Prince Harry is 36 years old today, roughly halfway through his time on this mortal coil, if you go by the average life expectancy for a British male.
99-year-old Prince Philip is really an outlier; most of the men in Elizabeth's family didn't make it past their mid-70s, and Diana's father died at 68.
Thirty-six has a special poignancy for Harry, of course, because it is also the age at which his mother died.
The cult of celebrity
Diana helped create the turn-of-the-century cult of celebrity and the media to support it. Harry, ironically, has exposed its emptiness.
Once-respected establishment media names like Vanity Fair and USA Today are coo-ing over Harry's fabulous new Hollywood mansion, generous Netflix producing deal, satisfying marriage to an intelligent and glamorous woman, and proud fatherhood to a red-haired baby boy.
Does anyone really believe this? And even if they do, do they care?
In a time of pandemic, mass demonstrations, and violence, the problems of two little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
And while Diana was constantly pursued by the media, Harry has to pay PR people to pay establishment media outlets to run news about him and Meghan.
(You can see some of those pay-to-play outlets in today's run of Prince Harry birthday stories, like Yahoo Entertainment and Tulsa World.)
The role of social media
Another difference between Diana at 36 and Harry at 36 is the role of social media. In 1997, social media wasn't much more than a few AOL chatrooms and a few random message boards.
Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit were all almost a decade away, and the Daily Mail existed only on paper.
Before her death, Diana was experiencing a dip in popularity. The public was tired of her drama, and didn't particularly like her boyfriend of the moment, Dodi Fayed.
But if you were around at that time and followed Diana, there were not many people you could talk with about it. There were your friends and family, maybe your barber or beautician.
You could choose to buy or not buy magazine or newspapers with Di's face on them, which was a way for the media industry to gauge her popularity.
(I don't even want to think about what Twitter trolls would have done with Di's many romances with married men, or how they would have handled her gruesome death.)
Transparency changes the world
Today, of course, we can all share our opinions of Meghan and Harry through this blog and many other outlets.
We can find many other people out there who share our opinion of the Sussexes, and amplify it. We can can share information and speculate together about things that are hidden.
Diana felt that she was not in control of the media intrusion into her life, but at least there were a limited number of outlets that could publish gossip about her or photos.
Harry has no such control. Almost everyone in the Western world has access to platforms that reach an international audience.
Bad news about him travels fast, and it's easy to point out his hypocrisies and broken promises by linking to earlier stories.
The transparency and access to information that has developed over the past twenty years has changed society in many ways - who would have imagined that we would all be watching the deaths of individuals on police bodycams or from multiple cellphone angles? - but it has also taken much of the awe and mystery away from celebrities and royals.
Celebrity and royal glamour are what Harry and Meghan need to sell in order to support their lavish living.
It's not a hot product at the moment the way it was in 1997, when Diana was 36 years old.
Comments
Did you all read Tatler was made to remove the awful commentary in the Catherine the Great article? Or was it MoS? Sorry that is why I rarely post. I lack facts 😑
@Girl with a Hat
Good link. Markle said, "She has been a true inspiration to me since I was a girl. Honour her, remember her, act for her."
Aside from the absurdity of this statement coming from The Markle, she again is calling on people to "act".
@holly and Girl with a Hat:
Gee, Meghan should choose her words more carefully. There was a comment in the DM story about Meghan releasing her statement about the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The commenter wrote that she was so “inspired” by Meghan urging people to act that she turned it back on Meghan by making a donation to a Right to Life organization in Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s name, which gave me a chuckle:
Here it is:
KenyattaComments, New York, New York
“She has been a true inspiration to me since I was a girl. Honor her, remember her, act for her,” Meghan said. I am taking Meghan’s advice to heart. I just made a donation to the National Right to Life Educational Foundation, Inc., a pro-life group that has a Charity Navigator rating of 90, in the memory of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who, unlike millions of other US babies, wasn’t aborted and eventually became a Supreme Court Associate Justice because she was allowed to live. TAKE THAT, Meghan!
"Do you believe this report? The source is Marie Claire."
Could be true. It was also reported elsewhere like the Mirror. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-prince-williams-snub-harrys-22710668
I expect Charles especially is trying to stay in touch with Harry. And a group chat can be less awkward than individual communications when things are strained. I don't know about Archie calling Charles Pa but I'm sure he barely knows who he is. And Harry calls him that.
I don't see though why it would have been so awkward W&K weren't there. Neither were Harry's two uncles, Anne and Sophie. Or his cousins. They aren't all joined at the hip. Harry didn't go to Charlotte's christening either. He went on a private trip to Africa for conservation work. To me it's no big deal.
Except for the Queen's birthday, I don't think there's ever all that much in the press about royal birthday celebrations (aside from endless PR about Meghan's.) There is some about Kate's each year but that's mostly (IMO) because she has a house party in Norfolk and her guests get photographed going to church (or at least did pre-COVID.)
It was Tatler who ran the article by Anna Pasternak, the DM confirmed today that Tatler had removed the offending commentary after KP (lawyers?) contacted them.
Ha! Thanks for that comment about how Markle should herself act and make a donation in RBG's name. Gave me a much needed laugh.
“I’m going to tell this once and for all. Meghan and I are family. She is the kindest friend and has checked up on me everyday,” the Canadian stylist, 40, shared on her Instagram story, according to People.”
@WBBM,
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/blog-posts/
and
https://jerseydeanne.com/2020/09/02/prince-harry-is-about-to-overstay-his-welcome-in-the-us-ans-become-an-illegal-alien/
_________________
Ah bless your soul for these! All of the juicy tidbits condensed into one humorous go. Did I die and go to NirvanaLand? :)
Love it!
Thanks for making the Harry Windsor'$ Keystone Kops act a bit more enjoyable.
*I actually went to YouTube to see some Keystone Cops clips and laughed so hard at their idiocy. I needed those laughs.
"She is not a very good representative for their Theatre Studies course I would think."
Oh, I agree. I think M is a terrible actress. But we don't know her sub-area in Theater at Northwestern. And too, at the undergrad level, one usually can graduate in an arts area without being all that competent in the art as long as it's not a "studio" specialty. Art History majors don't need to be great painters or sculptors, Musical Composition majors aren't always great instrumental or vocal performers....
My brother participated in alot of theater productions in high school (as a musician, not an actor) and lots of the high school students in those shows could act rings around Meghan. Still, theater is very different from TV/movies (more "exaggerated" expressions and motions often needed in theater, especially in musical theater.) So I do wonder if most of M's acting training was in musical theater, either at the high school or university level. For sure though, whatever talent she has doesn't translate to film-- either still photography or videos IMO.
Blind Item #7
Apparently the alliterate one is shooting a documentary that shows her court fight as her being a victim trying to stand up for everyone and depending on what happens with the verdict, her friends either as supporters or people in the conspiracy to bring her down.
I don't know how accurate the CDAN items are, but they sure are entertaining. So this is apparently what she is pitching to Netflix - a documentary about her lawsuit against the MoS?
No cameras allowed in British courts thank goodness. Though I’m sure I read it was considered a while back ...but don’t quote me on that! ;o) Regardless can you imagine all the theatrics that Megsy would treat us to if they were allowed! Lol
I didn't pay much attention to Scabie's book when it came out, as it looked uninformative & probably mostly untrue. I was looking up something else in Amazon books, & decided to take a gander at Finding Freedom, which is currently ranked #2,153 in Amazon Bestsellers. The top comments might have been written by Nutties. LOL. A sampling:
1.0 out of 5 stars Skip it1.0 out of 5 stars Skip it
Reviewed in the United States on August 11, 2020
Verified Purchase
This book is so terribly written. It sounds like one of them wrote it themselves...
Verified Purchase
In the beginning I was impressed at how poised and lovely Megan is. As time went on,she seemed to want all of the spotlight, taking all of the air out of the room. She does not come across as mixed race and if she was criticized it was for her behavior not for her race. Many of the facts in the book seem spurious and onesided. This is a cruel tell all book about two very spoiled royals lacking in compassion who want to do both of their families great harm. They claim ignorance about how the authors knew such trivial and mean details. They come across as whiny and envious and seem to lack compassion for all members of both of their families. Why didn't they get on a plane to check on her father?They also come across as arrogant and hypocritical. For two people who left the royal family for privacy, their PR team seems to have a puff piece out about them every couple of days. If they were sincere, they could fold into the shadows and get on with their lives. Many famous people know how to be out of the spotlight. The fact that authors started writing this book two years ago makes you know that it is a set up, written for money and publicity.
Reviewed in the United States on August 12, 2020
Verified Purchase
I am shocked that these people get paid to write. I wrote better when I was 13 and filling my diary with hopes and dreams. The sentence structure veers wildly between convoluted and messy to simplistic depending on whether the authors wish to obfuscate the facts or praise the Sussexes.
The amount of personal detail makes it feel more like autobiography than biography. For example, it includes tons of detail of how Meghan arranged her home for a Vanity Fair interview, down to laying out afghans for her dogs so they wouldn't mess the white couch and how she arranged the throw pillows. The only way the authors would know that is if they had spoken directly to Meghan, read Meghan's diaries, had a direct wiretap into Meghan's brain or if Meghan revealed every thought she ever had about decorating to a friend who managed to retain all of those (useless) details and passed them on to the authors.
This book is a silly, poorly written mess and quite frankly, Meghan and Harry should sue the authors.
1.0 out of 5 stars Badly written, self pitying drivel.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 12, 2020
Verified Purchase
Badly written, self pitying claptrap. If this truly is the account that Harry and Meghan wanted to present to the world then in my opinion they have shot themselves in the feet. They are shown to be mean spirited, thin skinned and spiteful. The book is right to condemn the racism shown in many press reports but the criticisms of the royal family are almost toddler like. The Queen didn't have our picture up in her Christmas broadcast, Kate didn't offer Meghan a lift. Really? If you want to read about two fully grown people who thinks the world should revolve around them ands their ideas, then this is the book for you. I dont think I will ever be able to take either of them seriously again after reading this book.
@HappyDays
Ha! Thanks for that comment about how Markle should herself act and make a donation in RBG's name. Gave me a much needed laugh.
@Holly: It wasn’t so much that Markle should make a donation in RGB’s name, but instead to the group the commenter donated to, which is at philosophical odds with everything the flaming liberal Meghan embraces in her public stances.
What gave me the biggest laugh is that the commenter donated to the pro-life/AKA anti-abortion movement, and did it in memory of a supreme court justice who was very pro-choice/AKA pro-abortion.
Justice Ginsberg is not yet in her grave or place of final disposition, but as soon she gets there, perhaps it will be RGB’s initial reason to roll over.
It also would be devilishly funny to donate to pro-life groups or black conservative political groups such as the National Black Republicans Association in honor of Meghan too.
It has frequently been suggested, for example, that Michelle Obama made a phone call to DA Kim Foxx to get the charges against Jussie Smollett suddenly dropped and the case sealed.
Michelle has connections to the Smollett family, as does Kamala Harris.
When people come on here talking about Obama as though he should be granted sainthood, I can only believe that they forget that he came to political power in Chicago. There is no such animal as a clean Chicago politician.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_6v2HdLfNk
Nutty said: he Obamas, while both attractive, elegant people, are Chicago politicians. There are very few people of impeccable morals in Chicago politics.
Voted for Obama twice, thought him to be marginally less irritating than other occupiers of his august post. I did, however, tell my kids when he was elected to never fall in love with a politician, they will always disappoint you.
@Swamp Woman, loved your reference to Harry's girlhood. LOL!
@Miggy, Interesting video. I grew up in a family in which you could never be too thin, so have to admire Megs transformation from pudgy teen to ultra thin, although her weight loss did serve to highlight her enormous hands and feet. She obviously has the will power to achieve at least some goals, however scatter-shot she is in other ways.
but, imo, kids looks should be off limits, even after they grow up....unless you have something nice to say :)
I saw that the "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" read (Aniston and Pitt) was done and no where, no where, were The Harkles mentioned.
Didn't SS or MM hint that she and her handbag would be reading at that? Or am I misremembering?
@WilliesBucket & Puds:
In the previous thread, or perhaps very early in this thread, I published a comment from Quora by a woman who was friends with Meghan in college. It sounded like they were in the same sorority (Kappa Kappa Gamma) at Northwestern.
In it she discussed Meghan majoring in drama. This woman said Meghan kept auditioning for roles in the university theater productions, but she never won any roles and eventually tried to change her major.
To me that says she wasn’t good enough to get roles based on her own merit as an actress.
You are likely right that Meghan getting parts in school productions previous to attending Northwestern was the result of Meghan buttering up the school staff and her dad being a lighting director who volunteered to work on school productions. You also never know if or how many other students auditioned against her.
Meghan Markle as the Florence Foster Jenkins of social commentary.
The Shade, The Shade!
Reminds me of "the horror, the horror" from Apocolypse Now.
Priceless.
@ NeutralObserver & Miggy:
While I think that Meghan probably has will power to exercise and extreme dieting, don’t forget that among moddls, actresses and actirs who, for the most part need to be very thin to look good when on camera or being photographed, many of them are regular coke users to stay thin and maintain their energy.
We already know she is no stranger to recreational drug use by handing out packets of joints as favors at her wedding to Trevor.
And when she attended the US Open in New York in September 2018, CDAN published a blind about a high-end drug dealer to tge rich and famous being alerted to stock up on his best merchandise for a client coming into NYC who had not been able to partake in drug use for months who was looking forward to buying some goodies.
My guess is she combines heavy exercise with very low calorie intake accessorized by drug use to allow her to eat those In and Out burgers they reportedly favor since moving to Cali.
Many actresses and models have multiple days a week when they eat pretty much nothing to keep their weight in check. Meghan tends to gain weight in her middle and butt, and now that she’s well past her early thirties, it is getting more difficult and will go off a cliff once she hits peri-menopause and then menopause.
Yoga and sensible eating won’t get a 40 year-old into a size 0 or 2 couture dress for the Met Gala, the Oscars or any other big event. As two examples, look at Rhianna and Taylor Swift. They are both younger than Meghan and looked fabulous early in their careers, but both eventually said f*** it, and returned to more normal eating and put on a little weight. They both still look good, but they both are obviously heavier than they were ten years ago. They both look more normal.
@Oor Wullie
Struth, looks like madam didn’t appreciate Sherborns expertise,
a battle between the drama divas, Wig War!!
@Puds
Thank you 😘
Alas, nothing so august as Erato and Thalia,
more like G & T and Shiraz 😉
She cried, It’s all about me
As she sacked her QC
In the midst of her upcoming trial
Only room for one Queen
As she makes her big scene
A war of wigs, and he won by a mile
Touché Toupee
How do you do that so fast?
A War of Wigs is right. I love how against protocol the one fop wears his powdered curls outdoors!
I wonder if MM had a big fight with Sherborne! Wig vs Weave?
@Wullie
Megs will get to see exceptional, real live theatre
from these barristers, puts her acting to shame!!
How I would love to see these master dramatists in action!
Let’s hope she takes the stand, doe eyed ingenue, eviscerated!
The fop and the flop
Wig one, now wig two, I’ll weave it up to you? 😉
They do contain penetrating analyses, don't they?
It’s all on for sure
MoS versus the wh..e
Who knows how it all will end
A witness for prosecution
Misheard, read prostitution
And defended her, like it, or yacht
At the end of the day
Justice Warby will say
You get what you give
Not a lot
There is a house in ‘Cito
They call the Devils Lair
It is the site of misery
The demise of an ex spare, to the heir
Thank you for the Times article.
There was also speculation in media law circles that the duchess, 39, had ditched Mr Sherborne in solidarity with Amber Heard, Mr Depp’s former wife, who has accused the actor of domestic violence.
I don't think it was only media law circles who speculated about this. Many of us who followed the live tweeting of the trial by Nick Wallis (journalist) wondered the very same.
Incidentally, Sherborne was brilliant!
Harry's new haircut! Duke of Sussex debuts a closely cropped style as he shares a message of support for The Gurkha Welfare Trust fundraiser in video from his Santa Barbara home.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8755005/Prince-Harry-shows-freshly-trimmed-hair-new-video-charity-walk.html
You're on top form today! 😆
To brighten your Monday with some laughs, the Whingers Of Santa Barbara launch their latest salvo of grievance against William and Catherine. This article appeared in Marie Claire, one of Meg’s Kneepads, sometime late yesterday. It alleges that the Cambridges ruined Harry’s Zoom chat with the family on his birthday by their non-attendance. Despite their absence, a great time was had by all as the Queen, Charles and Camilla watched Harry & Archie blow out the candles on the very special cake Meg baked. Of course she did!!! Meg is so fond of baking and being in the kitchen in general, of course she’d make her honey a special special birthday surprise. I wonder what the secret ingredient is that Maggie uses for all of these “special cakes“. Maybe they’re much too special for Archie to have a piece, if you know what I mean. Meg’s special herbal surprise cake!
The Zoom call was allegedly organized by Charles, and isn’t it funny how details of a private family chat got leaked to an American ladies’ Mag (Hearst publication) 5 days after it supposedly occurred? With the death of Justice Ginsburg shoving her Netflix deal off the headlines, Meg needed more fuel. The whole thing could be completely bogus—As I suspect her increasingly desperate gambits to insert references to the adorable antics of a 16-year-old toddler whom many of us are increasingly convinced does not actually exist—If she actually released a screenshot of Archie being adorable at daddy’s party it would sell it a lot more convincingly—But even if it did happen this way and Will and Kate blew it off, could we blame them? The Cambridges may be compelled to be civil to the Duplicitous Duo in a public event, but in the context of a private family conversation, why should they continue the pretense? Even if they had been On that call, Meg could say anything she wanted and it could neither be proven nor disproven. I just find it really amusing that Harry’s birthday came and went last Tuesday with no birthday greetings from Meghan, and then 5 days later this story appears.
Typical.
as he shares a message of support for The Gurkha Welfare Trust fundraiser in video from his Santa Barbara home.
Harry looks plain awful compared to the smiling frisky lad of 5 and 8 years ago. And Harry did not lecture to the world back then/
"Half in, half out" ---- The Duplicitous Duo are doing their own version of this as they zoom bomb charities etc, back in England.
Is it a case of `Punch and Judas'?
What has happened to the Baby?
Are they fighting over the (vegan) sausages?
Will the Policeman get the better of them?
No Hangman needed - they've had enough rope to hang themselves.
Or is she the Crocodile? The Devil himself?
- but they both shout `THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT!!!'
Nice idea, but perhaps he's so striking he'd take the attention from her!
Two thoughs I have had on the latest in the Sussex soap opera:
1. The money she is spending on this vanity legal case could be donated to build something lasting that would make a real difference to the causes she supports as a 'humanitarian'. I doubt that the tabloids and MSM will pick up on that bit of narcissistic hypocrisy.
2. She has 4 months to coach her witnesses to stick to some kind of word salad self-serving narrative. She probably does not care about lying under oath, as long as it sounds good to her (my opinion). I suspect that the 4 witnesses and Scobie are fully on board with that strategy. The DM legal team should be prepared for that.
I wonder which friend 'bailed' on her. QueenTT on Tumblr predicted in a tarot reading that 2 friends would turn on her in this case. So, perhaps it is too much hubris to rely on a script and coaching to control witnesses and at least one will 'fold' on the stand.
I have written at length why, in my opinion, based on experience, she probably will win the infringement of copyright aspect of the case (and should), but I think she is on shaky ground with the rest. Besides, if her intentions were in any way noble, she could have settled the copyright case with the DM without a court case. Most infringement of copyright cases are settled without a court case (a public apology, and payment for use of the material, with costs, or withdrawal of the copyright material). When payment of damages are sought by the offended party, then the matter usually heads to court and becomes expensive.
Duchess of Sussex cold calling voters to tell them to vote says Gloria Steinem
People magazine stayed way on the side of fair use in what they quoted from the letter. DM did the opposite and reproduced a substantial portion of the letter.
DM could have easily achieved their objective and stuck to the rules of fair use.
Meghan did not have to go to court to prove this. The Cambridges have just shown that media can be made accountable without a court case.
Rachel Zane wants her day in court!
`House of the Rising Sun' -gosh, that takes me back! Can you give us some more verses?
Respect to you -I haven't got very far with my own parody, beyond the last line `She wears a horse's hair'.
(May I make a little suggestion??? If you call the place `Santa B', you can rhyme it with `miser-ee'.)
btw/OT- Wiki dismisses the idea that the tune is derived from `Lord Randall' but I once heard on the radio a Scottish tinker, born in a tent on the shores of Loch Lomond IIRC, singing `Thomas the Rhymer' possibly the oldest of the ballads. The melody reminded me very strongly of HofTRS.
Can any musical Nutties comment?
These two versions are the closest to the one I heard. Very haunting:
Appalachian version at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvbQXk-B0oU
Thomas the Rhymer (Child 37) (Scottish traditional) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWu-9m7umZw
------------------------------------------
I wouldn't give Steeleye Span the time of day for their version. Went to a live concert (Wintersmith tour) locally a few years ago, thinking how much I enjoyed their early work. Big mistake, they just made one deafening row - we left asap.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8755755/Duchess-Sussex-cold-calling-voters-ahead-election-according-Gloria-Steinem.html#comments
Duchess of Sussex cold calling voters to tell them to vote says Gloria Steinem
I think the Gruesomes are going to finesse their upcoming March-April evaluation by The Queen and Charles. They might participate in a very evasive way. They might blow it off completely. Will they even fly to England or will this be done by zoom? At age 94 the Queen is very guarded about getting Covid so might not want to engage with the Gruesomes in the same room/
The BRF must quiz them on Megsy's politicking in California and strip H/M titles immediately if the above account is true. What Megsy will say is that "I politicked for no one. I just urged people to vote"
Magatha
`House of the Rising Sun' -gosh, that takes me back! Can you give us some more verses?
By the Animals, one of my favorites. I heard it this morning as I drove along. If you look up the lyrics you see an extra verse that was cut out for the original radio version. Time limitations.
https://www.https://www.amazon.com/The-Windsor-Diaries-1940-45/dp/B088HDB1F9dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8753515/ALATHEA-FITZALAN-HOWARD-Queen-told-elope-man-dreams.html
Extracted from The Windsor Diaries: A Childhood With The Princesses, by Alathea Fitzalan Howard, edited by Isabella Naylor Leyland, to be published by Hodder & Stoughton on October 8, £25.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-09-21/duchess-of-sussex-mail-on-sunday-case-meghan-markle-used-her-friends-as-pr-agents-court-hears
https://mobile.twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1307978226107592705
The DM have published two long excerpts from the diaries. It is fascinating and gives a very good insight into the character of the Queen. Harry married someone who is the complete opposite to his grandmother in every way.
MOS want to cross examine him. That sh0uld be fun! :-)
1. The trial will start on January 11, 2021 and is expected to last 7 to 10 days;
2. The MoS lawyers are trying to bring Omid Scobie and his unauthorized (cough, cough) biography Finding Freedom into the lawsuit, arguing that the book could not have been written without MM`s extensive cooperation and is therefore proof that she doesn't mind having her privacy invaded as long as she can control the narrative;
3. Court documents show that MM`s legal team has budgeted £ 1.8 million (about $2.3 million USD) for the case, which the MoS lawyers call 'wholly disproportionate the the complexity of the case'.
We shall see...
@LavenderLady
The DM have published two long excerpts from the diaries. It is fascinating and gives a very good insight into the character of the Queen. Harry married someone who is the complete opposite to his grandmother in every way.
___________
I saw those but would like to read more. I will look for it at my library. Thanks Sandie.
Yes I agree about Harry's choice. Thank God for Kate is all I can say.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'd been under the impression it had been mentioned in a tweet and hadn't realised that he actually said it during an interview! What a dork!!
BTW - DM also running with the court case story.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8755711/Meghan-Markle-operated-Finding-Freedom-authors-claim-lawyers-latest-privacy-battle.html
Part 1
Meghan Markle 'co-operated' with Finding Freedom authors, claim lawyers in latest privacy battle
• Meghan Markle suing publisher of Mail on Sunday for printing letter to her father
• She claims article in 2019 breached her privacy, copyright and data protection
• Royal says note contained her deepest and most private thoughts and feelings
• Associated Newspapers has sought permission to amend its written defence
• They argue she 'co-operated with the authors of 'Finding Freedom' to put out their version of certain events'
• Meghan is seeking approval from the court a cost budget on the case of £1.4m
By VIVEK CHAUDHARY AND SHEKHAR BHATIA FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 13:53, 21 September 2020 | UPDATED: 16:25, 21 September 2020
Meghan Markle is accused of 'collaborating' with the authors of the book 'Finding Freedom' about her life with the Duke of Sussex, the latest hearing of her High Court action against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday will hear today.
Meghan is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL) over its publication of a 'private and confidential' handwritten letter sent to her estranged father Thomas Markle, 76, in August 2018 months after he suffered a heart attack and was unable to walk her down the aisle.
The duchess, 39, insists that the note contained her 'deepest and most private thoughts and feelings' and that its publication was a misuse of her private information and breached the Data Protection Act.
At the latest preliminary hearing in London on Monday, ANL sought permission to amend its written defence to Meghan's claim to argue she 'co-operated with the authors of the recently published book 'Finding Freedom' to put out their version of certain events'.
Lawyers for ANL say that her cooperation with the book mirrors the way her five friends briefed People Magazine with her permission about the letter to her father.
Meghan's lawyers have denied that she co-operated with authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand on the book, which was published in August, and said that any reference to her letter in the book were simply 'extracts from the letter lifted from the defendant's own articles'.
In written submissions, Justin Rushbrooke QC said: 'The claimant and her husband did not collaborate with the authors on the book, nor were they interviewed for it, nor did they provide photographs to the authors for the book.'
He added that neither Meghan nor Harry to spoke to Mr Scobie or Ms Durand, who he said 'were not given the impression that the claimant wanted the contents of the letter to be reproduced in the book'.
Mr Rushbrooke will reportedly be representing Meghan for the remainder of the case after she dropped his colleague, David Sherborne.
Antony White QC, representing ANL, said in written submissions that Finding Freedom gave 'every appearance of having been written with their (Meghan and Harry's) extensive co-operation'.
He argued that ANL should now be allowed to file an amendment to its defence because the book contains descriptions of her 'relationship and communication with her father,' with her approval – and that Meghan 'caused or permitted information to be provided directly or indirectly to, and co-operated with, the authors of (Finding Freedom), including by giving or permitting them to be given information about the letter'.
ANL insists that the duchess also allowed this and other private information to come into the public domain by working with the authors or giving the green light to her friends to share details about her personal life.
A document presented to the court, in which Meghan is referred to as 'C' (claimant) maintains: 'If C provided extensive cooperation to the authors and permitted a detailed account of her private life, relationships, thoughts and feelings to be published, including references to her relationship and communications with her father, it is difficult to see how she can complain that the Letter should not have been published because 'it contained the Claimant's deepest and most private thoughts and feelings.'
Referring to the 'Book,' it adds: 'The Book sets out in great detail C's feelings on a variety of personal matters, relationships and events, and attributes multiple quotes to her about her feelings (36 by D's reckoning).
'It also sets out in great detail accounts of events at which it is reasonable to infer that only C and her husband, and/or possibly a third party who would not have spoken to the authors (e.g. the Queen), were present.'
Meghan's lawyers also claim that ANL's re-amended defence would also significantly delay the start of the full trial, which has been scheduled for next January.
A document submitted to the court claimed: 'The Claimant and her husband did not collaborate with the authors on the Book-nor were they interviewed for it, nor did they provide photographs to the authors for the Book.
'Neither the Claimant nor her husband spoke to the authors for the purposes of the Book.'
Details of a statement by co-author Mr Scobie were also contained in the document submitted by ANL, with lawyers for the media group insisting that they wanted to 'test' his evidence in cross-examination.
They claim that in his statement Mr Scobie seems to confirm that people 'working on behalf of C (Meghan) co-operated with the authors and gave them the names of people close to C who would help and that the authors spoke to such people and received information from them.'
Master Francesca Kaye at the High Court will also rule on costs budgets for the case, which has also left the two sides at loggerheads.
Meghan is claiming costs at an estimated £1.4 million, which is being disputed by ANL as being too high.
Last month Meghan won the most recent tussle in the legal action after Mr Justice Warby ruled in her favour over protecting the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to People magazine.
The senior judge said he had concluded that 'for the time being at least' Meghan should be granted an order which protects the identities of the individuals, following an attempt by ANL to name them.
Meghan Markle 'co-operated' with Finding Freedom authors, claim lawyers in latest privacy battle
_________________
I saw it this morning but didn't read. Print on my phone is too small. Your post will enlarge nicely on my lap top. Thanks!
_________________
Nutties,
Honestly, I appreciate all the research posts such as this. I get weary with all of the mundane, sophomoric, banal H$M crapola.
Trying to keep up and research then post said research is very hard on my eyes so thanks Nutties (98% of the content is great and engaging).
With the links from yesterday, Harry Markle Blog, LCC vids, DM constant comments (Ha! my favorite tea), I'm well entertained. I'm still isolating pretty much but I'm a lone wolf anyway so it's not too bad as long as I have my steaming services and the couple of blogs I post/read on, and my books, I'm good.
BTW, I'm not Meghan. If I was I'd be enjoying the life of Riley lol...
No worries, as I usually only post the link. :)
The Mail claims the FF book conatined the duchesses deepest most thoughts and feelings, and that she collaborated with the authors on the book.
the Harkles lawers claim “ the claimant and her husband did not collaborate with the authors of the book, nor were they interviewed for it, nor did they provide photographs to the authors for the book”
it doesn’t specifically. mention the duchesses diary ( that cdan and other gossip sites mentioned ages ago) and whether she provided or condoned the authors gaining access to it .... if it really does exist. collaborate seems like a stronger working together type term than just leaving your diary out for someone to take / read / or providing a link / password if it’s kept online.
im obssessed with her diary as the source for her inner most FF thoughts.
I was really surprised at the idea MM would align with Amber Heard. I didn't follow that story other than what I read in here, but it certainly seemed to me like Amber was the aggressor and not a victim in that case.
What is the view of the general public on the Depp/Heard story?
I guess people speculated at that being the reason because she's a fellow actress... or maybe because they're both despicable? Like attracts like after all.
I have no idea what the general public's view is, only the views of a huge number of people on Twitter who all support Depp after viewing all the available evidence. (Much like we do here with H & M)
If the MOS doesn't have a copy of Scobie's tweet about MM writing her letter for the public...I do!
LOL at the thought of them having to dig through FF. Her fans say the topics in that book were chosen to bite back on specific tabloid stories that particularly bothered them.
So was there also a tweet? Lucy mentioned Scobie being interviewed on Good Morning America and I've now found the interview in question: https://twitter.com/DanniHewittson
Yes, I got the impression that she was possibly the major aggressor but MM wouldn't see it like that: her general principle that men are more likely to be in the wrong, plus own psychological projection - like this:
`If you dare accuse me of being violent, I'll hit you!'
A lot of violent people can't admit to their own aggression - they project it onto their victims.
I was really surprised at the idea MM would align with Amber Heard. I didn't follow that story other than what I read in here, but it certainly seemed to me like Amber was the aggressor and not a victim in that case.
What is the view of the general public on the Depp/Heard story?
Johnny has long had his problems with substances--drugs, alcohol. The lad likes a party--when he's not sober. Probably being a very shy person as well as a creative, he felt less inhibited/more in touch with his Muse under the influence. JD on a talk show is a pretty painful viewing experience. For as extraverted and crazy as his movie characters are, I think Depp the man is a private, sensitive and very introverted soul that needs, or feels he needs, chemical assistance to get through his life.
These types certainly could become violent, nor does Johnny's slender/medium physical stature rule him out as being the physically aggressive one--BUT--I have never gotten a hint of aggression in his demeanor, though it is possible that even the most mild-mannered person could morph and become ugly when drunk or high. If you ask me my gut feeling on this case, though, it's that JD is the victim here. He and Harry should really swap stories sometime, because I think Amber Heard and MM are cut from the same narcissistic cloth. JD and JH have hooked up with the same kinds of women. JD has just reached the phase of being behing Devaluation--he's firmly smashed under the bus. JH is not there yet because his Narc isn't finished with him but when she is, I'd look for stories from her alleging that Harry was abusive and violent while under the influence.
I would absolutely put every cent I own on this happening. That's how she will launch the divorce proceedings and it's going to be as ugly . . uglier . .than Depp's court battle. Johnny was probably once one of Hollywood's most well-paid actors with his Pirates franchise, but the word on the street is that Johnny has run through most of his fortune and Heard's grasping at what's left. JD is going to be a broke and broken man after this. The second part has already been achieved. In an article on the case, the remark was attributed to him that when the scales fell from his eyes, he said aloud, "You never existed." It had just dawned on him in that moment that the woman he'd fallen in love with had been nothing more than a crafted image to hook him. Harry is apparently still not in that phase of enlightenment. Those of us outside such a toxic relationship marvel that it would take so long and so much for a person to realize that their partner has told them nothing but lies from Day 1 and completely faked, not only the strength of their love, but their entire personality as well.
None so blind . . .
I hope the Mail on Sunday destroys her. The world needs to see once and for all that she's got no credibility.
Sorry, missed your post earlier.
Harry looks plain awful compared to the smiling frisky lad of 5 and 8 years ago. And Harry did not lecture to the world back then/
Yes, he does look awful and there's something weird going on with the lower part of his face!
"Half in, half out" ---- The Duplicitous Duo are doing their own version of this as they zoom bomb charities etc, back in England.
Yes, they are and people are getting so bored by them both.
https://www.purewow.com/news/kate-middleton-prince-harry-drop-harrys-royal-title-instagram
`And while Harry’s father’s post was short and sweet, it was the 94-year-old monarch’s post that particularly stood out to us. The photo choice specifically showcased that she still supports the duke, even after his decision to step down as a senior member of the royal family. The snap focused solely on her grandson and only showed the back of the queen’s head, symbolizing a deep deference to him.'
How can they be sure HM wasn’t turning her back on him?
Archie has a seriously cute nickname for Prince Charles
The Editors
Mon, 21 September 2020, 10:56 am BST
Photo credit: TOBY MELVILLE - Getty Images
From Cosmopolitan
As part of his birthday celebrations last week, it's believed Prince Harry had a nice old natter with some of his family members over Zoom – and apparently his little one, Archie, couldn't help but get involved too. It's believed he's now talking more than ever and even has a sweet nickname for his grandfather, Prince Charles.
According to an article published by The Scottish Sun, Charles, The Duke of Cornwall, was left "delighted" when Archie popped up during a video call between Harry, Meghan, himself and The Queen, and the youngster referred to him as "pa" (short for 'Grandpa'). How cute!
During the same call, Harry then apparently blew out some candles on a cake made by Meghan.
A source said of the virtual get-together, "It was very pleasant. Harry told the family how much he missed them. Meghan baked a cake and Harry blew out candles." They added that the youngest royal then stepped in to help his dad and somewhat stole the show: "Archie made them laugh when he also blew [the candles] out." Given that Harry and Meghan are known to be very family-orientated, this sounds like the perfect way for the Duke of Sussex to celebrate turning 36.
It definitely sounds like the one-year-old is increasingly becoming quite the chatterbox as he grows up – earlier this year, a source commented that "he’s saying a few words, like ‘Dada,’ ‘Mama,’ ‘book,’ and ‘dog,’." They also shared that he loves playing hide-and-seek and using building blocks. New reports also say that The Queen is an especially big fan of Harry and Meghan's only child, and that she loves checking in with the family through video calls, and commented on the tot's "red streak of hair".
Since stepping away from their senior royal roles, The Sussexes have set up home in Montecito, which is located a little over an hour outside of LA. They've also signed a major deal with Netflix, with plans to create thought-provoking content through the streaming platform, which aligns with the causes they're most passionate about, such as gender equality and the environment.
Given that they made the decision to leave royal life behind in search of more privacy, it's highly unlikely that Meghan an Harry will be appearing in front of the camera for said TV projects, but we can dream. Right? Just imagine if they stepped up to the plate following the end of Keeping Up With The Kardashians to become the new reality family du jour. Keeping Up With The Sussexes has a real ring to it...
Please feel free to add more vomit to the bilge accumulating below decks...
(I thought `Pa' is what W & H call Charles...)
Meghan Markle, 39, is 'cold-calling US voters' ahead of the November election
Democrat campaigner Gloria Steinem said royal joined her at home to call voters
Revealed it was 'Meghan's initiative' to phone and ask "are you going to vote?"
Added the royal had 'come home' for the presidential election this year
By HARRIET JOHNSTON FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 08:57 EDT, 21 September 2020 | UPDATED: 13:22 EDT, 21 September 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8755755/Duchess-Sussex-cold-calling-voters-ahead-election-according-Gloria-Steinem.html
More sewer sludge to digest!
5 friends spoke to People magazine. Only 4 people are testifying for her.
However, I am assuming that the witnesses are from the group of 5 friends. Only one friend spoke about the letters exchanged between her and her father (or was it 2?). However, all of the 5 colluded in that article that started all the trouble.
Who else would testify for Meghan that would be of any relevance to the case?
@Hikari
A very astute commentary on the Depp vs Heard mess. Depp was duped, which happens to the best of us. I suppose the only reason that he took the battle to court was because that relationship and the accusations from Heard had a very negative impact on his career.
How would she even cope if a coronet doesn't show up on caller ID?
She may *say* she is just getting out the vote non-politically, but I am highly doubtful she is calling registered Republicans.
How can Meghan stop the MOS legal team from accessing 6 months' worth of messages on her phone and email account? Does she perhaps have more than one phone and one email account and could she try to hide this from the legal team (MOS won't get to go through all her messages)? What if she has already deleted all messages? She could have hidden a copy somewhere for her own use and then just deleted everything.
LavenderLady, most people don't even bother to answer their phones if it is an unknown number.
How would she even cope if a coronet doesn't show up on caller ID?
She may *say* she is just getting out the vote non-politically, but I am highly doubtful she is calling registered Republicans.
___________
ITA. Plus, I'm old as dirt and got rid of my landline years ago... Sewer sludge it is indeed.
Clearly, she can't financially afford to lose this case. Interestingly, she's claiming 1.4MM pounds in fees already accumulated. This is incredibly high and extremely doubtful. To me, it looks like she's attempting to shake extra money if she wins the case since the damages amount is quite low.
She won't get away with it, but I appreciate her extreme audacity in trying to scam any and every situation! Obvious! ...I guess no one told her suing in the UK is a different ballgame monetarily than suing in the USA.
I don't think the lawyers have anything at all to do with Amber Heard. They've both worked many cases with many celebrities.
Now that we are talking about Johnny and Amber, it never occurred to me the main reason Amber and he culminated in a divorce was because he was spending all the available money (remember most of his assets were attained prior to their marriage, so she would have no claim to them). So, he was broke. Go figure. Makes sense she then moved on to Elon. She's looking for change. Elon is notoriously cash-strapped too. Who knows what she is doing now...but it makes sense it was all financial.
That is the one thing she and Meghan have in common, grifting.
Of course, once the budget gets tight and Harry has too actually work for a living, it's not goiong to be enough to keep up with Megalomaniac's standard. Will won't support it, so she's trying to cash in now with HMTQ and primarily, Charles. Charles is still her sugar daddy. And maybe he likes it. Charles won't ever let Harry be run out of his home due to missed payments, as it would look terrible on Charles. So they will always, always have a nice home. The main issue will be everything else like Meghan wanting private flights too and from Los Angeles, like the way they could travel in the UK. Harry can't keep up with that, private drivers, security, private chefs, nannies, newest designer clothing for everyone, throwing extravagant parties, major travel budgeting. Basically, he can't afford all the fringe life costs which tend to be more than the mortgage.
How long will this keep up? I don't know. It's anyone's guess. I think she will be stripped of her titles due to breaching political protocol. I think Harry will keep his. I think once COVID is less restrictive, Harry's going to be gone working all the time. And then they can't avoid contact with non-NDA people and word will get around how truly awful they are. She'll blame him, his upbringing, his inability to cope, his lifestyle, and file. Once she has the salesforce CEO on a few 'dates' to 'strategize.
I suppose the only reason that he took the battle to court was because that relationship and the accusations from Heard had a very negative impact on his career.
Why would you presume that's the only reason?
How about an innocent man clearing his name?
They both have a penchant for recording things on their phone for future "use"...
They call him Pa Pa.
I can’t believe Archie can talk that well, let alone recognise his grand father that he’s hardly ever seen or met. More PR nonsense. :o/
Omid Scobie - caught lying, markled
Netflix - Cuties, markled
JM - markled
SW - markled
Royal Family - markled (well, except Will and Kate probably)
Lawyer 1 - markled
Bob Iger - markled
Various charities - markled
Personnel working with them - markled
I am now afraid for the Ghurkhas. They deserve so much better than being used to give visibility to Harry's latest attempt to stay relevant
The Bank of Dad -- Markled
The Grey Men -- Markled
Piers Morgan -- Markled
Her father --Markled
Meghan dropping her lawyer is most likely because she's losing the case and his fees are high. Bringing on a celeb lawyer is probably a discount on the popularity of the case.
Clearly, she can't financially afford to lose this case. Interestingly, she's claiming 1.4MM pounds in fees already accumulated.
She most likely also dropped her original counsel because he advised her to settle or drop the case. That does not point to his confidence that he could hack a win out of what he had to work with. Lawyers at this level do not make it a practice to accept cases that they know they are going to lose. Most legal actions are either dismissed by the judge or settled out of court/dropped by the parties involved before they ever get to trial. Perhaps her lawyer thought this was a likely outcome and that she'd take his advice. Mr Sherbourne represented Diana at one time and that must have been the draw.
I feel incredibly sorry for Johnny Depp. Less so for Harry, but their positions are similar. JD gave Heard a whopping $7 million dollars in settlement when they divorced in 2016. She took this lump sum payout in lieu of annual spousal support payments. The man might have thought he could get on with his life. Nooooooot so fast--a Narc will never stop tormenting her victim as long as she draws breath. Hence the op-ed piece in the WaPo that made allegations that Depp was a sadistic abuser who punched her and dragged her through broken glass. She claims to have scars on her arms and legs from that incident. I am predisposed to put those scars in the same realm as 'Stretch marks from Archie'.
Johnny's exes Winona Ryder and Vanessa Paradis, the mother of his two kids, have collectively spent 16+ years in romantic partnership with Depp and they have both testified on his behalf that he was never, ever violent toward them, not once. Johnny basically left Paradis, whom he never married, for Heard, so you would think that she in particular would have no reason to cover for him now. Ryder was engaged to him over 30 years ago. Neither woman has incentive to lie on his behalf now, so I conclude they are telling the truth.
Interesting that in the cases of Heard and Meghan both, they got their mark to the altar very quickly--two guys who had never been married before despite lengthy romantic relationships with more than one other woman. They are that skillful in making themselves into 'the perfect woman' to an undiscerning, love-bombed man.
In Johnny, we are looking at JH in some years down the road. Johnny was very rich but not even he can hold a candle to the assets of the BRF. At least as long as Charles lives, Meg is going to keep coming back to drain that well.
I mean, I don't think anyone actually cares if Meghan remains in touch with Jessica. They both are low-level D list celebs. Talk freely girls!
lol
Depp - Ambered
Very good! I would add:
Whole UK - Harkled and Markled
The thought that UK taxpayers wasted upwards of 40 million quid on that cheap cable TV actress and the PR propped princoduke...
We all know she can't afford that, and her Ego cannot afford a loss.
So she hired this new guy to take it to trial.
Her original lawyer is an expert in privacy cases, so if he was saying 'settle' he wasn't wrong. She's going to lose.
The theory is she is setting up the production company and now using Netflix' cash injection (rumored a Max of $5MM upfront, minus taxes, for first-look deal) to pay herself exclusive rights to the legal case 'story'/documentary, that she contracts to her own production company and pitches to Netflix next year. And angles it around 'privacy and freedom'.
No chance Netflix will buy that.
She's going to get sued into oblivion and maybe even do time for financial fraud, eventually. Now it makes sense she needed a production gig, girl is desperate for money to pay her legal costs.
FFS, when is the shoe gonna drop?
The issue is Jessica will have to start paying her own lawyer. She cannot lie under oath, and whoever she then tries to implicate will be brought forward to deny/accept Jessica's claims.
In court, it's all facts, no riff-raff.
Meghan cannot sustain this, and Meghan cannot afford this, and no amount of manipulation will keep the Netflix money in her private pocket.
I think this is the iceberg moment, or house of cards, where she ends up becoming comopletely ignored.
I can't figure out is if she understands that the entertainment value she provides is being a car-crash narrative. Like really tawdry Reality TV. If she does, more power to her, but if she doesn't good riddance! lol.
CDAN is claiming Meghan fired her lawyer because he was advising to settle the case, meaning she would lose and have to pay the DM's fees as well.
We all know she can't afford that, and her Ego cannot afford a loss.
So she hired this new guy to take it to trial.
Her original lawyer is an expert in privacy cases, so if he was saying 'settle' he wasn't wrong. She's going to lose.
IIRC, Meg tried to drop this quixotic lawsuit at one point, but the MoS refused and forced her to take it to trial. Both parties have to consent to dropping the action--but it is very very unusual for the *defendant* in a legal action to want to be the one to press on.
The Mail on Sunday must be exceptionally confident that not only are they going to win, but they are going to disembowel her. Huh . . makes me wonder what 'Friend #4' is up to--could MoS have gotten her to turn for them, with a detailed testimony about how exactly Meg recruited and coached her friends to weave a tale to People, to which she herself claimed to know *nothing*?
So far, the friends are only implicated in, as far as they knew, helping a vulnerable pregnant friend. If they commit perjury at any stage to bolster Meg's outrageous claim that speaking to People was all *their* idea, utterly not prompted by her--they could be facing contempt of court citations and possibly felony convictions. Perjury is a crime. Are the 'friends' willing to do *that* for Meg?
The MoS's refusal to drop the case tells me they must have some major, major dirt on Meg and her credibility. Perhaps their secret weapon Thomas has some bombshell in the wings.
Meanwhile, Meg's own (original) lawyer was *not* confident in her case. He must be relieved to be 'fired'. To be honest, I tend to think that 'he' fired 'her' as a client--sick of all the drama for a case he could not win. I wouldn't be the new guy for all the tea in the United Kingdom because when she does inevitably lose, she will hold a Narc grudge against the 'man who made her lose' forever.
FFS, when is the shoe gonna drop?
Dunno, but I do so want to see Meg in an orange jumpsuit. She could do her own version of 'Orange is the New Black', all about her woe is me troubles and how nobody's asking her if she's OK in prison. Before she gets there, she may bankrupt Netflix on the way. Lady Destruction should be her name, 'cept she ain't no lady.
How much more dosh is Charles going to fork over for Meg's insatiable legal fees? When is *he* going to say, enough? By the time all her lawsuits are said and done, Mudslide Manor is going to look like the bargain of the century.
FFS, when is the shoe gonna drop?
LOL Thank's for that. I'm right there with you. Didn't think it would go on this long.
Blind Item #7
Apparently the alliterate one is shooting a documentary that shows her court fight as her being a victim trying to stand up for everyone and depending on what happens with the verdict, her friends either as supporters or people in the conspiracy to bring her down.
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 10:30 AM 78 COMMENTS
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/09/blind-item-7_20.html
@Magatha 12.22 pm
That was so funny! Keep up the good work, we can certainly do with a laugh 😉.
Meghan Markle discussed contents of 'private' letter to her estranged father with Palace spin doctors before sending it as part of a 'media strategy', High Court hears.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8755711/Meghan-Markle-operated-Finding-Freedom-authors-claim-lawyers-latest-privacy-battle.html
Or video, in view of the health issues we're heading into again?
Were it normal times, and in open court, the public would be queuing up outside for a chance to be in the public gallery. Like an old-time public execution!
Even when hangings were no longer public, and within the confines of the gaol, the public flocked to see them at our nearest city. There's a big hill nearby that served as a grandstand, which gave a view to the place of execution. Apparently, special trains were put on to bring country folk into town for a `grand day out'.?
I don’t think we should read too much into why she is sticking with the second one. I have had many lawyers for many different issues and there doesn’t have to be rhyme or reason why I chose one over another one.
Does anyone else remember the "tufts of red hair" from last year? Tufts that no one but Ellen has ever seen?
This "streak of red hair" detail wasn't in the first leak, which had Meghan's dirty, anti-William handprints all over it.
I wonder if it is in this second story to make it harder for Meghan to cast a new baby in the role of Archie.
How much more dosh is Charles going to fork over for Meg's insatiable legal fees? When is *he* going to say, enough?
I don't think Prince Charles will ever say that enough is enough. He wouldn't have taken action after Diana's interview with Martin Bashir, had the Queen not made him.
Or video, in view of the health issues we're heading into again?
Good point; I've been reading that several European countries are considering some pretty severe lockdown measures.
That doesn't make sense. I too have had lawyers, and that is not how hiring a lawyer works (no rhyme or reason??...)
When you understand the case and what you're pursuing having adequate counsel is important.
You don't hire a family law expert to represent you in a criminal DUI case. You also check their previous case records and seek referrals.
Normally, if you have a lot of legal cases you would have an expensive personal attorney who has an extensive network, and then vet referrals through them. There's always a rhyme and a reason.
I recall they stated they plan to vigorously defend this case.
How, therefore, would her first attorney have suggested “she settle” when the other side won’t entertain a settlement?
Let’s not make it a “fact” that she fired #1 because he suggested she settle with a defendant who has no plans of settlement. If he wa pushing that, he deserved to be fired.
If anyone has a link to show ANL would be open to settlement, I’d like to read it. I admit I haven’t followed this closely. Thank you.
It might actually help Meghan now if we hear that she figured out who the leaking friend was and ghosted him or her. Or perhaps she could pin it on one of Prince Harry's old friends whom he doesn't see any longer?
This leak smells like Archie's nappy (leaked).
https://mobile.twitter.com/Sugarfreezone2/status/1308026942877249541
Boom! If "many things in that letter were written with the public in mind," how can she be so upset that the public got to read it?
I remember reading somewhere early on that the MOS (ANL) filed a countersuit over the case so perhaps they were expecting she might drop the case after milking it for a while, the countersuit would give the paper the upper hand in any settlement deal as they would have to agree to dropping their case as well to make the whole thing go away, as it stands they can only win no matter what the outcome, the courtcase will pay for itself.
I doubt she intents to settle, I just don't think it's in her nature to admit defeat, she will brazen it out to the end and spin it to make her look like the victim no matter what, as long as one of the friends doesn't turn on her in court she will have a good chance of holding onto the sugars.
If one of those friends does turn then she is in for a world of pain for lying in an affedavit and purjuring herself in court. Even if she decides not to turn up in court herself, lying in an affidavit is the same as lying in court testimony, and it constitutes a crime called perjury.
"The punishment for perjury in the UK may include having to spend time in prison, probation, or paying fines to the court. It can also interfere with their ability to obtain employment or security clearance, as they will be convicted of a crime of dishonesty. The consequences for perjury are very serious as this is wasting courts time and a judge will not look favourably on it (especially in such a high profile case) It is triable on indictment and the charge is imprisonment of a term not exceeding 7 years, or a fine or both".
Keep in mind that this also applies to the five friends , Scobie and his co-author as well .If I were one of those people I would certainly not risk perjuring myself for her and I hope their lawyers are telling them this very forcefully.
Megs won't quit she will just keep on digging, digging, digging that hole until she finally buries herelf.
In politics, it’s all lies, and it seems there’s nothing to be done about any of it. I fear the same with this court case, and with this despicable person. Doesn’t seem to matter if there’s lies abounding. Just throw out some whitewash drivel, and it’s all accepted. I’m astounded at the cr@@p she gets away with, the demands that she makes, the money she spends...and it’s never ending!
How much are the British taxpayers supporting her I wonder. I wonder if the average person is even aware of what she does. We’re talking serious money, month after month after month.
I did see Harry in his video today. Seems fuller on top.(head)
And the calls with Pa and HM! She disgusts me. Attention attention attention...mememememe
"If anyone has a link to show ANL would be open to settlement, I’d like to read it. I admit I haven’t followed this closely."
I don't have a link and haven't followed that closely either @tatty.
I agree with you nothing can be known for sure and we shouldn't assume anything reported is definitely true. But what ANL says and what ANL will do may be two very different things. That's often the case in lawsuits.
I do think initially ANL would have settled. We know the suit wasn't filed until fall 2019 after the early Feb 2019 MoS publication. It was reported settlement negotiations had been attempted for months but broke down. To me (speculating!) the delay suggests ANL considered settling but M was asking for too much. Maybe not just too much $ but asking for promises about future coverage (something I don't think any press outlet would do) as well asking for a falling-on-the-sword public apologies.
I definitely agree with you we can't know why M dumped the other attorney. I personally find it a bit odd mid-lawsuit though.
M's claim of 1.4 million of legal expenses
so far suggests a few things to me.
IF that is true (big if), I'd think any attorney with integrity would suggest seeking a settlement. I'm not an attorney but if it has cost that much to bring the suit to this point, even if M wins the rate of return would be iffy. And while I'm speculating, I suspect the attorney has been treated to displays along the way showing M's great "suffering" due to the suit. Who wouldn't suggest trying to settle?
IF the high expense claims are true, that suggests there must have been an awful lot of "unusual" expenses. And it's not as though this case involves hiring lots of technical or scientific experts like a murder trial might.
OR it may be the original attorney wasn't permanently forthcoming with freebies like listening to long whining phone calls & providing instant responses to daily emails/text messages M thought she deserved. And once the Sussexes left the UK, time differences probably complicated "instant responding."
OR it may be that the attorney was trying to discourage her from going forward by levying "optional" legit charges. While the bare bones copyright violation suit may have initially appeared easily winnable (& likely is from what I've read), the convoluted filings since have been all over the place. And they have been very much drama & public stabbings in the back of others-- in other words, typical Meghan.
Finally, it's also possible the original attorney was dismayed by the revelations in FF. Peeing in African bushes? Yoga poses? Birds dripping colors? Who said I love you first? Descriptions of the BP jewelry vault? Whether or not ANL can use FF as a defense, the case has become more complicated publicly from the publication of FF. IF M would lie in one situation (saying she wasn't involved in providing info to Scobie), why not lie in another?
Lawyers have to abide by integrity. It's interesting that the book may have created this big mess, where releasing it now before the suit ends means it actually hinders her suit.
Personal opinion is while I would love to see her burn at the stake, I don't think it should be included (FF) as maybe she changed her mind about what she wanted to share publicly this year, and not last year, which would be her right. Right? If we are talking a normal person...
It does sound like, from costs, that Meghan was being charged for every instance of communication, which is common, but that hers is apparently excessive and for lack of a better word, crazy. I imagine there have been several travel expenses within that to interview the friends. The more I'm thinking this through, the more I think he quit when she wouldn't settle after the costs were relayed, and after he interviewed the friends, and the publication of FF. Why else recommend settling, unless it was a case he couldn't move forward with, with the current evidence?
It's going to look so bad, if all this proceeds. ANL knows she can get a few people to lie for her, but not everyone, and certainly not the palace communications team under oath.
Good for them for putting it all out there.
The are a media company. They know how it all works.
You could be right the MoS never thought of settling. Honestly, I don't see how any of us can know. To me, the 8 months that elapsed between publication and filing suit suggests there were settlement discussions. But I can't know that.
It's also possible the Sussexes were delaying filing because they wanted to drop all of this (MoS suit, Harry's ancient phone-hacking claims/lawsuit, the on- camera weeping in Africa) to occur closer in time to their planned "flight to freedom" and closer in time to being kicked out of KP. (It was VERY odd to me the KP office split was announced while they were on tour. Something big triggered that OR it was announced then to avoid more Sussex spin.)
But I do think the copyright claim could be legally solid from what I've read. Certainly not morally solid given what was done to Thomas via PEOPLE mag. And since M has thrown in all the other junk, I'm not sure that hasn't weakened the original claim, along with FF.
I get that a person should be allowed to tolerate a privacy violation over A but not B.
But the idea that well-meaning "helpful" friends
1. Knew (and recalled) so many intimate details.
2. Chose to talk to "the press."
3. Chose to talk without talking to M first
None of that is at all believable to me.
Or video, in view of the health issues we're heading into again?
I would imagine via video link, especially as it’s held in London and it’s likely it’s they’re going back on lockdown.
Did I read it right (the laws have changed ) that British courts are allowing cameras in a court (during normal times)? I have no idea if and when I read it, or whether I imagined it!
Did she arrange a large audience for peeing out in the bush? I wouldn’t put it past her. As for all the details, wasn’t she reported as writing everything down very early on with a view to future publication? It was also said she was sending mysterious packages, assumed to be her manuscripts, to the US?
I’ll be charitable as to her ultimate fate but, frankly, the only money I’d like to see Prince Charles shell out for her now would be for a comfortable private mental facility – for a very long time, although if she’s not careful, she might end up in prison.
Such a shame they closed Holloway - it would have been the castle she deserves – see photo at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Holloway
`TV cameras to be allowed in Crown Courts in England and Wales
By Clive ColemanLegal correspondent, BBC News
• 16 January 2020
At https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51110206
`New legislation being laid before Parliament will allow judges' sentencing remarks in serious high-profile criminal cases to be seen and heard by TV and online audiences.
However, trials will not be televised as they are in countries such as the US as only the judge will be filmed.
The judiciary, broadcasters and government have welcomed the move...' (My emphasis)
The T&Cs are very strict. MM's case may be very high-profile but it's a Civil matter, not a criminal one - so, even under previous circumstances (pre-Covid) this wouldn't apply.
The way things are going at the moment, it won't be a normal hearing with the public able to attend.
MM's case may be very high-profile but it's a Civil matter, not a criminal one - so, even under previous circumstances (pre-Covid) this wouldn't apply.
The way things are going at the moment, it won't be a normal hearing with the public able to attend.
The Johnny Depp v The Sun (Dan Wootton) was also high profile and a Civil matter.
Due to Covid, very few people were allowed in the main court room but many other rooms were allocated for journalists and also for the public, who watched proceedings via a video link.
Witnesses from the US were also allowed to give their testimony via video link.
I've no idea if M's trial will follow along the same lines.
Here's hoping there's a chance for Joe Public to see what's going on - of course, she'd take any opportunity to show off in a full theatrical performance
If you need a relevant laugh, try this:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ctwzs
- the late, great, Tony Hancock `practising' (in both senses) law the several decades ago.
Thanks so much for confirming changes to UK laws allowing cameras into UK crown courts for judges’ sentencing remarks in serious high-profile criminal cases ...... I thought I imagined it! I’m a bit brain dead today! :oD
@WBBM said,
I believe the great thing about narcissists is that they give themselves away all the time when they’re on the witness stand because they have no insight into what they’re really saying – that’s going from what happened with my ex and I can’t see her being any different.
____________
This statement resonates big time. What I've learned from experience with a narc ex is they think the law does not apply to them! So why utilize braincells with critical thinking? Ha! I don't miss those days, which were crazy making...
I want to say "poor Harry" but nah. He's a bonehead for going there. He was amply warned.
-------------
I don't think anyone knows that at the moment, it's up to the judge and wouldn't be decided until close to trial time. It is possible that the case could be heard in Closed Court, meaning no public in the court only essential persons and the media is forbidden to report on the case in anyway (including witnesses names) until after the verdict has been given.
This would be entirely up to the judge and is quite rare, usually reserved for cases involving children or sexual offences. 'Justice must not only be done but seen to be done'.
I think both Meghan and the MoS would love the attention so they wouldn't ask for the court to be closed. In the normal course of things the trial should be public but with the RF involved and covid-19 running rampant who knows.
She is so vile. From the outside it certainly looks like her dad gave her nothing but unconditional love and to exploit him like this is so vile. Check out the faces of the "audience" members in background as the segment wraps up. They seem rather shocked to be privy to all this
https://youtu.be/lGUMX086wRM
Any other decision is laughable.
Scobie clearly states in the Authors Notes if FF that the authors spoke to the Sussexes "where appropriate". For them to now claim they didnt is employing some Clinton-level parsing of the facts. It all depends on what your definition of "interview" is.
I totally agree with @Wullies Bucket that she cooperated through written notes, and Scobie is using that to deny any questions regarding "interviews" . He will destroy his career over his relationship with MM and she will tap dance over his ashes.
One reason so many of the Sussexes associates end up "markled" is because they associate with the morally bankrupt. I suspect one reason MM has only four friends willing to testify (including Scobie) for her is that at least two must have refused to, or are now testifying for the defense.
That she could build a lawsuit around five friends being willing to perjure themselves for her tells me all I need to know about her.
Now that we are talking about Johnny and Amber, it never occurred to me the main reason Amber and he culminated in a divorce was because he was spending all the available money (remember most of his assets were attained prior to their marriage, so she would have no claim to them). So, he was broke. Go figure. Makes sense she then moved on to Elon. She's looking for change. Elon is notoriously cash-strapped too. Who knows what she is doing now...but it makes sense it was all financial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are wrong about the reason why the marriage broke up. Heard punched him in the face after her birthday party, threw his wallet and handphone out the window. He said that was the last straw - he wanted out. She went into a panic and decided to file for divorce before him - for the optics and to put her hoax plan into action. Also, Depp did not spend all his money. He was cheated by his financial team of more than $647M - he found this out on the day of Heard's birthday celebration. He sued them successfully and they settled out of court.
As for Elon - Heard is like Meghan - always on the lookout for someone with more money, more power, more everything. Btw, have you guys seen the pics of Elon when he and Amber were in a relationship? He had bruises on his face, dark rings under the eyes, puffy face, dirty and unkept - Depp had the same look and Harry too. That is what living with a narc does to you.
. She went into a panic and decided to file for divorce before him - for the optics and to put her hoax plan into action.
Yes... and don't forget she only claimed DV (with the 'moving' bruise) after he REFUSED her ridiculous demands.
Heard is like Meghan - always on the lookout for someone with more money
Precisely!! There are a LOT of comparisons between Heard and Megs. (both mouthy too)
Glad to see someone else on here has followed this case closely. :)
------
Ah, but 5 days with comments om this and other blogs,about press for Meghan's birthday but nothing from the sugars, not even from Omid, for Harry's.
and they pay attention to blogs.
Nutty blog is definitely on the radar of the enemy camp . . by 'they' I assume you mean the sugars? Meg herself is so busy with litigation, phantom Netflix deals & shoring up her connection to Jessica Mulroney, she's too swamped to read here. But maybe one of her fangirls could pass along a message to her Evil Queen for me.
To go on at length about how Archie calls Charles "Pa" and how he made everyone laugh and barreled into the room under his own steam, etc.--and THEN to illustrate this lavish fable with a picture of the baby that met Bishop Tutu LAST YEAR -- does not achieve the desired effect: convincing us that Archie is real. We have seen more of the Wonderful Wizard of OZ than we have of Archie.
Meg's selling, hard. We are not buying. She wants to convince us harder, maybe she should bake us a cake.
Reading about Mm and Amber Heard reminds me of someone who is very much like them - Heather Mills. Remember when she married Paul McCartney while he was still grieving the loss of his first wife? Their divorce was epic. The divorce judgment was available online, and it is a masterpiece of British judicial understatement. In the most elegant and restrained language possible, the judge painted Heather Mills as a cold-blooded, greedy, manipulative, and mercenary golddigger.
The judgment is still online! It`s a bit lengthy but it makes for fascinating reading. Here it is:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/paul-mccartney-v-heather-mills-971832
@Natalier, I think that in Elon Musk's case, drugs may also have contributed to his disheveled appearance.
Disheveled or not. Drugs or not. With loony tattooed pregnant Grimes or not. His net worth has been stratospherically climbing the last month. Tesla stock is super over valued. Non the less it shot up so, that Elon is world's 4th wealthiest at>>> At least was this way a few days ago>>>>>>
Elon Musk · Net worth
$92.41 billion USD (probably all is in Tesla stock)
In the most elegant and restrained language possible, the judge painted Heather Mills as a cold-blooded, greedy, manipulative, and mercenary golddigger.
The judgment is still online! It`s a bit lengthy but it makes for fascinating reading. Here it is:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/paul-mccartney-v-heather-mills-9718
__________
Ooh this is good! Thanks.
Heather Mills and Meghan are the same type. Like Harry, Sir Paul was in a vulnerable emotional state, still grieving the loss of his wife Linda, just a year before this Narc honed in on him.
The wife's case cannot be..succinctly summarised. By the time of the parties' first meeting in May of 1999 the wife says that she was wealthy and independent with, as she told me in evidence, properties and cash totalling between £2m and £3m. She earned her living as a TV presenter, a model and public speaker. She began to cohabit with the husband from March 2000 which led seamlessly into marriage and thus the relationship lasted 6 years. This is denied by the husband. The wife says that the husband's attitude towards her career was one of constriction such that the opportunities for the development of her career fell away during their relationship. He dictated what she could or could not do. She thus seeks compensation for the loss of her career opportunity in that during their cohabitation and subsequent marriage she forewent a lucrative and successful career. She seeks an award commensurate with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon. She places great weight on the contributions she says she has made to counselling the husband's children by his former marriage and to the husband's professional career. She asserts that his assets are worth in excess of £800m and that she is entitled to share in the "marital acquest". Finally, she asserts that throughout their marriage and after their separation the husband behaved in such a way that it would be inequitable to disregard and that his conduct should be reflected in the award.
11.The major factual issues as to the history of their relationship that I must determine are these. First, at the time the parties met, was the wife a wealthy and independent person? This is linked to the third issue. Second, did the parties cohabit from March 2000 or from the date of the marriage? The relevance of this issue is to the length of their relationship and to the further issue of "marital acquest". Third, did the husband constrict the wife's career after cohabitation (whether at March 2000 or June 2002)? This is relevant to the issue of "compensation" for an allegedly lost or restricted career of the wife.
13.Many of the issues of fact involve a head on conflict between the evidence of the wife and the husband, in which I shall also have to examine the relevant and important documents. It is therefore appropriate that I should briefly say something at this stage about the evidence of each of the parties.
14.The wife is a strong willed and determined personality. She has shown great fortitude in the face of, and overcoming, her disability. I refer to the loss of her left leg below the knee. As I shall show she is a kindly person and is devoted to her charitable causes. She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination.
15.The husband's evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.
16.But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.
He left his partner and mother of his kids to bang his co-star. Kind of got what was coming to him.
Here's where I learned about it fromm Twitter:
https://twitter.com/PorneMichaels/status/1306827936939601923?s=20
Did they see her coming or would it have been a teensy bit awkward where Charles is concerned?
We might have a grim, confined, winter ahead of us but the case is something to look forward to.
`Less than candid' -British understatement at its best.
Duchess of Sussex's lawyers issue scathing dismissal of Finding Freedom claims
Meghan's legal team call a series of accounts in Finding Freedom 'inaccurate', the product of 'creative licence' and/or 'extremely anodyne'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/09/22/duchess-sussexs-lawyers-issue-scathing-dismissal-finding-freedom/
https://twitter.com/Remisagoodboy/status/1308412154828161033
Meghan's legal team call a series of accounts in Finding Freedom 'inaccurate', the product of 'creative licence' and/or 'extremely anodyne'
Hear that, Scooby Doo? That pulpy crunchy sound is you, being thrown under the bus. I'm sure it hurts . . .This is what being Markled feels like.
One thing that struck me is that Heather acted as her own lawyer (although she did have legal counsel advising her at some point). So typical of a narcissist - even though they have no legal training whatsoever, they are sure they know how to navigate the law better than experienced lawyers. As I mentioned in previous posts, I am a lawyer and so I'm going to make an educated guess as to why MM fired her lawyer - he lost a preliminary round back in May when the judge granted the DoM's motion to remove portions of her lawsuit on the ground they were irrelevant to the case. I'm certain, just based on my experience, that she is convinced he lost because he's not that good a lawyer, not because of any weaknesses in her case. I practice family law and I have seen this countless times - a client has unreasonable expectations and when the court rules against the client, she (or he, although it's usually a she) blames the lawyer and fires him, looking for someone "better".
BTW, I always enjoy reading your insightful comments.
Can we please call a moratorium on comments about Johnny Depp? He is NO innocent victim, no matter what Amber herself may or may not be. I like reading about Meg and obviously that's why I'm here, but I am sick to death of hearing about poor, misunderstood Johnny Depp.
and unknown said . . .
I could care less about Johnny Depp.
He left his partner and mother of his kids to bang his co-star. Kind of got what was coming to him.
The case of Depp v. Heard does have relevance to our discussion of Meghan's lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday. Johnny may be no angel but that is not the question here. The question is whether he is a sadistic wife-beater.
I was pretty shocked when Depp split with his longtime girlfriend and mother of his two now adult children, but I was behind the times because I didn't realize it was so long ago. I had assumed that the current court battle was the divorce but that was already four years ago, and he'd left Vanessa four years before that. Time flies!
One doesn't have to condone Johnny's conduct toward his ex to not want to see him convicted of pretty horrific violence against a woman IF HE IS NOT GUILTY. Just because he left his partner and entered into a selfish relationship with a younger woman he met at work, it does not follow that he 'deserves' to be smeared for things he never did. I wouldn't blame Vanessa Paradis if *she* felt he 'got what was coming to him*, but she must be a forgiving and good-hearted sort of person because she has provided a character reference for JD disputing categorically that he is a violent man who abuses women. After a relationship of some twelve years and 2 children together, she should know better than anyone what he is like in private.
Johnny is guilty of infidelity and misjudgment but this case is about the truthfulness and credibility of his ex-wife. If she can snow a judge into believing that she is an abused victim when in fact *she* was the abuser and laughed all the way to the bank with millions of Mr. Depp's money, then I absolutely look for Meg to try the same tack in her inevitable divorce. JD is a useful case study because he too was entrapped by a Narcissist. He's been punished plenty for his disloyalty to his ex-partner.
The divorce was settled; AH got $7 million in the divorce settlement which was not too shabby in less than four years of marriage. Then she couldn't resist stirring the pot by accusing him, years after the fact, of 'abuse'--allegations which never figured in their divorce trial. Wouldn't that have been the time to bring them up, if they were real? I think she just had some time to think about how to really hurt him some more, and was in need of more Narc fuel = Media attention. Just like someone else we know.
No matter how I might dislike how Johnny treated his ex-girlfriend, I do not think a miscarriage of justice would be a desirable outcome. There is plenty of evidence in Heard's past that *she*, not he, was the aggressor. She had charges of domestic battery brought against her by her former partner before Johnny . . a woman. Who dropped them later, but I'd be interested to know what kind of coercion might have been used there. There are tapes of Heard admitting to hitting JD.
Classic Narc move, IMO--blame the victim for something they themselves do. Meg favors this.
Rarely does leaving a stable familial situation with publicly known private wealth, for a young women, work out for men. The fact Johnny did so, and ended up in an all-out brawl for a few years with this younger woman makes him look stupid.
Had he been through a divorce before? I don't remember. To not learn about basic human nature when one has wealth, is to just be flippant about one's life. Maybe he was ignorant.
Either way, for a man of his age, he was not smart. Hence, he got what was coming for him. It was just a matter of time. Replace Amber with any young gold digger.
said...
'I wonder why Megsy chose Schillings to represent her, rather than Mishcon de Reya -the firm Diana used?'
These extracts copied pasted from articles in the Hollywood reporter & UK Independant newspaper could possibly explain why MM chose Schillings ?
Commentary: Maybe 'Sorry' isn't the hardest word
3:28 PM PST 11/25/2008 by Matthew Belloni , AP
'In Britain the tables are turned -- media companies generally must prove that the offending statement is true. And the aggrieved need not live in the U.K. to avail themselves of the law; all that matters is that the statement is published there.
The result is that libel specialists like London's Schillings law firm increasingly have become hired guns for Hollywood talent lawyers looking to avenge their disparaged clients in a friendly forum
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/commentary-maybe-sorry-isnt-hardest-123557
Another article ,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/done-with-a-flick-of-the-writs-1165365.html
News > Media Independant
Done with a flick of the writs
No gentlemanly fencing for Keith Schilling. Make way for the media lawyer at the sharp end.
Naomi MarksTuesday 16 June 1998 00:02
MOST JOURNALISTS, and certainly all editors, are familiar with the definition of libel. It involves something dry about reputation and the estimation of right-thinking members of the public.
Another, less legalistic definition comes courtesy of the media lawyer Keith Schilling, the man who won pounds 100,000 damages, legal costs and an industry-shocking front-page apology from the Mail on Sunday for Brooke Shields. Schilling, who enjoys a celebrity client list and a Soho lifestyle more media than lawyer, says simply: "Libel is the sharp end of PR
I only point this out because I read a very detailed thing about who is allowed to use that crown and where. It was very specific and my take-away (by applying critical thinking to the article + The Queen's Decision) was they can no longer use it.
Sooooo... shame on them if it is theirs.
Amber Vs. Meghan
Likewise, if we are talking one stupid guy with money versus another.
Johnny vs. Harry
The thing is, these interwoven narratives do cast an interesting light in the internet age and social media age on Narc behavior, gold digging, and the relentless pursuit of justice.
Maybe it's the fact that justice is RARELY, if ever, served on a Narc, and/or golddigger, which makes these stories all the more compelling.
While she can spend time suing in the UK, and controlling her 'narrative'- which is for sale to the highest bidder- in the USA, she becomes less popular by the day.
I'm still of the belief that ANL is going to destroy her at trial. And I think they are going to do it, now, by getting the palace communications team to tesify at court of the dealings with the 'letter'.
Omid already spoke out about how the 'letter' was written for public consumption. As we all know, dad didn't take the bait, and she HAD to get it out their to avenge herself, so she lied to her friends about Dad and the letter and organized People to publish it. People paid the friends, and Meghan thought it was done. Unfortunately for her, DM paid her dad, and the real narrative was out there and her PR media strategy backfired. So here we are, $3MM lawsuit of Narc rage later!
"He who represents himself has a fool for a client." --Abraham Lincoln
As I recall, the bitterly acrimonious divorce of Sir Paul from his Narc was the most expensive in British history . . and Heather Mills had herself a huge payday, despite being stupid enough to represent herself.
This is either really brave or really foolhardy--MM is apparently not enough of either to represent herself.
I think she got herself into a corner--she obviously expected that the MoS would roll over with a big cash settlement, ala Harry's lawsuit against Splash. When the MoS dug their heels in and refused to settle, she found herself in a pickle. She never expected any of her '5 friends' to come under legal scrutiny or basically have to prove any of her story that she wasn't involved in the PEOPLE article. Pressing ahead and having to actually testify in court is the Mail's idea, not hers. She's probably thinking how she can spin this into a Netflix special, but that would never have been on her radar when she got this ball rolling a whole year ago. I am convinced that she thought she'd be set up with several million dollars as a gift for her and Harry to finance their move to North America.
The Mail is very confident in their case, seems to me. How often do we see a defendant in an action keen to press on when the plaintiff wants to drop it? A victory for MoS would be met by cheers from all the other media outlets which Haz and Mess have given a hard time.
The person injured most by this gigantic brou-haha is Meg's own father. By giving the newspaper the letter to publish, he was trying to defend his own reputation from the allegations she was making. His pain must be extreme, and the stress. Frankly I'm surprised that Thomas is still kicking. Meg probably hopes her dad will drop dead between now and January 2021. Technically she does have copyright over the contents of the letter, but if the Mail's counsel can prove that she always intended that letter to be published, her case will collapse. That's why they want the book admitted . . Meg had no compunction against telling the world she took a cr*p in the bushes on her third date with Harry, but this meticulously prepared blot-free, studied language exercise in 'calligraphy' was never intended to be read by more than her father? Ha. Thomas actually forced her hand with the whole PEOPLE charade because he didn't run to the papers immediately but sat on that letter for . . 8-9 months. The PEOPLE piece was to flush him out with that letter.
Which--in itself is suspect. Why would an elderly, ailing man living in Mexico choose the Mail on Sunday to air his grievances? Did they pay the most? Meg's PEOPLE piece was decidedly for the American market, so why didn't Thomas clap back in an American publication? The choice is odd. I have wondered whether Thomas is working with Meghan in this, in exchange for money, but having his reputation and paternal love shredded to bits in the court of public opinion is such a high price to pay.
This whole situation is bizarre.
He will be grilled under oath about his statement that MM always intended that letter for publication . . .and if the MoS's lawyers can get it admitted, exactly what other documents he received on the sly for publication.
Any and all Johnny Depp haters here might consider training your disdain on O Sole MIO--now *here* is a man (gender somewhat debatable) who is getting what he deserves.
Why would an elderly, ailing man living in Mexico choose the Mail on Sunday to air his grievances? Did they pay the most? Meg's PEOPLE piece was decidedly for the American market, so why didn't Thomas clap back in an American publication? The choice is odd.
I don't know that he specifically chose. They probably came to him, perhaps with a little money, but probably with a lot of attention. He's an old man living alone in Mexico, and tabloid reporters can be very charming. A few beers, plus the old "We need to tell your side of the story" approach.
Besides, who else had the money and the interest in pursuing the story? The Mail/Mail on Sunday and The Sun, basically. The US media was too busy polishing Meghan's image.
She is the WORST and once I listened to those tapes I realized exactly what she is.
He's been proven extremely violent towards hotel rooms, for example, so it's not much of a stretch to think he could lose control with his partners too.
You obviously believe in headlines and do no further research. There was one hotel room in Paris when he was with Kate Moss... and if you had followed the trial you would know the truth behind that story.
As for claiming that a man, (or woman for that matter) who slams cupboard doors or punches a wall will also hit their partner - sorry, but that's pure poppycock!
Amber Heard is a vile abuser and it's all on tape. As @Hunter says - go listen to the tapes.
Meghan Markle will have to hand over six months’ worth of texts, call logs, emails and WhatsApp messages as part of a £3m court case as she sues the Mail On Sunday.
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), publishers of the Mail On Sunday and the MailOnline, after it used parts of a letter she sent her father in several articles last year.
In proceedings, ANL’s lawyers requested her emails, photos, FaceTime logs, and WhatsApp messages following the publication of the article.
Lawyers said they want the messages to “shed light upon the claimant’s attitude to the letter and her privacy”.
Judge Francesca Kaye ruled that all relevant messages should be handed over from the six months after 10 February 2019, the date the article was first published.
The practice of handing over messages and communication can happen frequently in High Court hearings.
That's a lot of interesting information that could come out.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/meghan-markle-hand-over-texts-emails-messages-court-case-155421665.html
I am a survivor of DV though... like many who followed this case with interest!
How can Meghan stop the MOS legal team from accessing 6 months' worth of messages on her phone and email account? Does she perhaps have more than one phone and one email account and could she try to hide this from the legal team (MOS won't get to go through all her messages)? What if she has already deleted all messages? She could have hidden a copy somewhere for her own use and then just deleted everything.
Can any of our legal eagles help us out with this? Are messages usually collected from the server side (Apple, if she has an iPhone, or her ISP for emails)? Or is the plaintiff/defendant expected to provide them under penalty of contempt?
According to the DM a research institute has created an algorithm to measure trustworthiness in facial expressions. Apparently Megalo appears to be twice as trustworthy as the queen. WTF? I think they need you go back to the drawing board and recheck their numbers. Call me skeptical but this is hard to swallow.
It seems this type of algorithm would have to be fine-tuned to reflect varying cultures. Meg's let-it-all-hang-out California expressions would be very different than the Queen's stiff upper lip.
Superficial charm (including the ability to appear trustworthy) is a well known feature in sociopaths as well.
Plus, which of her recent faces they analysed? She wears a new one every couple months.
@Nutty,
It says that they "developed" an algorithm, but they didn't say that it works!
ROFLOL!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8761613/Biography-Finding-Freedom-inaccurate-anodyne-duchesss-lawyer-tells-court.html
Thank you for the information about information about how Schillings approach such cases as these.
Keith S. sounds as if he doesn't take prisoners, just goes in for the kill. That makes sense - she wouldn't want anyone who might be inhibited by politeness.
Thank you for the link to the judgement on the dissolution of the Mills McCartney's marriage. It was really an interesting reading.
I am compelled to dig up more stories about their marriage, lol.
,To be frank, I only started following the Harry and Meghan story when I noticed her similarity to Amber. I learnt abt narc from the Depp case and saw that it applied to Meghan and so here I am.
Welcome N, so here you are with the rest of us, kicked off of DM's comment section. (joking)
You've probably gathered that a number of us here have had more than enough experience of narcissists for one lifetime!