Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve stayed out of the online debates surrounding this couple due to the extreme elements found on both sides but my god could Meghan have possibly sounded any more entitled and out of touch in the arguments presented by her legal team.

The argument that their wedding generated economic growth and the reference to other royals demonstrates, to me a continuation of her lack of understanding of the purpose and functionality of the BRF. It gives credence to the arguments that she was in not way prepared to marry into the BRF with the objective of having a public role. Her assertion that she was left unprotected by ‘the institution’ is a joke. Is she a child, is she not capable of defending herself, where was her husband during this time? Why not address this supposed campaign by the media? Harry did just this at the beginning of their relationship when they felt the media were using racial tones in their reporting so clearly it’s possible. Additionally the very fact that these legal proceedings are happening demonstrate that they had the ability to defend themselves if they perceived that they were being unfairly treated by the media. Others have to deal with the press themselves yet for some reason when it’s Meghan it’s the responsibility of the BRF. If her friends were so concerned for her mental health then it would have been better for them to advice to to stop reading the tabloids, engage in professional mental health services and use official and legal channels to address any incorrect stories rather than run to the American media and further add to the drama. Honestly for the most part her whole argument reads like the nonsense peddled by her extremist Twitter fanatics.

She doesn’t care of people in the UK think of her, only the US. She’s trying to portray herself a victim of everyone that she’s ever come into contact with because she thinks being a victim endears her to the US public
 
I’ve stayed out of the online debates surrounding this couple due to the extreme elements found on both sides but my god could Meghan have possibly sounded any more entitled and out of touch in the arguments presented by her legal team.

The argument that their wedding generated economic growth and the reference to other royals demonstrates, to me a continuation of her lack of understanding of the purpose and functionality of the BRF. It gives credence to the arguments that she was in not way prepared to marry into the BRF with the objective of having a public role. Her assertion that she was left unprotected by ‘the institution’ is a joke. Is she a child, is she not capable of defending herself, where was her husband during this time? Why not address this supposed campaign by the media? Harry did just this at the beginning of their relationship when they felt the media were using racial tones in their reporting so clearly it’s possible. Additionally the very fact that these legal proceedings are happening demonstrate that they had the ability to defend themselves if they perceived that they were being unfairly treated by the media. Others have to deal with the press themselves yet for some reason when it’s Meghan it’s the responsibility of the BRF. If her friends were so concerned for her mental health then it would have been better for them to advice to to stop reading the tabloids, engage in professional mental health services and use official and legal channels to address any incorrect stories rather than run to the American media and further add to the drama. Honestly for the most part her whole argument reads like the nonsense peddled by her extremist Twitter fanatics.

Is this actually what the Legal team have said, or is it a suppositon?
 
The friends are referred to by letter but ai even know who most are from the Wedding. No way they spoke without her sanction. Would you?

Most ofnitnin regard to the other royals and the wedding is in quotes so I guess they are quoting verbatim.

Cash cow for the media this.
 
I'd like to see a copy of the legal filing to see exactly what was filed.


LaRae
 
According to the article above, this is what the legal team is claiming in the filing

I presume its basically true.. after all if the article has gotten it wrong it will come out in the court case so... I'd say they have the basics right?
 
BTW all the bits i included in my post were with direct quotes from the legal papers from at least two sources - the DM and the Sun. I'm not biggest fan of either but not many seemed to be reporting it at the time, the DM I take with a hue pinch of salt. But thats why I took direct quotes only.


What confuses me is what does the working royal being paid, wedding bringing in money for the economy or lack of support from the RF have to do with the copyright issue I thought this was about?!? I'm obviously missing something.
 
I presume its basically true.. after all if the article has gotten it wrong it will come out in the court case so... I'd say they have the basics right?

Yes, because the DM never prints anything that isn’t 100% accurate, and they have never been known to embellish stories in order to get more clicks.
 
Okay quotes from the Court docs I can find (I know the sources are all those that are now "banned" by H&M but I think the others are not covering the case, probably until the outcome is known)

"As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself" (Mirror)


[the wedding was]not, in fact, publicly funded, but rather personally financed by HRH The Prince of Wales'.

The submission added: 'Any public costs incurred for the wedding were solely for security and crowd control to protect members of the public, as deemed necessary by Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police. (Daily Mail)

"several member of the Royal Family do ‘undertake paid work’ including, for example, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York and Prince Michael of Kent". (The Sun)

[Meghan] "was also the founder of the commercially successful lifestyle website The Tig" (the Sun and DM)
 
Yes, because the DM never prints anything that isn’t 100% accurate, and they have never been known to embellish stories in order to get more clicks.

I said basically true.. meaning that the gist of what they say is correct....
 
It shouldn't be too long until the documents are released in full. I've just checked and can only find the May hearing documents atm but hopefully we can read them soon.
 
So, if I understand it correctly (assuming DM got the gist of it right), Meghan claims that her friend's representation of the letter was entirely false.

“After the wedding she wrote him a letter. She’s like, ‘Dad, I’m so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship.’
She claims that she didn't ask to stop victimizing her, that she never said she had only one father and that the purpose wasn't to repair their relationship but only to get him to stop talking to the press...
 
I thought Princess Eugenie worked for an Art Gallery or something like that.
Princess Michael of Kent is of retirement age, but she has written quite a few books. The sort of history books that require a lot of research. I think she may be still active with her patronages the Court Circular would be a good place to look for this.
Princess Beatrix has had various jobs I believe.
I would think living within the grounds of the Windsor Estate and KP grounds shows that you are very protected. It is only the media where you could say you are not protected.
 
And the other part I don't understand. Why is it even relevant how much money her wedding made and whether there are other members of the royal family working? What does that have to do with the case.

And stating in legal documents that the royal family didn't support her is quite a blow to the BRF. She really wants to burn all bridges left.

And her friends that talked to the press were just defending her because she couldn't defend herself? But somehow she had no idea they would? That doesn't fly with me. So, I am very interested in the exact wording because they surely must have known that she would be ok with it. If not, they would have been out of her inner circle immediately, as that is how the royals tend to operate. So, it's clear that she approved of them talking (probably except for them mentioning the letter); as finally someone was defending her... but at the seem time she needs to claim complete ignorance.
 
I'm not getting too much into it all (and I do struggle to see what this all has to do with copyright) but I think the comments she didn't have support while pregnant from the RF will hurt HM and Charles, even more so as it is made in legal docs and made public. Its all quite sad really.
 
Last edited:
My apologies to all and to Tommy re your post 1180. I miss read your post re Eugenie, Beatrice and Prss Michael of Kent. I am still on my first coffee of the morning and haven't got the brain into gear yet. I thought you said they don't work. Whereas the article said they Do paid work.
Once again my apologies. I feel like a dufus. :ermm: :eek::bang:
 
I' not getting too much into it all (and I do struggle to see what this all has to do with copyright) but I think the comments she didn't have support while pregnant from the RF will hurt HM and Charles, even more so as it is made in legal docs and made public. Its all quite sad really.

Meghan is really playing with fire now. Does she honestly think that painting TQ and the rest of the BRF in negative light is a winning strategy?

Also, the Royals that work are below Harry in the line of succession and have not been provided a tax-payer renovated residence.
 
Meghan is really playing with fire now. Does she honestly think that painting TQ and the rest of the BRF in negative light is a winning strategy?

Also, the Royals that work are below Harry in the line of succession and have not been provided a tax-payer renovated residence.

Plus they have approved jobs really. Suitable for who they are. Bea am Eug couldn't have been doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers. They do posh jobs and their jobs appear flexible to work with the family commitments. They are often at receptions at Buckingham House and Eug particularly accompanying the Queen at times. And Princess Michael writes historical books.
 
The section on Dad stood out. DM is alleging Meghan is not claiming Dad victimized her but allowed the press to manipulate him. Sounds to me by allowing he was a willing participant. I want to see the actual documents. Remember this is the defendant putting out its side.
 
I said basically true.. meaning that the gist of what they say is correct....

It has to be basically true because it the DM has everything to lose and nothing to gain by completing making this story up-given the legal nature
 
Also Beatrice and Eugenie work for a Gallery and technology company. They aren't planning on launching their own "brand" and wanting to earn money through their names, although I'm sure it doesn't hurt their careers in many ways.

If Beatrice for example suddenly started selling HRH Bea of York branded clothing or items you can bet there would be a massive fuss, even worse because of her parents reputations. Just as there was over PR girl Sophie using her connections and Edward his to make documentaries.

It just looks like foot stomping over not being able to use Sussex Royal, which shows they were counting on using it to help fund themselves. If they had actually been planning a retreat from public life or for hypothetical art gallery and the like jobs, then they might have been able to keep them for everyday use.
 
Harry and Meghan have been allowed to earn their own money and have jobs - the RF has just put limitations in place with regard to using their royal status and HRH titles to do so.

If Eugenie tried setting up "HRH Princess Eugenie Art Gallery" or Beatrice opened "HRH Princess of the UK Consultancy Ltd" the Palace would step in.

From what I can say no one has told them they can't work, simply that they can't use the royal symbols to do so.

The only anomaly IMO is Princess Michael being allowed to use her title on her books, but back in the 80s / 90s it seemed all the royals had books out (though normally for charity) and as the Michaels get no public money and weren't in the succession I think no one batted an eye lid. For surely one of the biggest things to learn when in the RF is that if you stay quiet and keep a low profile you get away with a lot more.
 
Last edited:
Also Beatrice and Eugenie work for a Gallery and technology company. They aren't planning on launching their own "brand" and wanting to earn money through their names, although I'm sure it doesn't hurt their careers in many ways.

If Beatrice for example suddenly started selling HRH Bea of York branded clothing or items you can bet there would be a massive fuss, even worse because of her parents reputations. Just as there was over PR girl Sophie using her connections and Edward his to make documentaries.

It just looks like foot stomping over not being able to use Sussex Royal, which shows they were counting on using it to help fund themselves. If they had actually been planning a retreat from public life or for hypothetical art gallery and the like jobs, then they might have been able to keep them for everyday use.

The York girls careers have literally nothing to do with who they are. Quite feat really. They managed nicely, much like Princess Margaret's children.

That a Meghan married into a situation she didn't understand and where she found herself out of depth, I sympathise with. I also think she is probably a lot more intelligent than many if not most royals. But this isn't the way to do it. Get a therapist, work through it and recreate your life in the manner you want. She is lucky to be able too. Just doesn't look like that is what they want.

Harry and Meghan have been allowed to earn their own money and have jobs - the RF has just put limitations in place with regard to using their royal status and HRH titles to do so.

If Eugenie tried setting up "HRH Princess Eugenie Art Gallery" or Beatrice opened "HRH Princess of the UK Consultancy Ltd" the Palace would step in.

From what I can say no one has told them they can't work, simply that they can't use the royal symbols to do so.

The only anomaly IMO is Princess Michael being allowed to use her title on her books, but back in the 80s / 90s it seemed all the royals had books out (though normally for charity) and as the Michaels get no public money and weren't in the succession I think no one batted an eye lid. For surely one of the biggest things to learn when in the RF is that if you stay quiet and keep a low profile you get away with a lot more.

Well they did really. They wanted to work part time. The royals said no. Now they are not royal.

Isn't that the truth with everything. Princess Michael was pretty hated until Di and Fergs came along. A bit too grand which stood for too Germanic, far better educated than other royal women and her father was a nazi. Apparently. We must remember that Bea was the first Princess to University. And she is just over thirty. And educated women scare people. Apparently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The friends are referred to by letter but ai even know who most are from the Wedding. No way they spoke without her sanction. Would you?

Most ofnitnin regard to the other royals and the wedding is in quotes so I guess they are quoting verbatim.

Cash cow for the media this.

You are correct, no way would her friends have spoken without her permission, they would have had nothing to gain from doing so and everything to lose in a social sense. I think though that Meghan used, at least some of them, exquisitely ie she knew that she would be disposing of them sooner rather than later so she allowed them to talk and back her up and then dropped them (Mulrooney?) to their immense shock.

Meghan and her team apparently name Beatrice, Eugenie and Princess Michael in their documents, naming them to refute the suggestion members of the royal family don't work

Meghan and her legal team say she was "unprotected by the institution" referring to the RF

they say her five friends went to People without her knowing and that had she have known she would not have allowed them to talk about the letter

they claim the wedding generated £1billion for the UK economy which "far outweighed" the contribution of the taxpayers money to security

I think it was Prince Michael who was mentioned in the documents not his wife but, either way, the whole thing is very distasteful. Why on Earth did Prince Harry allow other family members to be dragged into him and Meghan's fight with the papers? I think the Queen will be livid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it was Prince Michael who was mentioned in the documents not his wife but, either way, the whole thing is very distasteful. Why on Earth did Prince Harry allow other family members to be dragged into him and Meghan's fight with the papers? I think the Queen will be livid.

Well he writes books toon a bit and is quite an expert on the Romanovs who he is related too. Incredibly knowledgeable when I do hear him speak. They are an impressive pair and apart from their home and being the landed wealthy they aren't that cash rich. He also does consultancy. Whatever that means. But he was never expected to be a working royal either but he did see service and has always done a bit.

You are correct, no way would her friends have spoken without her permission, they would have had nothing to gain from doing so and everything to lose in a social sense. I think though that Meghan used, at least some of them, exquisitely ie she knew that she would be disposing of them sooner rather than later so she allowed them to talk and back her up and then dropped them (Mulrooney?) to their immense shock.

Well I think the give away is these friends are not from the same social circle. Sooooo. I would love them to call the journalist to give evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
......

What confuses me is what does the working royal being paid, wedding bringing in money for the economy or lack of support from the RF have to do with the copyright issue I thought this was about?!? I'm obviously missing something.


It is hard to understand what possible connection this has to the copyright issue - which I believe is what the one of the problems the judge had with some of the claims which were disallowed - he didn’t rule either way on whether there was a campaign against Meghan by the media just that it was unrelated to the current action she is taking.

It appears that Meghan is using this action to air out all her grievances with the tabloids. She may view this as her opportunity to give her version of events but she’s going to burn some powerful bridges if she’s not careful - they have chosen as a couple to base themselves in a fickle world where their appeal and power is derived from Harry’s connections. If he’s publicly cutoff from those connections his worth and therefor THEIR worth to those people is going to diminish pretty quickly.
 
It was “mandated” by Kensington Palace “that all friends and family of [Meghan] should say ‘no comment’ when approached by any media outlet, despite misinformation being provided to the UK tabloids about her,” the document states.

“This shared frustration amongst the claimant’s friends left everyone feeling silenced, as it appeared that other so-called sources were able to disseminate false statements about the claimant, while people who knew her best were told they needed to remain silent.

AdvertisementHide
“The claimant believes that is probably because of this reason, as well as concerns about the press intrusion by the UK tabloids, that a few friends chose to participate and they did so anonymously”.

This obsession with the media. It's therapy and mental health support which was rightly needed to deal with them.
 
Last edited:
Umm hard to claim her family was ‘mandated’ not to talk to the media beyond no comment when all they did for months was talk to the media. I presume they mean her mother and friends were ADVISED to not speak to the media, which seems pretty sound advice really. Also pretty sure the Kensington palace don’t get to ‘mandate’ anything to private individuals. Especially when those private individuals probably weren’t even citizens of the UK.

This really smells of an attempt to portray Meghan as the victim of the bullying grey men Diana contended with but it falls flat when one remembers Meghan was no sheltered, uneducated virginal 19 year old when she married. She was a divorced almost 40 year old American woman with a college education who had been independent for many many years.
 
Meghan and her team apparently name Beatrice, Eugenie and Princess Michael in their documents, naming them to refute the suggestion members of the royal family don't work

Meghan and her legal team say she was "unprotected by the institution" referring to the RF

they say her five friends went to People without her knowing and that had she have known she would not have allowed them to talk about the letter

they claim the wedding generated £1billion for the UK economy which "far outweighed" the contribution of the taxpayers money to security

So she threw the BRF under the bus...I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed. I almost don’t know what to say anymore...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom