Sometime within the next seven days, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will release a new photo of their little-seen son Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, according to an article in the Sunday Times (quoted in the Sun, with no paywall).
It tickles the imagination to think about what this image might look like, particularly considering the Sussexes' passion for Photoshop.
The classic Archie photos - the ones used again and again in British tabloids, including the link above - were taken in South Africa in September 2019, a good 7 1/2 months ago.
The little red-haired fellow in those images looked healthy and well-fed, although entirely uninterested in the two people who were supposedly his parents.
None of the nuzzling or the seeking of comfort or approval that infants usually display with their primary caregivers, or people they know and like. (Prince Charles' recent image with his grandson Prince Louis is a good example)
Will the birthday images show the same little human? (At the time, there were suggestions that the South Africa Archie was a baby model, with exclusive rights purchased for a full year by the Sussexes. For what it's worth, South Africa has a thriving modeling community used frequently by European catalog producers who want a variety of ethnic types in their campaigns.)
It wasn't entirely clear if the same infant was pictured in the uber-Photoshopped Sussex family Christmas card or in Harry's recent Canada shot with Archie. (The Canada shot looked a lot like a little girl.)
Even as far back as the Christening photos, there were questions about multiple infants. One of our regular commenters at the time - KayeC - was married to a pediatrician.
She showed him two of the Sussexes' Christening photos and he said, "Those are two different babies."
Really? she asked.
He gave her a look, having seen hundreds if not thousands of babies in his career. "Yes," he said.
Or will he be out playing in the California sunshine? If the Sussexes are staying in Malibu, as they would like people to believe, will we see Archie on the beach? (The beaches are public, so even if they're not living there, they could just drive up the coast and do a photo shoot.)
Or will Archie be in the grounds of a lavish estate where the Sussexes want people to think they live?
And will both parents be with him in the shot? There have been rumors, based on the white-wall videos, that Harry may be at least part-time in the UK while Meghan is in California.
The South Africa baby, supposedly only four months old, was already clearly standing - in fact, the bottoms of his socks were dirty. Pulling up to a standing position is generally a 6.5 months to 8.5 month behavior.
If we throw aside the multiple-baby model theory and assume there is only one baby pictured in all of the Sussex images so far, how old is he really? There have been many suggestions he was born in late February or early March 2019, not May.
At any rate, Happy Birthday Archie, whenever it was, and whoever you are.
It tickles the imagination to think about what this image might look like, particularly considering the Sussexes' passion for Photoshop.
The classic Archie photos - the ones used again and again in British tabloids, including the link above - were taken in South Africa in September 2019, a good 7 1/2 months ago.
The little red-haired fellow in those images looked healthy and well-fed, although entirely uninterested in the two people who were supposedly his parents.
None of the nuzzling or the seeking of comfort or approval that infants usually display with their primary caregivers, or people they know and like. (Prince Charles' recent image with his grandson Prince Louis is a good example)
Babies change a lot
Babies change a lot in 7 1/2 months - or in two weeks, as Prince Harry notoriously said around the time of Archie's first public presentation - so it will be interesting to see how much Archie has changed since his last non-Photoshopped appearance in South Africa.Will the birthday images show the same little human? (At the time, there were suggestions that the South Africa Archie was a baby model, with exclusive rights purchased for a full year by the Sussexes. For what it's worth, South Africa has a thriving modeling community used frequently by European catalog producers who want a variety of ethnic types in their campaigns.)
It wasn't entirely clear if the same infant was pictured in the uber-Photoshopped Sussex family Christmas card or in Harry's recent Canada shot with Archie. (The Canada shot looked a lot like a little girl.)
Even as far back as the Christening photos, there were questions about multiple infants. One of our regular commenters at the time - KayeC - was married to a pediatrician.
She showed him two of the Sussexes' Christening photos and he said, "Those are two different babies."
Really? she asked.
He gave her a look, having seen hundreds if not thousands of babies in his career. "Yes," he said.
Both parents?
Another interesting aspect will be the setting of Archie's first birthday photo. Will he be up against the plain white wall that's served as the background for Harry's recent videos?Or will he be out playing in the California sunshine? If the Sussexes are staying in Malibu, as they would like people to believe, will we see Archie on the beach? (The beaches are public, so even if they're not living there, they could just drive up the coast and do a photo shoot.)
Or will Archie be in the grounds of a lavish estate where the Sussexes want people to think they live?
And will both parents be with him in the shot? There have been rumors, based on the white-wall videos, that Harry may be at least part-time in the UK while Meghan is in California.
How old?
Finally, how old will Archie be in his first-birthday photos?The South Africa baby, supposedly only four months old, was already clearly standing - in fact, the bottoms of his socks were dirty. Pulling up to a standing position is generally a 6.5 months to 8.5 month behavior.
If we throw aside the multiple-baby model theory and assume there is only one baby pictured in all of the Sussex images so far, how old is he really? There have been many suggestions he was born in late February or early March 2019, not May.
At any rate, Happy Birthday Archie, whenever it was, and whoever you are.
Comments
I think we need these stories to get some kind of realistic and rational baseline.
When one is immersed in the Sussex story there are so many illusions/delusions that one finds oneself discussing something that is just crazy and trying to make sense of it. One even finds oneself believing that just maybe two talentless crazy petulant people are going to become the most wealth, famous and influential global humanitarians and philanthropists ever.
@Sandie -- Yes, indeed. Also have found myself falling into an ever darker place because of the Sussexes -- and lately with all the knowledgeable posters here on beauty regimens and fashion choices, I'm completely plug ignorant, so have been content to just lurk and learn.
But when Capt. (Col.) Tom's birthday and incredible achievements burst onto the news, suddenly the sun came out, and the Harkles (who should be *royally* ashamed of themselves) are scurrying to play catch-up (Harry recorded some lame podcast). Contrast this with William and Catherine's spirited tribute -- (Capt. (Col.) Tom called William his "super prince"!) The Harkles are only sliding deeper and deeper into the abyss. The contrast between the old soldier, his lovely family and the contemptible Harkles couldn't be
greater.
Okay, I promised to let it rest! -- here's an observation on topic --
For some time now it looks to me as if Harry has been stoned on something in pretty much all of his videos, including the Thomas the Tank Engine one from January. Now, with this SmartWorks video of Markle's, SHE looks stoned as well. Willing to bet drugs are about the only commodity left that is readily available in their neck of the woods. Maybe the only thing that is (temporarily) keeping them civil to each other. (Which won't last.) (Eventually will fuel animosity toward each other times ten.)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5660266/meghan-markle-secret-diary-prince-harry-magical-boobs-hollywood-rejected/
In another tweet, she posted: "Come and read about sex. Lots
Megs were baring her soul about things like "kissing smelly actors". Article also makes clear it was DM that unearthed her deleted blog and now has pretty damaging stuff in its possession. No wonder Megs is trying to shut up the free press, she was idiotic enough to put many ugly things online. Enjoy the trip down the littered memory lanes folks.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/unearthed-meghan-markles-magical-boob-12080005
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5660266/meghan-markle-secret-diary-prince-harry-magical-boobs-hollywood-rejected/
Thank you, I didn't realize before how stupid Markle was in posting very saucy stuff, I can clearly understand now why she is so desperate to shut up the media.
She really has the most unsightly past.
...3. Why does Meghan look so young? "
It's Botox and plenty of it. I know it because I use it. She's got half a botox clinic injected in her forehead.
How did suitability for a Riyaal bride change so quickly?We're they all blindsided by the faux humanitarian act?
newsweek in full
https://www.newsweek.com/9-articles-meghan-markle-says-prove-daily-mails-agenda-against-her-1501013
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5428533/Meghan-Markles-secret-diary-soul-baring-blog.html
Goodness, I do understand now her vitriolic hatred of the British media.
I wonder how pompous Harry feels in Hollywood where plenty of men smirk behind his back about his wife. She must be pretty notorious there.
I feel guilty about posting this because we probably all have pages we are not proud about but I am so fed up with her "holier than thou" attitude and endless lecturing.
The famous picture of the Queen glaring her down at the wedding says it all, really.
I have no sympathy to the royal family, they got what they deserved, but every cloud has a silver lining. Both Megsy and Andy were survival threats and looks like they worked as a wake up call.
Royal family has closed tightly around the Queen and pulled its act together. They are also doing some pretty good damage limitation now. I am interested to see how they would be able to marginalize Megsy because they really can not afford association with someone like her, Archie or no Archie.
"I’m not gonna lie, I’ve spent many days curled up in bed with a loaf of bread and some wine. A one-woman pity party. It’s awful and ridiculous."
If only she could have thought forward to her life tucked up at Buckingham Palace!
.... it turns out she still managed to hold a one-woman pity party while "tucked up at Buckingham Palace" lol
Daily Meghan Markle says prove Daily Mail's agenda against her
Meghan Markle claims nine articles show the "Daily Mail," "Mail on Sunday" and Mail Online had an agenda to paint her in a "damaging light".
NEWSWEEK
THE 9 ARTICLES MEGHAN MARKLE SAYS PROVE DAILY MAIL'S AGENDA AGAINST HER
BY JACK ROYSTON ON 4/29/20 AT 1:15 PM EDT
Meghan Markle claims nine articles published by Daily Mail Group titles prove a malicious campaign against her. Here we look at the claims, and the publisher's response.
Legal papers in Meghan Markle's court case against the Mail on Sunday give the most detailed account yet of how she sees the stories written about her.
The Duchess of Sussex is suing the newspaper for breaching her privacy by publishing a letter she sent her father about the breakdown in their relationship
However, she also opened up a flank against the publisher's other brands, including the Daily Mail and Mail Online, using a list of stories she claims were malicious.
Her legal team claims those articles were part of an "obvious agenda of publishing intrusive or offensive stories about [Meghan] intended to portray her in a false and damaging light."
The tabloid's legal team hit back at the claim, describing her interpretation of the articles as "extreme."
Here we look at 1 of nine stories and what the two sides have to say about
Article too.long.to copy
1 example
Baby Shower5. "Doria Ragland spotted alone in LA while daughter Meghan Markle parties with famous friends at her $300k baby shower." Mail Online: February 20, 2019.
Mail Online ran photos of Meghan's mum Doria Ragland "heading out to run errands" while Meghan was having her baby shower.
The story carried the intro: "Meghan Markle was feted by her newfound celebrity pals and recent co-stars on Wednesday at a posh baby shower held at The Mark in New York City, while across the country her mother was seen walking alone in Los Angeles."
Meghan's legal case reads: "The suggestion that [Meghan] deliberately left out her mother from her baby shower and ditched her in favour of her famous friends is untrue and offensive to her.
"[Meghan's] mother was of course invited, and [Meghan] also offered to buy her airline tickets.
"However, her mother was unable to attend due to work commitments. It was also untrue and offensive to suggest, as the article does, that "not a single guest had known Markle, 37, for more than a decade".
"In fact, the true position was that the baby shower (which actually cost a tiny fraction of the $300k falsely stated in the article) was organised and hosted by one of her best friends from university; the fifteen guests who attended the shower were close friends and included long-term friendships some of which had existed for over 20 years."
I re-read some of that "Working Actress" blog and I just do not understand it, unless she was trying to cultivate an image of someone who was haplessly careening from audition to audition in a broken down car and then drinking away her evenings, but also having hot, glamorous sex? She seems to brag that she doesn't wait tables, but she also has no money and drives a car that won't open properly, so she has to crawl through the trunk (which makes zero sense and I can't picture it).
Of course, everything she does demonstrates she's terrible with money. It appears loads of it is spent on PR. House-hopping all over the place. Always hoping for freebies. Dare I say grifting? Why didn't her parents tell her (perhaps she should have realized this herself) to get a full-time job, live in a modest apartment, and buy a reliable, used vehicle? Full-time work is full-time work, whether it's at a pet store, a pizza shop, or a bank. Once you are providing for yourself you can look around for something that you really want to do (like acting).
Have a look at this photo:
https://66.media.tumblr.com/78d9973a30b90799800351577ebf26d0/1fee664e23fb2eec-d1/s1280x1920/7d7c43cc847909ed428f3246c6288ebd209e77df.jpg
Not one line or blemish (and we know she has them) ... it looks kind of creepy.
Why?
DM commenters think she was trying to look more like Kate: more natural make-up, no false eye lashes; hair very straight in half-up/half-down style, which Catherine usually wears.
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2020
Blind Item #7
The official outlet for royal leaks who prints only what they are told to by the monarchy says that the expatriate wants to come home and get back to work for the people of his country. Is it homesickness or a major crack in the foundation?
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/blind-item-7_30.html
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2020
Blind Items Revealed #3
April 22, 2020
Apparently it was deliberately planned to upstage the family member celebrating a birthday and a very very long life. I think we could expect no less from the former alliterate actress who had all the air sucked dry from her thirsty throat when the virus hit and she couldn't implement her plans as she hoped. All that sitting inside and not being able to be seen, must be hard.
She doesn't think when she does something, does she? She claims her baby shower in NY was "a fraction of the cost" which media indicated. Lets see.
There has been information she flew privately. A one way between London and NY is estimated at 64,500 in a small jet ONE WAY. So just the flight is $ 150 000.
Lets add security costs. An experienced bodyguard costs approximately £ 1000 per day. Add extra like his food and accommodation and it is easily a couple K per day. I am sure madam had more than one. Part of expense was carried by the NY, but it is still money paid by somebody, right?
I assume a heavily "pregnant" madam didn't travel without some sort of medic in her entourage. Don't have a clue how much he or she would cost but suspect it is not cheap. Add private secretaries, make up artists, chefs, assistants and whatever else she felt entitled to. Add luxury hotel accommodation. Transport. Clothing. Insurance.
I will not be surprised the media was very modest with their estimate.
Her friend may have paid for the baby shower itself but come on, we know better. There is a huge list of expenses involved in that baby shower and most of them I suspect came out of the taxpayers pocket.
I would love to hear media response to her claims.
@Fairy Crocodile from the same article at the end
The Defence
The Mail on Sunday's barristers argued all nine articles should be struck out of the case, arguing the allegation "looks like a defamation complaint," rather than an action for privacy.
White noted none were written by Caroline Graham, the journalist behind the story about Meghan's letter to her father.
They were, he said, written by 14 different journalists and no two were written by the same person.
White's court filings note: "None of those articles is alleged by Meghan to have been published unlawfully and therefore none of them gives rise to an award of damages."
He adds: "Even if it could be said that the additional articles were part of a sxustainable case in support of damages, this part of [Meghan's] case should be excluded on case management grounds in order to keep this case within proper bounds.
"As it currently stands, this case will already involve a potentially lengthy investigation of the truth or falsity of various aspects of the Articles sued on
https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/20/find-zooms-hidden-beauty-feature-12431332/
FYI for those of you working/taking classes from home- Zoom has a touch up my appearance feature
Exactly what she did.
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115002595343-Touch-Up-My-Appearance
It kinda remind me of the way celebrities deal with their children around the 2000's. There was much more emphasis on keeping the children hidden (I think it was Blue Ivy was particularly keep away, but dont quote me on that!) and only show parts of them, or sell the first photo to the cover of a magazine for "charity" (thing that I believe that they will try to do at some point, maybe even for his birthday). Its not done like that anymore with the expansion of social media but M&H sure give me those gives.
Its not the most fun theory, but I cannot stop believe in it. Someone mention the lack of tittle for Archie, and maybe acting like this is too a reaction for that. Going against the rules of the BRF for a more celebrity approach.
Good pts about the shower.
I thought the stories in the press about the baby shower focused mostly on the OTT cost and amenities at the shower itself. M's private jet flights were mentioned as were the security costs, some of which the US had to pay. :( But IMO the tackiness of the event came from everything else reported by Gayle King (and other participants like the crying makeup artist) and all the stuff photographed. Comments in the DM often agreed with my opinion.
For example, we saw an ocean of flowers brought in. We were told the cut flowers used for the shower were "generously" donated to sick people and care home residents after the event at Meghan's request. A recently-defunct business called Repeat Roses picked up the flowers. And we were subjected to photos of sick children and disabled individuals posing with their second-hand slightly wilted flowers.
But this link asks https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/nyregion/flowers-valentines-day-environment.html
"....why did the Duchess of Sussex, a self-proclaimed environmental advocate, have 389 pounds of flowers as part of her baby shower in the first place?"
Good question! The article goes on to state people love flowers and recycling is a good thing. But it also reported Repeat Roses' fees for removal and redistribution of event flowers start at $1,750.
I couldn't begin to imagine what 389 pounds of flowers looks like or costs. I found an article comparing the cost of long stem roses imported to the UK from Kenya vs imported from The Netherlands. Transport costs, labor etc. The article said 12,000 long stem roses weigh around 300kg or about 660 pounds. So 389 pounds of flowers is equivalent to more than 7,000 long stem roses. Yikes. And long stem roses have heavy (and long :) stems! To reach 389 lbs of other kinds of flowers with lighter stems would probably require more than 7,000 stems.
For most people, the idea of buying 389 pounds of flowers for a shower and spending a minimum of $1,750 to get rid of them is just beyond the pale. According to The Knot (an online wedding planning platform in the US) the average amount couples spent on wedding flowers was around $2,000 in 2019. Of course many couples spend much more and flowers are pricier some places (like NYC) but that's for a wedding! And a wedding with more guests than the 15 or so who reportedly attended the shower.
Finally, if Meghan's friends paid for the shower, how does she know what it cost? Did she ask them?
I never known about the flowers. Mind boggling. What a completely unnecessary and tacky show. It sent the wrong message altogether.
In some cultures taking something presented to somebody else is a bad luck.
I am also curious who paid for the gifts she allegedly presented to the guests, and I recall the number was not small, something like a $1K per gift or more.
I am not a great lover of the media, they never let truth stand in the way of a good story, but in case of the baby shower I am with them. It was bad taste, bad time and bad manners. Very Hollywood, very un-royal.
This also happened with Suri Cruise. The first photo Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes released to the public was the cover of Vanity Fair, when Suri was almost six months old, back in 2006.
Apparently she gifted suitcases at $495 each. Maybe other things too but the suitcases were photographed coming into the hotel. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a26445917/meghan-markle-baby-shower-away-suitcases/
I wonder who paid too. If it was Chares we know what that means. (And @Glowworm posted an idea I wouldn't put past the Dastardly Duo.)
Here's an article about the flowers with photos of some recipients. Some flowers DO looked wilted to me (especially in the large group photo--the ladies in pink hats are with Repeat Roses) Although I did not know about the bad luck cultural aspect, I do feel like publishing photos took advantage of the recipients. Guess those flowers weren't really free to them after all!
https://www.popsugar.com.au/celebrity/Meghan-Markle-Donates-Baby-Shower-Flowers-Charity-45825117/amp
Note the article says "Afterward, Meghan decided to give the bright arrays to the Repeat Roses charity."
Repeat Roses was not a charity. It was a business. It was paid to clear out flowers from events, rearrange them, and take them to hospitals, nursing homes and so forth. I guess it was a good service if cut flowers will be thrown away otherwise but it wasn't a charity. (And a better way to cut waste is not to go OTT with so many flowers to start with!) But with the COVID-19 lockdown it sounds like Repeat Roses went out of business. https://repeatroses.com/
@Glowworm,
I wouldn't doubt it. I have read far too many places that the work wasn't really done. And where Froggy Cott is located, people could see if crews and materials were coming in. Plus, it never made sense no one saw H&M leave for the hospital or return when Archie was born if they were really living there. The press was camped out all around there! And I believe there are only two roads in and out.
YES! I couldnt remember Suri Cruise, but yes, everything with these two and Archie gives me so much flashback of Suri.
Yes, I'm in the US and am familiar with Oprah's gifts. I also remember that in the car giveaway, recipients each had to pay $6000-$7000 in income tax. (Because the cars weren't considered gifts but prizes.) Since Oprah had packed the audience with people who couldn't afford to buy a car but needed one, having to pay that much in taxes was a big blow for them. Getting a new car for that amount was a "good deal" but for someone with no money in the bank to pay the tax, not necessarily--- a good deal for Oprah and the car company though.
The suitcases could have been done that way. I am sure that Merching Meg thinks of these things and got some consideration for publicity. But I'm also sure she doesn't hesitate at spending Charles's money and I do think all the Froggy Cott work wasn't done. So who knows except that it was probably slimey no matter what!
*It was one of the blinds someone upthread here posted about today.
I agree what Oprah did was awful (or maybe just careless but it had an awful effect.) And even if recipients were savvy and sold the cars, they owed tax on the list price, not what the cars sold for. And we all know a car's value drops dramatically the minute it's driven off the lot. The recipients who sold would have ended up with money in their pockets, but they didn't benefit nearly as much as Oprah tried to claim.
I'm not so sure I agree that Oprah was seen as a saint after that stunt. As I recall, it became clear pretty quickly what the deal was. But maybe that's just my view. Fiascos with two of her book club books, some extremely disturbing stuff about her girls' school in South Africa, Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Harvey Weinstein,
the whole "eat a burger, you'll die of mad-cow disease"....she's always been pretty awful IMO.
I wonder if this is more proof of a secret surrogate birth to throw the public AND the surrogate off?
that would explain the wilt.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/mother-and-baby/2019022170061/meghan-markle-baby-shower-flowers-photos/
https://i1.wp.com/www.bansheemann7.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/mom-and-daugther.png
Anything she touches tends to wilt, & wither, including Harry...
https://www.google.com/search?q=meghan+hugs+fan+at+christmas+walk&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiUydDm2JHpAhWq34UKHTu4BaUQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=meghan+hugs+fan+at+christmas+walk&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1CaEFiaEGClKGgAcAB4AIABkgKIAZICkgEDMi0xmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWc&sclient=img&ei=l5OrXtShJaq_lwS78JaoCg&bih=655&biw=633&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-gbZA782ZA782
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/4_hG5S3buj_-Zku11gWzUc5j1s0_UwY97jUE9HybDlBkLc6vP9kHRhJdLSDvTWkeT_9FodNTl5aqYPKwyd6ucNNfCQbifTQ1OBkSNAymFU5drXiWZm1InQParJkPwEBSnhJ3etGr3dzcMWIUt1AR0EgB3LWffZ6ypKg-eAAwd3LuGdb2OitZLi2XrAW9RCMilmvzK5bAbBtWR0xIlsIIU0XPBiKrnc8dJ8EfBe51rZ7WbHi0J4c
2. I have seen the photographs at Legion Media.
https://www.legion-media.ru/search/en/1/0x7B22736561726368626172223A226D61726B6C652062726F74686572222C226D61696E63617465676F7279223A22656469746F7269616C222C226F726465726279223A2231227D
Doria does have a younger half brother (Joffrey) and it looks like it could be him.
https://www.google.com/search?q=joffrey+ragland&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-gbZA782ZA782&sxsrf=ALeKk004r7BDAhbwVriMm10XXcgZSKBCFw:1588303355349&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=m3sntJjMBGkhaM%253A%252C3ewSW-LNpC-IVM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRTH8e3--ZTMzcjPgsSI50BpDDGEQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV2amK25HpAhVOUhUIHbSWClEQ9QEwAXoECAgQJA#imgrc=m3sntJjMBGkhaM:
However, Archie was last known to have a black nanny. The child in these photographs looks bigger than Archie would be (compared with the baby seen dangling from Meghan in January/February) and has darker skin. There seems to be no bodyguard. This does not seem to be Doria's house.
https://www.google.com/search?q=doria+ragland+house&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjllaSO25HpAhWD0oUKHe-VAS8Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=doria+ragland+house&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyBggAEAUQHjIGCAAQBRAeMgQIABAYOgYIABAHEB46BAgjECdQyJkQWMfLEGDszhBoAHAAeACAAaQCiAG6GZIBBDItMTKYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZw&sclient=img&ei=A5arXqWIJ4OllwTvq4b4Ag&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-gbZA782ZA782
You are so quick! Lol!
"Didn't some articles say that the flowers were for a flower arranging activity they did in lieu of traditional baby shower games?"
Yes. There were professionally done large arrangements decorating the suite and loose flowers were provided for the flower-arranging lesson for the 15 of them. I don't know whether the 389 lbs of cut flowers at the shower includes only the loose flowers. I doubt it because it appears the weight figure (reported by the NYTimes, link above) comes from weighing done by the disposal company, Repeat Roses. You can't get to their prices on the website now since the business has been closed but the basic fee for flower removal/redistribution of $1760 goes up depending on the weight of the flowers involved.
And yes, I agree having non-professionals handling the flowers would likely explain some of the wilt.
Just a quick thought. Meghan posts something every time there is a milestone/birthday/anniversary/wedding in the BRF. It must be absolutely exhausting keeping up with those events. Meghan is spending all her energy focusing on others' life events instead of just living her life. Empty much?
Harry: HeadFIT yet whining to Jane Goodall that he's not in a good place, whining about going back home, whining about his time in the British military, etc, etc.
Rustiee
'
An explanation from twitter abut the MapAction mystery.
https://twitter.com/rjmyers/status/1255992203463331848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1255992203463331848&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231255992203463331848
https://twitter.com/rjmyers/status/1255968675473088513
Harry indicated that he wanted to step down as patron after serving 2 terms (which would have been in 2017). There was a delay in acting on that decision. However, it is a mystery why Harry was listed as patron on the SussexRoyal website set up in December (when Harry had technically stepped down a while back).
The StrongWrite person on twitter is suspected of being MM. This person went quiet starting April 22 until the end of the month, when they previously posted many times a day. I think April 22 is when the surrogate had the baby....thus the 2 week comment from Harry and the lack of evidence of the hospital scramble and the birth certificate.
I know many think Youallknowme999 on Twitter is a fake, but she has good intel. She confirmed the surrogate thing. And my investigator mind (lol) put the rest together.
Thot(h) relates to Horus, eye of Horus pendant is Cashs latest merch.
Both names are apt 😉
Prince Philip - “ Is that Hortense?”
Princess Anne - “Nah, she looks pretty relaxed to me”
"Something is not quite about this. When I spoke to
@mapaction, the first person panicked and couldn’t get off the phone quick enough. The second sent a short email and refused to respond to further questions."
https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1256112616453349376
"The charity claimed Harry had stepped down at the end of the second of two five-year renewable cycles. But he actually became patron on March 28, 2007. @mapaction couldn’t even explain this basic difference in the 10 and 12 years, let alone why it and Harry parted company."
https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1256113854330875905
Some astute comments about the Dumbartons on those twitter threads ...!
Hopefully Richard Palmer will unearth what’s gone on, he must know something,
why keep digging?
I’m still intrigued as to why Harry said “ thanks for coming even though you weren’t invited”
to the RR when they, H&M, landed in Oz.
“Any engagement that I’m at with him he just scowls at us, I can’t stress that clearly enough,
he can’t hide his disdain.
It’s just so uncomfortable, he has fury and venom in his eyes.
He’s very tortured”
The Guardian 9/1/20
They’d only been married six months, baby on the way?
It is most odd.
Did she rile him up about the press because she had a lot to hide?
Did he subconsciously (even consciously) know that he had 'been had' by Markle and had mad the biggest mistake of his life by marrying her and so was simply in a bad mood? (Any criticism, real or not, serious or ridiculous, would poke a tender spot for him.)
Was there something about that pregnancy that put him in a bad mood?
He did behave in a most odd way during that tour, and she was very bad mannered on a number of occasions.
They have to be totally out of their minds if they think the press war will give them the fluffy coverage they want.
Harry has intelligence of a duck but Megsy had to interact with real world. What makes her believe she can silence the whole country's media?
Last thing on a Friday is a good time to let bad news drop for ordinary folk, as in `We have to let you go', `Please consider your position' and `Clear your desk -you're fired!'
It's also a good time for those suing/being sued to fire a broadside.
In ordinary cases, the recipient can go & howl their eyes out, kick the cat or indulge in other displacement activity you care to mention. over the weekend but they can't do anything constructive about it until Monday. It's really nasty.
But Megs ain't ordinary, just ornery.
I'm sure that if she were offered the throne, as Absolute Monarch, she'd be back here like a shot. She's certainly obsessed with us.
Well ...
The story in the Telegraph (and then reported in the DM) about Harry's misery did not say that Meghan was the cause of Harry'd unhappiness. In fact, they went out of their way (through a friend) to say the opposite (that Harry is very happy with Meghan).
Now, why would she be so over-sensitive that she perceive an accusation against her that simply was not there? Maybe it is because in the comments (thousands of those) people made it quite clear that Meghan was to blame for the mess (aided and abetted by hapless Harry) and many pointed out that if he had stayed in the army he would have never met Meghan and would certainly not have been captured by her.
Is this how the separation and divorce narrative starts and builds up into the War of the Dumbartons? (The Sussex Saga? The Kilkeel Catastrophe?)
Has this been linked? Judge has thrown out a lot of her charges against the MoS.
Rumours are swirling that Megsy lost this round but we will have to wait and see ...
The most interesting thing about this case will be who is paying the legal bills. Harry, with the last of his inheritance from Diana?
`New ultrasonic device repels pests (rodents, spiders, roaches, etc) away from your home.'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1276503/Meghan-Markle-court-case-result-latest-lost-Mail-on-Sunday-legal-privacy-case
Rend the air with warblings wild
For the downfall of Her Megship
And the `father of her child!'
God Save the Queen!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8276929/Meghan-Markle-suffers-massive-setback-judge-tosses-multiple-claims-against-Mail-Sunday.html#comments
So embarrassing dragging all that ridiculous 'they're being mean to me' stuff in for a distinguished judge to wade through. A lot of it is playground/cafeteria spat level. Of course as usual she's refusing to consider that her actions had anything to do with the coverage. God I'd love to be stuck in a lift/elevator with her to say my piece, even though I know she wouldn't listen.
British legal experts believe the Duchess is 'playing a very high stakes game'.
Mark Stephens, a partner at Howard Kennedy, says if the case makes it to trial Meghan must testify - as well as her five anonymous friends who briefed People magazine about the contents of the letter before it was published by the Mail on Sunday.
Mr Stephens told Newsweek last week: 'This has become a very high stakes game for Meghan because ultimately it gets into a situation of whether she's telling the truth. All of her five friends are going to have to come into the case. They're going to have to be cross-examined, she's going to have to be cross-examined.
'The Mail on Sunday's QC is a brilliant cross-examiner. Even if she wins the case on a technicality she's going to lose the war. She's going to have huge lumps taken out of her reputationally.'
Gavin Millar QC, of Matrix Chambers, has predicted Ms Markle's claim against the Mail on Sunday will be pared back.
He said: 'I think the way the claim has been pleaded is overblown. They've turned what ought to be a very straight-forward case about the correspondence and the privacy issues into a sort of public inquiry into the Mail's journalism over a long period'.
Meghan Markle privacy claim: Mail on Sunday publisher wins first High Court skirmish
PART 1
The publisher of the Mail on Sunday has won the first High Court skirmish in the Duchess of Sussex's privacy claim against it over publication of a letter to her estranged father.
In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Warby struck out parts of Meghan's case, following an application by Associated Newspapers at a hearing last week.
However, the judge said those parts of the duchess's case may be revived at a later stage if they are put on a proper legal basis.
This was the first stage of the Duchess of Sussex's privacy claim against a British newspaper that published parts of a "private and confidential" letter to her estranged father.
Meghan is suing Associated Newspapers over five articles, two in the Mail on Sunday and three on MailOnline, which were published in February 2019 and reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to Thomas Markle, 75, in August 2018.
A preliminary hearing in the case, in which lawyers for the publisher asked for parts of the duchess's case to be struck out, was conducted remotely last week, with the judge sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and lawyers and reporters attending remotely.
Mr Justice Warby delivered his ruling on Associated Newspapers' application at noon on Friday, and sided with the publication.
The judge said: "Some of the allegations are struck out as irrelevant to the purpose for which they are pleaded.
"Some are struck out on the further or alternative ground that they are inadequately detailed.
"I have also acted so as to confine the case to what is reasonably necessary and proportionate for the purpose of doing justice between these parties.
"I do not consider that the allegations struck out on that basis go to the 'heart' of the case, which at its core concerns the publication of five articles disclosing the words of, and information drawn from, the letter written by the claimant to her father in August 2018.
"Some aspects of the case that I have struck out at this stage may be revived if they are put in proper form."
'The duchess' rights were violated...boundaries were crossed,' say Meghan's legal team.
In a statement issued after the ruling, a spokesperson for law firm Schillings, which is representing Meghan, said: "Today's ruling makes very clear that the core elements of this case do not change and will continue to move forward.
"The duchess' rights were violated; the legal boundaries around privacy were crossed.
"As part of this process, the extremes to which The Mail on Sunday used distortive, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to target The Duchess of Sussex have been put on full display."
The statement continued: "Whilst the judge recognises that there is a claim for breach of privacy and copyright, we are surprised to see that his ruling suggests that dishonest behaviour is not relevant.
"We feel honesty and integrity are at the core of what matters; or as it relates to the Mail on Sunday and Associated Newspapers, their lack thereof.
"Nonetheless, we respect the judge's decision as the strong case against Associated will continue to focus on the issue of a private, intimate and hand-written letter from a daughter to her father that was published by The Mail on Sunday.
"This gross violation of any person's right to privacy is obvious and unlawful, and The Mail on Sunday should be held to account for their actions."
Meghan Markle vs Mail on Sunday
During the hearing, the judge was told the letter had been published by Associated Newspapers to satisfy the "curiosity" of readers, which it had "deliberately generated".
Lawyers representing Meghan said the publisher had, through a series of articles, "stirred up" the dispute between her and her father.
But counsel for the publisher argued allegations by Meghan that the articles were responsible for "causing" the dispute between them are "objectionable".
Antony White QC said Meghan's contention that her "vulnerable" father was "harassed and humiliated", "manipulated" and "exploited" should not form part of her case.
David Sherborne, representing the duchess, claimed the publisher had "harassed" Mr Markle, adding that it had "finally manipulated this vulnerable man into giving interviews", which Mr Markle had later described as "lies".
Mr Sherborne accused the publisher of "stirring up" a dispute between Meghan and her father, and argued it "caused the very dispute" that it says, "justifies the publication of this letter".
In written documents prepared for the hearing, Mr Sherborne said no consent was sought from the duchess in advance of the articles being published.
He claimed this was a "deliberate decision" taken by the publisher to avoid risk of her seeking to prevent publication, and also to "secure the enormous 'scoop"' with such a "highly sensational story".
Mr Sherborne also said the publisher "deliberately misled the public by presenting a false picture of the letter".
He said it did this by leaving out parts of it which "demonstrate the claimant's care for her father and others, as well as her concern about the UK tabloid media exploiting her father, and the fact that she addresses untruths previously published by the defendant".
Mr White, for the publisher, argued that some of the allegations made by Meghan are irrelevant and not made with a proper legal basis.
In written documents, Mr White said the duchess alleges the publisher was "one of the 'tabloid' newspapers which had been deliberately seeking to dig or stir up issues between her and her father".
He said: "This is an allegation of seriously improper deliberate, i.e. intentional, conduct to the effect that the defendant's motive was to seek to manufacture or stoke a family dispute for the sake of having a good story or stories to publish."
Mr White argued that such "complex tests of mental state" of the publisher are "irrelevant to the claim for misuse of private information".
He added: "In this context it appears that the claimant has seen fit to put these allegations on the record without having spoken to Mr Markle, verifying these allegations with him or obtaining his consent (she admits ... that she has had no contact with him since the wedding).
"It is therefore highly unlikely that she has any credible basis for these allegations of impropriety towards him, or that proper particulars could be given."
Mr White also took issue with the duchess's allegation that the publisher "acted dishonestly" when deciding which parts of her letter to her father to publish.
He added: "It is extremely common for the media to summarise or edit documents when reporting current events, and that is not a basis for an allegation of dishonesty.
"It is open to the claimant to say, as she does, that the presentation of the letter was misleading - which is firmly denied - but there is no basis for her to allege that anyone working for the defendant was dishonest in the drafting and editing process."
The placing of that pest-control advert must be deliberate - the banner came down over the headline the second time I looked.
I love it!
The duchess is seeking damages from Associated Newspapers for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.
Meghan has previously said any damages she may be awarded if she wins her case will be donated to an anti-bullying charity.
Associated Newspapers wholly denies the allegations, particularly the claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning, and says it will hotly contest the case.
It is understood the Duke of Sussex and Meghan listened online to the parts of the hearing conducted by her lawyers.
Sections of the letter were published in the newspaper and online in February last year, and it was announced the duchess would be bringing legal action in October.
Waes Hael Hildisvini 🍻
What if there are no "friends"....what if she leaked the letter herself....never understood how there were at least 5 other copies of a private letter and why on earth would you give a copy of a letter you wrote to your father to your "friends"....
May 1, 2020 at 3:06 PM
Unknown said...
....especially if it was "private, intimate and handwritten"
_________________________________________
why on earth would you give a copy of a letter you wrote to your father to your "friends".... ……. from which they all quoted verbatim.
I've been wondering all along why Mr. White's team hasn't brought this up. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether he is "sitting on it" for the day when it comes to trial …?
(Disclosure: I'm definitely not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV, LOL)
In response-
Drinc Hael!
With my knowledge of copyright issues (and this case is now strictly about violation of copyright and privacy), the final judgment could go either way.
1. Yes, the DM published about/over a fifth of a letter she wrote without her consent. The amount goes beyond fair use provisions, and Thomas Markle (through the DM) could have defended himself without publishing so much of the letter.
2. That small excerpts of the letter had already been published in Friends and supposedly (word-for-word exactly a written) leaked by friends (who must have had copies of the letter to have remembered such exact detail), plus the leak of the letter Thomas had sent in reply (no direct quotations so no breach of copyright) put the existence and the contents of the letter in public domain.
3. Thomas had the right to defend himself.
4. Damages to Meghan were to her feelings and to award compensation for that would be very subjective and contrary to the principles of law.
What I would do:
1. Violation of privacy? Nope. She violated her own privacy through her friends.
2. Violation of copyright? Yep. Thomas could have defended himself by keeping well within the rules of fair use.
3. Misuse of personal information? Nope. She attacked Thomas through her friends. He had a right to defend himself by referencing her weapons of attack.
As I have said before, damages: a donation to a literacy programme (such as Braille/Audio Books for the Blind or a voluntary remedial school reading programme) plus an apology from the DM. No costs to Meghan at all (since she could have settled the matter without a court case).
Not accusing anyone of anything(!) but committing perjury is a very big deal. The pressure on anyone being examined under oath must be immense if you are not on firm ground.
Skal
The mills of God grind slowly....
God Save the Queen
Surely Megsy will be like a lamb to the slaughter by the press and public alike! 😂
Hahaha, whip smart Megs, bring it on, the ultimate take down.
Can’t wait!!!
there is zero probability the five friends exist
I didn't care for the presenter's statement that the judge `sided' with the MoS - a very loaded verb which said a lot about the speaker's attitude.
Nicholas Witchell (he who was dumbfounded by the `birth' announcement) was carefully neutral. He stated that the judge `found for' MoS - the appropriate, non-partisan, term.
NW said it was `first blood' to MoS - it had been all about the `state of mind' of the MoS but it called into question the `efficacy of the legal representation of the Duchess'.
Hmmm...
I wonder how her lawyers feel at being seen as `not fit for purpose'? Grinding their teeth, perhaps. What a position to be in - doing as she wants, against all their advice, and as a consequence, being seen as incompetent!
Just throwing this theory out there to see if it sticks.
I personally find Harry undeserving, but the Queen may overstretch the limits of family loyalty after her sister’s and uncle’s experiences.
I cannot imagine that Harry is allowed to be under same roof with someone so unstable after a ruling such as this. I am projecting again but I would bet money at least the Cambridges—Catherine especially, because she is a nurturing sort and motherhood turns on the worrier gene in this type—worry for his safety.
@WBBM, I LOVED your parody. Gave me a good chuckle...thanks!
Of course, the so-called libel (that Wilde had engaged in a gay romance) wasn't actually untrue, and during the course of the trial all sorts of salacious information about Wilde came out.
In the end, Wilde ended up dropping the case, but the cat was out of the bag - and he was also legally liable for the court costs of the man he'd accused, which left him bankrupt.
Replace Wilde's name with Meghan's in the above and it's a pretty good match, except of course for the topic of the case.
Whistler won his case against Ruskin & got one farthing damages (farthing= one forty-eighth of 5p, in today's money).
Who knows what else might slip out? Something criminal? That fraud expert in the MoS team is there for a very good reason, I expect.
Here's another G&S parallel - in Pirates of Penzance, Major Gen. Stanley observes, of those buried in his purchased `family chapel', `I don't know whose ancestors they were but I know whose ancestors they are !' Something similar, perhaps, can be said of Archie?
WS Gilbert would have had a wonderful time with these two, he foresaw them in his Duke and Duchess of Plaza Toro.
She's also Katisha from the Mikardo.
...I can't imagine her allowing this to go to trial, but I hope she does..
That train has already left the station, the DM is fighting back (countersuing) so she can't just drop the lawsuit when she realizes exactly how much is going to be laid bare. I was just going to type "it's the be careful of what you wish for" and as I started typing, the TV news commentator just said the exact same thing about something else. lol
pretty precarious position she put herself in as I do not believe those 5friends exist
Wilde's decision to bring the case gave the opposing side the opportunity to open the floodgates. They put together damning evidence and witnesses. Wilde was so vulnerable, but he seemed to be afflicted by a kind of paralysis. Instead of getting the boat train to Paris he just sat and waited to be arrested.
Now Meghan is no cultural icon stricken by emotional paralysis, unlike Wilde. She's a cheap hustler who will just rage and keep on hustling. But she may prove, like Wilde, to be the author of her own downfall.
Instead she has left herself vulnerable as the 'five friends' are the most questionable part of this entire saga. If this is exposed to be other than she presented it, this blows her entire modus operandi out of the water. Moreover, no one but no one will want to get into her orbit.
A quick overview from https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/when-are-juries-used/
"When are juries used in civil cases?
The County Courts Act 1984 sets out the following guidelines on when a jury should be used for a civil trial. Where the case involves:
libel or slander;
false imprisonment;
malicious prosecution;
fraud.
A case involving the above matters may still be refused a trial by jury if the judge believes the case, evidence or other matters are too complicated for a trial by jury."
If she screams that Mr Justice Warby didn't try the first matters `fairly' might she push for a jury trial? I fear a jury full of sugars or those who thought she `should have been given a chance' all along.
Yes, so predictable.
Would she push for a jury of `persons of colour' for example?
I suspect she will win some sort of "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing (although it really clashes with the People) but she has lost the very major point.
She tried to claim the media had an agenda about her and was pushing the negative coverage due to the agenda. This claim has been dismissed, regardless of the exact legal language. The judge did not find it relevant.
My husband told me awhile ago this would happen, I can't believe her legal team went ahead with this strategy. Most likely they warned her against it but she didn't listen.
Moreover, no one but no one will want to get into her orbit.
I think we're already seeing this. When was the last time we saw a celebrity stand up for her, or boast about their relationship with her?
I can remember some celebrity activity around the time of the South Africa interview, but nothing since.
Let us not forget the courts are Her Majesty's courts. The Harkles' divisive influence seems to reach into every corner of national life.
His reason? Her hair!
He'd robbed a hairdresser's and assumed she'd be on the side of the coiffeuse.
He is probably the leading expert on privacy law, which has become the favourite weapon for celebrities overtaking libel - as a basis for bringing cases against the media." Have faith :)
Oh my. This is like riding the roller coaster where they have have sharp turns and then you turn upside down without warning.
Would not want to be around Malibu for a while.
Magatha M - the mills of God reminds me of the short story by Ben Ames Williams (https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2018/09/they-grind-exceeding-small-by-ben-ames-williams/)
IEschew - you may be on to something with the story hitting now. timing is everything ...
2nd thought: As for the strategic comment that her team is following her direction, it is a proactive move in case they get sued by failing to win. No doubt they documented that part well. That is a common thing when the defendant loses in a death penalty case I've noticed.
pluckychickenheart - I think you are right. Sometimes she does doubledown.
Maneki Neko - I could see her playing the extravagant card. It shows she still believes she can do this as a message in all directions that she is still a winner and to back her - for work, whatever her next step is.
Charlotte birthday - I think maybe it would be the first a teasing photo of Archie and the promise of more of them.
https://www.newidea.com.au/meghan-markle-gives-prince-harry-an-ultimatum
Not an important publication but I'm wondering if we will start to see a steady trickle of articles portraying Meghan the termagant persecuting her poor, hapless husband and threatening to keep Archie from him if he goes home. One thing I've learned from decades of reading royal history, biographies, diaries etc. is that the BRF won't hesitate to throw people under a bus to rescue one of their own, no matter how culpable that royal person may be.
Of course I wouldn't be shedding tears for Meghan - quite the opposite - but I see Harry's part as equal to hers. The press are STILL making excuses for him though. The BRF can use that. Absolutely maddening.
The jury is picked at random not by ethnicity, but I’m sure you already know this.�� If a jury of all non whites was requested, it would be racist against whites; it’s never going to happen. �� Besides, it would be ignorant of Megsy to assume non whites would be on her side anyhow. ��
"We can add the sugars' attacks on the impartiality of our legal system to a long list of insults to the country that would not have happened if not for the Harkles."
To echo the immortal words of Miss Mandy Rice Davies almost 60 years ago;
`They would say that, wouldn't they?'
https://twitter.com/TheToadours/status/1256045975396892677/photo/1
I agree. The royal family may try to bring Harry back and rehabilitate his image but it will take a long time. If you saw the comments to DM article about him missing the military you will know the public's love affair with Harry is over.
He is 35, hardly a teenager to explain his mistakes by youth.
His only saving grace may be divorcing her, working hard to redeem and then marrying a girl who would be happy to do her part in support of the monarch and the country.
" Glen Close Bunny Killer scary". You crack me up!
Off topic. But have you seen Glen Close in Damages? This is what I call a good legal drama, Suits didn't even walk past.
She is a bloody great actress.
Well said, and very perceptive ...
Yes. On technicality she would 'win' a case that is simply about copyright.
Yes. She would forevermore hype up 'her win' as a major victory because of her knowledge of the law and experience from working on Suits.
I was thinking what her strategy could have been to defend the inclusion of articles for the reasons she gave when she actually had no grounds in the law. I don't think there was some clever strategy.
1. To Meghan, it is all about HER feelings. HER ego was bruised and HER feelings hurt and it is not fair and someone must pay for that.
2. Her father's hurt feelings at being attacked by her so-called friends in public are completely irrelevant to her.
When you hurt the feelings of a narc or cause perceived offence, there is nothing rational or reasonable about their response.
It will be interesting to see what she does about Charlotte's birthday (and then Archie's birthday). As an injured narc, she will be raging or staying in bed all day and drinking wine and eating whatever is at hand or embarking in an irrational flurry of activity (perhaps unrelated to that which caused the narc injury) in which she feels she is in control. (She may forget both birthdays in all this, and will depend on someone reminding her.)
Harry must be worried about finances!
Interesting. I wouldnt be surprise. In my mind, the Palace agree to let then keep the HRH because they dont expect the marriage to last long. Meghan then would loose it in the divorce but Harry would still have it and be able to an active part of royal family again. The palace just have to wait it out and then throw her under the bus. And it could work too, if Harry doesnt keep doing to much damage to himself.
'Meghan should have kept this to the narrow copyright issue she is likely to win, then she could have done her usual thing of taking something minor and built it into a great victory on social media, as she has done so successfully with her supposed childhood and pre-BRF 'philanthropy'. She's an expert at building bricks out of straw. Probably her only marketable skill.' I agree, Ava!
This may have already been asked and answered, but did Thomas M know the letter was copyrighted? If so, would the DM have asked that before publishing?
"This may have already been asked and answered, but did Thomas M know the letter was copyrighted? If so, would the DM have asked that before publishing?"
I'm not an attorney and am in the US. But I think it was up to the MoS to know UK law, not Thomas Markle, an American private citizen living in Mexico.
I don't think the letter was formally copyrighted. It didn't have to be for M to hold copyright. TM could do pretty much anything he wanted with it or any other letter from M including giving them away. The glitch is in the publishing. At least that's my understanding.
I asked this as kind of a joke before but I'm really curious about the answer. If publishing part of the letter gave a false impression (not that I think it likely did but M claims that) as a remedy, why not make the MoS publish it all?
Portcitygirl, did she copyright the letter??
I assume if she copyrighted the letter only to show it to five friends with full expectation of them going public with it that is a clear invasion of her own privacy.
If she copyrighted the letter AFTER her friends went to People it will show she was aware Thomas had been exposed to unfair criticism and she fully expected him to want to fight back. She didn't not contact him to apologize, explain and try to mend things. In other words, she framed her own father.
Either way it will look ugly when exposed in court.
Absolutely this, so agree!
Copyright of the letter means the physical object, the paper, belongs to Thomas but the content of the letter belongs to Megsy. By implication publishing parts or all of the letter should have her consent. Absence of her consent means breach of her copyright.
Does citing part of the letter to the People constitute breach of copyright? People did publish at least one paragraph from the letter, but not verbatum, instead a "friend" used her own words to describe the content.
I believe this is what the whole legal case is balanced on, MoS used copy of the letter. People used someone else's words to describe the contents.
I don't see how case can proceed without the testimony from her "friends". I would be interested to know if she showed the letter to all five or it was just one who saw it. That makes a huge difference.
say for instance these friends do exist or she finds them, how can they quote verbatim something from year ago
it stands to reason they were emailed copy of said letter, doesn't that negate Meg's claim to it?
I agree, I love her! She is a fantastic actress! Thanks for the tip on 'Damages', we will def watch this.Thank you.
Megsy sure likes to copyright photos and everything it seems.
Does citing part of the letter to the People constitute breach of copyright? People did publish at least one paragraph from the letter, but not verbatum, instead a "friend" used her own words to describe the content.
It was a breach of copyright and privacy, if they did not have her permission because it did not meet any fair use requirement. (Actually, the friends who quoted HER letter did so verbatim right down to use of punctuation. It was the letter from Thomas that they paraphrased, but they chose to share something out of context that would make him look bad.) They can claim they did so to defend her against attack (I have no idea what this attack was and it certainly was not from Thomas), but I still do not think it meets the standard for fair use (review, criticism or public interest). The Daily Mail could try to claim that their publication of excerpts from the letter were fair use as they said something about the character and honesty someone who was publicly funded and represented the UK as a member of the BRF. However, I think they could do so without reproducing so much of the letter.
I believe this is what the whole legal case is balanced on, MoS used copy of the letter. People used someone else's words to describe the contents.
No, because People DID quote from the letter verbatim without good reason to meet fair use requirements (anyway it was a breech of privacy as it was letters between Meghan and her father and supposedly neither party gave them permission to splash it all over the tabloids). But, it is up to Meghan and father to sue People and her friends: she did not; he could not afford to (i.e. did not have the money).
I don't see how case can proceed without the testimony from her "friends". I would be interested to know if she showed the letter to all five or it was just one who saw it. That makes a huge difference.
I think it was just two of the friends out of the supposed five that quoted from the letter. They also repeated claims Meghan made in the letter to her father (using her exact words) that Thomas disputes as not being true. It is difficult to find a copy of the entire article online.
In the presence of the DM Thomas tried to call Meghan using the number she said had not changed and there was no response (plus there were records on his phone of many such attempts). Thomas tried to reach her and sort it out before the DM article but Meghan had been refusing to take his calls since the wedding (and she lied about that though her friends to People and thus to the public).
"There is no copyright protection for ideas or concepts as such.
It is only when those ideas become available in physical form i.e. as a literary work, that they are afforded copyright protection.
Copyright protection applies to all original literary works.
The term literary work means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work which is written, spoken or sung, and includes tables or compilations and computer programs and letters.
The author of the letter is normally the first owner of copyright in their literary work.
Copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.
When the author of the letter dies, copyright (like other forms of property) pass with the author’s estate to his/her heirs and beneficiaries.
As letters are normally sent by the author to a third party, the owner of the physical object i.e. the letter, may not be the copyright owner.
Where the owner of the letter is not the copyright owner, they must first seek permission from the copyright owner before reproducing the letter. However, copyright does not prevent the recipient of a letter from showing the original letter to another third party as this does not involve reproduction".
Looks like Thomas was perfectly within his rights to show the letter to MoS. Now, the Council is talking about OWNER of the letter seeking permission to reproduce the letter. Does it mean it was up to Thomas to inform her?
Did MoS inform her about the article and the use of her letter? Did she officially object?
Does publishing fragments constitute reproduction of the whole letter? if yes, sadly I must say that according to the British law there was a breach of copyright, but I am not clear by whom.
I am probably going mad because as you say I could swear her "friends" quoted her letter verbatim and referred to his letter non-verbatim.
However the article in People i can see now does not contain these paragraphs any more. I hope for the purpose of litigation the original article is still available and will be presented at court. This is what I am talking about:
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markles-best-friends-break-their-silence-we-want-to-speak-the-truth/
You appear very knowledgeable, so I would like to discuss another issue with you.
If MoS stole the letter and then published it we could speak about gross invasion of privacy.
If Thomas Markle provides the letter and gives his permission to publish it he as the owner of the letter takes responsibility for the action (at least this is what I understand from the British Copyright Council explanation).
Instead of suing her own father she, for obvious reasons, suing the media instead. Is this why you think MoS went to court with the intention to fight?
If it was a clear cut breach of copyright and invasion of privacy case I am sure they would have settled out of court as they normally do in such cases.
"Mark Stephens, a partner at Howard Kennedy, told MailOnline today's ruling was an ‘absolute victory’ for the Mail on Sunday after the judge threw out ‘significant ill-advised parts of her claim’.
He said: ‘For Meghan this judgment is a like a train ploughing into a petrol tanker on a level crossing. It is a complete disaster. She’s been humiliated today. Every complaint by Associated Newspapers has been completely and utterly vindicated by the judge'.
Mr Stephens claimed that senior lawyers in London had pored over Ms Markle's claim and concluded 'there was no chance of her winning', adding she was either 'poorly advised' or disregarded warnings because she wanted her day in court.
He added: ‘She would be well advised to settle and walk away. If it goes to trial the evidence of Meghan and her father Thomas about the letter and their rift would be examined under oath. If she is going to be humiliated in person there will be no worse outcome for her’.". Her reputation is unlikely to recover.
Living in the US, I have never heard of a letter being copyrighted. Thomas Merkle never heard of it. When someone sends you a letter it is your property. It is in your possession, and the saying here is, "Possession is nine tenths of the law". I hope the court in the UK takes this into account.
Megsy sure likes to copyright photos and everything it seems.
Hear, hear xxxxx! Spot on as always!
It really DOESN'T make sense if her argument is that the tabloids made her look cruel. She is doing that all on her own. I'm a layperson, but this lawsuit looks incredibly petty and its premise seems to be that she is ASSUMING people thinks she looks bad (I think as a narc she must know she does).
If people think she is cruel, it has more to do with her behavior and nothing to do with which paragraphs were or were not published in the Mail. She is not suing Tumblr or other platforms that have run far more damaging allegations, like throwing the teapot or the Reitman's director who described MM as "the meanest person."
Why sue on an assumption of what other people are thinking? Why not go after these very specific and damning allegations?
Heh. No doubt those eyelashes will be fluttering so hard that they'll take flight. I'd like to see that.
'This is a like a train ploughing into a petrol tanker. A complete disaster': Legal experts say judge's decision to dismiss major parts of Meghan Markle's letter case against Mail on Sunday is a 'humiliation'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8276929/Meghan-Markle-suffers-massive-setback-judge-tosses-multiple-claims-against-Mail-Sunday.html
Just finished reading the DM article about MM's court case. She must be utterly furious! A tiny, teeny part of me feels sorry for Harry and definitely Archie. I wonder if she'll continue on with the case. She would be nuts to waste any more money on it. The analysis is pretty clear that her case is over and done with. I can only imagine what her next move is. It's chilling really!
I am like a dog with a favorite bone re this court case. After the judge dismissed her allegations of the agenda, stirring up trouble between her and her father as well as lies by the journalists, she has nothing but a small case of possible privacy/copyright breach which is far from clear cut.
Whatever is left of her reputation will be annihilated during the court hearing.
She must be hoping now her unlucky inconvenient dad somehow disappears thus giving her excuse to walk away from the case "out of respect for him".
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough.
I was referring to what happens in a criminal trial in England and Wales:
In a criminal case, jurors are drawn from the Electoral Roll. There is no indication of race there (is it at random?) and enough jurors (ie 12 + some spares) are summoned to the Court.
The Defendant can raise objections if he/she doesn't like the look of any of the jury members -once they are in the Jury Box but before being sworn in IIRC. For instance, they might look `military', too `posh', too tattooed, or otherwise the `wrong' class. I'm not sure how many jurors a defendant may object to but when they are rejected, they have to leave the box and be replaced by reserves.
I've no idea what would happen if the objections appeared to demonstrate racial bias.
As for civil trials with a Jury, can Litigant raise objections? Can a Defendant also object?
In chewing this over, we should bear in mind, that laws differ from one country to another.
Hang it all, Scottish law is not the same as English & Welsh, nor is that of Northern Ireland.
Another point occurs to me - can she seek leave to appeal this preliminary ruling? This could run and run.
Ditto the 5 friends - they probably don't exist.
Now, the Mail On Sunday, that's differnt!
I think Omid Scobie & Caroline Durand might need to start re-writing a chapter of their biography
I could be wrong on both these points.
I think technically she can appeal, there is a ladder all the way to the EU court still, isn't it?
But this is not the end of the case, this is a preliminary hearing, the case is still on. She can appeal the case once it is ruled, I doubt she can appeal a preliminary resolution by the judge which actually simply forms the boundaries of the case which will be heard.
Her case is now breach of privacy/copyright.
But I am not a legal expert, simply happen to have some general experience.
Exact wording in the press:
" her father’s decision to make the letter public in February 2019 – days after he was 'vilified’ by five of her closest friends in a US magazine - had breached her privacy, copyright and data protection rights in a case now dubbed 'Markle vs Markle’.
Whatever she says she is litigating with Thomas Markle.
You know, seeing it written out like that, that is just such a vile thing to do to one's father. We know she's conniving, dishonest, all the rest, but even given that, this is just so LOW when you see it and think about it.
To any father, not even considering Thomas's level of adoration and spoiling of her, the fact that he raised her alone while Doria was in prison (yeah, I am wearing that particular tin hat), it would be disrespectful but he about all it's just disgusting. (Lack of proper syntax in the previous.)
Not a monarchy fan, but I feel for Charles and Will. I can't imagine what it must be like for them witnessing this train wreck and maybe having to foot the bill. She's put a mighty dent in their fortunes already.
Smeg tried to get the MoS to settle, they said no. They also countersued. So she could withdraw her complaint, however she would have to get the MoS to withdraw their countersuit. The MoS, even if they lose, comes out the winner. There are barrels of money to be made from sales of tabloids... everyone is going to follow this case.
Rpu, London, 16 minutes ago
As a lawyer reading this, it looks like her UK legal team are being led (or hamstrung) by US lawyers who have added the usual irrelevant elaboration to her pleadings which has only sought to dilute the issues and ultimately cause embarrassment. This now appears (to us and likely the judge) to be an abuse of process - shes using the court process to make a point to the press that she shouldnt be taken on, but that has spectacularly backfired. Not sure the press (or the Judge) will go any easier on her after this either. I expect this will settle and she will attempt to get the Mail to agree to go easy on her in future in any settlement agreement.
Chloe1950, Calgary, Canada, 16 minutes ago
The Times added: "However, the judge said that those parts of the duchesss case might be revived at a later stage if they were put on a proper legal basis." So there is a possibility that she could retrieve some of it, but I doubt it. She's used emotional language, not facts, and since her lawyer is a well-known celebrity lawyer, I'm sure he told her what's what and she ignored it, as she has ignored any "negativity" in her life so far. She's really not very bright at all. Picked Diana's lawyer - for what? Sympathy? I hope she keeps going with this, I really do. If she wants to get her celebrity status upgraded this way, then she deserves whatever she gets.
pip , squeak , United Kingdom, 50 minutes ago
Omid gave an interview back in Feb 2019, saying that she wrote this letter with the public in mind as she always believed he would release it. When her father didn't and she played the victim in that letter, she gave him a nudge via her friends. Also, Omid knew the people magazine article was coming out and was 'privy' to its contents before its release but Meghan had no idea? Something is a bit off!
Town and Village, London, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
I can imagine Meghan, sitting down with her English lawyers, after they have adviser her, she would then proceed to ignore their advice based, on her detailed knowledge of US law gleaned from having read a few scripts and had some small appearances in a US legal drama......i can't see where it all could have gone so wrong?
Hope these commenters don't come after me for breach of copyright! I agree totally with them.
like if she wins she can have attorney's fees paid but in so far as actual cash it is capped at 60,000. most she walks away with is $60,000 for her "charity"
isnt that right?
This is an excerpt from the DM...
Associated Newspapers will also ask the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to pay their costs of in excess of £50,000 after the couple refused their offer to deal with the issue out of court to save the High Court having to set up an online hearing during the coronavirus crisis. Meghan's costs are said to have been £60,000-plus.
I personally haven’t read anything about a capped damages payout for her though. Maybe another Nutty can oblige.
We may see this serves as a good dose of stimulant for her and she decides to go full way, redraw some of her arguments in a proper legal language and have another go at them.
I wouldn't put it past her. It will then turn truly ugly, because there will be detailed arguments about what she claims is false, with witness statements, accounts, photographs, depositions and records in full public view.
She may want to settle now but it will look like a complete defeat.
My guess she will try to win the breach of privacy and copyright case as this is her best bet.
MoS will use it as a chance to terminate her morally, by dragging Thomas to the stand against her. Imagine old, frail, bankrupted, twice heartbroken man saying how much he loves her and how he never even saw his grandchild. The public will tear her apart.
Thank you so much for your kind offer, if it is not a big bother for you, would you please remind us what her "friends" actually said in relation to the letters?
The only quote by a "friend" now available online declares that Thomas never called or texted her, and we all know this is a lie.
Thank you again!
Stephens is
"...a leading media lawyer at the Howard Kennedy firm in London, is not involved with the case but is familiar with it and followed the hearing via live tweeting by a British journalist."
Here's the quote
"Stephens says the chances of a settlement before trial in Meghan's case are "close to zero." The paper has little to lose (damages are capped in Britain at about $60,000) and a trial would be a major story for all the media to cover. He said the legal costs for each side in pursuing the case have been estimated at more than $1 million each."
I think the Associated group is prepared to part with a couple million in legal costs to teach the haughty duchess a lesson in public humiliation.
I don't think she will lose the breach of copyright case but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
Also, I don’t think for one second that the Mail On Sunday didn’t do their homework regarding privacy laws before they published these excerpts. They either knew there was nothing to be concerned about or the the probability of being taken to Court was worth it. If damages are capped at £60,000, the MOS will have made much much more than this through revenue obtained by paper copies being bought, digital copies, online click throughs, advertising.
I hope Meagle has the brains to scuttle off into a dark, publicity free, corner and stay there for a long time.
"that is why it is so crazy for her to even do any of this. even if she was hoping for a settlement it would not have even have hit $60,000! Lol!"
If the MoS had settled it would have saved some of the huge legal costs. So I expect M thought she'd get more than 60K in a settlement because of that. I expect she was quite surprised they wouldn't settle.