Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, General News 1: November 2017 - May 2018

[Madame Verseau]

@Lady Reem -I got your two face for you. In the description of the show Samantha give a story about Meghan's upbringing and the racial prejudice THE FAMILY faced. Talk about revisionist history. Sam realized trashing Meghan did not move Harry to dump her or the queen to not grant consent. Instead Samantha earned scorn and ridicule from a great swath of people and she is tagged the wicked step (half) sister.Now I think she's using the documentary to try to rehabilitate her image. Sam won't be able to get book deals or film projects off the ground if people don't like her and think she is a lawsuit from Kensington Palace waiting to happen.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I just read an excerpt for Katie Nichols books, looks like another piece of crap no one will call her on. She says Harry was close to one of Meghan's friends because said friend met Diana once. Then she states Harry was more hotheaded than William and that's why he wrote that letter defending Meghan and that William never took legal action when it came to Kate's privacy; someone correct me if I'm wrong but during the portion of their relationship where she was living in London wasn't their legal action and statements defending her privacy? Especially after hoopla over her birthday one year?

 

[CTchic]

You are spot on, he did take action against paps for following Kate when she lived in London. Nicholl's book is full of regurgitated tabloid nonsense.

 

[CTchic]

Not to mention she got the month wrong for Skippy's wedding in Jamaica. She wrote that it was in May when it was March. Who did the fact checking?

 

[Osipi]

You are spot on, he did take action against paps for following Kate when she lived in London. Nicholl's book is full of regurgitated tabloid nonsense.

You read Nicholl's work, you're reading Daily Fail material. Simple.

 

[luluflossie]

I totally agree. Separating dogs that lived together seems cruel and unnecessary to me. Is it true that Guy had 2 broken legs?

 

[Osipi]

Guy suffered two broken legs due to an accident after he had moved to the UK with Meghan. We don't know the specifics of just why Bogart didn't make the move but its been said by sources that he was deemed unable to fly. Bogart, however has a good home with close friends of Meghan's.

Sometimes in life, decisions that have to be made are hard ones and never easy.

 

[Pranter]

Our son and his wife had 3 dogs when he was transferred to Germany from the US.

One of their dogs was deemed unable to fly due to odds of surviving were at best 50 percent. They rehomed him with close friends who knew the dog well and he was happy and content until he passed 6 months later due to cancer.

Sometimes it's best for the animal to stay behind.

LaRae

 

[luluflossie]

A few years someone hacked ScarJo and Mila Kunis nudes, and got sentenced for 10 years for it. I know Meghan is in UK, but I have no doubt there will be really hard consequences. If there's a positive to this, at least DM & co were stopped from printing them.

Wow, that seems a tad harsh?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Does Katie work for the DM, I ask because she seemed to defend them in the excerpt I read.

 

[Osipi]

Does Katie work for the DM, I ask because she seemed to defend them in the excerpt I read.

Nicholl is a royal correspondent for the Daily Mail on Sunday from all I've been able to gather.

 

[ACO]

Wow, that seems a tad harsh?

For hacking someone's privacy and threatening to expose them? Nope.

 

[burbankstorylady]

For hacking someone's privacy and threatening to expose them? Nope.

The photos weren't hacked or otherwise stolen from her. She never had them in her possession. She posed, they were taken, and they were in the possession of the photographer. If they were stolen, the photographer can sue, but Meghan has no legal recourse here.

 

[ACO]

The photos weren't hacked or otherwise stolen from her. She never had them in her possession. She posed, they were taken, and they were in the possession of the photographer. If they were stolen, the photographer can sue, but Meghan has no legal recourse here.

Not really sure what you are talking about but the pictures in question were clearly from Meghan's phone taken by her. What photographer? She has plenty rights if that is what they plan on doing but seems the matter has been handled.

 

[Winnie]

Wow, that seems a tad harsh?

Harsh, I disagree. Hackers are the scum of the earth and can murder a person's reputation and ability for decent work. If this type of punishment was dealt out to all hackers, the fun of others destroying another person this way would eventually stop. It is another type of bullying and those that do such slime dealings are mutations that have a mental problem and should be publically destroyed. They think they are funny but they are not. JMO

 

[Spectator]

The photos weren't hacked or otherwise stolen from her. She never had them in her possession. She posed, they were taken, and they were in the possession of the photographer. If they were stolen, the photographer can sue, but Meghan has no legal recourse here.

Yes she was hacked as the pics were taken from her phone and cloud

 

[Zaira]

Wow, that seems a tad harsh?

Not to me. Its a sex crime and should be punished accordingly.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Nicholl is a royal correspondent for the Daily Mail on Sunday from all I've been able to gather.

Makes sense why she would be promoting them in her book. I just wish someone would call her on her nonsense and stop just letting it fly by.

 

[Osipi]

Some people do see the words "Daily Mail" and rush right out to get it. Its what appeals to them regardless of the credibility of its writers or if the information is factual rather than exaggerated.

 

[Rudolph]

Mace @RoyalVision on Twitter posted this.

I’m sorry but I find this awkward and in bad taste. Seems like Harry and Meghan are certainly doing it their way. On a recent visit to Ulster, Meghan signed the guestbook as ‘Meghan’ , the prerogative of a royal highness, which she will be soon enough but not now.

Diana and Kate signed as Spencer and Middleton in engagements leading up to marriage.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZE5fAaW0AEY2gN?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

[wyevale]

I imagine [but we cannot KNOW] that Ms Markle signed thus out of the informality well known amongst Americans, rather than any over-hasty assumption of Royal Status..

 

[ACO]

Am I missing something? She signed her name. Harry signed "Harry" and she followed suit with hers. I feel some are just looking for things to be upset about these days.

 

[Rudolph]

Harry signs as ‘Harry’ because he’s royal. He’s not being friendly. Meghan is still Markle until her wedding day.

 

[ACO]

Meghan is also Meghan. Where did I claim it signed it to be friendly? I said she just followed suit. Maybe she didn't know. Harry was right there. Could have informed her since he wrote first. Besides people have seen this and until now no fuss, so clearly not that big of a deal.

 

[Osipi]

OK. Where are the culprits with the shovels that are making a mountain out of a molehill?

Stories abound these days everywhere.

 

[Rudolph]

Meghan will be Royal soon enough. She’ll have the whole shebang then. Surely she can wait another two months.

 

[jacqui24]

Considering that's not a legal document, she can sign whatever she wanted. She is Meghan and that's that. Royal or not.

And I've signed plenty of unofficial documents with just my first name. It's NOT because I believe I'm royal, but I just believed signing my first name was sufficient in that case. Likely the case with Meghan after she saw Harry signed with just Harry.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Am I missing something? She signed her name. Harry signed "Harry" and she followed suit with hers. I feel some are just looking for things to be upset about these days.

I imagine [but we cannot KNOW] that Ms Markle signed thus out of the informality well known amongst Americans, rather than any over-hasty presumption of Royal Status..

Exactly. Agree. I am clueless that her signing just her first name (alongside Harry) is a 'presumption of Royal Status'. Who thinks like that? No American. I think we can safely say that that is a subtlety that would not have been in Meghan's thinking. Rather I could see her thinking that signing 'Meghan Markle' alongside Harry's 'Harry' would look like a 'look at me' gesture (to be avoided).

BTW does Harry even know that little bit of protocol? As has been mentioned, Harry was right there. Wouldn't he have coached her to do it 'correctly' if he thought it important (or even knew about it)? Something about this strikes me as bogus.

 

[Rudolph]

Titled royals don’t use a surname. Diana Spencer signed pre marriage as ‘Diana Spencer’ and after marriage as ‘Diana’.

Harry is ‘Harry’ because he’s royal

On this side of the pond she’s Meghan Markle until marriage.

So we’ll chalk this up to Meghan thinking as an American but she needs to start thinking like a Brit.

 

[jacqui24]

Titled royals don’t use a surname. Diana Spencer signed pre marriage as ‘Diana Spencer’ and after marriage as ‘Diana’.

Harry is ‘Harry’ because he’s royal

On this side of the pond she’s Meghan Markle until marriage.

So we’ll chalk this up to Meghan thinking as an American but she needs to start thinking like a Brit.

So you are telling me anyone that signed a guest book without a last name is pretending they are royal in UK?

And again, Harry was right there. If it was really such a taboo thing, he would've said something to her.