The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are suing the Mail on Sunday.
What do you think about the suit? https://sussexofficial.uk/
What do you think about the suit? https://sussexofficial.uk/
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
Comments
Will the lawsuit open up an investigation into the "truth" of the reports or details of birth, Christening, etc.? How about a psych eval?
Guess someone raised legal fees somehow in SA.
Someone is also overconfident of recent media "success"
Expect this will backfire and cause more negative press.
I don't see this actually happening though - if this does happen and go to court there will be statements tendered and some things may come out they don't want. To say they are bullied is frankly ridiculous, the media have only been reporting what they have been doing - private planes, no baby the secrecy of that etc.
If they are intending the sue for slander, it is their burden of proof to show the things reported are lies and intended for malicious purposes (as above it is just on their activities)
It makes me concerned that he has released this statement and I no longer feel sorry for him, by playing the diana card he is clearly in on this whole trainwreck. He is being a brat now because all the media they have been courting has turned against them. They seem to either totally lack understanding of what they have caused or just don't care.
However it turns out, MM has created utter chaos and havoc since joining the RF. I'm sorry she has family issues, lots of us do. Perhaps a more prudent approach would have been to, I don't know, simply call her Dad and have a conversation. Or meet with him in person. By her own admission, he sacrificed a great deal so she could have a good upbringing.
Suing a third party for publishing a letter she was foolish enough to mail is just another example of her refusal to take responsibility for anything she does. This is how they wrap up their supposed PR revival tour?
I can only conclude from the shot across the bow that something pretty dire is about to be publicized, and she's doing preemptive damage control.
Also, how can she sue the DM when everyone understood that it was a letter she mailed to her father? Once it's his property, doesn't he have the right to publish it wherever he wants? This is a perfect example of how her smarmy machinations ALWAYS blow up in her face. She played this massive sympathy card to discredit her father because she didn't want low-lifes at her wedding, and now this is coming to bite her back on the ass.
I think that if she'd played nice with the British press, they would have played nice with her. But she has turfed them so many times (the Archie fail the worse) that she consistently undermined her good will with them. Now, obviously, the BNF have told them to take the gloves off, they are done. Put a sock in it. She has undermined the BRF for the last time. And whatever is coming is BIG.
I would imagine that the entire Liz, Philip, Chaz, Anne, Cams, Wills, Kate, and the rest of the BNF are rustling up several pitchers of G&Ts right now. Party time!
That said, the bullying of Meghan has become extreme and it needs to be dialed back. Sure we can criticise them when they are preaching, or when they spend 3 million quid of our money on a house they dont live in, or spend 90 grand on a dress but the personal attacks are becoming quite vicious.
She hasnt put a foot wrong on this tour, harry has the preachy muppet, but she hasnt.
BTW some posters have said above that the letter is Thomas Markle's property, but I believe that under English law at least, a letter remains the property of the person who wrote it. So she probably has a pretty good case here, although you'd wonder what took them so long to file the suit, given that the letter was published months ago, before Archie's birth, and is ancient history at this stage. Also, it's pretty obvious that she wrote the letter in the first place with the precise aim of it being published. Who the hell sends letters like that, with silly 'calligraphy' in this day and age?
The lawsuit is one thing, but Harry’s over-the-top letter is another. Like the last one, it is clearly written by Meghan.
And why is it being released on their private website instead of BP? And via lawyers who are not the Royal lawyers?
Define 'bullying' and explain how it pertains to criticism of a public servant who lives off public funds.
"She hasnt put a foot wrong on this tour"
Other than dressing inappropriately and indulgin in PDAs in a place of worship? Using her infant son as an H&M model? Exploiting the horrific death of a young woman to merch a tshirt? Allegedly charging for access? Staging events competing with the official events done by her husband? Merching for her 'friends'?
And we're not even finished yet.
Interesting, too, that parts of the copyrighted letter appeared in People Magazine before they appeared in the Mail on Sunday.
I wonder if that will weaken Meghan’s case.
That's the thing. I wouldn't mind so much if she quietly filed a suit about breach of copyright, because she'd probably have a pretty good case.But whining about all the 'negative' coverage is so puerile and gives the impression they believe the press should only have freedom to flatter them.
Even if they win this case, I think the long-term ramificaitons will be very negative for them, and for the royal family in general. Which presumably is why the latter appear to want nothing to do with it.
I'm with Wizardwench. This trip has been a shambles. And as for using the baby for advertising?!?! Me thinks they doth protest too much.
This is the typical litigiousness of a narcissist with power. Interesting that it's clear the Sussexes scour the internet looking to abuse that power- "Hulk smash". Harry, the guy with the power, is so complicit with that abuse that I hope his smug, overweaning, nasty harrassment is front and centre from now on.
I also think that their greatest sin, especially Megs', is gluttony. When you have a black hole in place of a soul that's what happens- you suck up all detritus, all the good and the bad and you just keep hoovering everything around you because that's all you are driven to do, mindlessly; imagine a giant, bottomless maw.
In addition Harry is not only weak, but a crybaby. On drugs. IMO. He was not match for a sociopath. She's eating up the rest of his humanity.
Where is the RF?
And Harry has to be really dominated to go along with it.
What a sh*tshow!
LOL!
Really, at this stage I wish the British press would just stop covering them. Entirely. Don't turn up to their events - the few that they do in Britain. Don't follow them around on tour. Don't say who designed whatever ill-fitting drab dress Meghan is wearing today. If they want privacy, let them have it.
Also odd is the timing of the announcement of the suit. This past week is probably the best press they have had since the wedding and I guess they are arrogant enough to believe that they have gotten themselves back in the good graces of the press and public.
Okay, Ii can see this IF the letter was mailed and stayed in Britain. It is international mail - so how does the laws interpret that? Mexico is not a Commonwealth country.
These are not intrusive photos with a telephoto lens (Kate going topless) - this is a letter sent internationally to a father who chose to air the dirty laundry. I do not understand the British Law. IMHO - this is a PR stunt, and is not going to do anything to endear them to public. Playing the Diana card is becoming tedious.
Embargo the Press on the Sussex Duo. If a lawsuit is filed, stop all press until it is over. After all, no one wants to be sued....
I really hope the print media will seriously consider this action. She wants privacy - give it to her in spades....
Regarding the possible legal action. She wrote the letter, but sent it to her Father. He has physical legal ownership of it and can do what he likes with it. Not sure how much ownership she can claim. I’m sure she has no legal claim for copyright, because I’m you have to apply for it. At most she has intellectual rights ......but only perhaps, because this is a bit wide off the mark to come under that banner too.
Another first time poster!
I believe the use of selected passages of the letter comes under the category of fair use
"The concept of fair usage exists within UK copyright law; commonly referred to as fair dealing, or free use and fair practice. It's a framework designed to allow the lawful use or reproduction of work without having to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) or creator(s) or infringing their interest."
The "fair use" defence can be used because parts of the letter were quoted in the People article to paint MM as a dutiful and caring daughter. The DM's article was a response to that, showing that the letter was so much more than her "friends" were claiming. I so hope the hearing is
held in public!!
As for the preamble, all the "you killed my mother, you're trying to do the same to my wife", it's contemptible. Many of us were witnesses to the Diana gameplays and she was no victim. She died because, as others have pointed out, she was being driven at speed by a drunk. She had refused RPO's at some point, believing them to be RF spies; had they been looking after her the crash would never have happened. Harry is so wrapped up in the fiction he has created about his mother that it is part of who he is.
I really hope the DM defends themselves with lots of previously unreleased material. Every day in court will make them a great deal of money! Very curious to know when/whether BP were informed about this action?
Re the individual at hand: Seems this “feminist” always runs to men or Mummy to “pwotect” her widdle self when the heat turns gets turned on. Such as…having Handbag put out a statement deploying the R card when they were dating (a card dragged out only when expedient to her ambition—the other major card being the Queen of Flirt and Seduce). With her job on “Suits” coming to an end, beating the bushes for yet another rich man to bail her out, and use. Gets H to parade the apparently lifeless doll at the first press meeting with the “baby.” Sends Clooney out to scold on her behalf. Gets Markus and Scobie to do dirty work for her. Why didn’t she put out her own damn press release today rather than hiding behind a man yet again? She clearly wrote it, although it was run through a lawyer. (Himself isn’t capable of writing a grocery list, let alone a press release.) Poor widdle, tungsten “Petal.” To me one of the funniest aspects is whom she picks for her main “protectors”…Handbag and Chuck, may I say Worse and Purse. Of course, her original protector, Dear Old Dad, got used and dumped and now she'll probably testify against him in court. Excruciating spectacle. I hope the Daily Mail marshals all the artillery at its disposal.
Why on earth do you think they need or want palace approval? The Sussex’s do as they please and have very clearly demonstrated that. They aren’t going to worry about what any of the Royal Family think, not even the Queen.
Just when I think it is safe to not read a lot about them on the internet ...
Interesting thoughts and comments about the whole legalities of who owns what and the right to publish.
Like others, I'm thinking that this is a pre-emptive move to try to control something else (perhaps also written) they or really she, does not want released. What if it is video of her saying (ahm) negative things towards the BRF? or something even less savory? This (threat) would be bullying but is anyone noticing?
Timing? Why now is a really good question.
I like the question of how would legally the part in People mag before would play into this. Especially as it doesn't sound like they are also recipients of a warning of suit action but they ought to be if you are going after someone who followed prior action if it really was "illegal enough to start involving lawyers".
And then, I'm thinking about TM and how everyone in the family appears to be linked to the same photography shop. Wouldn't it be interesting for the DM to file for access to records (think bank and more) to see who is paying people in the family for access, what was published after and so on. That would be opening Pandora's box.
Is it possible that TM, with the family encouragement, enticed?
They need to be careful though, if they start threatening this, there are a lot of people with secrets i would guess who won't hesitate to come forward if pushed.
Another theory (this may seem out there but it is early here and I am thinking out loud:). Could this be Sparkles trying to hang on to her marriage by potraying herself as the victim to Haz so he doesn't up and leave? I think he is damaged and probably impaired by something
The overly-fancy calligraphy was a tell-tale sign as no-one writes that neatly and formally to someone they intimately know. Another way for her to play the victim and win, all down to copy-write law. It makes her look horrible though, another reminder of how cruelly she discarded her father.
Harry has some deep-seeded anger over his mother’s death, but he needs to realize that a drunk-driver, and not the press, is ultimately responsible for Diana’s death. Dodi had several residences in Paris from which they could have eaten in total privacy. Why he had to parade her all over Paris and cause a press spectacle was his own doing. Harry should read “The Diana Chronicles” by Tina Brown to understand how that whole night played out. And here is Harry playing yet another dangerous game with the press. He needs to either accept the press or get out of the RF.
This little nugget in the letter really stood out for me: “She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.”
Clearly they think mission accomplished and her image is fully rehabbed and all her PR stunts have worked.
https://news.sky.com/story/trolling-of-meghan-how-duchess-is-abused-over-race-and-pregnancy-11696606
Look at our blog. We're all articulate, considerate, educated people with a wide variety of experience in our hard-working self-supporting lives. Why do we give our precious time to write here? With real care, having marshalled our thoughts as best we can. We're writing because we're watching someone just trashing a valued institution. It's far from perfect, but it's what we have and have always known in our lifetimes, our parents, our grandparents, their parents, their grandparents ...
This has nothing to do with race. People have expressed equal concern about Prince Andrew. What drives us is the injustice of watching someone take our money and then treat us with disdain. Spoiling traditionally special moments like marriage and the announcement of a new baby with ridiculous PR descending into chaos. Spending money like Marie Antoinette on extreme luxuries while uttering platitudes to show empathy with the poor. How many nights sleep could she fund in a hostel for the homeless instead of spending $90,000 on a dress to be worn for one night only? Let me repeat that. $90,000. Married to the sixth in line and yet noted to be the year's most expensively dressed royal in Europe.
This is a lengthy comment to show how I feel and how much I resent any attempt to reframe my objections into something that fits a more convenient scenario. And other contributors to this thread are right. Maybe the only effective tool we have is silence. Indifference. No comments. No readership. No engagement. Nothing else works, so who could blame us?
from the article:
In response to Harry's statement, Royal author and Prince Charles’ biographer Penny Junor said: “This is the most extraordinary statement and goes way beyond anything I have ever seen issued by a member of the royal family.
“I completely understand that Harry should feel protective about his wife and there have undoubtedly been some negative stories in the last nine months that must have hurt - but not exclusively in the Mail on Sunday - and they have not all been lies, nor I would suggest, part of a ruthless campaign.
“The positive coverage of this last week in Africa is richly deserved. This feels to me like an over-emotional and somewhat ill- advised outburst.”
A Mail on Sunday spokesman said: "The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously.
"Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning."
It’s not the first time legal action has been threatened/taken against the British press by the royals, so no major victories to be had there, the press just carry on. I doubt the Sussex’s will win anyhow. As others have stated Meghan’s friends used/quoted excerpts of her letter in People Magazine, she can’t claim one is okay and not the other. It’s abundantly clear the Sussex’s only want overtly positive things written about them, the second ludicrous statement says it all, about how they think and what they want to try and control (the narrative). They clearly don’t get it, or see no wrong in what they do, say or act.
The letter is not her personal property. She gave it away. In fact, there are people who collect paper memorabilia, and that stupid letter belongs in that category. But no one will pay money for the piece of trash letter.
The statement from Harry, to me, shows that their relationship is going strong because he's behaving pretty much as he did in the very beginning of the relationship with his first open shots on the press. And second, it makes me sadly think that the Palace really has let go of the reins and simply will not intervene in Harry and Meghan. If they win this lawsuit, they basically have given the royal middle finger to both the Palace and the media, and perhaps the UK taxpayer as well.
And of course, there is the newspaper, the Daily Mail, which is printed in the UK.
I forgot - they have this video thing called Daily Mail television but I've never watched. Probably a lot of ads there as well.
So interesting that Megs dislikes Trump. He's another one who attacks his attackers, but really seems to think no publicity is bad publicity.
Do you think anti MM followers will give up as a result of this letter? There had been speculation that Harry is unhappy in the marriage but this suggests otherwise.i follow an anti MM insta account with 13k followers and this lawsuit is the nail in the coffin for her. Sick of the drama, lies and complete inaction of the RF and Harry, nothing is changing and her narcissist behaviour is getting worse.she is closing her account as she can no longer be bothered to post about these two. #sussexfatigue.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/12/melania-trump-accepts-damages-and-apology-from-daily-mail
This is about a letter between Meghan and her father - no self-respecting feminist would allow her husband bring the suit and write the letter explaining it - she'd damn well do it herself. It really shows what we've all suspected - that Meghan is all mouth when talking about strong women but when the going is heavy she turns to men like the frailest little flower.
That letter - so silly, pretentious and fake sounding - would have been best forgotten. It didn't impress any of the public but Meghan supporters and was forgotten. This brings it all up again. The papers must be delighted. Any damages are well-balanced by the wonderful negativity this will bring. Poor weak little feminist Meghan hiding behind Harry against the big bad press. A strong woman (like the queen) would ignore such nonsense.
Nothing to do with Diana - if that driver hadn't been drunk and she'd had royal protection, she wouldn't have died. And Meghan is supposed to be strong and self-sufficient, not emotionally weak like Diana admittedly was. It's becoming obvious Meghan plays the poor little woman with Harry.
And there’s a second formal complaint against he media
The letter was sent sometime in August 2018 or thereabouts. Mr. Markle made the choice to keep the contents of said letter private.
Up and until there was an article in People Magazine published by The Meredith Corp. (who by the way has two mega law firms in LA and NY) in or around February 2019. Her 'friends' openly discussed the letter and even quoted parts word for word. Why does this matter? Because if MM had not shared this information with her 5 'friends' this letter would have never been released.
Mr. Markle only shared the letter to debunk the assertations the 'friends' made. Let me be very clear here MM expected her 'Daddy' to share this letter, when he did not she had her minions force his hand.
Obviously the Markle's have no one advising them on international law. Under the laws governing Mexico a document sent via mail, email or text becomes the property of the recipient.
My personal take on this is they do not have any presence to take legal action.
Only two very sad, uniformed and malicious people who show their stupidity daily.
FYI I think persecutory delusion may be also a part of this.
"Victim playing" is making up victimhood for reasons including manipulation and/or abuse of others, a coping strategy or attention seeking.
Dehumanization, diverting attention away from acts of abise by claiming that the abuse was justified based on another person's bad behavior (typically the victim)
Grooming for abusive power and control by soliciting sympathy from others in order to gain their assistance in supporting or enabling the abuse of a victim. (also known as proxy abuse)
It is common for abusers to engage in victim playing. This serves two purposes:
JUstification - to themselves, in transactional analysis known as existential validation, as a way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance that results from inconsistencies between the way they treat others and what they believe about themselves.
Justification to others as a strategy of evading or deflecting harsh judgement or condemnation they may feel from others.
Manipulators often play the victim role ("woe is me") by portraying themselves as victims of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain pity or sympathy or to evoke compassion and thereby get something from someone. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering, and the manipulator often finds it easy and rewarding to play on sympathy to get cooperation
While portraying oneself as a victim can be highly successful in obtaining goals over the short-term, this method tends to be less successful over time (like drug addiction the action may escalate over time to get a reaction)
Victims' talent for high drama draws people to them and their permanent dire state brings out the altruistic motives in others.
In psychology, transactional analysis distinguishes real victims from those who adopt the role in bad faith, ignoring their own capacities to improve their situation.
Object relations theory has explored the way possession by a false self can create a permanent sense of victimization - a sense of always being in the hands of an external fate. To break the hold of the negative complex and to escape the passivity of victimhood, requires taking responsibility for one's own desires and long term actions.
Victim playing can also be an attention seeking technique (example is munchausen syndrome) and a strategy used by substance/alcohol addices to elicit constructive criticism, rescue or enabling behavior from others.
They should take their own behavior into account. If you don't want to be accused of merching, don't invite your own photographers to events, and don't allow photos of your family to appear on clothing WEBSITES with details stating that your child is wearing clothes from that company. It could all be coincidence, and they may say "We didn't know about the H&M website." Fine, but they can't unring that bell.
The lavish, expensive baby shower in NYC is fair game for criticism, as is her wardrobe, and her own statements on the record to the press about topics like mental health. She lacks credentials in areas about which she chooses to speak publicly. It is fair game to comment on these statements.
Her conduct since Archie's birth has baffled me, and it has nothing to do with the letter to her father. Since his birth H&M have launched Travalyst, she did a guest edit of Vogue, curated her Smart Works collection, and left her infant to watch a tennis match in the States. People may comment or have opinions on this behavior. Sorry about your luck if you don't like what people say.
She's counting on people being really stupid and not remembering she said she never reads press about herself because it's all just "noise" and she ignores all of it. Of course, if this were true, she would not be "suffering" because of the "lies."
I don't believe Hazza wrote the "statement." It's full of Megspeak -- nothing like what H himself says and writes on his own. I think she did it without his sober, un-coerced permission, too. She has him trapped now. If he denies the statement, he looks like an @$$hat for not supporting his wife and showing her to be the evil mastermind of this $hitshow. If he doesn't, she's effectively thrown him under the bus.
She's already done this several times, from Statement 1.0, right down to his part of the Vogue interview with Jane Goodall that she "edited" (invented wholesale), and he hasn't called her out; I'm sure she thinks she can get away with this, too.
No matter what the outcome of this lawsuit, she will spin it as a victory that confirms her narrative.
She's already done this several times, from Statement 1.0, right down to his part of the Vogue interview with Jane Goodall that she "edited" (invented wholesale), and he hasn't called her out; I'm sure she thinks she can get away with this, too.
That testing to see the response is classic.
This is how they raise their middle fingers to the British press for not gushing over Meghan and for seeing through her pretentions.
While there may be a few who dislike her due to race, majority of the people dislike her because she’s disrespectful of the family, culture and tradition that she married to, she’s a narcissist, she’s a fake and control freak.
It’s not bullying when you’re stating observations of their actions. They are not victims. It might be bullying when you threaten to sue people or close their accounts for not just blindly following and believing your narrative.
It's very telling that in the statement, PH specifically mentions that she is the same person she is on this tour as she was when they got married. To me it simply means that he is highlighting the 2 times she received favourable coverage in the press, the 2 times the public was somewhat on her side. Someone upthread mentioned that this tour has gone well. Now, most sane people who see through her bulls*** have been sideeyeing the two clowns these past 10 days, but what has been very very obvious for us all to see us that there has been a barrage of positive coverage for her this tour. So many many many articles, talking about how nice she is, how much joy she brings, how the Queen is delighted with her etc etc... Their Ig is also full of her pictures, which has seemed like they are trying to paint a certain narrative about her. This tour WAS designed to be an image rehab excercise, and they have somewhat succeeded because they have tried to stuck to their plan. So why the Statement now?
1. This is part B of the rehab excercise. Show that she is a good, happy go.lucky girl next door, and how much people like her. Then saying that she is always bullied and is such a trooper to still be carrying on makes for good optics. It shows that the haters are in fact haters, because see! she is so kind!
Hence the rewears, the excessive smiling, the hugging, the private engagements (they will say, she could have gone back but she didn't because she wanted to be on the ground and do her but of good. She is such a humanitarian, everyone liked her. She didn't accompany him because eshe had to stay with little farch)
2. I do agree that something negative about them was going to come out, and so they have specifically sued DM as they might have been the ones with evidence. It should also be noted that the negative comments on Dm are growing the day. As far as UK is concerned, that's where the general public goes and vents. No major publication allows this to such an extent. So DM is where they are most unpopular. So it makes sense to censor that. (Most other forums, such a Nuttys, are private blogs. They can just shut those down, as they have done with certain accounts and blogs, without any explanation. They can just call it hate speech)
3. It could also be a good exit strategy. They can say that now they are finally so fed up with all the bullying that they have to take the decision to become private citizens.
4. It seems to the public that a lawsuit would finally expose all of their dirty laundry, but in UK there is something called as the embargo. They could have one issued over the lawsuit proceedings. That would put a ban on the press/media talking about anything related to this lawsuit - evidence presented, arguments made, witnesses summoned etc. But what it would do, it set a precedent (provided they win)
5. Most of us agree that she broke so many unspoken rules on this tour and before with her dress code, shabby appearance, wigs, bronzer, bump show-off, vacuous statements, hypocrisy, vomit inducing PDA, the birthing debacle and many more... But they can spin it as a personal attack in her, since all this things are subject to ones personal perception. Her fans support her these very things. And there no laws written in stone, so she hasn't technically done anything illegal.
These are just some of the things that come to my mind. What is glaringly obvious is that this is a well orchestrated PR move, advised by SS, that is aimed at keeping them in the news and to crafitly change the narrative. They can't tell her to change, so they are shutting down the criticism.
Oh, @Ozmanda, how true! The pity play -- it worked on PH then and they're trying it again. It's part of how the grifter gets the mark to buy in. I remember us discussing it several months ago.
This just seems like such an absurd time to do this. I still haven't read it because I just can't do one more bit of stupid today.
I do not recall any publication saying where or who the copy of the letter came from. My theory is Meghan could have sent the letter figuring Thomas would run right to the media, allowing her to complain to further move the victim narrative forward for herself and use the stricter UK libel laws to her advantage.
If Thomas didn’t do anything with the letter, such as give it to two media outlets, one on each side of the Atlantic for maximum coverage (which sounds like a Meghan behavior), I wouldn't put it past her to have grown impatient with his lack of action, so she was able to find a way to slip it to media and then blame her dad for releasing it. Don’t think for a minute that Meghan didn’t make several photo copies of the letter before sending it to her dad.
Meghan has shown she can play the long game very well. She also is quite a manipulator. I think she is capable of underhanded tactics, even with her father. After all, look how quickly she landed Harry and commandeered his personality as a useful puppet. Remember, she is likely a profound narcissist. They feel all criticism of them is unjust, and they tend to lash out, even if their bad behavior is the cause of legitimate criticism..
@Trudy - investigations is my job and studies so I should at some point sit down with all this information, a few gin martinis and try to work it all out. :)
@Mimi - Obviously she reads everything, otherwise why do these lawsuits?
I reckon this is also their excuse to hightail it to America to be faux celebrities - I called it a while ago. The line will be as they are being "bullied" and "Harassed" etc etc.
We all see how that worked out:)
I'm thinking: did you really want to have the authors of the People magazine article deposed about their sources or if any money exchanged hands?
As for the DM, someone on another blog mentioned that it was not the DM pushing things like baby bump conspiracies but their commenters which, they also said the DM had most articles moderated. And, DM was a source of some recent positive press.
A lot of people around her getting tossed under the bus.
Showing 5 "friends" copies of the letter to her father (allegedly) seems crazy too. Then quoting parts of the letter in People magazine. Perhaps they will give the names of the "friends" or reveal that the whole mess was created by Meg. Why bring attention to this?
Perhaps new evidence from the Epstein investigations, the modeling agency, or other scandal involving Meg's questionable past is about to be released.
Perhaps they are trying to intimidate the media to not release it.
Maybe SS is stirring the pot to increase their fees? Creating a new crisis that needs positive press?
Could someone be about to release the infamous salad tossing video? Private emails? Other mail? Merching contracts? Correspondence with biz associates?
The royal family listened to Di and Charles private phone calls. Charles the tampon comes to mind. How much "supervision" of their phones and internet correspondence exist? Could disgruntled employees have tea to spill?
I agree that the daily mail could avoid positive press on the duo. For example, they could have just covered the missteps of the current tour.
Pecking away on the phone, sorry for extra spaces. Hard to see the tiny type.
She is the one who wanted to be "the people's princess".
Nor a more disingenuous one.
They've had the praise & criticism their behaviour has warranted.
They talk of bullying but this is their attempt to bully the press into fawning sycophancy.
Above is quote from Piers Morgan on Twitter.
Or the deflection is simply the fact that the tour was a PR failure.
I also buy as @Pi pointed out that she is a black hole of attention gluttony and she just can’t stop seeking it in any way, particularly if she thinks she is overshadowing William and Kate.
I think Harry has gone rogue, just like he did last time when he crafted a silly press release to defend her. This was while he was reportedly fuming about the coverage when they were dating.
But I don’t think he is doing this to “get money” from the DM. I think he is very emotional (and a little out of control) and he thinks that if he “teaches the DM a lesson” and ostracizes them, then OTHER media will want to stay in H &M’s good graces and only do puff pieces. He probably thinks he is just as clever as Sunshine Sacks. (And I don’t think SS is that clever-I expected more).
Having a child can re-trigger the painful loss of a parent. By making the comparison to Diana, it sounds like Harry is struggling with anxiety and perhaps depression. If he was in treatment for his grief before, it is a good time to revisit that option imo!
Also-I think that MM opened her own can of worms by distributing her letter to friends/family/People and there was nothing much “private” about it anymore. The DM was actually seeking to balance the reporting.
I definitely agree with all that this is a warning shot to prevent the UK Press from publishing something else that is coming out about Preach and Leech.
I for one have quit reading any articles about either of them, I refuse to give them clicks or my attention, and it’s my form of silent protest, against an egomaniac and her cuckolded mate.
Meghan's trying to get me killed, apparently: https://youtu.be/9_xXJd_J18A
Ignorant idiot. When my violent brother comes at me (the one who tried hit me with a 5+ kilo cat scratcher and I wouldn't be alive now if it weren't for other family members pulling him away) I go into my room and lock the door.
The one time I managed to record his abuse on video was from behind closed doors (I happen to have one of those doors with glass above it, and you can visibly see items being thrown at my door, hear him yell, "I hope you die, wh*re!" And then sound my car alarm going off as he kicks a dent into it.)
Just shows you she has no idea what she's talking about.
"Fighting back" and "challenging" isn't even a domestic violence buzzword.
Someone in the comments said Meghan has "obviously never been beat", and I think they're absolutely right. (And before anyone tries to twist my words: I wouldn't wish domestic violence on anyone, not even my worst enemy.)
I just wish she'd shut her ignorant mouth up.
Idiot.
I am so sorry for what has happened to you, and hope you’re in a safer and better place, now
Meggy has really stepped in it, now. This is horrible and I hope no innocents are harmed by her completely ludicrous advice.
TRIGGER WARNING - Childhood abuse
Scandi - I relate so much to what you say, I was in a household that was violent and disruptive. One parent beat me and the other one handed me over to his friends. I walked out when I was 16 and while I like my life and have a great job,wonderful friends and independence, the scars will never leave. I don't like crowds, I don't trust easily (if at all) and always make sure I know where the exits are. MM has no idea what she is talking about.
It’s not bullying when you’re stating observations of their actions. They are not victims. It might be bullying when you threaten to sue people or close their accounts for not just blindly following and believing your narrative.
So satisfying to have all my whirling thoughts captured so neatly.
Whoa. So, I finally read it. My Lord and Good God, what are they thinking? Either something entirely embarrassing/devastating is about to break or Harry has Mommy Past and Mommy Present all mixed up. This would be one helluva reaction to just a mediocre tour. Sure, the Range Rovers being shipped for their special use, that's bad, but compared to previous scandal, not so much, so this hellbent Harry stuff isn't for that reason. This just makes no sense - yet - but I have a feeling it will at some point.
I wonder if the rumors about Kate being pregnant are true?
Anyway I don't know what imbecile wrote this statement but it made me want to vomit into my handbag: 'she was the same woman you saw on our wedding day ... and she's the same woman on our Africa tour'... well stand aside Smegs, cos I thought you were a cold calculating b1tch then, and now I know you are one.
From what I can see, the DM (and other media) mix up critical stories, like the private jet situation, with very flattering stories about Meg's fashion and engagements.
The commenters are having none of it, however.
Funny that someone who thinks of herself as a social media specialist doesn't realize that it's a double-edged sword. It allows her to go directly to her fan base (such as it is) without a palace gatekeeper, using Instagram, her new website, Twitter fake names, etc.
But it also means there are no gatekeepers in the other direction. As long as they don't threaten violence, commenters can say what they want. She doesn't like that.
Buckingham Palace would also never agree to release such a statement in the middle of a Royal Tour.
Meghan likes to borrow money, and there is always the Sussex Foundation to plunder. I would imagine that there's some fresh income from H&M and J Crew/Madewell too, after she featured their clothes during the Africa trip.
But I'm pretty certain that the palace is not backing them in this. It was not announced on any official royal website and they are not using the royal legal firm. Also, if they're confident they can win they could easily find the money from their 'foundation' and assorted merching deals. Also, as her fans love to tell us, isnt' Meghan 'a rich woman in her own right'?
From what im reading on different RR Twitter handles, it seems journalists are terrified. There's a tone of surprise and terror in their tweets. The coming weeks will be interesting as to how the British media will cover this case.
Yes that's true. However, since members of the royal family almost never go to court, I do think they wouldn't do this without a strong probably of winning. And the law court they have chosen is well-known as a specialist in such cases, so that adds to their chances. Then again this is the Harkles and you never know with them.
"And I'd bet my last tiara that the palace is not backing them in this."
That seems certain.
I also think this is part of their exit strategy. I do not believe Meg has ever had any intention of living in GB full-time. She wants to go back to America and she wants to go soon. This case is part of the plan to portray her as the victim of the evil racist British press, forcing her and her loving husband into exile.
Not sure how it wold work out in reality though. They could not remain as working royals if resident outside of Britain. And while Harry might like the novelty of a California lifestyle for a while, at heart he's a posh English boy and would never be able to cope outside his safe space. Not to mention that if they think the British press is bad, the American press would be much worse once the mystique of royalty has faded.
I find it very worrying that publicly funded royals would seek that kind of secrecy.
The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.
Whoever wrote this histrionic complaint is quite confused. They use the example of balanced coverage (both positive and negative stories, as warranted) as an example of “the double standard” of how unfair the media is... When, in actuality, she disproved her premise within the same sentence. She doesn’t know what double-standard means, and thinks it means people are mean to her, when it actually would mean they treat her differently than others... By calling out her hypocrisy (private jets, etc), they are using the same standard they do for others. She seems to think it means publishing both positive and negative stories subjects her to a “double standard,” which is troubling, just from a mental perspective.
Supposedly, Harry wrote this letter, but the long-repeated stories of his extreme difficulty in school preclude the likely possibility of his having written such voluminous, overwrought, and tortuous statements. His sentences would have been much shorter, and more declarative. His reasoning would’ve been much more direct.
Also, how likely is Harry to use the word “commoditised?” (Good job, with the British spelling, Megs,)
The entire missive is written from the point of view that Harry is a mere object, not from the perspective that he himself experienced these thoughts and feelings. To whit,
“I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long.”
. vs.
“I witnessed her suffering.”
Basic Statement Analysis suggests someone else wrote this letter for him.
As many others before me have pointed out, and I feel compelled to echo, the majority of this “statement” is just long-winded complaining about poor poor Meghan’s immeasurable suffering, which has almost nothing to do with the legal suit they have announced, which deals with one specific action (the letter). It has nothing to do with whether or not she is the same woman from the positive coverage bookending their disastrous interim.
Anyway, I have now been way too wordy myself, but wanted to summarize:
- Harry did not likely write this overwrought whiny complaint berating the press
- Whoever did write it, does not grasp the basic concept of “double standard.”
- The majority of this letter is irrelevant to the legal issue.
You'd think someone would brief her on the issue.
I thought that was the whole point of these vapid famouz people going "on the ground", to get informed by people with experience. I thought the idea was these people sit with social workers who get their hands dirty.
You can't even call her talk "ivory tower" talk because it's not only out-of-touch with reality... she's also uninformed.
She might as well just tweet from home like the rest of the useless SJWs who don't know what they're talking about.
I said "is" where I should have said "are" (plural) twice on my comments today. That's how mad I am right now.
Surely not so I can witness this utter stupidity as an adult.
Bottom line: If you don't want people to say not nice things about you sometimes, don't be a public figure. And Haz at least has the excuse of being born into it; Meghan actively chose this life.
I find it very worrying that publicly funded royals would seek that kind of secrecy."
That is indeed interesting and worrying.
If royals are no different from footballers or reality TV stars, using expensive law firms to silence talk of their indiscretions, why have them at all? That is breaking the 'contract' between the royals and the free press.
They only want positive press and are trying to strong arm the narrative. They forget that the press was very positive in the beginning. I only started to notice something was off when she did the Jack Russell Terrier squat and stand whilst preggers. Even when she turned up at the wedding obviously trying to court attention, I was prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that it was down to them leaving for the Oz tour. I spoke up about her performing impossible physical feats and was told that it was because of her yoga practice..... (insert eye roll emoji).
They have bought about their own destruction, the press reported on what was happening and we've all got eyes and a brain in our heads.
As for the letter; as the writer, yes, MM has copywrite in that she created the document. However she manipulated the events surrounding it knowing her father would go to the press.
This is going to leave a very bad taste in people's mouths.
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
Look at the word being used: informed. Not 'consulted' or 'asked'. In other words, they were simply told the law suit as going ahead whether they liked it or not.
"Like I earlier commented, the Sussexes won't have gone ahead with this lawsuit without the queen and Charles approval"
Except you've provided zero evidence of such 'approval' and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Namely, the lack of announcement on an official royal site; the failure to use the royals' preferred law firm and also the fact that it's been announced while a (supposedly) official royal tour is still ongoing. No way would the Queen have consented to that.
And you must not have been observing the shenanigans over the past year or so if you think the Harkles give a damn about what the queen thinks.
@ People generally asking the legal position of the Mail on Sunday: My limited understanding works thusly: if friend A sent B private letters, and B decided to publish, that would be a breach of A's copyright and an injunction (pre publication) or damages (post publication) could be granted.
However, a permissible defence for B would be if B were able to prove A had given permission for publication, either implied or expressed explicitly. Whilst I did vaguely attend law school years back (and wow I sucked major balls at it), my understanding under that logic: could the Mail argue that the original People article (from the "5 friends" which first referenced the letter) was a) initiated from Markle herself and b) was an attempt to force the hand of Thomas Markle to publish, which can therefore be seen as implied permission to publish? That'd be my argument... but maybe that's why I'm not a solicitor.
(PS - I mentioned earlier that publishing letter excerpts might have been permissible under quoting/a review, but I forgot: that would only work if the original letter could be regarded as a work of 'art' (eg a book) which this (barring the tragic calligraphy), was not).
Personally I have been a close-up witness of at least three toxic co-dependent relationships that are long-lasting. In one, there were two attempts from the one person to exit but she got pulled back again. In the other two, the one person lives the life they want at the expense of the other but it seems to work for them. In all three relationships, there is major damage to other people.
You can 'maintain' it all you like but there is zero evidence to support you, and quite a bit of evidence to contradict you.
"Yes, they didn't go through official royal channels or use Royal lawyers"
So no royal lawyers, no royal announcement, no mention of any royal support.... but you still 'maintain' it? I think that's what's called wishful thinking.
"there is no way that the queen and Charles will bluntly tell them not to go ahead and they will defy them. It's not possible."
Not only is it perfectly possible, it's also entirely in keeping from what we've seen from the Harkles over the past year and more. You must have slept through all that.
Also, has anyone noticed that we haven't heard a murmer from the Markles for months? Samantha was talking about publishing a book last spring but nada. I wonder have they been paid off and/or threatened with legal action?
If a list was written of all the people who commented negatively on them, they would have a looooong list of people to sue.
Investigative journalism is all but dead in the UK.
Everything is now copy & paste and very little digging.
The purpose could be 1.to paint a victim narrative for the woke and broke. 2. To paint the British media as devil incarnates. It's been very obvious this past year that they are deliberately riling up the British press while pandering to the US market. 3. It gives them another excuse to be back to their pre-tour behaviour once they are back in the UK and deflect any criticism that us citizens throw their by saying that the press has poisoned the narrative.
Also note his rudeness here in dealing with a RR - Rhiannon Mills of Sky News, a noted Sussex sycophant - who asked him politely about his engagement.
https://twitter.com/TheRoyalExpert/status/1179155649898467329
Alice, I think you might be onto something about how back then they were still being advised by the palace who suggested not pursuing it.
I was thinking about the Camella makeover and it seemed that they did it slowly (I seem to remember it as like a year or two) while this trip was too short (10 days) to sway many people. Perhaps they drank their "this is a success" publicity and on that strength plus the increasing going around the palace, decided now to sue.
I liked the part about how she does not understand the concept of double standard.
And, if they think that American press would be a refuge from the evil GB press, I think it would be a very rude awakening. And, it would be her a lot closer to Enty's sources (whom I am certain would dish - even daily).
Oh, and the DM has cut me off unless I get rid of my ad blocker. grumbles
Harbottle and Lewis are not the royal family's personal law firm for all legal matters like divorces or trusts; they specialize in issues with media. They seem to be the ones called in normally to handle the privacy and confidentiality lawsuits, like Charles' lawsuit over his breach of confidentiality lawsuit with his personal memorandums and reflections on the Hong Kong handover or Kate's topless photos, or most recently the paparazzi drone photos of H&M's Cotswolds rental, which was found in Harry's favour with an undisclosed sum but that Harry's spokesperson is quoted in the Guardian as saying "significant".
But Schillings is not just a law firm; according to their website, they offer the full package of specialists and consultants in reputation and privacy management as well as IT support, and "military, banking, and government." Perhaps Sunshine Sachs indeed is only handling the PR for the American audience about their foundation's efforts. Maybe someone can comment?
If one looks at Schilling's wikipedia page, you can see some of their high-profile clients and cases. So they've successfully represented non-footballer or reality TV stars as well, in particular J.K. Rowling on at least two occasions for privacy breaches.
I too hope the DM doesn’t settle out of court. I would like to see Thomas Markle on a witness stand testifying and being coerced into spilling his guts about the secrets she doesn’t want known. I firmly believe that is the reason she has ghosted him-he knows all her dirty secrets.
The tapes that are alluded to on Toronto Paper were supposedly sold recently. I remember an interview (CDAN?) where two journalists attested to seeing the a video that was being shopped around and I assume it is the salad tossing incident but who Knows? I wouldn’t be surprised if she did some porn when she was struggling. With the right amount of ego stroking I think she could be enticed into doing it. She was too small potatoes back then to demand a high monetary remuneration but her ego knows no bounds. Supposedly she is a freak beneath the sheets. A good attorney will have him appear the loving, self sacrificing elderly father in poor health so he would be completely believable. Since both Markle and his daughter are still US citizens although neither currently resides there and the letter will have a Mexican address, I wonder if this could have any bearing.
This is an awful way for HM to end her summer with. She should be back in London in a couple of weeks and I would imagine Harry is in for the tongue lashing of his life. I can only dream that their titles will be revoked. Granny gives and Granny can take away.
I have to split this into two comments due to the length, but I wanted to include the links for reference as I do not work in the legal field.
Part 1 of 2
More digging reveals:
An old article (2012) but the only reliable summary of previous legal actions taken by the Royal Family to censor the press. ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19599899 ) Prince Charles sued Associated News the parent company of Mail on Sunday, as Meghan is doing, back in 2005 for publishing excerpts of his journal that he sometimes distributed to private individuals for reading. The case went to court, he did not have to testify but I can't find the outcome of the trial with a casual search from Google. ( https://www.heraldnet.com/news/prince-charles-private-diary-is-now-very-public/ )Damages for the French paparazzi topless photos were estimated by the BBC as only to be quite low, circa 10,000 GBP but in fact came out to be 10 times more. You can add to that list a recent complaint raised by Harry to Ofcom and BBC regarding the BBC releasing a distressing photo issued by a British neo-Nazi group attacking Harry. He was the only one to raise a complaint about the use of the photo, and it was rejected on the grounds of public interest, as well as his Cotswolds paparazzi case.
Even the Queen herself engaged in threats of legal action about paparazzi photos of the Royal Family on their private properties back in 2009 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/6742761/Judge-questions-Queens-privacy-threat.html) What is particularly interesting though, from the linked Telegraph article, is that at the time there were no single privacy law per se to which she could call recourse but the last line is particularly interesting : "However, Mark Stephens, a partner at Finers, Stephens and Innocent, and a leading media lawyer, said: "I think the Queen is asking for no more than the law provides. She is not asking for special treatment.
Successive judgements, including what he described as the "watershed" Princess Caroline decision, had the force of meaning people in the public eye were now legally entitled to privacy while going about their daily lives."
If you remember, Prince William threatened to sue over the rumours about an alleged affair and social freeze-out this year. His basis was that his right to privacy under Article 8 of European Convention to Human Rights. I thought it was just the Daily Fail and the tabloids stirring up things, but apparently Giles Coren of the Telegraph also supported the allegations of the affair. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-lawyer-tries-to-suppress-rumors-of-affair). A little more digging and thinking, he seemed to go the Human Rights route, probably because of the Princess Caroline case against unauthorized German paparazzi photos of her skiing with her children in St. Moritz in that went from German constitutional courts all the way to the European Human Rights courts. Granted, she did lose a second, similar case in 2008 in the German Constitutional Courts. She unsuccessfully sued to block published photos of her and her husband at their Kenyan Home. The German courts rejected on the grounds that the press is entitled, under freedom of press, to report not just ' "scandalous behavior in breach of moral or legal standards" but also reports about the "normalcy of everyday life," provided they were useful to forming an opinion about matters of general interest, the court said.' ( https://www.dw.com/en/princess-caroline-faces-setback-in-german-paparazzi-lawsuit/a-3201153 ) This is an opinion that most people here on this blog would tend to have, but this opinion in general seems to predate privacy age ushered in by the internet and may not be consistently applied in the future.
The UK's Data Protection Act of 2018 may be interpreted then in Meghan's favour. The possible damages are much higher, like an estimated 18 million GBP.
So in summary, the royal family has a history of threatening legal action but largely settles outside of court for legal damages and donations to charity, except for a few large cases. Charles and William seem to have set the precedence for actually going to court; Harry is taking leaves from their books. There seems to be a slow but steady trend in UK and European courts to rule in favour of increasing privacy for public figures, but as the second Princess Caroline lawsuit in 2008 reveals, the opinions are still mixed and may have a little luck involved. This case certainly can swing either way.
I will be interested to see the analysis about Meghan's lawsuit in the press!
I do also feel that this was the result of a clever manipulation tactic on her part. It seems that she threw a hissy fit, bawled her eyes out and demanded that Hairy make a bold enough statement otherwise he doesn't love her enough and she would leave him blah blah something to that effect. She emotionally blackmailed him, and the language of the letter is indicative of that - she is gaslighting him and us. Hars gave in because sometimes it's just easier to give in to it and let someone get their way than to out up a fight a defend their family. To be noted, if Hars doesn't do this, he is basically siding with his evil family, and doesn't have his poor, lonely wife's back.(That's her reasoning, not my opinion just to be clear)
New term describing someone's behavior on the DM:
causing turbulence
http://news.sky.com/story/is-prince-harrys-decision-to-come-out-fighting-against-newspaper-a-step-too-far-11825153
I think/hope this may be the beginning of the end for her.
And I can't help think of that child and sincerely hope he is being properly cared for by loving, mature and sane guardians.
Piers Morgan about to publish in DM. LOL
@Marie, I'm not sure how much the European Human Rights courts will be involved with this case, given Brexit.
I too hope the DM doesn’t settle out of court. I would like to see Thomas Markle on a witness stand testifying and being coerced into spilling his guts about the secrets she doesn’t want known. I firmly believe that is the reason she has ghosted him-he knows all her dirty secrets.
Being ready to spill a lot of secrets in public wouldn't be too good for Thomas Markle's health, if you know what I mean.
Investigative journalism is all but dead in the UK.
Everything is now copy & paste and very little digging.
Investigative journalism anywhere takes time and is expensive. If you're going to get slapped back by the UK courts anyway, I can understand why nobody wants to do it.
Point taken.
There's a new article about Wills and Kate.
She looks beautiful and elegant.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7528785/Kate-Middleton-joins-Prince-William-meet-Aga-Khan-ahead-royal-tour-Pakistan.html
I am glad to see that so many of the comment family here have noticed that the super feminist (that was advocating actions to the South African ladies that would likely get them killed) ran crying to Harry about the letter to her father from a year ago and the press being mean to her. Whatever. That entire trip was an expensive waste of time for the British taxpayer in that it was used entirely by her to sell cheap clothing and raise funds. As a public relations trip to rehab her image, well, it didn't work for me. It may have worked for some prior to the lawsuit threat. It would seem to be a big fail for the PR company. As many have pointed out, her PR company works for some very reprehensible people and when positive PR doesn't work, they use lawsuits to quiet the opposition. Hmmmmm. Seems to be a risky strategy. If I were the PR company, I'd want to be paid in advance.
I am shocked at how far Harry has deteriorated physically since the marriage. He appears to be a husk of his former self. I am very much concerned that his mental state mirrors his physical state.
Lastly, Prince William must be LIVID that his deceased mother is being used by his brother to shield a woman that is doing so much damage to him, his wife, his children, his father, and his grandmother.
Does it matter if they "win" this lawsuit? I'm not sure that's the point. It certainly allows them to present their version of the narrative they want out in the public.
Example Narrative: Poor persecuted MM and Harry. The press is so unkind. Their lives were in danger so they had to move*! Harry was forced to protect his wife and innocent child!
*This narrative assumes they're planning to leave GB and move to LA without too much backlash. They don't want to look like they were exiled. They want to look like hero-victims!
Maybe this lawsuit is all bark and no bite? Maybe we'll hear that it "settled" out of court for an "undisclosed" amount. That amount could be 0 pounds and we'd never know. Then an "insider" could say the amount was "significant" - technically not a lie as it would be a significant win for DM.
This could be main reason for the lawsuit right now, and makes sense if there was any major news about her that was going to come out. It also prevents the media for writing more negative things about them while they continue to regurgitate their Pr-led 'we are just your regular humanitarians' bull.
I say 'God bless you,' I hope you don't mind that mine is a Christian god. I believe, however that God is like bread, something every culture has, but is always made in a different way. A few centuries ago I might have been burnt at the stake for a statement like that, a few decades ago, if I were Catholic, I might have been excommunicated, but time passes, things change. Thankfully!
SwampWoman
Well, my gracious. Looks like MM decided to poke the hornet's nest with a stick, got stung, and returned with a baseball bat expecting better results. It is an interesting strategy. I do not think Harry stumbling around protectively while conjuring up Diana's ghost is going to be helpful.
snip
Lastly, Prince William must be LIVID that his deceased mother is being used by his brother to shield a woman that is doing so much damage to him, his wife, his children, his father, and his grandmother.
Oh, you made me laugh so loud at the top part I thought I might wake up husband in the other room.
As for Prince William, I suspect you nailed that. He might have been doing a slow burn before but now I think the flame has turned up to high heat.
Something must be out there that she needs to be shut down. Or, maybe more than one thing?