hand so it can't freely move at all and keeping it squished down on the Mother's chest. It appears she aggressively handles Archie so her face is clear for a photographers shot so many times. Her scowls when negatively reacting to Archie are disturbing to me.

The vast majority of commenters here are concerned about some of these items if not many or all I dare say.



MaLissa said…
@BJLK ah you're right. Funny but I went there several times just typing royal.uk and found her list of charities and patronages but not her bio page. I used the link you gave and it went right there.

@Nutty yes it was a good read. Now to make it happen :) lol :)
CookieShark said…
If MM is going to continue to speak publicly about topics such as mental health, she needs better coaching. Same goes for gender equality. I don't consider her word salad sound bytes from this tour a success.

Prince Harry's (Meghan's)? statement yesterday regarding the lawsuit was more coherent than most of the speeches the two of them have given lately, but it's still problematic. I am sorry that the only resolution they see to "Lettergate" is to sue the Mail. This was published half a year ago and I would be surprised if readers continue to reference it, although I suppose they may.

However, it seems like the lawsuit is not so much about the letter but that they are angry how MM has been portrayed in the press. This appears to be a slippery slope, because my pedestrian impression of their statement is "You have treated us poorly, we don't deserve it, so we are digging up something we can litigate over. Copyright will do."
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
FGB said…
Have y'all seen this photo? Yikes. lol

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/10/02/14/19196282-7528145-Meghan_watches_Harry_giving_a_speech-a-545_1570024739739.jpg
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
punkinseed said…
@FGB, Yikes! She's a Martinet standing over/behind him yanking on all the strings. She acted like a puppeteer controlling Archie during the Tutu visit too.
Mom Mobile said…
@Punkinseed! Hi! How are you? It's good to "see" you in the comments. I'll definitely check Dr. Loftus out. Sounds fascinating!
Ozmanda said…
It suddenly occurred to me this morning what this may all be about - in critical thinking there is a term "poisoning the well"

Simply (from Wikipedia) -

Poisoning the well is a type of informal fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of "argumentum ad hominem". The origin of this term lies in well poising - an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.


So an hypothetical theory for you all to ponder - At some point Haz has started to take notice of all the negative news reports about their conduct and especially the shenanigans connected to MM. Even someone in his state (and while I cant prove I agree with others that he seems to be in the grips of either addiction or a mental health issue) has to think about ALL the stuff coming out.

MM being as manipulative and impulsive as she is has turned this around to use his weak spot - What happened to his mother (and his belief that she was pretty much killed by the media) and draw comparisons to herself.

There is a part of the brain chemistry that triggers fight and flight impulse - this usually happens with soldiers and people who have PTSD and keep replaying traumatic events in their brains. It also shuts down the parts of the brain that uses critical thinking, rationality and ability to understand consequences of actions. This means your impulse is to strike out - example...to the very same media who killed your mum?


Just some thoughts :)
punkinseed said…
@charade, thank you for the fan girling. I've never watched Suits so had no idea.
It struck me this past week as I've been binge watching Scandal on Netflix, having never watched that show before, how much Megs seems to mirror the lead character Olivia Pope. I thought, naw… it's just me projecting Megs because ya, control freak/fixer type. Then I googled something like, Meghan Markle and Scandal to see if anyone was like minded. Well I'll be darned if Kerry Washington (Olivia), the actress was notified that Megs really admired her and the show, and it was one of her favorites. Kerry was very impressed by the compliment.
I further noticed that Megs mirror Kerry's acting and some of her scripts, along with fashion on the show as well. It's unnerving to see her wearing the very same dress with the cape like top that Kerry wore. And a LOT of trench dresses and coat dresses like Kerry's character as well. But what really struck me is how Megs mirrored a LOT of the same mimicking like the hands to her heart she does all the time, or hand over mouth fake laugh just like Kerry. You know how art imitates life? Well I could see a lot of Meg's behavior in the past 2 years fully imitating and using the Olivia character and story lines in her real life situations. If Megs was a teen and did this, like we all did when we liked a certain actress and wanted to be like her, copying makeup and fashion and maybe repeating some of the lines an actress used, eg. I wanted to be like Sally Field when I was 12. But for a 38 year old woman to do that is a bit much. Maybe I'm crazay, but if you have watched Scandal, let me know if you see the same Single White Female type of cloning going on.
punkinseed said…
@mom mobile, Hi back! I'm fine. I've been watching the flood of new commenters on here since Nutty changed the blog format and try hard to "keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt."

Let me know if you like Loftus. If I was to give a speech about powerful women I admire, she'd be in it along with Anne Hutchinson, an amazing lady who was kicked out of Mass. Bay Colony by her church for having bible study in her home in the 1600's.
Scandi Sanskrit said…
Something's in the air where people are getting into a lot of unwarranted trouble.

I just listed some new printable stickers on Etsy using fonts/clip art that I bought for commercial use complete with license from sites like TheHungryJPEG.com and FontBundles.net, worked 5 hours on the last one... All perfectly legal (and everything else on my shop are either vectors made from scratch/stuff I originally drafted for personal use). Then I wake up this morning and find that my store has been deactivated.

After buying all those font and before I had a chance to break even.

And it reminded of this lawsuit.

I guess I'm taking a break from following this story.

The penal code in my country also just got screwed up and they're criminalising everything from premarital sex to cohabitation and then you have petty Meghan, all she wants is attention and more money than anyone could ever need.

Some people try to make an honest living and get screwed over anyway. Meghan gets to con her way through marrying into her mark's family and is celebrated for it.

Okay.

Too much is going wrong with my life to care.
Mom Mobile said…
@Punkinseed, she has a bunch of videos on YouTube I'm going to watch.

In my search, I happened upon this one by Pamela Meyer on "How to Spot a Liar". It's a TED talk. Check out around the 13 minute mark when she talks about contempt. Wow! Do we have any photos of MM snarling with one side of her mouth? If so, who's she looking at?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vDLq64gE
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lurking said…
Anyone else suffering burnout from the over-saturation of Smeg and her +1?

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
punkinseed said…
@charade, Thank you! I'm so relieved someone else sees it too! I thought I was starting to gas light myself!
What I noticed is how Megs mimics Olivia when it comes to all things about being the commander and being in command, too.
@mom Mobile, I'll have to look at that. Thank you. Contempt by an NPD means you're their prey. Harry is going to need some serious help if he ever manages to break free. For now, he's still her flying monkey general.
punkinseed said…
@charade, LOL. I think just blogging about it and taking in other's ideas about all of this is a form of catharsis. I think it's because we had such high hopes that Harry found someone who would be a great love for him and fit in with the royals and uphold all of their traditions. Alas, another fractured fairy tale.
punkinseed said…
@Mobile Mom. Wow! I just watched it. Thanks for the link to it. That was really good.
Mom Mobile said…
@Punkinseed, so true about Harry. I haven't gone into it much here but I have a parent with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). FYI, it's absolutely awful but that's not what I came to say.

I've read that Harry's mom also had BPD. I've learned over the years that it is very common for BPDs to either marry or partner with an enabler or Narcissist. There are many traits that over lap between Borderline and Narcissistic Personality Disorders. Long story short: I'm not saying Harry has BPD, but I am saying it makes all sorts of sense that he would marry a narc.

People have given Prince Charles a difficult time about how he treated Diana. I understand why. On the other hand, I think about the time she threw herself down the stairs. I believe she was pregnant at the time? That gives you an idea of how sick she was.
JL said…
Oh geez. Guess where the Harkles went today? Sussex.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a23580430/meghan-markle-prince-harry-sussex-survivors-network-charity/
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
JL said…
Sometimes I think we should all stop commenting because we are only helping them and their PR advisors.
punkinseed said…
@mobilemom. Sorry for you having to struggle with the BPD parent. I've never really considered Diana having it. I sort of lean towards the depression she had from early life, added later with her bulimia. The stair fall on purpose was pretty telling for sure. She was pg with William. What amazes me is the way Charles was so obtuse about the whole thing.
Girl with a Hat said…
what really upsets me is those people coming here acting like Meghan is blameless in everything. That means they are trying to get to us.
Sconesandcream said…
There is an opinion piece in The Sun by Jane Moore that is a good read. I can't do links but hopefully someone else can.
Mama Lawma said…
Ok I had to make a google account to comment on this! Something that stands out to me is that the Sussexes are suing for copyright violation - NOT defamation or libel. The damages in a defamation or libel case would be much higher (someone else has already brought up the judgment in favor of Melania. $3 million for calling her an escort). Clearly because someone much smarter than Meg and Harry explained that if a negative statement is TRUE, you’ll lose the defamation case. Particularly interesting because the burden of proof in a U.K. case is WAY lower than in the US. The Mail would have to show that their claims are true - which they can (in the US, the plaintiff has to show the claims are false). So the Sussexes would lose.

They really should take stock of that. The TRUTH is what is making them look bad. Not lies from the media, despite Harry’s hysterical press release. Their lack of self-awareness is astonishing. If the media were lying, this would be a defamation case and they’d make some bucks.

It seems like the Sussexes have a copyright claim but they will have a hell of a hard time showing actual damages. It’s not like this was a piece that Meghan was planning to publish commercially and now she has suffered financial loss because the Mail beat her to press. So maybe they’ll win (unless a court reads Harry’s statement lashing out at the “unfair press” and sees this as a way to stifle the press and decides not to play that game) but they will probably be awarded nominal damages. Even if Meghan claims damage to her reputation and brand, how much damage did it cause? Can she show lost sponsorships or opportunities? She’ll have to show an actual amount. Again, in a defamation case, courts would be willing to award punitive damages. Less likely in a copyright case (unless perhaps theft were involved. Someone broke in and stole the letter and the Mail published it. Punitive damages would be more likely there). Maybe a court would be so sympathetic to Little Orphan Harry they award big damages as a slap at the big, bad press. I don’t know enough about the UK judicial climate to speculate.

But winning a case like this isn’t the same thing as winning it BIG. My dream scenarios is they win nominal damages and they have to pay their attorney fees.

Harry needs to ask himself why the press is so mean to his tungsten feminist and not to Catherine. He may think it’s racism, but at some point he may wake up and recognize that nothing they’re printing is falsifiable.
Girl with a Hat said…
this is from the Sun. Apologies if someone has already posted it. I don't want to scroll up through all the Scheisse or Kacke, whichever term you prefer, that the Meghan gaslighters have posted earlier.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10055044/prince-harry-william-charles-press-rant-meghan-markle/
JL said…
Apologies everyone. The article about the Harklea in Sussex is a year old. Have things going on and I should not rush.
Girl with a Hat said…
Scandi, I read that Enty is up for sale so they are changing things around to be more marketable. Is that what maybe happened with you?
JL said…
Sorry if it has already been posted. No time to look through all the comments.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/dangerous-new-territory-why-prince-harrys-extraordinary-move-poses-a-huge-risk-for-the-royals/news-story/e125660ed53e87c1e743977cfbb33500
Girl with a Hat said…
@Unknown who wrote:

Ma publication a été effacée. Je n'en reviens pas. Vous êtes toutes des enfants de maternelle. Chacun a droit à son opinion. Certaines sont drastiques et d'autres sont plus mitigées. Je vois bien qu'ici on doit être drastiques sinon on se fait museler. Continuez de médire sur eux, en attendant, ils continuent à faire parler d'eux et être plus importants que chacune d'entre vous. Le Petit Prince ne vous a pas choisies. Il en a choisi une autre. Vous agissez en femmes jalouses.\\

Je répond tout simplement: 'tu es folle'. Si tu viens ici contredire ce que nous disons et bien, ne soit pas surprise que tes commentaires soient effacés. C'est un site pour critiquer Meghan. On a bien le droit, non? Et ton français est donc très mauvais.

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Girl with a Hat said…
@Elle, I know that actions in the countries I am familiar with always state that it is based on facts and founded on legal grounds. Well, both parts can be twisted by a smart attorney.


Facts can be true, but if you add certain other facts, the 'truth' is no longer true. For example, you can see a man enter a room with a gun but what is left out is that he just picked it up off the ground. So, it is true that the man entered the room, but the gun wasn't his.

The other part is the 'based on law' part. I will use the same example I just experienced. The opposing lawyer used a previous judgement to claim that a judge ruled that a renter wouldn't get to stay in his apartment even though he only got 4 months' notice from the owner instead of the 6 months that the law stipulated. The other lawyer cited jurisprudence to uphold his clients' case. But what the lawyer left out when citing that judgement was that it was the renter's fault that he did not receive the 6 months' notice because he was on vacation for 2 months and did not get the notice. So, the short notice period was the fault of the renter, not the owner's fault. In our case, it was the owner who didn't give 6 months' notice.

On the face of it, you could say that the judgement he was citing was a precedent for not giving the renter 6 months' notice when evicting them, but it wasn't. The judge had to read the jurisprudence and the case to throw his motion out of court, which it was.

Yet the lawyer could say that his case was based on the law. In fact, it wasnét.

Suzanne Wilson said…
Punkinseed--I dont know how much truth there is to the st Diana-throwing-herself-down- the-staircase story, but what angers me is that she let Andrew Morton publish that story when William was still a little boy. Did she not give a thought to how her young son would feel when he heard that his mother tried to kill herself when she was pregnant with him? Because he was bound to hear about it.
Mama Lawma said…
Also, now that I’ve got an account can I just get this off my chest? Having read that piece of crap “Dear Daddy” letter, her intelligence is vastly overstated. Northwestern is an excellent school (I doubt I would have gotten in. If I had, I couldn’t afford to go) but her egregious run-on sentences are high school freshman level writing. How she got through a humanities program writing like that... I just don’t understand.
Royal Fan said…
Quick somebody send me happy thoughts, vibes, and prayers. I have just determined that one of my staff has NPD and (surprise, surprise) needs to be fired because she sucks!

Also I have been trying to come up with something intelligent to say about the giant tantrum masking as a copy-right lawsuit but I just am at a loss here. That statement was the biggest piece of horse shit I’ve read in a long time! Basically, here’s a summary:

Dear Press,
Print only nice things about Meghan or I will sue because you killed my mom.
Prince Harry
Oh by the way, I think you violated a copy right law

Prince Harry, Love, She’s setting up her exit from your fam I fear!
Girl with a Hat said…
Royal Fan, LOL

there's an epidemic of narcssism today. They're everywhere
Rainy Day said…
There’s 2 interesting videos of Harry on The Charlatan Duchess. One is of Harry walking up to a podium and he can barely move - looks like he put his back out. The other is him being incredibly rude and testy with a reporter by the name of Rhiannon - pretty much gave her the verbal middle finger.
JL said…
@Mischi
Despite many years of French classea I was about to drop your message to @Unknown into google translate when I noticed your last sentence. LOL
Ozmanda said…
@Punkinseed - I LOVE Dr Loftus! I had the opportunity to meet her during a skeptic conference I attended in the US. I don't usually fangirl but I pretty much did and I am not ashamed of it at all. She was as gracious as she is smart and capable :)
Suzanne Wilson said…
Punkinseed--I dont know how much truth there is to the st Diana-throwing-herself-down- the-staircase story, but what angers me is that she let Andrew Morton publish that story when William was still a little boy. Did she not give a thought to how her young son would feel when he heard that his mother tried to kill herself when she was pregnant with him? Because he was bound to hear about it.
JL said…
Changing the topic for a second, did anyone see the video of Harry stepping onto the stage and wincing and then lgrabbing his back? It seems his old back injury may have been acting up on the trip (always a sign of stress). This could account for why he seemed like he was on meds on the tour. There is also a clip where he’s very rude to a reporter. He’s completely ill suited to represent the royal family. He always behaves like a spoiled, petulant child. And Smirkles is mommy.
Ozmanda said…
@Rainy Day I couldn't find the video buyt the picture shows that he is clearly off the planet on something. I grew up with addicts so I am sensitive to the signs. She doesn't look like she is feeling vilified at all - if anything she looks smug.
Blackbird said…
Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere (I've yet to catch up), but does anyone know why Maria on Royal Dish is so worried about people posting about Harry and Meghan? I see she's locked all the threads now and stated they're off topic - maybe she's concerned they'll get sued or something? But, considering the comments made on the forum regarding other royals - which are posted and agreed with, I wonder why her attitude towards Harry and Meghan is different?

I feel like Meghan is trying to isolate Harry - like Narcs do. She's trying to make him wary and paranoid of everyone but her, which is a very dangerous game indeed. I do wish someone from the old guard would step in and make him see what she's doing, but I feel all hope is lost.
fairylights said…
Rainy Day, I just went and looked for it. Poor guy does look like he's thrown his back right out. Can't imagine trying to fly anywhere for any significant amount of time in that amount of pain. At least she turned back to help him, but laughing at his misery was ridiculous.
KnitWit said…
I am wondering about the change from sussexroyal to sussexofficial. Do you think that is a sign that they were cut loose from the royal family? Perhaps proactive change due to the Sussex protest?
AnnaK said…
Love the Spectator US article. Thanks for the link Nutty My thoughts are about how this must be going down with Wills and Catherine. They are off to Pakistan on a high profile tour which would very much depend on great headlines from the UK tabloid press fo it to be deemed a success. They must be fuming that this MM Harkle debacle will dominate the headlines for the next few weeks. I hope Wills has a private word with his brother!
Nelo said…
Many people including me have asked why the Sussexes decided to fight the press just as their tour was ending and Chris Ship of the ITV has the answers. He said: "It’s possible Harry and Meghan concluded that, after such a successful tour, they now have the maximum amount of leverage in their public and moral campaign against the Mail on Sunday – which will inevitably feed into the upcoming legal case.But the stakes for both sides are extraordinarily high." I also tend to agree with Ship that the timing was strategic because a yougov poll said 54 percent of respondents are in support of the case.
Sun is saying Charles and William weren't informed of Harry's letter but the queen was. I think telegraph is saying that the bills will be paid 'privately' by the Sussexes (I think their celebrity friends will give them money in form of donations to their foundation) and the most likely of all, Meghan may be the first royal in history to be put on the witness stand.
Chris Ship also said more details of the case will be released (leaked to US press) on October 14( the day Will and Kate starts their tour).
Liver Bird said…
@Milk, no Sugar

Maria on 'Royal Dish' seems like a school marm to me. Yes, I get that it's her blog and she gets to make the rules, but she wouldn't have a blog without posters and the way she talks to them, like naughty schoolchildren, is obnoxious. She stopped all comments on the Harkles several months ago and then allowed them again, only to stop them again last week. Apparently some people were bringing politics and racism into the discussion, which is a no-no for her.


And agree that Harry looks miserable and that what we're seeing is a relationship involving a narcissist, played out for the whole world to watch. Whenever he's alone, it looks as though the 'old Harry' - the charming, laid-back prince everybody loved - is back. Yet when he's with her he always seems so tense and nervous. Even around his own baby. Even at his wedding. It's really quite sad.
Liver Bird said…
@Rainy Day

The Rhiannon you saw being rebuked by Harry is Rhiannon Mills of Sky News. The ironic thing is that she is a total Harkles sycophant. Sky News even ran a special 'Poor Meghan being bullied by the press' half hour programme a few months ago. So even those RRs who suck up to Harry are being treated like criminals now, purely because they are British.
AnnaK said…
Edward VII had to testify as a witness in court twice so MM won’t be the first Royal to do so.MOS May have to payout but will make any case as excruciating as possible for these two. They will demand her to appear as a witness. They may also ask for her father and her friends to give evidence. The publicity will be very damaging even for MM and PH even if they eventually get a payout from MOS. Very short sighted move imho
Nelo said…
I just read the cover of the Times and Valentine Low is saying senior aides warned Harry not to release the statement and many of them are trying to distance themselves because of the damage they know it will cause. Even Sara Latham and Samantha Cohen have denied having any input. I don't know how 'excruciating' Moss will make it for the Sussexes but as at this morning, they seem to have much support as the yougov poll has shown (54 percent of respondents are in support). The guardian in the past had sued the government to release prince Charles letters and they won, so MoS may win this case, who knows.
From discussions on different forums, it seems journalists who were brought in to discuss the issue on most of Britain's TV stations are attacking the monarchy. The narrative that is building up is that the Sussexes should give up their privileges and become private citizens.
Sandie said…
CookieShark: However, it seems like the lawsuit is not so much about the letter but that they are angry how MM has been portrayed in the press. This appears to be a slippery slope, because my pedestrian impression of their statement is "You have treated us poorly, we don't deserve it, so we are digging up something we can litigate over. Copyright will do."

It comes across to me like that as well.

The way I see it, the press usually treats her with psychophantic reverence (global style icon, most educated and intelligent in the BRF, and so on). It is in the comments section where the criticsm is harsh and veers into demented, let's just make stuff up' attacks, sometimes. The underlying objective truth is that a lot of people in the public really, really do not like her, no matter how they express it! They (Megsy and her sidekick) must be reading the comments and a narcissist would react in an over-the-top, irrational, vengeful way to such criticsm ... how dare they

However, any criticsm or perceived criticsm drives a narc into crazy destructive territory. How dare anyone question anything they do! Why is everyone not fawning at their feet because they are global, the best, the most AMAZING.

Harry is going to spend his entire fortune gong along with her into this crazy narc territory.

Just another thought; I have often read an article and wondered if these s-called journalists just make stuff up so that they can submit a story. What would be useful (and contribute to the raising of journalistic standards) would be to commission a study on the veracity of these articles and an investigation on how and why they were written (BYW, South Africa has an organisation called fact check that try to counter false claims, by politicians, by checking what they say against the facts. Setting up and supporting such an organisation would be useful, but a narc is all about ME and MY feelings and what I deserve, and is not interested in supporting something that might also show that the some of the questions and criticsm are valid)
bootsy said…
@ Mama Lawma-great post, that's the sort of informative post we need more of!

Very interesting indeed that it's a copyright claim, it makes a lot of sense. My guess, and this is pure speculation, that this is a long term tactical move, a test case and a shot across the bows. Amazingly, as a copyright claim, perhaps it is not about the money as a win in court would dissuade anyone else from publishing correspondence that she has sent in the past.

Think the tactical long game-she has been an adult for many years before meeting Harry so there will be a lot out there and of course some of it will be embarrassing. Imagine if her ex husband/boyfriends fell on hard times, you can bet there is embarrassing stuff all over. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm sure we all have the same stuff floating around, it's just that no one cares about us! The question is whether the stuff that is around before she became the sainted Duchess is something that comes under the umbrella of a successful win in this case.

As for the debate regarding the US law system, Canada and UK, I am most certainly a layman but see here for an explanation why MM might think she has a decent chance of success: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways?t=1570089637696

Of course I understand that the case is for copyright and not libel. But considering that libel tourism meant that people filed suits in the UK rather than elsewhere as they had a better chance of winning, then perhaps the same can be said for our interpretation of copyright law.
Liver Bird said…
"Amazingly, as a copyright claim, perhaps it is not about the money as a win in court would dissuade anyone else from publishing correspondence that she has sent in the past."

I'm not sure. From what I've heard, the payments in such cases are relatively small, certainly for a major news group. Papers are sued all the time and it doesn't do much to stop them. Also, given that apparantly they refused an out-of-court settlement it would appear they believe that they have a pretty good case, and even if they don't, any payments won't exactly bankrupt them.
Nelo said…
Sandle, I doubt the lawsuit will bankrupt them as I'm almost certain they will receive funding from their celebrity friends in form of donations to their foundation. Another theory I have is that even though Sun reports that Charles and William were not told of the letter, they may secretly be hoping that the Sussexes win because it is well known that ALL the royals hate being investigated or criticised. They love the privilege but hate the criticism. Every single one of them loves good press coverage but don't dare try to find out how they are spending tax payers money.
Nelo said…
Britain's Trade Secretary, Liz Truss has spoken(She's one of Boris Johnson's closest ministers)

ONE of Boris Johnson’s closest Cabinet ministers lined up against Meghan and Harry today.

Trade Secretary Liz Truss said the Duchess of Sussex should not be protected by privacy laws.

She told her she had to accept the inevitable “slings and arrows” of being in the public eye.

Ms Truss told the BBC: “I do think people should be able to say what they think about public figures in the press.”​
bootsy said…
From the Rod Liddle article:
" Meghan, in attempting to be the bastard offspring of Rosa Parks and Bono, is alienating the commoners, the very people who are usually most supportive of our monarchy."

Brilliant stuff:)
d.c. said…
please forgive me if someone already posted this, but I might’ve missed it. In any case, the DM posted an article saying that neither Charles nor William were informed about the most recent Statement by Harry (& Rachel) at

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7531501/Prince-Harry-ignored-advice-senior-aides-didnt-tell-William-Charles-press-attack.html
JLC said…
@d.c I saw that article too. Unless Buckingham Palace make a statement otherwise, I think we can take it as the truth.
Anonymous said…
Long time lurker, first time poster. Been reading Nutty's take on things for years over at CDAN, glad she finally set up this blog!

Just wanted to say that I strongly suspect BJLK of being a sugar. STRONGLY.

Also, I have followed the BRF since 1981, when Diana came on the scene. I used to think Harry was just a rascal -- although he really upset me with the Nazi fancy dress outfit. But once he fell for ME-gain, he's been insufferable and intolerable. That statement he made was so bratty it made my palm itch to slap him. It should prove to everyone, once and for all, that he is just as horrible as she is. They deserve each other. I feel sorry for poor baby Archie, whoever's kid he is. Luckily, as we saw at Tutu's place, he obviously doesn't spend much time with his "parents,' so hopefully he won't be affected too much.
d.c. said…
ah, and The Charlatan Duchess has a post with pics of the usually-behind-a-paywall Telegraph article that says that while Charles and HRM knew about the lawsuit itself, they didn’t seem to know ahead of time about the overwrought press-blasting statement that Harry (& Rachel) posted.
https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/post/188100035864/why-harry-and-meghans-battle-against-the-press-is
JLC said…
I just don't get it...it seriously hurts my pea brain trying to process why on earth these two are getting away with behaving they way they are. The only thing I can come up with is that BP do definitely want to give Harry and Rach enough rope.
Royal Fan said…
Word on the street is pregnancy announcement from Meagain coming during Pakistan tour to derail W&K.
d.c. said…
oh lord, harry was indeed rude, dismissive, and condescending to a female journalist asking a reasonable question...

https://the-charlatan-duchess.tumblr.com/post/188083233014/the-charlatan-duchess?is_related_post=1

(read the comments for a transcript, bc it’s hard to make out what he says without it)
1 – 200 of 207 Newer Newest

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids