It's been a while since I've written about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but it's not because they've been idle.
They've launched their new Archewell website, released their first podcast on Spotify, and announced that they would not be re-establishing a social media presence - supposedly to protect their valuable content.
Regular articles are placed in the Daily Mail and the New York Post about the Sussexes' doings, in particular about their relationship with the portions of the Royal Family that have remained in Britain.
There's only one problem: nobody cares. The coverage is driven by supply, not demand.
Selling people something they don't want to buy
You can see it in the number of comments on Daily Mail stories about the Sussexes, which are way below the numbers attracted at the time of Megxit, which took place almost precisely one year ago.
Yet the bots play on, delivering new puff pieces about the Sussexes almost every day.
Presumably approved by the Sussexes themselves or their PR minions, they to sell the public on their own importance, while offering little that the people might really be interested in.
Photos of Archie? Rare, and usually obviously manipulated.
Tour of their current California residence? "You can see a wall or cabinet in the background of our umpteenth diatribe about social problems."
A view into their relationship? That's a staple of any reality program featuring a couple. But there's none of that, and the Sussexes could have collected a lot of sympathy with about the inevitable tensions between a culture from different countries and economic backgrounds.
But the PR people will continue writing something, anything, as long as they are paid to do so.
Coming soon
Coming in 2021 is Meghan's court case against the Daily Mail, a book from sister Samantha and a movie from her father Thomas, and the first episodes of the Sussexes' Netflix series.
Will any of them be enough to create more public interest in the Sussexes?
Comments
Lawyers for the newspaper argue she consulted Mr Knauf because she expected the letter to become public. They are seeking further information from him and three other senior royal aides over the letter. The quartet were named in legal documents seen by the court as Mr Knauf, Samantha Cohen, Christian Jones and Sara Latham.
Christian Jones has just stepped down as the Duke of Cambridge's right hand man!
Things I had forgotten about:
MOS were the ones who revealed that the Jeff Rayner photos of TM were staged. p 192
Jeff Rayner is also the same agency who did the photos of JHAM walking the dogs in LA.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8230063/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-walk-Beagle-Guy-Labrador-Oz.html
Technically I suppose it could be the partner but isn't that odd?
I love how Harry’s ponytail is growing longer with each lie that is revealed! Thank you for the laughs!
pages 192, 193
MM called TM and talked about how we can try to stop the photos and asked if they were faked
The source is some unidentified source who was present during numerous calls to TM. According to the conversation: TM lies to her about this and she reminds him about the car will pick him up the next day.
But technically she should not know it is a lie yet but after she is off the call, she tells her source that his is a victim and now he's corrupt.
If she believes it was not a fake, why is he a victim or corrupted?
I think that Meghan was embarrassed by her father; i.e., he wouldn't be wearing a $2K suit with matching $1K shoes, etc. Just like we have never seen "Archie," she didn't want to be seen with her father; she is embarrassed by both of them.
However, she is managing to be seen with Harry, his growing bald spot, and filthy, worn out clothes and shoes, because he's the cash cow with a royal title.
pages 193 to 200
MM was still calling to get him to come (what comes off as snarky: "If only he had gotten in the car."). Then they learn via paps that he wasn't coming and that he was the one who was creating this "circus" from the stately dignified planned lead up. And, TMZ was leading this (we are reminded that they were also the ones who "broke" the Vegas stuff.
Palace blaming him privately according to one source.
MM still trying to contact him and wanting to send security which was supposedly turned away once before. He did contact her to turn it down but would instead recover in a motel? Note: sounds like he needed nurses not security.
More turmoil with TM which contrasts to the Doria spa experience
pages 231-234
Post wedding, June 10, TM sent her a text that he would survive but the authors claim the text was not sent.
Note: Texts are usually pretty good about being received - more so than email. Did the authors verify this with TM?
The next month, July, he "... claimed that Meghan cut ties with him so completely that he had no way of getting in touch with her..."
Note: IDK, my cell allows me to block specific callers if I get mad enough at them. I don't know if you can tell if a caller was blocked at a specific time or not. Of if texts can go through even if the caller is call blocked?
More blaming TM for being cut off by the palace.
As a side note, there is a certain tone about describing how Sam failed to deliver the letter at KP to the "wrong" security gate.
pages 232 - 234
The letter, comes at the end of the summer, she was "...heartbroken...'wanted to repair the relationship'" according to a close friend despite the multiple humiliations. This was the "final attempt".
It has some quotes from the letter (which I believe are the same ones from the MOS piece). It also claims that he carried it around and ... not sharing it with the media because it showed the many discrepancies in his tabloid revelations."
In his response, he suggested they meet and do some photos to show they are a happy family. "Meghan couldn't believe it. 'I'm devastated,'" and that was that (source: a friend).
"... so painful for her because she was do dutiful." (with helping him).
It goes on about how she lost her family and that it was painful and a "...hard sacrifice to make for her new life, no matter how wonderful.". (it then goes on to describe how it was a "wonderful life" visiting the Clooneys, Eugenie and Jack were also there. It then goes on to describe the happy early married life with a few events before the Down Under Tour).
Well supposedly there was a "bespoke suit" waiting for him at Oliver Brown Tailors (along with "custom shoes") P 198
There was to be someone from the military to take him to the shop.
What is not mentioned as to who was supposed to pay for his trip, the clothing and all that.
Quite the read (and I'm only part way through with Source Z).
Every time I re-read the events it just proves how insane Meghan is. She needs to get help. Harry needs to go home. Life is not this complicated.
Lastly, notice how Meghan ‘had to leave them behind for her wonderful new life and how painful it was’ then forced Harry to do the same thing. Complete NUTCASE.
Wow I read the statement and they are even arguing that since it entered the public domain legally by US law, they were allowed to reprint and print on the story. This aspect of the case probably makes the most sense. Another thing I like, is that Omid was pissed about People getting the exclusive from Jessica (Friend A who cannot do anything without Meghan’s permission or direction.) I think they are really proving very well that Meghan wrote the letter with Knauf, thus not her own copyright, with the knowledge and then intent *Authorization* that it would be made public. Because of course she did, like her dad said, none of it actually asked about him and was a written drama expose on herself.
Great find!
https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg
"Court grants application by @samiotobin on behalf of @PA for media access to letter from solicitors for the “palace 4”: Jason Knauf, Samantha Cohen, Christian Jones and Sara Latham — members of the royal household who knew about the drafting of the duchess’s letter to her father.
Prince Charles was granted a summary judgment, in his favour, plus won an appeal in his court case of 2006. However, that was for publication of excerpts from his private diary, which a member of staff presumably made copies without his knowledge.
Surely there is a huge difference between a diary and a letter sent to someone else? Charles must be doing his nut that he is being dragged into this!
In this case, `battle' may be near enough to the sense of it.
That suggests to me that she had already planned the `racist' accusations and that her appalling behaviour was designed to elicit criticism that she could twist to suit her purposes.
They are being polite in the hearing, but basically she has been exposed as a liar in at least a few instances. Does she brazenly double down on the same behaviour? Does she play the victim? Does she attack those she considers her enemies (just about everyone except Harry at this point?).
I can guess quite accurately what a normal person would feel and think and do, but she is not normal and I am flummoxed!
By the way, Scobie has thrown Harry under the bus. Harry denies ever meeting or talking to the authors of FF ever in any context. In his statement, Scobie gives details of the at least 4 times that his co-author interviewed Harry (place, date, context).
I'm having problems downloading the statements. Is there any way you could link to the 6th witness statement please?
Meghan reminds me very much of Amber Heard. Both narc, psychopaths, fake feminists and money-whores.
I think she will just spin and spin like Heard. Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense - she will just refuse to admit to the truth. Perjury comes to mind.
Unfortunately for Meghan, she doesn't have Heard's looks nor Elon Musk's money, Murdoch's influence, MeToo movements supporting her lies.
It is sad to see how far Harry has fallen.
I couldn't download it either. However, if you scroll down the page, the statement is printed there. No need to download.
Thank you for the link to 6th witness statement. I couldn't stop chuckling.
Question for those familiar with toxic (crazy) narcissism ... What is Meghan likely to do?
My crafty, Machiavellian, toxic ex represented himself in court. If a ruling went my way, he would consult Court staff as to obscure subclauses of the law. He aimed to appeal against the judge's decision, the idea being to increase my costs, at minimal cost to himself. Also he tried to get the press involved with a view to publicising what a nasty b*tch I was.
He'd launch his appeal at the very last minute, when I thought I was on the point of being safely home and dry. He'd shove a letter through my door, to arrive before I heard from my solicitor, ie after 6pm on a Friday, preferably before a Bank Holiday, so I couldn't contact my solicitor until the following Tuesday. He also told whoppers, that I was prepared to give up my claim to my small share of our house.
Decrees Nisi usually become Absolute after 6 weeks, providing financial matters are sorted. His weaving and dodging meant that I possibly hold the record for delay at this stage (nearly six years).
He was considerably older than me but didn't die until 2016 - without the `reversal of our fortunes', I'd have had to have waited 34 years for his decease and my freedom. Or the struggle may have continued, had he left his share of the house to somebody else.
So, MM won't give up - she'll find endless excuses to go to appeal. She'll continue screaming very publicly and not necessarily truthfully. She may launch new actions, just as long as there are lawyers willing to work for her and she, or Charles, can pay.
It doesn't augur well for a divorce, unless Harry is skint (following something like a Bolshevik revolution?) and can claim off her.
Btw, there's not been a mention on the case by any of the main broadcasters - BBC, ITV or Sky.
The flipping of the letter not to the book but to People (burn the ones you are close too? not a good long term strategy move - as in how trustable can you be after that?)
The fawning highly personal details which could only be either from her directly (which would need to be verified which the claims are that everything was) or they are a complete fiction (written by stalker level of interest persons).
That book (I need a sugar detox). I have all kinds of notes on different points the book brings out. Sam? I have a detailed timeline on when the people are moving in and out of marriages so it can be compared to FF and Sam. Titles like Collection of Slights, how they viewed others, How they viewed themselves, Expectations of others (very sad), How the system works and Well isn't that odd?
But the book tells us a lot about her in ways she doesn't realize that the mask slipped.
"FF is her Achilles heel"
I imagine the palace knows what is true or not true in the book.
However, whilst they can ignore the lies and chalk that down to her poor character, imagine how they feel knowing with absolute certainty that she wrote the book based upon the details they recognise as accurate eg the private conversation between Harry and William, the description and layout of the Cambridge's private living arrangements as well as their nanny arrangements, the exact location of the jewel vault - something of a security nightmare for the Palace in being revealed.
Re: Your point regarding MM's refusal to back down and launch endless appeals....
We've already seen this when she insisted on appealing the decision to include FF in the case for the defence despite the Judge specifically refusing permission for any such appeals after ruling that it should be included.
She lost the appeal.
https://twitter.com/royal_suitor
"Where did everyone go?
I've got a juicy witness statement for you'll to read!...
https://www.scribd.com/document/491290917/Rpc-Docs1-33150769-V1-Sixth-Witness-Statement-of-Keith-Mathieson-4-December-2020-Final "
Juicy indeed.
Point 6 and 7 - Meghan lied repeatedly on record during discovery. Ha!!!
Point 8 - This point proves Omid has repeatedly lied to the court as well including in corrections submitted later. He insists that he only learnt of the letter's contents via the media like everyone else, and any extracts reproduced in FF came from MoS articles about them.
Friend A - heavily leaning towards Keleigh at SS. Initially i thought it was Jessica, but given the KP staff information in Tom Verity's statement that says Keleigh was the person who opened doors for FF authors, i'm leaning towards her. What's your guess?
Who do you think is represented by this lawyer?
Apart from the palace 4, do we know who has been called as a witness by MoS?
As we understand her case, the duchess suggests that the court should conclude there is but a single author (herself), a single creative endeavour, a single resulting copyright and that it is a literary intellectual creation that is all hers…
Methinks they are having a sly dig! 😆
Thank you for your insights and apologies for making you the 'go-to' person on giving info on the behaviour of a toxic narcissist. It is so removed from the behaviour of a normal person that it is difficult to predict what she will do.
I have scanned through the submission from ANL (and the other very interesting statements).
Copyright: It is common practice for an author to give a manuscript to peers for feedback/review and then amend (or not) the manuscript. The author usually then acknowledges this in a preface and will often ask one such 'reviewer' to write a foreword. The author retains sole rights for the work, and the publisher will usually have sole rights for the published version. So showing a draft to others for extensive feedback does not affect your copyright as the creator. In addition, many, if not most, manuscripts are heavily edited to the point of being completely rewritten and re-arranged (by a content editor/overwriter/even ghost writer) but it is very rare that the person doing such work would be acknowledged on the cover and almost never included in the royalty deal (I have known one exception to this). ANL raise an interesting point about copyright, but I doubt they would win the argument. However, if ANL did breach copyright, it made no material difference to Meghan as at the time she was a fully funded working royal and that breach of copyright would have made no difference to her status or funding. She can only claim material damages, realistically, if she admits that she was building a reputation to run off to LA and cash in on her 'royal experience'.
Privacy: I suspect that the law will say that violating her own privacy does not give others the right to also do so.
Data protection: Oh please ... this law was never intended for personal use in the way she is using it. Besides, she is being shown up as a hypocrite for not affording the same rights to others that she demands for herself (the Archwell website).
This does not actually need to go to trial as so much ugly stuff about her has already been exposed. But, I do want it to go to trial so the British public can see the extent that they and the BRF were used. I want Sara Latham to admit under oath that she was used to fact check the Scobie and Durand manuscript, yet Meghan and Harry vehemently insisted that they did not co-operate with the authors. I want the judge to stop pandering to her and make her hand over her communications and pay a fine for missing two deadlines. I want the judge to call her a manipulative and ruthless liar in his judgment ... enough is enough now!
Yes, it is appalling how Meghan used and abused the British taxpayer/public and the BRF. What is worse is that she feels no shame or remorse but sees herself as a victim. Crazy!
I do hope that at least Harry's family see her for what she really is and protect themselves accordingly.
"@Acquitaine
Are you thinking Keleigh is one of THE five from people mag?"
No i don't think she's one of the 5. However, i think she orchestrated it based upon that witness statement. To paraphrase the appropriate passage in the statement, it says that she spoke to various friends as well as the authors of FF about the letter quoting passages from it which later appeared word for word in the article.
The authors were briefed on the understanding that it would be revealed as an exclusive in FF and were pissed when it was revealed in people magazine instead.
Also says that Friend A would never do anthing without the express *permission* of M.
M initially claimed surprise and ignorance when the article first appeared when Media immediately speculated that it couldn't have happened without her permission.
Later that changed to her finding out on the eve of publishing, but still ignorant of which friends went to people despite the obvious 'X-marks-the-spot' description of each friend in the article. Stuck to her story that she only found out during the babyshower.
Sidenote: when she claimed that she found out details during her babyshower i started to think that it was really cover for Meghan plotting with her US team of handlers and dealmakers because some of the people on the guestlist were so random, but important Hollywood figures, but emerged as team Megxit or accused of the same eg Bonnie Hamjer, chairwoman of NBC Universal, Gayle, Celine Khavarani who is a PR extraodinaire who works for Tamara Mellon amongst brands she works with. I think a pitch meeting was the point of that shower because later we head about NBC Universal being one of the first companies to hear the Sussex pitch.
......but i digress.
In initial stages of discovery, we are finding out thst she lied.
Yep, she is not handing over any communications because they have been deleted!
I'm sure I'm not the only Nutty to have encountered such appalling people - it's taken me decades to understand how it is I attract the B*ggers! At least I know what to do now.
What strikes me about her case is how damn' petty and juvenile it all is - but then that's what they're like.
They should just take her phone and have a good "hacker" break into it.
https://www.appgeeker.com/ios-data-recovery/recover-deleted-call-history-from-iphone.html.
Just because she deleted them doesn't mean that they can't be retrieved. That includes any audio.
Sorry, I posted just about the same thing about retrieving phone messages. I didn't see your post first.
Copyright, if he helped under BRF direction (paid) then perhaps it is her copyright. The BRF is unique in the public/privacy situation and I think that’s where Meghan will hang her hat if she loses; “See Harry, we had NO privacy within YOUR family and the institution!” She’ll
Claim ignorance to Harry and say the family and institutional structure is toxic and look what happened to her, a £6MM (min) bill. He’s going to go broke being made to feel sorry for victim Megs.
Blind Item #8
It is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary for the alliterate one. She will spend any amount of money on long shot legal claims to avoid having to travel in person for the trial.
Not very exciting.
So--what is the meaning of this 'glitch'? Is People throwing shade at Smeg or has she paid to have herself in her tiara jammed unto every story, regardless? She'll never wear a Royal tiara again and she knows it.
Back to the court case discussion . . .
ANL makes a good argument that her letter via People was already public domain, and her status as a member of the BRF is public interest. It’s not as open and shut due to her circumstances and intent.
If you and a friend stand together and both search a hashtag on Twitter, you will see extremely different results appear in the feed.
(My husband used to work at Twitter)
If she thinks they are gone because she erased them from her devices, she's even stupider than I gave her credit for.
Nothing permanently disappears in cyberspace. Every nasty/lying text/email/tweet/Insta comment she's ever made is still accessible, they are only archived on the service providers' server. If the judge grants the MoS lawyer's request for subpoena of these records, the cell phone provider/Internet provider is legally compelled to hand them over. They can only hand these things over with a court order due to privacy laws.
Meg thinks she knows as much as a lawyer seeing as she played a paralegal/office slut for several years. This topic comes up all the time in crime/legal dramas. People destroy their phones, thinking they will evade criminal prosecution, but the tech gurus can always reconstruct their transcripts.
Thanks for the info . . it's just odd that this particular photo is turning up now. I've just noticed it this week, and I haven't looked at any Royal bride style articles for a few months now. There is an inordinate amount of Royal coverage in my feeds, I have noticed . . but this is the first time in nearly 2 years since I've had my phone that the photos do not match the content whatsoever. It's only for People, and only in the last 2-3 days. I wonder if they have a glitch in their system.
Any suggestions for changing the algorithm? I've had my fill of Markle madness, but even when I don't click on any stories, they still keep appearing.
I have no doubt M has saved every text to some private file/back up drive or cloud server. For her future book and or Netflix program. She want to have all the conversations word for word to prove what a wonderful thoughtful kind person she is and how everyone is picking on her.
Anyway, she's got it all stored somewhere. Backed up to a drive somewhere.
For Twitter, go to privacy and safety and click on ‘content you see’ then ‘topics and interests’ and that will be prefilled by their algorithm and the people you follow, anyway you can untick those subjects to start afresh.
For the iPhone, If you go to Settings>Privacy on your phone there are options to untick for tracking. I, personally, use Brave browser to get through the ad craziness at DailyMail smoothly, and other sites plus they don’t track the user.
As for app specific questions, I am not sure.
He put plywood in his windows to get privacy. Someone rented the place next door to him. The palace did give him some tips and some lines to use when they would try to make contact. The same kind of problems happened with Doria but she was able to befriend Oprah at church.
phones and evidence
One thing I have wondered is if she had a second phone or do you think she was too cheap.
As long as everyone else had second phones and only ever used the second phones to discuss anything about the various plots, the evidence would be much harder to uncover their existence and then what was on them. The difficulty was that if they had legitimate contact they would have to stop and then use the other phone. That's a lot of hassle (much easier to stick to one phone) but some might think it would be fun to play at spy stuff.
Things could go against Megalo:ignore this bit
’The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if –
(a) it considers that –
(i) that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; or
(ii) that defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue;’
(ii) has been mentioned before but (i) is just as important if not more.
---------------
So really according to (i) Warby could give a summary judgement as her case seems rather weak in parts. If there is a summary judgement, it's more likely to be because of (i) rather than (ii). Let's pray the case goes to trial 🙏
This article from the Insider quotes texts that Meghan sent to her father before the wedding that were shared by her lawyers in the court documents:
https://www.insider.com/meghan-shared-unseen-text-messages-thomas-markle-prince-harry-2020-4
They obviously were not deleted after 30 days, though may be now.
Thanks for the link. I knew we had seen old texts in a filing. Not only were those texts nearly two years old at the time those documents were filed, they were, what, 10 months old when the MoS article was published?
Absurd.
I think the BRF might have an ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘employment contract breach’ lawsuit with Meghan when this is all said and done. She told the BRF, and the public, that she cut ties with her American business partners and agents, or claimed to cease using them. I’m sure she had too once signed on with the BRF. This case makes it easier on the BRF to deal with her behind the scenes in legal terms. All the facts of her ‘operations’ are coming out. Harry may have known and thought she was clever. Who knows. He’s stuck with the consequences now. Of course with Harry she will always claim she had to do what she did to ‘defend herself’ and as a feminist and *his wife* he must support her at all costs. And he probably thinks whatever she tells him to think anyway. Lost puppy and mummy figure. Sad that they both now look so dark and evil in their mutual attraction for one another.
Meghan is an actress, and her whole narrative with the letter was for entertainment and put on display to make Saint Meghan, the image she espouses to have which is why she wants full control of the narrative and strict privacy laws for herself. To make her brand more valuable and make more money. It must have really triggered her that Disney refuses to work with a real life Duke and Duchess, due to being ‘too controversial’.
She can’t repair all this crazy. She came on too heavy too fast and too strong. Tried to love bomb the public while milking money from the USA. Too much drama narrative. No one wants to see a family in the state they have been in since the beginning, no one. They are meant to be aspirational.
Maybe staff also did not delete messages? I doubt that it would be policy to do so.
She is simply refusing to comply with a court order, but what are they going to do? Arrest her? Has she even paid up on cost orders?
I need a distraction today. Thanks to all contributors to this blog on Royals and Joe Biden's inauguration gay or day as the case might be
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/meghan-markle-spotted-with-cellphone/
I seem to recall reading somewhere that some royals carry several phones (or their aides do). One for royal business, one for personal business and one for chatting with friends.
Also, I read that both Will and Harry had location devices that they had to carry everywhere with them when they were at university. His POs once thought that they had lost Harry, but after looking all over campus for him, found that he had left it in his laundry basket.
I wonder if The Harkles have very small tracking devices on them, but are unaware of it.
President Reagan gave HMTQ one of the first home computers which she learned to use, especially for keeping track of her horses and their wins and losses, meds schedules, etc.
I'm going back and reading older books about the BRF (pre-MM), and it's interesting to find new info about the family.
My guess is based on:
-ALL the negative info that has ALREADY come out pre-trial without anyone stopping it.
-The fact that palace aides are ready to testify on the side of ANL and Thomas!
This suit may just be the RF's way of allowing the full story about her to be released without getting their hands dirty. Perhaps they are making arrangements to solidify a case of plausible deniability regarding Archie at this very moment. This might truly and finally be the release of the long-awaited Kraken!
{Okay, yes I'm very dramatic and overly hopeful - what do others think?}
OOooooh, I like the way you think! It will be *very* interesting if, ooops, Archie is 'accidentally' revealed to be a silicone-based object in the trial and no royal fingerprints will be on the dagger because 'I'm with Stupid' did it to herself.
@Sandie mentioned all of the collaboration which often goes into books & pieces of music, etc., but those works have gone through the copyright process, & are registered as copyrighted. Does a letter which has been collaborated on have the same protections, especially as technically, it was produced by a group of employees, including Megs?
As to privacy, of course one has the right to violate one's own privacy without ceding that right to others, but does that apply to specific cases where one has violated one's privacy concerning a specific item in question? It seems as if MOS can convince the court Megs planned for her letter to be publicized, her privacy claim becomes quite weak. It will be interesting what the barristers pull out of their respective hats, (or wigs), if Justice Warby allows the trial to go ahead.
The text deletions seem very fishy. Aren't people deposed under oath even in civil cases? That's what got Bill Clinton impeached & disbarred, he perjured himself. Don't know how that's handled in the UK.
I'm tempted to change my handle from 'Neutral' to 'Hacked Off & Disgusted Observer.' I think Megs' antics, especially regarding 'Archie,'(but there are so many offenses) are an insult to an entire nation, its people, its culture, & its institutions.
Anyone else think MM will be Amanda Gorman's new best friend? I am sure MM is currently desperately reaching out to Kamala Harris.
All of her 'friendships' appear to be transactional in nature. What does she have to bring to the table at this point?
There are multiple facets of law in question here:
1) Employment based copyright. Does Meghan own the letter, or does The Firm? Or both? Was it even a personal intent letter, or part of her team at KP's media strategy. The Mail have the co-authors/contributors at KP ready to testify for the defense (this should be allowed).
2) Public domain, fair use, and public persons. The letter was described and quoted in detail in a previous publication.
3) Personal intent in regards to Privacy claims. If a person is in discussion with myriad people and organizations with planned releases, and a group puts the info out with permissions, hired PR or otherwise (into People), is it invading that persons' privacy to continue to report on the subject.
It can also be argued Meghan and her friends invaded Thomas' privacy in the USA. But that's a different case, with more lax laws.
I think this case will show that Meghan was hellbent on gaslighting and manipulating her father into court. She knew full well that no one can keep up with her tricks and schemes. He fell right into the trap after she pushed it with the People article.
The whole idea of copyright is that the creator of an original piece has the right to benefit financially from it for a lifetime (now 'valued' at 70 years). As she is a 'royal', Meghan's handwritten letters would supposedly be of commercial value if used in a memoir or biography. (Being misrepresented in how your work is used or copied is actually a case of libel or defamation.)
Please note that many of Diana's handwritten letters have been sold by recepients. Her death does not make copyright fall away and her sons would have inherited that copyright from her. They have never sued anyone, even though, technically, by law, they could.
What was Harry thinking in marrying her?!
Mexican laws should apply also since that is where he was residing...
The @aginsight (palace 4) letter says none of the four welcomes involvement in the litigation. They are bound by confidentiality and have no wish to take sides. “Their only
interest is in ensuring a level playing field, insofar as any evidence they may be able to give is concerned.” So the “palace four” are “willing to provide to the court such assistance as they can. That would, if appropriate, include giving oral evidence at trial and/or providing to the parties any relevant documentary evidence.”
Warby J observes that the letter from @aginsight (palace 4 lawyers) about the “royal 4” means no more than it says. It says assistance “would, IF APPROPRIATE, include giving oral evidence at trial and/or providing to the parties any relevant documentary evidence”. [Judge’s emphasis].
What the hell does 'if appropriate' have any bearing on this case. A trial is a fact-finding operation. Seems like Warby is either a dramatist, or saying they might decline to testify so would going to trial be useless and a waste of time.
Any thoughts?
What would that kind of meanness accomplish? Sounds like narc rage, but what exactly did Thomas do? It wasn't the photograph because Meghan arranged that.
Add to that, each time they've pressed Meghan on the issue more controversial facts come out...like Jason Knauf's involvement. I think just this aspect alone requires further investigation and the trial.
Her team is 'asking' for a summary judgment. Doesn't mean they will be granted one.
I assume, as hopefully we will find out at trial, she was setting up the long term 'victim of crazy family' narrative and keep herself in the press.
She thought her dad would run to the papers immediately and he didn't. So, she got her 'version' of 'attempted reconciliation' out via People months later.
Her sister Sam was in the press a lot at the time.
Meghan is also just plain foolish and doesn't seem to live in reality. She probably was informed of Charles copyright case and win and thought it would be an easy money maker, since her dad didn't know the rules of the UK.
All speculation of course.
Who wants to bet the eagle eyed fan is MM herself clutching at straws and trying to insert Harry into today's events.
OR
They arranged for it. They've been warned about getting involved in politics. A picture of Drip at an inauguration ..... hmmmm Drip, seems you've stepped in it now.
Those titles need to go
So many examples of this, but my favorite - by far - is the way she doubled down on “Are you okay?”
I’m here for the drama and especially the laughs! 🎭
Thank you, Nutties!
Certainly Justice Warby does not want to be caught out like Judge Nicol. Made a mockery of his biased judgement and also affirm that the british justice system is corrupted.
Yes, it must go to trial. She is the gift that keeps on giving.
As for ANL winning, I am not so sure. After following The Sun/ Depp teial, we know that the british justice system is corrupted. That said, I won't be surprised if Who-en wins this case but please, let there be a trial.
Johnny depp is challenging Amber again elsewhere. The Suns judgment should be overturned as she was an unreliable witness, but it worked for them:
As for Warby, I think it’s hard for himself and everyone else to come to the conclusion that a claimant such as Meghan, whom is also held to a higher standard being Royal, is incredibly dim and making profoundly stupid decisions. Why would a claimant pursue such an absurd case, further invade her privacy, and lose?
None of it looks intelligent.
I read Netflix was upset of Meghan’s first vanity project. I’m guessing it had to do with this court case. It would be hard for an American viewer to understand the issue at its core since the laws are different. She really isn’t the brightest and needed to marry a wealthy American of some status.
Warby is not the one who allowed FF in as evidence for ANL. Another judge (a woman - can't remember her name) stood in for him at one hearing and it was her who granted ANL permission to use FF as evidence. I think it is important evidence with regard to the privacy part of the trial.
I agree with many here (and at LSA) - please let there be a trial! There is a possibility as Messy Megsie has thrown so much mud at the wall, and I think there is a case to be argued in terms of the privacy and data protection aspect. If she had stuck to a simple case of copyright infringement, asked for a summary judgment from day 1, and asked for a public apology and a donation directly to one of her charities, she would have won and come out of it looking good. I think ANL offered to settle from the start and Messy Megsie refused. Why? What sane person would wade into a trial carrying so much shameful baggage?
The above is from a DM article. It thus seems that Meghan wrote the letter as a media strategy and always intended it to be made public, and used People and FF for that purpose. It seems that the 'palace 4' have evidence to back this up, but their statements remain confidential.
Thanks for that info. I wonder why Warby read the entire book. Even Meghan's lawyers admit that they have not read the book, but just relevant excerpts.
Wasn't Warby the lawyer for the defence in the Charles case?
If, as we believe, she was ordered to surrender her phone records but has `assumed ' that she could safely `delete' later evidence, and has done so, she could be held to be `in Contempt of Court', `the act of deliberately failing to obey or respect the authority of a court of law or legislative body'. This is a very serious and could at the very least incur the displeasure of the judge.
Not a good move.
PS I mentioned earlier that `going into bat' comes from cricket, when a new batsman goes onto the field to defend the wicket. I've heard that the early Americans rejected cricket as the 'National Game' because it was `English' but, at the suggestion of a chap from Exeter, Devon, UK, adapted the English children's game of Rounders.
See en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Rounders :
`Played in England since Tudor times, it is referenced in 1744 in the children's book A Little Pretty Pocket-Book where it was called Base-Ball... The game is popular among British and Irish school children, particularly among girls'
Irony or what?
I haven't been following word for word, but I think there was some confusion about the term due to a transcription glitch. And speaking of, thanks to our correspondents who are following and reporting, providing PDFs and links to this . . . circus.
Shesh. That's not a good move. Lawyers learn never to ask a question to a witness in court unless you know the answer. Granted UK is different than USA but not knowing everything they could pull out of it could make the case spin in an unplanned direction.
I admit I skipped the wedding part. I just wasn't into the details.
Re: Perjury/Contempt of Court
In one of Lady C's videos, someone asked if Meghan had committed perjury for lying about giving information to the authors of Finding Freedom and would she be held in contempt of court for doing so. I appreciate that withholding her phone records would probably be considered a more serious offence... but Lady C's reply was quite an eye-opener for me!
It's the first question on this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Saww7tRDmEs&t=201s
“Early in the reign at the end of a gruelling day during a tour of the United States, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were seated ceremonially on a dais. The Queen whispered to the Duke, ‘I’m just so tired, I think I’ll keel over at any minute.’ The Duke replied, ‘Never mind, my little petal, you’ll soon be tucked up with the bunnies.’ Imagine their horror when they heard roars of laughter all around them, quite plainly in reaction to what they had said. In their exhaustion, they had forgotten that they were visiting a home for the deaf and dumb. They were surrounded by lipreaders.”
You look awfully like the Queen: Wit and Wisdom from the House of Windsor by Thomas Blaikie
`You look awfully like the Queen'
To which HM was reported as saying.
`That's very reassuring.'
Allegedly, it was said in all innocence by a lady out walking on a Scottish moor who failed to recognise HM in her waterproof.
I apologise of anyone has already told this one:
In a similar situation, again near Balmoral, an innocent said something like `I hear the Queen's at the castle at the moment. Have you ever met her?'
HM gestured to the chap who accompanied her and replied `No, but this gentleman has'.
There's a story about her in her ATS days in the war - apparently she stalled an army truck on the hill outside Windsor Castle, holding up the traffic. An irate policeman was very quick to reprimand her.
Oh the joys of being a learner, coming to terms with a hill start!
Oh, WE know that she is a habitual liar, but I don't believe that the general public cared enough to know her character.
I was baking cupcakes for the grandson (because I sure as h*ll shouldn't be eating them, although one or two might disappear for quality control!) yesterday, and I cracked three eggs and dumped them in the mixing bowl. "GRAMMAW! NO! You're KILLING the baby chickens, PUT THEM BACK IN THEIR SHELL!" he sobbed. (Even the simple act of cooking can be a drama around here.) I explained to him that no, they were not baby chickens (yet) but merely eggs. Once the eggs are broken, they can't go back into the shells.
Meghan and her lawyers are busily trying to stuff the exposed lies of MM and H back into the protective shells. I don't think it is going to work. Once exposed that she conspired to ruin the reputation of and perhaps even cause the death of her inconvenient (to her) father who loved her, can anybody EVER trust her? The only possible reason for metaphorically stabbing her father in the heart AGAIN was to garner favorable PR for herself. She's beneath contempt. I assume her attorneys are insisting upon payment in advance.
Heh. I remember well my teenage years and the utter terror of the possible humiliation of rolling backwards while stopped on a hill at a traffic light or, even worse, killing the engine to the ire of the people stopped behind me! Now I just wish that I could walk into a car lot and get a standard transmission. They are such great anti-theft devices!
The sun is almost above the horizon, so I shall need to go outside and get started on my day. Good day to you lovely ladies and gentlemen
I haven't been following the suit over MM's claim of invasion of privacy with the letter to her father because her word salad has made me physically sick for over a year now.
I don't know how the MOS got the actual letter, BUT, if MM sent her father a letter, to me, once sent, that letter is not her property anymore. It belongs to her father. If he wanted to publish it to the world, that's his business and none of hers. MM, the author of a personal letter only "owns" the privacy of the letter while she writes it. Once sent, it's no longer her property at all.
So to me, unless the letter was stolen, and again, I haven't followed the case to know if that is what is being claimed, her father had every right to do whatever he wants with the letter.
Please forgive my ignorance of this topic. If the answer is "the letter was stolen from him", then I still believe MM has no claim to privacy. It would be TM's privacy that was invaded, not hers.
Comments?
Thanks, from a long-time Nutty reader and poster (almost from the start) but more recently a very inconsistent lurker,
Mischief Girl
The law says that the person who wrote the letter holds copyright over the contents, as an original piece of writing, even though the physical letter is the property of the receiver. So, if someone took the letter from Thomas and published it without his permission, he could sue them for theft (and it is against the law to profit from theft in any way I assume).
In my understanding, the law is intended to prevent other people from profiting from your work/creations, so it would be illegal to publish correspondence in your memoirs if you do not have the permission of the person who wrote the letters. Meghan is going after MOS because they did profit from publishing excerpts from the letter; her father did not.
It seems that MOS lawyers are hoping to prove that it was not a private letter but intended to repair/protect her reputation as a working royal (anyone who is not stupid knows by now that it was all about her and she did not give two hoots about the BRF). Since she had assistance from staff in composing the letter, it can be seen as an official letter, which the BRF actually has ownership of in terms of copyright, and thus calls into question her right to sue in a personal capacity and claim damages in her personal capacity. It gets complicated as at the time she embarked on this legal mess, her and Harry had plans in place to leave, and her behaviour from the start was suspect (keeping her business managers and PR in the States).
I suspect that the BRF were not prepared to fight legal battles on her behalf, and increasingly to even release statements defending her and reprimanding/threatening the press and perhaps even her family. It seems that they either regarded her grievances as not that important (let it go and get on with it, which is what most of the BRF do) or refused to outright lie for her. That would infuriate a narc no end I assume.
@Bafos deRoliude: I'm willing to put some money on that prediction!
Trust our Mugsy to make everything as convoluted as possible. When Charles sued over the leak of his private diary, that was a straightforward case of 'theft without permission'. There can have only been what, one or two equerries at most that would have had access to his private diary. When one is a sovereign or a sovereign in waiting, or just a garden-variety Royal (like Harry) it's dangerous to commit anything to paper in a 'personal' capacity. Maybe Harry had his father's experience in mind when he was resistant to writing anything down re. Megxit for fear of leaks. Or perhaps he just really didn't want his spelling and fourth-grade vocabulary level held up to ridicule.
It seems that MOS lawyers are hoping to prove that it was not a private letter but intended to repair/protect her reputation as a working royal (anyone who is not stupid knows by now that it was all about her and she did not give two hoots about the BRF). Since she had assistance from staff in composing the letter, it can be seen as an official letter, which the BRF actually has ownership of in terms of copyright, and thus calls into question her right to sue in a personal capacity and claim damages in her personal capacity.
I thought it was super-weird that in the context of a private letter to one's father, discussing painful emotional history, that one would consult a team of Palace staffers and have to draft it several times prior to doing it up in one's best 'calligraphy' and sending it out. Keeping a copy of private correspondence with one's attorney/in a safe deposit box is a sensible precaution if one is a famous person and the letter might go astray from nefarious means. But surely if it is a 'personal' letter, one wouldn't have to show it to a dozen people for their input. Maybe one's spouse or closest friend, but not employees of one's boss. If it was ever intended to be 'personal'.
Members of the Royal family, including Charles and Camilla, suggested/encouraged Meg to patch things up with her dad. They may or may not have suggested a letter as a means of doing this, but suggesting contact does not rise to an official work directive. Obviously the Palace was NOT prepared to get involved in Meg's messy personal business with her dad in an official capacity, or otherwise, someone senior would have directed Megs to craft an 'official' communication with her father, on Kensington Palace stationery, and having it vetted by her communications team and possibly one of the Palace lawyers. It really does not seem in character at all for Meg to have asked her staff to 'help' her write this letter to her father and have taken any of their suggestions, if so. Mugsy is trying to have it both ways--full support/penalties to the Palace for her personal vendetta, and her personal gain.
I am all for whatever helps to lose this case and be completely discredited . . but if the judge accepts that this letter did constitute a 'work product' with input from Palace employees, it seems like the Crown, or at least Charles, is going to be responsible for the court costs in their entirety if she loses.
Everyone involved needs to tell the absolute truth of events and let the chips fall where they may. She has already been outed as a liar and a 'hyperbolic asserter'. Let Meg and Omid and anyone else who lies to the court fry; anyone with a shred of integrity should be done covering for her at all.
"I am all for whatever helps to lose this case and be completely discredited . . but if the judge accepts that this letter did constitute a 'work product' with input from Palace employees, it seems like the Crown, or at least Charles, is going to be responsible for the court costs in their entirety if she loses."
I don't really follow your reasoning. If M (essentially) didn't have grounds to sue because the letter was a work product belonging to her "employer," I don't see how that would make the owner of the letter (the Palace) responsible for the fact that she tried to sue. What am I missing? We don't have any evidence her employer told her to sue, do we?
It will be interesting to hear what the Palace 4 have to say about this. The whole thing reads like Mugsy through and through; there is no evidence of any moderating or constructive language as we would expect to find if Meg's communications professionals had been involved. Surely if they were tasked/expected to help her draft this letter with significant input as to the content, it would appear more official?"
Have you ever read Jason's media letters on behalf of George or William? Stiff-upper lipped they are not. And definitely not anything you'd read from the palace, officially or unofficially.
They are always over wrought, emotional word salad quite unlike the stiff upper lipped English style. I've always side eyed his letters for their OTT emotive manipulative style.
At this point in time we suspect Meghan had alot of input into Harry's letter to the media, but the composition and overly emotional word salad therein was pure Jason.
M probably writing her notes/corrections in the third person vs first person. That's one story i'd like to hear about.
How much info did M give Sarah to pass on to the authors.
The Palace 4 having confidentiality contracts, i would think, would only cover talking outside of the office. Not court. Being called to testify and give evidence - i believe that nullifies any confidentiality agreement.
I was more or less thinking out loud and don't completely understand all the facets of this case, which is multipronged. Meg is suing both for breach of 'privacy' and 'breach of copyright' and maybe there's a 'libel' charge in there too? She's arguing that the Mail didn't have the right to publish her original, copyrighted work AND furthermore that the excerpts they published portrayed her falsely. It sounds like a typical Meg "I'm gonna throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks' strategy.
If the Mail can successfully prove that she had input from dozens of persons from 'friends' to paid staffers in both the form, content and spirit of these contents and the letter in various drafts was handled/contributed to by many parties who influenced the final product, then she loses on both counts of original copyright and privacy. Thomas asserts that he picked the sections for publication that made her look 'least' bad. The court will of course have access to the entire letter and make its determination about that aspect. We are dealing with a litigant for whom the 'truth' is entirely situational, relative and most expedient to herself in any given moment. I think a seasoned jurist can certainly spot a pernicious and compulsive prevaricator when he sees one.
It could be possible to argue that even by 'showing' an allegedly personal letter to even one person other than the recipient, the 'privacy' aspect has already been tainted . . and if the letter is shown or discussed with another person in draft form before it is final, even just talking about one's intentions with someone else could influence the final content away from one's original intent. Even if the other person does not touch the paper or change a single word, just the act of sharing ideas makes them open to change.
It seems as though the Mail has a very strong case on at least two of the main charges. The Palace certainly didn't want to get involved in any litigation over this, but if the Mail's lawyers prove that a number of Kensington Palace staff assigned to Meghan's office but working ultimately for the Queen *did* have an influential hand in this very problematic letter, and they worked on this project on their paid work time, thereby using taxpayer funds to assist Megsy in this twisted endeavour, doesn't that lay the Palace open to having to prove whether or not Meg had permission to use her staffers in this manner? This is why the testimony of the Palace 4 will be crucial. Did she 'force' them to work on this in her inimitable way, off her own bat? Or did they have directives from someone more senior to get involved in the 'helping'? If it's the latter, then the Palace may end up having to pay the court if Mugs can make the case that she and her staff were acting as instructed. Not for the suing, obviously, but for the sending it out in its existing form as an acceptable communication emanating from a member of the Royal family, with the official imprimateur.
I don't think the Palace is or should be responsible for Meg's mess, but practically speaking, I do think they are going to end up paying for a lot of these costs. Because welching on responsibilities and creating fracas is what M&H do and cleaning it up is what the Palace does. If Meg and Harry's reckless spending and litigation leaves them absolutely broke, the Palace will bail them out. For Harry's sake--nobody in the family wants to see pictures of a formerly Royal prince on Skid Row popping up in US Weekly. This mess is going to reverberate for years and will end up as a case study in law schools . . .just as I think the toxic psychology of H&M both separately and together are going to be case studies for psychology journals in years to come.
For entertainment, have a look at some of the sites that come up if you search `markle calligraphy', though some of them may induce nausea. Is calligraphy different in Hallmarkcardia?
I do agree with one author that she shares characteristics with Victoria R - a domestic tyrant who made needy self-pitying demands of her children - but I can't see the similarities in their handwriting.
Have you ever read Jason's media letters on behalf of George or William? Stiff-upper lipped they are not. And definitely not anything you'd read from the palace, officially or unofficially.
They are always over wrought, emotional word salad quite unlike the stiff upper lipped English style. I've always side eyed his letters for their OTT emotive manipulative style.
At this point in time we suspect Meghan had alot of input into Harry's letter to the media, but the composition and overly emotional word salad therein was pure Jason.
Everything you describe sounds so much like Meg. What are the chances that a man, even of roughly similar age to Meg, would share all her propensities for overwrought, manipulative word salad to an identical degree? He worked for her and no doubt was keen to hang on to his plum Palace position. Isn't it as (or more) likely that 'Jason's voice' is identical to Meg's because she used him as nothing more than an official parrot? That his statements are in fact, hers, verbatim, and he just put his name to them because that's what employees do when they want to keep their jobs and their boss is erratic and controlling? (Just ask Mike Pence).
Jason was paid to be Meg's mouthpiece so I don't think it's really possible to separate what is 'pure Jason' from what is 'pure Meghan'. I'm sure Jason never even took a dump without checking with her first. Meg is all about control as her bedrock characteristic so I think everything that has ever emanated from 'staffers', 'close Palace sources' and 'friends' have been Meg, using filters.
It's conventional typography, as per all the printers' catalogues in the UK. I imagine Pa in Law would prefer to die rather than issue any document of his `penned' in her ghastly so-called `calligraphy'
I doubt if the word `uncial' has ever fallen from her lips.
Yep, the whole affair is very convoluted and crazy-making messy. Meghan is trying to have it both ways - ownership of the copyright of a letter that is private and personal (she is also suing under the data protection act, which is really just throwing as much mud as possible, and tried to sneak in defamation without actually suing on that count), but also claiming that staff helped her write it and Charles and Camilla advised her to write it so somehow she is not responsible.
Smartest person in the room? More like the craziest because her behaviour is so far from normal that it is difficult to understand or predict what she would do next.
Imagine being Harry and being stuck in lockdown, in a foreign country, cut off from family and friends, and being subjected to unfiltered Meghan every day, with Doria being the only other company!
"Have you ever read Jason's media letters on behalf of George or William? Stiff-upper lipped they are not. And definitely not anything you'd read from the palace, officially or unofficially.
They are always over wrought, emotional word salad quite unlike the stiff upper lipped English style. I've always side eyed his letters for their OTT emotive manipulative style."
That is quite true. Jason's threats to photographers trying to get pictures of George were definitely over wrought. That was back in 2015 when George was 2 so M can't be blamed for that. I always wondered how Jason managed to work for the Royal Bank of Scotland for as long as he did. Not the banker type!
I fear that if Megs loses her case, she might well twist things to make it as if she somehow won, had a moral victory.
'Wait a minute, how come Meghan was able to provide the court the text messages she sent to her dad before her wedding? So as recently as April 2020, she was able to provide to the court messages from all the way back in May 2018. How come messages weren’t being automatically deleted after 30 days in April 2020, but they suddenly were in October, 2020 THIS MAKES NO SENSE.'
https://the-empress-7.tumblr.com/post/640862833915183104/wait-a-minute-how-come-meghan-was-able-to-provide#notes
Exactly. That why I asked yesterday about the texts supplied in court. And even before that, the PEOPLE article was pretty clear about M's texts nearly 10 months after they were sent (& 9 months after they supposedly would have been deleted.)
"Acquaitaine,
Jason was paid to be Meg's mouthpiece so I don't think it's really possible to separate what is 'pure Jason' from what is 'pure Meghan'. I'm sure Jason never even took a dump without checking with her first. Meg is all about control as her bedrock characteristic so I think everything that has ever emanated from 'staffers', 'close Palace sources' and 'friends' have been Meg, using filters."
I used to think it's an American thing because Jason is American and Americans are very expressive in an emotive, word salad-y way that is completely different from the clipped and or dry British way.
It's not a negative judgement on either nationality, just an overall observation.
However, within the context of American verbal style is the niche stereotypical california version of word salad which is extra even by the general standard of American verbal style.
Californians tend to purple prose which is where Meghan's style differs from Jason's style. And being a hollywood actress means her purple prose is more extra than the average californian or Los Angeles native.
Jason's style stood out because he was recruited from a bank. An environment not known for expressive, emotional word salad.
This is his letter on behalf of George from 2015.
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ourview/letter-kensington-palace
To an American or someone not British, it reads normal, but to us Brits, it's cringe.....the emotion, the word salad eeek!!!
Please note that i'm speaking in general terms and not everyone will agree with me, but overall Jason's writing style aligned perfectly with the stereotypical Brit assumption of how Americans express themselves.
Meghan is your typical, Hollywood, purple prose American who is extra in her expressions and makes everyone cringe except Harry.
I imagine after Jason helped with drafts of the letter, she added her purple prose flourishes to make it *her* letter, but i'm willing to bet that his version won't be a million miles away from her version.
Personally, I don't see why/how they could be liable for costs even if some KP staff helped Megalo write her letter. In any case, ultimately, it was her name/signature on the letter. Just my take.
Yes, if Meg had been a normal person who'd gotten embroiled into litigation that tangentially involved her former employer, and the former employer was also a normal firm, it would fall to the losing litigant to buck up and pay what the court says when she loses. But nothing about Meg, the situation or her former employer is normal. The Palace should tell her, 'Well, rough luck, dearie, but it's nothing to do with us. You quit, so we don't even know who you are, much less think it's our job to pay your legal bills."
But IS this what's gonna happen? Harry is still married to her, so will the pity card be invoked? How many calls of Haz crying in his beer to 'Pa' is it going to take before he or Granny or some combination thereof winds up paying the settlement and the court costs? Meg might be on the hook herself for her lawyers .. but if Chas and Granny don't end up picking up *some* of this due to Harry calling to moan night and day, I'd be quite surprised.
If Charles, the Queen and everyone else does not budge, forcing Harry and Smegs to take their medicine, even if they wind up on the street . . I'd applaud.
But--we can't forget she's also got the "Archie" card. How can they be so heartless as to let this couple of new young parents be turned out on the street with a vulnerable toddler?
Doesn't matter if Archie's not real or in their custody, either--as far as the world is concerned, the Queen and the Palace has rubber-stamped Meg's version of events. She will squeeze them for whatever she can get on 'his' behalf. And she's got them over a barrel for the rest of 'Archie's' life, unless they are willing to come clean about their collusion in the whole affair of the pregnancy, birth and accepting Archie into the line of succession, and whether all the pictures and documents purporting to verify his existence have in fact been fabricated and disseminated with their knowledge and their silence, if not their full-throated consent.
She's bad news for them, forever . . unless something drastic happens. That's why this trial is taking on the aspects of the long-awaited Kraken.
I fear that if Megs loses her case, she might well twist things to make it as if she somehow won, had a moral victory.
She will, of course. Being a Narc, she cannot admit to being a 'loser' or being wrong, ever. We've just had a global display of Narc petulance with the election results just past. That is exactly how a Narc behaves. Meg will twist things to make herself the virtuous victim . . but what really matters is who will have to pay. I hope to God the Palace leaves her to flounder on her own in her sea of lies--'cause there's no 100 million Netflix dollars coming to bail her out.
But will they? We have to wait and see. Mostly I hope that Thomas Markle can find some peace in his last years and be free of this sooner rather than later. And I hope that anybody who currently works for Meg and H in any capacity quits and nobody will agree to work for them ever again. That's a vain hope but she needs to be stripped of all her enablers and smoke screens. If her PR agencies declined to keep taking her money, she'd really be nobody. That will never happen though, sadly.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9171357/Royal-fans-spot-photo-Prince-Harry-military-uniform-President-Joe-Bidens-inauguration.html
The only words that have crossed my mind are the two of John 11 v.35
The damage that the Harkles could do to UK/US relationships doesn't bear thinking about. Mr President is very conscious of his Irish roots I gather. Would American Nutties do their utmost to publicise how she treated the Famine Memorial in Dublin with bored disdain? Please?
Harry has forgotten, if he ever knew, what happened to his grandfather's uncle, who did it and what cause was dear to many Irish Americans.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9171357/Royal-fans-spot-photo-Prince-Harry-military-uniform-President-Joe-Bidens-inauguration.html
WTF is he even doing in uniform in a foreign country? He's not representing the Queen or the military. He's not in any official capacity. What is he, some sort of LARPer? Is he threatening Slow Joe with a British military takeover?
I read somewhere that MM is a "personal friend" of Ken Sunshine. Then it went on to say that Ken Sunshine "advises" her on PR situations, but does not represent her.
So, it could be that MM is getting free PR services from "old friend" Ken.
This was written about two years ago, and I think it was in the DM.
"WTF is he even doing in uniform in a foreign country? He's not representing the Queen or the military. "
The picture is nearly 8 years old. He was on an official trip at the time.
https://www.today.com/news/prince-harry-pays-respects-arlington-national-cemetery-1C9875173
@ Swamp woman, he probably was there in disguise swinging his pony tail, or rather swishing it like a horse from Jenns recent icon.
Heh. I'm not currently able to go to links and really shouldn't be periodically checking in. Sadly, the only time I'm able to come in to play, everybody is asleep.
Would they?
Wouldn't that be making a deal with ... someone who is not currently known for being trustworthy within the statements they made for said trial? and all the other things we only suspect are untrue? Deals like that usually don't tend to be the golden ticket they initially appear to be (especially if you now have some leverage you didn't feel you did before).
What if the contents of the letter were abusive? When does 'copyright' end and 'harassment' begin? Or are they separate matters?
I got the impression that MM knew Sunshine from either yachting or the Soho House, or both.
Don't forget that Weinstein was a Sunshine Sachs client.
Until three years ago, when I had the misfortune to meet the woman who now calls herself the Duchess of Sussex, I was only acquainted with the term 'word salad' in its dictionary form.
word salad
noun
incoherent speech consisting of both real and imaginary words, lacking comprehensive meaning, and occurring in advanced schizophrenic states.
The jury is out as to whether Meg actually suffers from schizophrenia or just behaves like she does. Since Harry inflicted her on the world, 'word salad' has entered the vernacular in a more pop-culture sense. Celeb-World is full of this verbal diarrhea masquerading as 'knowledge & engagement'. The effect is to appear much more informed, caring and dazzling than one is by brow-beating the listeners into acquiescence with sheer verbiage, and pet phrases repeated often and loudly. Many fields are rife with this kind of bloviating pomposity and manipulative appeal to the emotions. I can think of a number of past Presidents who are guilty of it as well. Meg is so devoid of substance or deep knowledge on any topic, all of her utterances have the quality of a brown-nosing student who has not read the book but who is standing up in front of the class confident that she can snow the teacher and the class into thinking she's got a download into the author's brain anyway.
Lots of people bullsh#t professionally for a living & do well at it, too. Where Mugsy's particular psycopathy comes into play is her self-belief regardless of how foolish and exhibitionistic she looks to others that she's #SellingIt! and is the greatest orator and actress of all time.
Culturally, British and Americans do have differing styles of communication, but I find that I must take exception to your labelling of the American style in general as 'word-salad'. That doesn't connote just a more direct or more emotional way of expressing oneself, but is a manipulative tactic that is the opposite of direct speaking. Word salad is not the norm among regular Americans, I can assure you.
Americans are raised with the idea that plain speaking is a virtue. Say what you mean; mean what you say. Give direct answers to direct questions. I spent six years teaching in Japan and experienced the clash of East meets West at first hand. I survived there as long as I did because I am in many ways more Japanese, or British, in my makeup when it comes to not wanting to give offense and a willingness to adapt to my surroundings. After my experiences there, I came home and dove deep into British culture via books, films and television, and cultivating some British Internet friends, and it occurred to me that a study of the similarities in the psyche of the two island nations would make an interesting thesis. Both countries seem to go to great lengths, sometimes to the point of verbal and emotional contortion to potentially cause offense with a blunt answer, which is connoted with 'rudeness', and have devised many ways to express a negative (thought, desire, intention) without actually coming out and saying No, or giving too stark a report.
He's a freak. And, though Meg's obsession with wealth, status, youth, toys and stardom is typical of the bottom-feeding Hollywood celeb-aspirant fishbowl she grew up in, including word salad, her individual mental disorders and personality anomolies amplify those negative, shallow traits to the nth power. Meg isn't a 'typical' American any more than Harry is a 'typical' example of an Englishman. He's not even a typical example of the rarified breed of Englishman found within the Royal family. In that sense, these two are well-matched but they are disaster together because they share the same weaknesses in common. Harry's parents were like that too--they had a matching pathology and therefore couldn't be what the other needed or expected out of a partner. He was searching for a f#ck-Mummy, too, and he found her in Camilla. Diana needed a sugar Daddy who would make her the sun, moon and stars of his world. She was never going to get that from a man who needed his woman to treat him like a demigod.
Jason's mode of handling his job would not, I think, be well-received as professional in any American firm run by grownups. All of us really are not word salad spouters.
Whoops, I left out a critical word . . AVOID potentially causing offense, is what I meant to say.
***********
Americans often miss English humor or true feelings owing to the supreme understatement which is practiced as a norm but honed to a high art amongst Harry's circle. I suspect that this was Meg's problem and why she felt like an outcast from the off. If one only reads the literal meaning, one misses the whole point. It's hard to know exactly how smart Meg really is because her personality disorders hinder her so much. British discourse tend to be more subtle, certainly more subtle than Californian, and our Mugsy is not a subtle person. She has such pretensions to sophistication but so utterly misses the mark, it's rather pitiful.
The British can apply hyperbolic language for effect when it suits; it's not just limited to Americans. A lot of our expressions like "it's raining cats and dogs" come from olde English and not the colonies, were comparatively speaking, we are still in our infancy.
Two states of Englishness in expression might be summed up as:
A student runs across campus on a winter day without his gloves and announces that 'I'm perishing for a cup of tea!' when he arrives at his destination.
Vs.
"We are in a very tight corner." --Robert Falcon Scott, in his final letter to his wife. Found with his frozen body and those of his compatriots in his tent the year following his fatal Antarctic expedition. I marvel at this. He knew that letter would never be sent. He froze to death days later, but even then he could not admit terminal failure to his wife privately.
Very entertaining compilation from the University of Sheffield.
https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2017/historian-reveals-most-ridiculous-understatements-in-british-his.html
Perhaps in time we can also see him with a Cindy Lou Who 'do, heehee.
Regarding the times story you've posted.....
"Palace press team ‘couldn’t defend Meghan against true stories’
The Duchess of Sussex was “left defenceless”
Valentine Low
Friday July 03 2020, 12.00am BST, The Times"
That is definitely a Palace response to Meghan's filing where she first pulled the KP team into her case.
Her court docs were a mixture of grievances and victimhood rather than the legal writ, and it made them look bad.
Their response is polite and yet extremely damning in that British way ie instead of just saying outright thst she's a lying liar who made our lives hell, they've simply said she was angry at the negative stories particularly around staff and her sister. And then proceed to remind the public exactly why those stories were being reported.
It's as genius as William responding to the SA doc with his worry about fragile Harry instead of my brother is having a tanttum for x reasons!!!
Makes Meghan and Harry look crazy without having to spell it out.
If you look at MoS's latest filing, notice the timeline of when they approached (or were approached by) the KP team. It very clear it was after the filing in the Times article when Meghan herself accused the KP comms team of various things that caused her to seek outside help in managing her image.
KP team's public response to that filing was probably a smoke signal to the MoS team without appearing to be such a thing because they cannot and could not be seen to take sides publicly or privately and they couldn't have a situation where they approached MoS first.
And yet their current letter to the court says they want to level the playing field by correcting the record in as neutral a manner as possible, and yet we see that any information they provide torpedoes Meghan's case!!!
She doesn’t and didn’t get that attention because no ones home upstairs. She does not seem to have real charisma, empathy, or characteristics of relatable human nature that are of interest to mass media followers. She’s also not particularly attractive. If I were her with her qualities I would have revamped my image to match an upperclass woman who gets some work done. No one cares what you do, if you look like a million bucks. Then, laying low and doing the work for several years while bringing up babies, and then respectfully speaking to my spouse about relocating to my home area in California, but with so much public goodwill and understanding- deals are sympathetic and easy to come by.
She could have been Kate 2.0, if she worked for it.
Re: Meghan's pap strolls in Toronto and NYC.
The Toronto pap strolls were definitely arranged. She used the same UK pap repeatedly. Every time new filings / lawsuits are revealed particularly if they are around privacy and paps, he has a twitter storm of revelatory tweets revealing some of the pap strolls she arranged.
Also, as a result of Harry's love shield letters ( publicly and privately to the IPSO) from November 2016 in which he told the media to leave her alone, the media backed off completely so that any photos you saw from then until the wedding were arranged by her and full approved to be published.
The NYC crowd of paps and any bystanders were definitely arranged.
Harry Markle blog (and other blogs) had a screenshot of tweet from Meghan's mirror responding to an enquiry about their intimate kjowledge of Meghan's itinierary in which they admitted they'd received an email from Meghan's private office as did all media detailing her entire trip to NYC and in particular the timings, places, fashion etc where she and her friends would be throughout the visit.
Meghan's Mirror said the details were so thoroughly relayed to them that they were uncomfortable about revealing alot of the detail because it crossed the privacy and security lines.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/11245163/An-American-at-the-Palace-Duke-and-Duchess-of-Cambridge-hire-RBS-spin-doctor-Jason-Knauf.html
Hasn’t MM been quiet lately? Too quiet?
The quiet before the storm?
According to the Telegraph, on 21 November 2014, in an article titled An American at the Palace, Jason Knauf is an American. From other sources, he studied political science at Wellington’s Victoria University, advised PM Helen Clark, then wrote speeches for NZ deputy prime minister Michael Cullen. When Labour lost, Knauf moved to London and started part two of his career. He got a masters in politics and communication from the London School of Economics. Then on to PR swimming in bank scandals. Then on to the royals.
The DM on 9 November 2016 (found archived on pressreader.com) says the “US-born 34-year-old spin doctor” (lol) “has both adopted and encouraged William and Harry’s aggressive approach to media, beefing up their social media teams and the use of “vanity” photographers to take control of stories about themselves.”
Maybe Megs glommed onto him with her daddy letter (“help me!”, batting glue-chunked lashes around dilated eyes) in hope of having an “experienced political speech writer”at her elbow for her future world plans. I consider his work rather flabby and unexceptional so far. I hope we get to see this wunderkind wiggling on the stand.
Her money for PR won’t go as far this week with Biden/Trump handoff. She does this quiet routine regularly. That, or they tried to get placement this week and no one was interested due to the inauguration. Also probably prepping her PR blast and response for whatever outcome of the summary judgement (yay/nay/trial)
Sorry, was writing busily and didn’t see your post of the same article about Jason!
Interesting that this very experienced Jason guy hasn’t joined Meghan’s PR-whiz team. Sarcasm, of course.
I want the person who called Lady C with this blackmail job to be named in public.
Thank you! That makes sense. I can’t help but feel a sense of foreboding!
I know the MM PR pendulum of lies and emotions is intended to create imbalance, and I suppose I’m a victim of that. I should sue for mental anguish! And for the times her outfits have caused my eyes to burn!
*off to ring my attorney*
Ha! I know what you mean! — but, seriously, I assume Jason didn’t run off with Megs and Handbag because he knew the Cambridges (future king, less insanity, nothing being thrown through the office air)) were a better, or safer, bet. Plus she wants Hollywood celebrity, and Jason seemed to like politics, so the Foundation and William were again a closer fit.
I think Lady C has let it be known to the appropriate people. You don't mess with Lady C!
************************
Princess Tiffany just put out a video saying that the Palace Four want to go to court and tell all about how badly they were treated by MM. They want to testify against her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XratTAIma4