The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024

[muriel]

Prince Harry loses court bid to name Rupert Murdoch in hacking claim

But the Duke of Sussex was granted permission to alter his case to include further accusations against journalists and private investigators.

www.bbc.co.uk

What a shame!

 

[Ghost]

What a shame!

The thing is that a legal suit has procedures that must be observed. Maybe it’s not always obvious but it’s not a school yard to report to the teacher all the meanies.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

The Duke is just going to have to accept that he will get no justice in this case.

 

[Curryong]

The case has not ended yet, just adjusted under Justice Fancourt’s instructions. Best not to jump to too many conclusions about this one too early.

 

[angieuk]

Not sure where to put this at all? The BBCIPlayer has just made available the entire series of SUITS available for 1 year. I have just started watching Series 1. I am enjoying this so much. Meghan, as Rachel ZANE, is super in the series along with all the other cast-members. I think she would have gone on to more interesting parts as an Actress like many others have done after the series ended. Such a shame we won't see that now. I think acting was her real passion.

 

[muriel]

The Duke is just going to have to accept that he will get no justice in this case.

That is a pretty big statement to make, and might be considered slanderous to the UK judicial system as a whole.

 

[shady lady]

He might get a few "wins" here and there, but the losses are going to increase, especially if he doesn't understand or care about procedures, doesn't listen to good advice, lacks the respect to turn up when directed to (that's happened at least once) and thinks he can waste the court's time to settle personal scores against Murdoch, Morgan etc. Also at some point (if not already) the costs are going to be a serious issue; Hugh Grant settled his case for that reason. I also think PH should also familiarise himself with the term "vexatious litigant" because he could end up on that path if he's not careful.

As Ghost says, it's that playground mentality, rather than that of a mature and responsible person who is nearly 40.

As for Suits, I was disappointed with the BBC for wasting licence payers' money on it, but I am glad to hear that at least one person is enjoying it.

 

[Chimene]

I think “justice” in this case means getting what he wants. He’s also looking for money and dragon slayer something something…

 

[Hallo girl]

I do believe he has genuine grievances , he is determined not to allow out off court settlement, he appears to view that as the culprits getting away with things. Probably why he commented on others making ‘secret deals’ as he saw it. He wants people named and shamed, I do sympathise with all of that but he really needs to think carefully about what he is doing, all this pressure cannot be good for anybody. Never mind the finances, I also hope he is making these choices for himself and not other people encouraging him.
Also when he does appear as a witness that he has his ducks in a row and provides facts not thoughts or opinions.

 

[Ghost]

I started watching Suits when Meghan came on the royal watching scene. I got bored pretty quickly, before the end of the first season, same same like so many mediocre series.
The ones who impressed me (characters, I mean) were the ones of Gina Torres and Rick Hoffman. If not for them, it could have been any other legal series, and I’ve seen so many better than this one.

 

[Chimene]

At this point I think his lawyers are taking him for a ride. I’m not saying he doesn’t have cause for his anger, but a court of law is a matter of principle and evidence not just your feelings. The press is aberrant, we all know this, which is all the more reason to not engage in pay for play with them.

Edit to add example of pay for play as a way to avoid being speculative.

Prince Harry 'rejected King Charles' invite to stay at royal residenc…

archived 21 May 2024 17:37:53 UTC

archive.ph

We all know this is factually incorrect. It’s not Charles’s decision to pull security. Furthermore, if security is automatic why would anyone be able to remove it? This is meant to confuse the people who are not aware or want to pay attention. Let’s be disciplined and principled if you really wish to make a stand.

 

[Snowangel]

Not sure where to put this at all? The BBCIPlayer has just made available the entire series of SUITS available for 1 year. I have just started watching Series 1. I am enjoying this so much. Meghan, as Rachel ZANE, is super in the series along with all the other cast-members. I think she would have gone on to more interesting parts as an Actress like many others have done after the series ended. Such a shame we won't see that now. I think acting was her real passion.

I have been watching Suits, and think it was great. And I agree with you, I think Megan's acting was her real passion too.

 

[muriel]

I did watch Suits when it first aired, and enjoyed it. I thought Meghan did a good job as Rachel Zane. Its just some of her off-screen antics in the context of the BRF that I have perhaps not been supportive of.

 

[Ghost]

Very interesting development and implications in the visa application suit.

Lawyers aim to keep Prince Harry 'law enforcement' documents secret

The development comes after a hearing in February in which a think-tank argued that details of the Duke of Sussex's March 2020 visa application should be made public.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And this is a comment to that article:

“I think the public has a right to know if he's here on a diplomatic visa. We could be paying for security and other benefits. Plus you can't work here on a diplomatic visa and he's earned millions here in the US. the public has a right to know.”

 

[Somebody]

The argument that there would be ‘stigma attached’ and there are ‘law enforcement documents included’ sounds rather weird if it was a straightforward application and approval.

 

[Asteria12]

The argument that there would be ‘stigma attached’ and there are ‘law enforcement documents included’ sounds rather weird if it was a straightforward application and approval.

He's still a member of a foreign royal family, so diplomatically, I imagine that US officials would treat his application differently to your ordinary "Joe Blow" application.

Which is of course the reason why questions have been asked.

 

[Ghost]

He's still a member of a foreign royal family, so diplomatically, I imagine that US officials would treat his application differently to your ordinary "Joe Blow" application.

Which is of course the reason why questions have been asked.

It would be relevant to know what kind of visa was granted to Princess Madeleine. Almost similar status.

 

[Chimene]

We know he’s getting preferential treatment, that’s a given. I don’t really care that much about this story except if the documents were to be released, which it won’t, for once this guy would be made to take responsibility and accept the consequences of his actions. That would be a valuable lesson for him to learn at the tender age of 40 since no one taught him anything apparently.

 

[shady lady]

Meghan appears to be criticised by Nigeria's First Lady over 'nakedness'

MEGHAN Markle has appeared to have been criticised in a speech by Nigeria’s First Lady over her “nakedness”. The Duchess of Sussex recently jetted to Nigeria earlier this month fo…

www.thesun.co.uk

The Sun is not a source I like using at any time, but it has the video of the First Lady speaking and more info about the trip.

The article also states that MM spent almost £120k on jewellery and clothes for the three day trip.

If that statement is true, then I think that's disgraceful and just shows up MM for what she is IMO - vain, self-obsessed and utterly selfish. It's both disgusting and wasteful. Moreover, apart from two outfits I saw (out of the many, many changes of clothes), she completely failed to dress respectfully and appropriately!!!

Feel free to disagree but consider how much good £120k would have done for homeless veterans or Nigerians in poverty. And no need to reply about how much money is spent on the BRF's wardrobe, they are doing a job they are paid to do representing the UK people (and are spending less on clothing in some quarters) and often recycle their clothing; HRH The Princess Royal is well known for doing this, often wearing outfits she was last seen wearing in public a few decades ago. MM is only interested in representing one thing - herself.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Link to article and video here:

Meghan appears to be criticised by Nigeria's First Lady over 'nakedness'

MEGHAN Markle has appeared to have been criticised in a speech by Nigeria’s First Lady over her “nakedness”. The Duchess of Sussex recently jetted to Nigeria earlier this month fo…

www.thesun.co.uk

The Sun is not a source I like using at any time, but it has the video of the First Lady speaking and more info about the trip.

The article also states that MM spent almost £120k on jewellery and clothes for the three day trip.

If that statement is true, then I think that's disgraceful and just shows up MM for what she is IMO - vain, self-obsessed and utterly selfish. It's both disgusting and wasteful. Moreover, apart from two outfits I saw (out of the many, many changes of clothes), she completely failed to dress respectfully and appropriately!!!

Feel free to disagree but consider how much good £120k would have done for homeless veterans or Nigerians in poverty. And no need to reply about how much money is spent on the BRF's wardrobe, they are doing a job they are paid to do representing the UK people (and are spending less on clothing in some quarters) and often recycle their clothing; HRH The Princess Royal is well known for doing this, often wearing outfits she was last seen wearing in public a few decades ago. MM is only interested in representing one thing - herself.

For me, watching the video of the First Lady of Nigeria was more informative than the Sun article - and I certainly agree with you about that source.. Wow! Paraphrasing, the First Lady said “we do not want our girls emulating film stars in America” and “nakedness is not beautiful.” She also mentions Meghan by name in another statement about her coming to Africa, but I’d have to watch it again to ascertain what the First Lady meant.

If we were uncertain before, I’d say this video confirms it was not a government sanctioned visit.

 

[Sister Morphine]

LOL. She really is quite ridiculous. Harry threw his family in the trash for a modern-day Wallis Simpson, only this one isn't a Nazi admirer. I'm not sure who advised her that going to a predominately Muslim country with a wardrobe that is best suited to the Riviera (French or Italian, take your pick) was a good idea, but it very clearly wasn't.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

I personally don't mind if Meghan spends a lot of money on clothes. The funds are hers, to use as and how she wishes. If she chooses to use them on expensive clothing, is that really any business of mine?

Saying that, there are definitely optics to consider for these kinds of trips. Especially around modesty and religious standards. So, I don't mind that she wore expensive dresses, but I think she should have chosen outfits that fully covered her shoulders and back. Too many of them looked like beach wear to me.

 

[Alison H]

As Meghan is a private individual and is not a working royal or any other sort of official representative, how much she spends on clothes really isn't anyone's business but hers. However, if they're going to go on faux official trips, they're going to have to accept that there will be criticism - and it's usually aimed at women.

 

[Magnolia471]

As Meghan is a private individual and is not a working royal or any other sort of official representative, how much she spends on clothes really isn't anyone's business but hers. However, if they're going to go on faux official trips, they're going to have to accept that there will be criticism - and it's usually aimed at women.

If it had been any public figure, there will be some criticism because showing up in expensive clothes in an African country would be inappropriate even for a "private citizen". Then don't use this pathetic third-wave feminism to defend Meghan because Harry didn't walk around with three rolexes on his wrist.

 

[Alison H]

If it had been any public figure, there will be some criticism because showing up in expensive clothes in an African country would be inappropriate even for a "private citizen". Then don't use this pathetic third-wave feminism to defend Meghan because Harry didn't walk around with three rolexes on his wrist.

Please do not just lump an entire continent together. And kindly don't tell me that I'm being "pathetic". Women's clothing is always remarked upon. Men's rarely is. That is a fact.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Yes, women are far more scrutinized for what they wear than men are. Has been true since the dawn of time and will continue to be true long after the heat death of the universe and we're colonized on another planet.

It's not about the expense of the attire (as a private individual, her spending is her own affair), but rather the oversight that no one in her entourage advised her against wearing such attire to a predominantly Muslim country, which could be seen as highly disrespectful. In 2024, it is widely recognized that many, if not most, Muslim-majority countries observe standards of modesty. For example, it would be unthinkable to visit Tehran and stroll around dressed like Daisy Duke, so why go to Nigeria dressed like it's a 4th of July barbecue?

 

[shady lady]

Yes, women are far more scrutinized for what they wear than men are. Has been true since the dawn of time and will continue to be true long after the heat death of the universe and we're colonized on another planet.

It's not about the expense of the attire (as a private individual, her spending is her own affair), but rather the oversight that no one in her entourage advised her against wearing such attire to a predominantly Muslim country, which could be seen as highly disrespectful. In 2024, it is widely recognized that many, if not most, Muslim-majority countries observe standards of modesty. For example, it would be unthinkable to visit Tehran and stroll around dressed like Daisy Duke, so why go to Nigeria dressed like it's a 4th of July barbecue?

I suspect she was advised on how to dress, and didn't listen. As per.

 

[victor1319]

I'm not sure who advised her that going to a predominately Muslim country with a wardrobe that is best suited to the Riviera (French or Italian, take your pick) was a good idea, but it very clearly wasn't.

Well, to be fair, in Nigeria is the relationship muslim and christian very much 50 - 50. And I believe, but do not know for sure, the Sussexeses were in the South, which is predominantly christian. But modesty in in some regions a christian value too... The First Lady of Nigeria ic christian too.

 

[EllieCat]

I'm a Christian and what MM wore in Nigeria doesn't offend me – great for beach wear – however it was highly inappropriate for the occasions, especially wearing a virtually backless and sideless dress for a school visit.

 

[Somebody]

I personally don't mind if Meghan spends a lot of money on clothes. The funds are hers, to use as and how she wishes. If she chooses to use them on expensive clothing, is that really any business of mine?

Saying that, there are definitely optics to consider for these kinds of trips. Especially around modesty and religious standards. So, I don't mind that she wore expensive dresses, but I think she should have chosen outfits that fully covered her shoulders and back. Too many of them looked like beach wear to me.

Next to optics, assuming that Harry and Meghan are reimbursed for the costs of this trip by Invictus, if that includes a clothing allowance, it might not (only) be her own money that was spent.