The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023

[Asteria12]

My opinion and then I leave for the night:
He had a troubled childhood full of trauma and the man he is today is a consequence of that life and the reactions and rebellions against his family. Scars run deep and even if he and the other celebrities win the case, I have the feeling he still won't find peace in his mind.

I don't think after the coronation he should even consider returning to the UK. He needs to move on and reinvent himself in the USA, it's a big place and in time he'll find peace in his Montecito chicken farm.

I think SO many people would agree with this suggestion, if only he and his wife would too!

 

[Denville]

why will he find peace in America? if he's traumatised and unhappy, he has to find peace within himself. Going to a new country wont necessarily improve things for him

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Exuse me? Phone tapping is illegal. It was then and it still is now. As to why he and the others did not sue earlier, I would think it lies in the Levinson Report. The actual details of many detailed instances were not released nor published in an endeavor to avoid a riot I assume. However, those terms have been leaked which is why someone like Harry has found out personal invasions into his phone, etc, that he had not previously been aware of. In his case I believe that the Palace, once again in it's primary role to protecting the throne and direct line was more worried about the throne than the people. Finding out that pertinent information was kept from you from those you should be able to trust is a betrayal of trust.

I .am sure that thought is furthest in his mind as he deals with the court. The fact that he is here, now, is the fault of what he has decided to refer to as The Institution!

There are those that would banish him from the shores of the UK forever and have been snarling about every other little thing they can think of from his book as a reason that he should not have come, not be in the UK and certainly not part of a Class Action because according to them, he has no rights whatsoever because he did this or that or he's trying to upset his father and stepmother or William and Catherine. It is clear to me that as far as many posters on this thread are concerned he has absolutely no rights in general and no right to sue because more truth may inadvertantly be exposed that is not to the credit of those in BP or KP.

I don’t think people think he should be banned, but that simply if you complain about a country being unsafe and making hypocritical statements and comments, maybe just don’t go to said country especially when you literally have a court case about security against the government that has recently cost taxpayers £300, 000.

 

[Denville]

well of course he should not be banned, and he is bound, having family here and occasional business, to come here for short periods. I can't see why he should be criticised for doing this.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

well of course he should not be banned, and he is bound, having family here and occasional business, to come here for short periods. I can't see why he should be criticised for doing this.

It is just the fact that he’s made so much unnecessary and silly comments and statements about security plus the lawsuit which is upcoming is why. What actual “business” does he have? Netflix? Just recently he had blamed the institution for him not being allowed to sue or be aware of the news hacking done many years ago.

 

[Denville]

It is just the fact that he’s made so much unnecessary and silly comments and statements about security plus the lawsuit which is upcoming is why. What actual “business” does he have? Netflix? Just recently he had blamed the institution for him not being allowed to sue or be aware of the news hacking done many years ago.

what does it matter? He felt he needed to come and appear at this law hearing. Fine if that is something he feels he needs to do. He's not harming anyone or breaking any laws. He is bound to come to the UK at times, he has family here and will pay at least occasional visits. He is not barred from the country. Why would people make a fuss about this?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

what does it matter? He felt he needed to come and appear at this law hearing. Fine if that is something he feels he needs to do. He's not harming anyone or breaking any laws. He is bound to come to the UK at times, he has family here and will pay at least occasional visits. He is not barred from the country. Why would people make a fuss about this?

He actually didn’t have to come because he wasn’t called to come to court for this particular case so it wasn’t necessary. Him “feeling the need to come”, doesn’t mean he actually had to come. Plus this discredits his security concerns. If you don’t feel safe somewhere, do you go there? No. But anyways, I am personally not concerned whether he comes or doesn’t, like other posters, I just think it’s ironic and hypocritical but I am not bothered by this.

 

[Denville]

He actually didn’t have to come because he wasn’t called to come to court for this particular case so it wasn’t necessary. Him “feeling the need to come”, doesn’t mean he actually had to come. Plus this discredits his security concerns. If you don’t feel safe somewhere, do you go there? No. But anyways, I am personally not concerned whether he comes or doesn’t, like other posters, I just think it’s ironic and hypocritical but I am not bothered by this.

mabye he doesn't feel safe here, but that does not mean that he wont come at times. He may never feel entirely safe in the UK.. or in the US, but he has to live somewhere. Just because one has security concerns doesn't mean that you never ever go somewhere that you dont feel safe.

 

[Kataryn]

what does it matter? He felt he needed to come and appear at this law hearing. Fine if that is something he feels he needs to do. He's not harming anyone or breaking any laws. He is bound to come to the UK at times, he has family here and will pay at least occasional visits. He is not barred from the country. Why would people make a fuss about this?

Butwhere will he live now he hasn't got Frogmore Cottage anymore? Being a guest of his father certainly is not the solution. I can't understand why Charles took the House away. William has the flat in Kensington Palace, Anmer Hall and Adelaide Cottage and Harry now has nothing. Or did I miss a thing?
He can stay with friends or even his cousin Eugenie, but that not being "at home" in the UK anymore.

 

[Denville]

what do you mean? He lives in America. He has a house there, but he has got relatives here and while they are probably very wary of him, they are n ot going to treat him like an outcast as the DOW was treated. He will be in the UK at times. He is not going to LIVE in the UK again, in the foreseeable future. His home is in the US and that's where he will be living for probalby the rest of his life.

 

[TLLK]

Butwhere will he live now he hasn't got Frogmore Cottage anymore? Being a guest of his father certainly is not the solution. I can't understand why Charles took the House away. William has the flat in Kensington Palace, Anmer Hall and Adelaide Cottage and Harry now has nothing. Or did I miss a thing?
He can stay with friends or even his cousin Eugenie, but that not being "at home" in the UK anymore.

As the Sussexes are rarely in the UK and Royal Lodge Windsor is in great need of extensive repair, the King and his advisors have made (IMO) a sensible decision to end the couple's lease on FC and offer the newly renovated home to a full time resident, the DoY. The King has to consider what is the most sensible and cost effective management of the estates in the long term.



As I understand it, there are currently no full time royal residents at Windsor Castle or St. James Palace, so there should be some lodging available for the Sussex family when they come to for visits.

 

[Denville]

As the Sussexes are rarely in the UK and Royal Lodge Windsor is in great need of extensive repair, the King and his advisors have made (IMO) a sensible decision to end the couple's lease on FC and offer the newly renovated home to a full time resident, the DoY. The King has to consider what is the most sensible and cost effective management of the estates in the long term.



As I understand it, there are currently no full time royal residents at Windsor Castle or St. James Palace, so there should be some lodging available for the Sussex family when they come to for visits.

Harry doesn't' need a house in the UK for his brief visits. However I think its more that Charles is tidying things up at present than that he is definitely offering FC to Andrew. I think he just wants to sort things out and not leave FC unoccupied for too long. He will probably have it done up and maybe offered to some other royal, maybe Andrew or to someone who wants to rent a house in Windsor and can afford it.

 

[Queen Claude]

why will he find peace in America? if he's traumatised and unhappy, he has to find peace within himself. Going to a new country wont necessarily improve things for him

For Harry the US, particularly Cali-forn-eye-ay, probably is very appealing with its legal weed and availability of doctors who are willing to indulge wealthy patients and their whims.

 

[Denville]

That's not going to improve things for him. Frankly from what I've seen of Harry since he left the UK, he seems weepy, angry, stormy and unhappy. Taking drugs, legal or illegal, wont solve probelms

 

[Winnie]

why will he find peace in America? if he's traumatised and unhappy, he has to find peace within himself. Going to a new country wont necessarily improve things for him

I certainly agree. It is not the location that has caused Harry's problems. I believe it is quite a few of his own mental grievances whether they be 100% true or huge fibs [lies] to make his life seem plain beastly. Until this man can honestly admit to the proven lies that have been either printed by him or stated by, he and his wife publicly, there will never be peace for him mentally. Yes, he might have a strong image of himself being second to his older brother and the great jealousy it caused but again that is his own mental problem in childhood. To want to destroy the family that made his brother the future king and him just a spare with such malice and almost nasty vengeance is not quite normal. He can't believe the very privileged life he always had especially being the spare by not having the huge responsibilities that his older brother will always have on his shoulders. In a way I do feel sorry for him and his mental confusions but on the other hand I would enjoy slapping him for the wrong way he chose to get back at his brother and his family. Jealousy is a real evil mental problem that has caused huge problems everywhere in history and family life. People that covet another for whatever reason and try to destroy them, have a true wicked mind set. Just my old opinion.

 

[yukari]

More from the trial; two other PIs claim that ANL knew (even encouraged) them in their illegal bidding in gathering information.

Daily Mail journalists ‘knew blagger PI was hunting for news illegally’

(...)

In a statement to the privacy battle between Prince*Harry, Sir*Elton John, and a host of high-profile individuals, Portley-Hanks says he paid “cash bribes to US law enforcement” in the course of his work.

He claims “from around 1999 onwards, most of the stuff that I did was illegal” and insists journalists within the Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) knew about and approved his work on their behalf (yesterday another PI gave written statement that he wasn't commissioned by ANL).

(...)

A third PI, Steve Whittamore, has called the Mail group his “best customers” and insisted he “worked to order”.

“Every job I did was at the instruction of a journalist”, he said.

“I am in no doubt that all Associated journalists and executives who used my services on a regular basis, knew that the information relating for example to ex-directory phone numbers, mobile conversions, telephone bills and billing data and ‘Friends and Family’ requests, would be obtained through illegal means such as blagging”.

(...)

ANL is asking for a judge to dismiss the privacy claims, arguing they are being brought too late and using material presented to the Leveson Inquiry which should have been kept confidential.

(...)

The last part above was denied by Harry's team.

Prince Harry’s lawyer denies leaking documents from Leveson Inquiry in privacy battle with Daily Mail publisher

(...)

A key part of the legal battle is a series of ledgers - said to show evidence of payments to private investigators – which were handed to the Leveson Inquiry into press standards in 2012.

(...)

ANL is seeking to exclude the evidence from the privacy battle, arguing its confidentiality was secured by Leveson Inquiry rules which can only be overturned by a government minister.

But Mr Sherborne argued those involved in the inquiry do not have a “super-added duty…to police any use they see by third parties of the same material.”

He insisted that the evidence can be lawfully deployed in civil proceedings if it has come into the public domain by another route.

In its written submissions to the court, ANL has pointed out that Hurley, Sir Elton, and Furnish are all “close friends of Hugh Grant who was a core participant in the Leveson Inquiry”, and added that Baroness Lawrence is “associated” with another Inquiry witness, DCI Clive Driscoll.

(...)

Am I understanding correctly to surmise that this is not another hacking case but one which already been covered during 2012 inquiry?

Why now, 11 years later? Sure Harry can say that the "institution" told him not to press charge back then and now that he's no longer part of the institution he can do it, but what about Elton John et all? He knows Hugh Grant long before now, right? (if the so called evidences did come from him and not illegally - which would be quite ironic: suing illegal activity by doing doing illegal activity. or maybe two falses can make one right?)

Then there's statute of limitations. Say, if ANL pushes for dismissal because it's passed the time limit, would they need to admit that they did those hacking? I mean, to have something expired it has to exist in the first place, right?

I can't decide which would be worse for Harry. He surely wants it go on trial (apparently these 4 days are only preliminary hearing, not the actual trial), but if this go to trial I can see ANL to push him to stand as witness and I dread to think what the kind of worms that will be uncovered. As we've seen in Meghan's lawsuit, if it's not for the trial, we won't know how far she had colluded with Omid for Finding Freedom and those emails also give her sister new ammunition to sue her for defamation - which is very rich coming from her considering all those interviews she did badmouthing her little sister (btw, how's that lawsuit going? anyone know the the latest update?)

Or maybe now that he's already aired all his dirty laundry in Spare, he has nothing else he's afraid to be uncovered?

And the Sussex drama continues ...

 

[Mirabel]

Butwhere will he live now he hasn't got Frogmore Cottage anymore? Being a guest of his father certainly is not the solution. I can't understand why Charles took the House away. William has the flat in Kensington Palace, Anmer Hall and Adelaide Cottage and Harry now has nothing. Or did I miss a thing?
He can stay with friends or even his cousin Eugenie, but that not being "at home" in the UK anymore.

Well, he's made it clear he doesn't want to live in the UK any longer. Why should he be entitled to a property that will be standing empty for years?

When he visits, he will be able to find accommodation in any number of royal residences, so I don't see any problem.

 

[MARG]

That's not going to improve things for him. Frankly from what I've seen of Harry since he left the UK, he seems weepy, angry, stormy and unhappy. Taking drugs, legal or illegal, wont solve probelms

More from the trial; two other PIs claim that ANL knew (even encouraged) them in their illegal bidding in gathering information.

Daily Mail journalists ‘knew blagger PI was hunting for news illegally’



The last part above was denied by Harry's team.

Prince Harry’s lawyer denies leaking documents from Leveson Inquiry in privacy battle with Daily Mail publisher



Am I understanding correctly to surmise that this is not another hacking case but one which already been covered during 2012 inquiry?

Why now, 11 years later? Sure Harry can say that the "institution" told him not to press charge back then and now that he's no longer part of the institution he can do it, but what about Elton John et all? He knows Hugh Grant long before now, right? (if the so called evidences did come from him and not illegally - which would be quite ironic: suing illegal activity by doing doing illegal activity. or maybe two falses can make one right?)

Then there's statute of limitations. Say, if ANL pushes for dismissal because it's passed the time limit, would they need to admit that they did those hacking? I mean, to have something expired it has to exist in the first place, right?

I can't decide which would be worse for Harry. He surely wants it go on trial (apparently these 4 days are only preliminary hearing, not the actual trial), but if this go to trial I can see ANL to push him to stand as witness and I dread to think what the kind of worms that will be uncovered. As we've seen in Meghan's lawsuit, if it's not for the trial, we won't know how far she had colluded with Omid for Finding Freedom and those emails also give her sister new ammunition to sue her for defamation - which is very rich coming from her considering all those interviews she did badmouthing her little sister (btw, how's that lawsuit going? anyone know the the latest update?)

Or maybe now that he's already aired all his dirty laundry in Spare, he has nothing else he's afraid to be uncovered?

And the Sussex drama continues ...

Kind of funny that this is being presented as merely a case of Prince Harry throwing his toys out of his cot? A little actual research of the "facts of the matter" would have shown that far from being all about Prince Harry, there are others whose lives were affected by the actions of ANL.

. . . legal proceedings in which he and other A-listers - including Elton John, his husband David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Parliament member Doreen Lawrence and Jude Law’s ex-wife Sadie Frost - are suing Associated Newspapers Ltd.

A little more attention to the details and less personal monstering of Prince Harry might actually show Sussex family actual news and events!

 

[Curryong]

Yes, and Ldy Doreen Lawrence is a co-complainant of Harry’s in this case, and was the mother of a murdered son, a high profile hate crime. She is fine being a co-complainant and states

In documents filed to court, her lawyers said Lawrence “cannot think of any act or conduct lower than stealing and exploiting information from a mother who buried her son for this reason”.

“She feels used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool.”

Rather than campaigning due to a genuine desire to get justice for Stephen, she “now sees that the Daily Mail’s true interests were about self-promotion and using her and her son’s murder as a means to generate ‘exclusive’ headlines, sell newspapers, and to profit”.

Let’s be clear, this tabloid, its sister papers and their agents aren’t some innocent babes in the wood here!

 

[Ghost]

The thing is that this is a thread about the Sussexes, so people will disscus the Sussexes. I am old enough to remember Elton John since before his marriage to Renate (incidentally, it was on the day the pregnancy with Harry was announced). I know what a diva he is and I don’t care. As I don’t care for the rest of them - Hurley or Frost. They are celebrities doing their thing as celebrities. The only one for whom I have huge compassion is Baroness Lawrence, and I have a feeling (that is not necessarily rational) that she’s being played.
Now, Harry is in a very long process of transforming himself from a royal to a celebrity.

 

[yukari]

Kind of funny that this is being presented as merely a case of Prince Harry throwing his toys out of his cot? A little actual research of the "facts of the matter" would have shown that far from being all about Prince Harry, there are others whose lives were affected by the actions of ANL.



A little more attention to the details and less personal monstering of Prince Harry might actually show Sussex family actual news and events!

Speaking of details, I believe I included parts where it mentioned other claimants when I quote the article and i even wonder why Elton John only go with the lawsuit now considering the statute of limitations and if the information indeed comes from Hugh Grant, I doubt they've known each other long, right? So why only now and and not years ago post Leveson Inquiry when the issue still a hot topic? But this thread is Sussex thread and moderators are quite strict with the rules on what can be discussed here, so I try not to break the rules much at risk of this thread being closed.

 

[iceflower]

The Duke of Sussex at the High Court today, March 30:


** gtresnews gallery ** rex gallery ** dm article **

 

[Curryong]

https://archewell.com/news/meghan-t...ertainment-podcast-host-by-the-gracie-awards/

Today, The Gracie Awards announced that Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex was named top Entertainment Podcast Host for her groundbreaking podcast series Archetypes. The Gracies “recognize exemplary programming created by women, for women and about women in all facets of media and entertainment.” This award honors outstanding original content that both entertains and informs in a highly engaging and authentic manner.

Archetypes revealed a discerning narrative that endures, as Meghan and her guests engaged in candid conversations about the labels and tropes that try to hold women back. Archetypes debuted at Number 1 in The US, UK, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand, and topped the charts as the Number 1 podcast in 47 countries.

Congratulations to Meghan and the Archetypes team on this incredible achievement!

“Thank you to the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation for this prestigious honor. This is a shared success for me and the team behind Archetypes – most of whom are women – and the inspiring guests who joined me each week.”
Signed Meghan.

Well done to her!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracie_Awards

 

[Kenya]

Then there's statute of limitations. Say, if ANL pushes for dismissal because it's passed the time limit, would they need to admit that they did those hacking? I mean, to have something expired it has to exist in the first place, right?

I'm not an expert in UK law, but much of American law is derived from the UK. Here, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and a total bar to suit. Even if a defendant did the action alleged in the suit, a plaintiff has no remedy if they didn't file their case within the limitations period. That said, a defendant does not have to admit to the conduct alleged to invoke the statute of limitations, and courts don't inquire about the defendant's culpability at all in resolving that issue.

 

[Alison H]

They have to bring a case within 6 years of learning that they were victims of the alleged offence. Associated Newspapers says that they must have known - although it says that it did nothing wrong anyway - by 2016, i.e. 6 years before they started proceedings. They presumably claim otherwise.

 

[Toledo]

https://archewell.com/news/meghan-t...ertainment-podcast-host-by-the-gracie-awards/

Today, The Gracie Awards announced that Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex was named top Entertainment Podcast Host for her groundbreaking podcast series Archetypes. The Gracies “recognize exemplary programming created by women, for women and about women in all facets of media and entertainment.” This award honors outstanding original content that both entertains and informs in a highly engaging and authentic manner.

Archetypes revealed a discerning narrative that endures, as Meghan and her guests engaged in candid conversations about the labels and tropes that try to hold women back. Archetypes debuted at Number 1 in The US, UK, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand, and topped the charts as the Number 1 podcast in 47 countries.

Congratulations to Meghan and the Archetypes team on this incredible achievement!

“Thank you to the Alliance for Women in Media Foundation for this prestigious honor. This is a shared success for me and the team behind Archetypes – most of whom are women – and the inspiring guests who joined me each week.”
Signed Meghan.

Well done to her!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracie_Awards

Congrats to Meghan and her Archetypes team on the Award.

 

[ACO]

Meghan just won. Samantha's case was dismissed.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63132583/70/markle-v-markle/

 

[Curryong]

Excellent news. I’m very pleased. Samantha’s case had no legs anyway.

 

[yukari]

They have to bring a case within 6 years of learning that they were victims of the alleged offence. Associated Newspapers says that they must have known - although it says that it did nothing wrong anyway - by 2016, i.e. 6 years before they started proceedings. They presumably claim otherwise.

In his witness statement, Harry blamed that the “Institution” for his delay in bringing legal action against the*ANL.
(I'm quoting The Times article I posted #1853)

(...)

The duke said that after the start of his relationship with Meghan in 2016 he “started to become increasingly troubled by the approach of not taking action against the press”. He complained that when the News of the World phone hacking scandal was uncovered he was never invited to any meeting of the royal family to discuss what had happened.

“The institution made it clear that we did not need to know anything about phone hacking, and it was made clear to me that the royal family did not sit in the witness box because that could open up a can of worms,” he said.

“The institution was without a doubt withholding information from me for a long time about ... phone hacking, and that has only become clear in recent years as I have pursued my own claim with different legal advice and representation.”

(...)

IMO, he sort of admits that he did know about this hacking pre-2016, it's just that "the institution" prevented him from suing them. Hence the question keep asking here: why only fill lawsuit now? why not earlier, say 2019 or 2020, because by that time we've seen that "the institution" no longer has any say on what he can or can't sue. Let say he knew about the hacking between 2014 (there's BBC article from that year that explicitly mentions of Harry being hacked) to 2016, filling lawsuit in 2019 or 2020 would be ideal since it's still within 6 years period and at that time he still had much public sympathy which wouldn't hurt him in term of gaining public support PR wise.

Same question to other claimants in this lawsuit (at the risk of triggering moderators' warning from being out of topic): why now? Leveson Inquiry was 2012. If the evidences they're using are from this inquiry (however they get it), what prevent them from suing earlier? People involved in NotW's hacking were drag to court not long after the inquiry, why didn't they do the same to ANL?

I don't really care if the ANL or DM meets the same fate as NotW. But for those who's really seeking justice against ANL, wouldn't it be upsetting to lose the case simply because of statute of limitations? While their lawyers will still get money of this no matter whether they win or lose.

And before I offend Harry's defenders, I keep emphasising statute of limitations because it's not about right or wrong nor fair or unfair. You see, Japan only abolished the statute of limitations for serious capital crimes like murder in 2010 (also extending the statute for crime like rape from 15 years to 30 years). Prior to that, there's many case where victims and their families couldn't get justice even though the perpetrators were found simply because it passed the time limit. It's very unfair (or how very upsetting it is for the victims and their families), but it is what it is.

 

[Toledo]

Meghan just won. Samantha's case was dismissed.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63132583/70/markle-v-markle/

Two wins in one day. Congrats to Meghan and her legal team. I hope she moves on past this and doesn't give Samantha a single mention of her name in any media form. This would only fuel her up into dragging another court case.