Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex SUES The Daily Fail!

Good for her, although it will only serve to give the horrid invasion of her privacy more exposure.

The Mail on Sunday and The Daily Fail are two different newspapers. The Fail on Sunday IS NOT the Sunday edition of the Daily Fail.

Have any papers published pics of her naked little tits?

r2 actually it is, they are the same company / sister papers.

She's stupid to go at war against the Fail.

r5 Melania Trump sued them and won. I think Meghan and Harry can handle it.

R2 - The are owned by the same company (family) but they have two completely different staffs.

Go, Meghan!

Kick 'em in the balls, and make those shitheads double over in pain!

Fucking DAILY FAIL assholes.

But the difference is that Melanie is a Russian whore.

Meghan is a princess (or whatever the hell title she is) and the sort of knife fight it can turn into isn't a good look. Still, overall, I'm glad she's not letting them get away with it.

John Lennon/Yoko Ono repeat themselves in Harry/Meghan.

This will only end in tears.

R4 - The are owned by the same company (family) but they have two completely different staffs.

The Fail is more scared of Trump and they have potentially more unsavoury bits against the Sussex.

The Fail was nice during the Tour, it's stupid to attack them when they finally give the Sussex good press.

Go Meg's!

[quote]Have any papers published pics of her naked little tits?

Why would we want to see that?

It's Harry's cock we need to see.

r7 and r11 they only have separate editorial staffs. They share resources otherwise. Also, I believe many of their writers (such as Piers Morgan) publish in both papers. They may have a different name, but they are run by the same people and the same company behind it all, with the same conservative tabloid viewpoint.

It's in the Wikipedia article, read it for yourself.

r12 the lawsuit has been pending for some time, this isn't a new thing, they just hadn't pulled the final trigger yet.

It will also help ensure their "good behavior" continues.

R16 Lol, ok.

r12 you sound like one of those wives who don't want to anger their husbands because they will beat them if they do. He'll be different the next time! He promised!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Yeah, of course they're going to try to dredge up the "green controversy" they started, to further heckle them. I hope the Sussexes get millions.

R18 Don't be gross.

The Sussex have good press and could keep the good press. Why would they antagonize the press right now?

That's just a dumb move. It's not only Meghan suing, it's also Harry stupid speech today.

All the journalists on Tour did their best to lick the Sussex's clit, that's how they're thanked.

Good, I hope she wins. I prefer to call it The Daily Heil though.

Can they sue her skeezy father too?

r21 they're not antagonizing "the Press", they are antagonizing The Daily Fail, which is the antithesis of good press.

It's also entirely possible that the tour was reported well because they did everything well, and they couldn't come up with an angle to slam the Windsors with.

I hope daddy gives the receipts to expose her lying ass.

Oh wow. I actually like Meghan, but... I don’t know if this is it. The racially charged headlines need to absolutely stop. But I’m worried that this is only going to rile up the press more as she has shown that it’s getting to her. And to do this after 2 weeks of good press is just bewildering

R24 Your naive, Harry's speech was not only against the Daily Fail.

Chris Ship did a great exercice of ass licking few days ago, do you think Harry makes the differences between the Fail and Chris?

She will lose the case. probably case dismissed. This will be another embarrassment to the BRF.

I wonder if they were given notice about something coming out and decided to take quick action? The timing of this is just so off

r25 the receipts for what? They are suing because she didn't agree to the publication of her private letter to her father, which is against the law in the UK. And I'm sure her father would have already monetized everything he could, anyway. He should be happy, now the Fail can pay him some more to whine and act like a huge pussy.

r27 oh dear! Also: I have no idea what you mean.

R30 So, you don't follow much of the Sussex and the press.

Why do you even comment?

r31 just kill yourself and go back to your "Dangling Tendrils" threads, idiot.

R32 Lol, I knew it.

And.. blocked.

R34 Like I care....

Is she really being treated any differently from any other royal who has done the same thing(s) or engaged in the same behaviors?

Whether it's Fergie's toe sucking incident or the plethroa of Andy's activities or Charles's desire to be Camilla's feminine hygiene product, I don't see that she's necessarily been treated any differently by the paper than any of the rest of them although the commenters on those articles are clearly racists.

Even Diana had her own troubles with the tabloids:

[quote]He (Early Spenser) spoke of how Diana, in the year after her divorce from Prince Charles, had “talked endlessly” of leaving Britain, “mainly because of the treatment that she received at the hands of the newspapers. I don't think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media, why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It is baffling”.

Stray mangled dogs fight, people watch out!!!

R36 - Early Spencer is just as delusional as the rest of the Windsor clan.

R36 Charles wanted to be Camilla's knickers, he joked it would be his rotten luck to return as a tampax.

R36 There was 1 headline which a racist undertone, the "Straight outta Compton' one.

Otherwise, no, every woman in the family has been treated badly but her stans can't stand the idea she's not universally adored, so any bad news is a "racist" lie.

[quote]Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has take the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.

Her father and the people who hate her on here are such unbelievable trash. God, you're all just fucking parasitic piles of shit. And no, idiots, you don't actually have to even "like" her, but to actively hate someone who isn't even a politician is insane.

[quote]but her stans can't stand the idea she's not universally adored, so any bad news is a "racist" lie.

You have to be a complete imbecile to think there isn't a racial aspect to the animosity towards her. As much shit as the US gets for racism, Europe is still way more backwards despite the pats on the back they give themselves.

She's kept silent until now and good for her for doing this. Her letter is her letter.

The racism is so clear, even to those of us who could give a shit less about this whole drama. What a fucking shame it's coming out of a country that has such a clear reputation for fairness and inclusion.

r40 incorrect. Some of us just want her treated fairly, and a lot of the venom towards her is not normal behavior, no matter how much you might like to pretend it is.

Deja vu all over again.

This is the same mistake Harry and Meghan made before they were even engaged: taking on the UK press.

Meghan knew when she sent that letter that her father would never keep it private. They can sue the Mail on Sunday and even win the case - it won't disguise the fact that Meghan had trouble with her father because she dumped him the identitcal minute she met Harry and handled the whole thing badly from the get-go. She's also coming off again as the Poor Little Rich Duchess in Her Four Million Dollar Cottage With Her Million Dollar Wardrobe Her Nanny Her Chef Her Private Secretary And Her Private Jet Trips With A-List Celebrities.

Don't they see how this makes them look?!

I would venture to guess that the Mail on Sunday (do remember that this is NOT the DM!) is only too delighted to reexpose the issue, or they would have settled.

Either way, the Sussex's lose: if they win an "invasion of privacy" case, the rest of the tabloid crowd will not only not back off, but will have her face in every cubicle with a target on it and take off after her after due consultation with their lawyers from now till Domesday.

If the suit is dismissed, the Sussexes will look like arses and the tabloids will still have Meghan's face with a target on it in every cubicle.

I'm unable to parse out the law and the merits on each side, but thsoe thinking this is the DM having a "comeuppance" should think again.

The irony is, the public have pretty much forgotten about that letter.

Now, they'll be reminded of it all over again.

R41 Fuck you, I said there was a racist undertone.

Now, where do you put the limit between usual tabloid trash and racist tabloid trash?

R43 What is fair for you? What are we allowed to say about Meghan? Clothes? Hollydays? Private flights? Or nothing at all?

R24 - FFS, can you READ? It is NOT the Daily "Fail". That is a completely separate paper. It is the "Mail on Sunday".

It is NOT, NOT, repeat NOT - THE - DAILY - MAIL-FAIL.

Sorry about that, but it's not.

R46 I'm sure that will change everything.

Cry Baby Harry - the more he complains, the less appealing he becomes. He really lost me by comparing his wife to his mother Diana. He's 35 years old and he still uses his mother's death to win sympathy. Jerk.

r46 we understand they are separate papers. They are basically the SAME STAFF though, with the exception of the editors. They publish many of the same articles by the same people.

Semantically, you are correct - they are separate papers. But in every way that matters, they are the same entity. Why are you so Concerned about making this point?

Get a load of the Republican/Tory in r48

[quote] He really lost me by comparing his wife to his mother Diana

Bullshit. He "lost" you the minute he married a woman. And a bi-racial woman at that.

That's when you realized that you had absolutely ZERO chance of ever being with him, and so you started to lash out at Meghan, like all the other haters on this thread.

R49 - Legally, that difference is everything.

R51 Not everybody want to marry a Gammon.

Yeah, we know that's something you don't get.

So does this mean we get to find out how much money the Daily Mail paid Megan‘s father for that letter?

My guess is $20,000.

Who wrote that for Harry? No way he's that eloquent

R52 It's true for the trial, but not for Harry's statement and they go hand in hand.

R52 - I don't like whiny men so Harry isn't attractive. You've got a lot of anger issues that need to be addressed.

Whatever problems I have with some of the things they have done, I don't blame them for this. Because it's her father, it is extremely hurtful and private. And Harry still probably believes the press killed his mother. The British press should cover official outings and otherwise, leave them the hell alone. They probably won't like that either. But it's got to be one extreme or the other.

R55 Meghan wrote it, you don't think he writes anything by himself.

He really lost me by comparing his wife to his mother Diana.

He really did marry his mother, didn't he? I'm not saying they don't have a genuine complaint against the DM but it also seems that those two cannot tolerate *any* criticism of their conduct and interpret any criticism towards Meghan as racism. Racism certainly exists, but there are other valid reasons to criticize both of them that have nothing to do with race. But they seem themselves at martyrs at the alter of Saint Diana, the Patron Saint of Publicity Whores. Sigh.

In the long term, I'm thinking this will turn out to be a dumb move & blow up in their faces.

R50 - you're not very bright.

Sometimes the BRF (of which she represents) rises above the daily tabloids. She needs to realize she's not a "commoner" anymore. She can't have it both ways.

R50 - More than one poster has had the same response: it's time for him to stop counting on his mother's ghost to do his whingeing for him. Harry's a fucking eejit. You'd have to be blind to miss it.

And take your fucking political hatred to another thread.

The tabs have been sued by royals before and lost cases before. They will continue on their merry way. And their knives will be out for Meghan for the rest of her life as a member of the BRF. They'll throw more shade at her than Sauron covered Mordor with.

The thing is Harry had such positive PR for so long , he can't stand any negativity.

He was sure Meghan would be adored, she's not so he has a tantrum.

Wow, if this ain't a troll thread then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Racists being tedious and repetitive again, how surprising.

She's got the law on her side, good for Harry for sticking by his family, and let the chips fall where they may!

r52 this is who they're suing. Associated Newspapers (aka DMG Media). The owners of BOTH The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.

So please fuck off with your "legal" semantics. Legally, they are suing the parent company. Happy now?

I hope she will also sue her father, it will make things much more funny.

r63 I started this thread, you can fuck off to another thread.

Harry needs a psychiatrist. He’s viewing things through mothers’s narrative. Meghan isn’t Diana.

R19 - Right at the top of the page, too, in giant type.

What I find to be the interesting nugget here is the paper's refusal to settle privately (that is, pay the Sussexes a handsome sum and publish an apology), after many months of exchanges. The papre have fleets of solicitors on staff who were undboutedly consulted during the process.

If the paper refused to settle, it can only mean they received legal advice that the paper has a good chance of prevailing (i.e., having the suit dismissed). In a sense, I wonder if that refusal to settle is some sort of "bait" that the Sussexes have jumped at unwisely, and the paper is out to strike a blow for a genuinely free press, which at the moment, Britain doesn't actually have.

I wonder if Dimwit is playing right into their hands with this. Because as noted in another thread, that "letter story" has been wrapping chips for ages.

If the tabs have that nasty story on Meghan that so many have been insisting they have . . .

This would be the opportune moment for the paper to inform Harry and Meghan of its existence.

She certainly isn't. Girl has got nerve and yankee steel. Bring it on, Brit bitches.

This woman craves daily publicity and new clothes.

This woman will be having a hissyfit if the newspapers ignore her.

They have a big problem if they’re going to try and sue over that letter.

A week before the Mail published it five of her friends talked about the contents of the letter to People Magazine.

That’s how the press came to know about it in the first place.

I think they are going to lose. Her friends were bad mouthing her father by talking about this letter - and publication of the letter will be seen as a legitimate way for her father to defend himself.

Big mistake.

This woman and Sad-sack Harry will be exiled to Jamaica in the next decade.

She will be back in the USA on Prime Time soon enough.

[quote]If the paper refused to settle, it can only mean they received legal advice that the paper has a good chance of prevailing (i.e., having the suit dismissed).

I agree, the big tabloids have tons of lawyers. They'd be crazy not to; they're probably threatened with legal action all the time.

I meant to say:

Harry needs a psychiatrist. He views things only through his mother’s narrative. Meghan is not Diana.

[quote][R55] Meghan wrote it, you don't think he writes anything by himself.

It was written by his legal team, it's not corny or lowbrow enough to be Meghan's writing.

It's not about lawyers. It's about selling more papers. Greed rules the world now.

I don't think she could sue in the US. She wrote it, it left her hands and went into her father's hands, so it is his property. I don't think she would have standing to sue in the US. I wonder how she does in the UK.

" Why are you so Concerned about making this point?"

R49 - Because there are so many people who do not like Piers Morgan and that woman married to Michael Gove that some of us would love to the Daily Fail get a kick in crotch. I am willing to bet that few people in the Us have ever read The Mail on Sunday. The Mail on Sunday is a lot less a British version of MAGA than the Daily Fail featuring the verbal vomit of Piers Morgan.

R49 - I care because the person I want to take the punch is really not in this fight

So, I’ve just looked up who owns a letter in the UK.

Her father owns the letter, Meghan owns the words. In the same way as you own a book on your shelf but the writer owns the words.

Regardless of ownership, it’s potentially OK to publish excerpts in matters of “criticism, review and new reporting” and not just titilation and gossip.

Meghan could try and claim that the letter was clearly confidential.

The thing is (as I said upthread) the letter was brought into the public realm by 5 of Meghan’s friends - so there goes “it was confidential”.

I really don’t think they have a leg to stand on.

It’s also notable that Harry is accusing everyone of telling lies about his pwecious pwincess bwide - without bothering to point out what the lies actually are.

What a pair of idiots. I bet they were advised against this but, as ever, took no notice.

r73 is right. If the MoS is able to show that the People interviews with the friends who mentioned the letter prior to publishing were (even indirectly) sanctioned by her, then the MoS can use that to undermine her claim that the basic contents of the letter are things that but for the MoS would not have been in the public domain. The invasion of privacy case will be much reduced if it turns out those People interviews had anything to do with the PR firm she uses.

Also, r82 is right - the letter is her father's property and his to sell, so the MoS coming into possession of the letter was legal as he clearly sold it to them. So she can't use that as part of her case.

I'm predicting the MoS wins this one. And now, the letter is back on the front pages, when it would have been so much better for them to have just let it fade into obscurity.

Overall, this is an unwise move. To throw in the misguided Diana reference is also unwise as the British public do not see her as remotely comparable to their beloved PD.

Mistake after mistake. It's incredible to watch, really. They need better advisors, and fast.

R66 - Very Happy! Thank you for the clarification.

Like these two cunts or not, you have to admit they're a tiresome duo. Reading about their constant preaching to the plebs while hypocritically doing the opposite, saying they want privacy but dispatch the photographers to "secret" trip by Meghan to honor murder victim, the list goes on and on. If they're this annoying in public imagine how they are in private. If Harry is this stupid in public imagine what he's like behind doors.

I think the timing was definitely planned to coincide the end of their Africa trip while whatever goodwill generated is still hot. Also because these two cunts can't stand not being out of the limelight and the news.

I forgot about the PEOPLE Magazine article in which her five "anonymous friends" indignantly defended her honour and mentioned the letter.

Of course, every one of those people will deny that Meghan sanctioned their cooperation. I'm sure her lawyers have been in touch with them warning them of the impending suit, and they've probably all now got lawyers of their own.

This situation is as messy as the stupid woman blabbing to friends about Geoffrey Rush. And Geoffrey Rush having to sue the newspaper who reported the blabbing instead of sueing the stupid woman.

Meghan's probably disappointed that they didn't "break the Internet" as a result of this trip, and she needed to do something to get more attention.

R87 They did more than mention the letter, they basically quoted it.

That Markle wrote the letter in the hope that her Dad would publish it (and then got friends to talk about it when he didn’t) is so obvious that even the creepy Scobie man admitted it was her way of “being heard”.

And I’ve always thought that it was utterly disgusting that Markle would manipulate her father like that.

She knew that if he HAD gone running to the press he would be decimated for sharing a “private” letter. But her father being hated was less important than her public reputation.

The woman is a complete and utter cunt. If they lose this case & it emerges that Mr & Mrs Private have been getting her friends to speak to the press, they are finished.

Agreed, r87. I'm sure that the friends will deny any prompting. However, I'm not sure the MoS lawyers necessarily need them to say they were asked by the PR firm or by Meghan to mention the letter. They can, for example, throw the possibility of her own complicity in publicising the letter into the mix if they can show there were other times that People actively coordinated with Meghan or her PR firm. I'm reasonably sure they can do that. Having said that, it's not open-and-shut either way.

But r90 brings up a very good point. Scobie's comments are something I would definitely use if I were on the MoS legal team.

[quote]Harry needs a psychiatrist. He’s viewing things through mothers’s narrative. Meghan isn’t Diana.

You're a fool who doesn't get that it's actually going to be even worse for Markle specifically because SM is a nightmare. It destroys people by spreading lies faster and it's a place where psychos get together like jackals to pat each other on the back for hating this woman and coming up with insane reasons why they hate her.

And her father is an absolute pos who should drop dead. What a loathsome, betraying shithead. No matter the strains in their relationship, you do not betray your child ever.

R92 Right. So it’s perfectly OK to write a “private” letter to your father then get your friends to tell the world what it says when he doesn’t go running to the press with it?

You’re an idiot.

PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEE!!!!

What a candy ass crybaby!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]The Streisand effect is a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread it is increased.

Duchess, have you meet Ms. Streisand?

Remember this?

Prince Harry nude in Vegas:

Her father really is a fat scumbag, a money grubber, and a publicity whore. Neither knowing or caring anything about her, I can still clearly see what her father is about.

[quote] Bullshit. He "lost" you the minute he married a woman. And a bi-racial woman at that. That's when you realized that you had absolutely ZERO chance of ever being with him, and so you started to lash out at Meghan, like all the other haters on this thread.

LOL. R51, Henry Windsor-Mountbatten is a gun-loving, Nazi-uniform-wearing, balding, nearly-school-dropout "kidult" who would be stocking shelves at Tesco if it wasn't for his daddy Charles and nepotism. He compared the war in Afghanistan to a "fun playstation game". He's a dunce and mentally under-developed, just like almost all the males in his inbred, elitist family (e.g. his Tourette-syndrome-like grandfather, his cheating, dim father and his sexual-pest uncle).

Henry is a pathetic redneck at heart. The fact that he now parades around barefoot and gives condescending, empty "tree-hugger" speeches while jetting around in private planes is so transparently two-faced.

He hates the DM and the Mail on Sunday with a vengeance. Because they were the papers that dared to expose to the public his deep-rooted hypocrisy and red-neckness. Like this photo where he went hunting water buffalo with his beloved guns with his pals, while he was preaching to the public about "loving & protecting animals".

there's an old line you've probably heard but worth repeating; you do not pick a fight with anybody who buys newsprint by the ton.

Even if she wins the action, she loses the war. The Maul will never forgive her and the Maul won't just do nothing about it.

R100, I'm not into hunting myself, but I don't get the overreaction to Harry going hunting a few times. That water buffalo was legally hunted -- I looked it up.

Based on the bits and pieces of her letter I read it appears her father is a big fat piece of shit, opportunistic, liar. He told the tabloids Meghan had changed her number and he couldn't contact her when she told him plainly her number had never changed and he had blatantly lied.

I seriously doubt he will ever see her again and it's no one's fault but his.

She doesn’t care. If the media swipes back, she’ll just whip out her Race Card (Carte Blanche, haha) and play victim.

[quote] Her father really is a fat scumbag, a money grubber, and a publicity whore.

Like father like daughter.

So, r104/r105, why do you are so much?

*care so much

R107

I am R105, not R104.

I am commenting on a public forum about a public story. Same as you.

Wow she hired an attack-dog law firm who is universally abhorred by the British press. MM does mean WAR this time. Prepare for a barrage of super injunctions on the news of these two hypocritical fakes from now on.

Why would you wait so long to sue? This girl used to open suitcases on tv. She should just stfu and pop out another baby.

r108, you care enough to attack her, based on nothing, since you don't know her. With the father, he made it who he was very clear, right down to handing the letter over to the tabloids. Tacky and trashy.

Btw, she is not a "fat" scumbag, so you're also wrong.

These two are drama queens. Pains in the ass. Just like his mother, Harry and his wife do stupid shit and then cry over the press. Ugh.

I thought Harry was the popular, down-to-earth Royal that was popular with the British public?

r80 but Piers Morgan writes for the Mail on Sunday, too. He's listed as a contributor. In fact almost all of their named writers have been published in both papers.

R110 I think there have been protracted attempts to get the MoS to print an apology &/or pay damages. They’ve refused so now they’re being sued.

Post-Levenson most papers will apologise if they don’t think they stand to gain much by court action. Look at The Sun and their perfectly true story that clips of Markle could be found on YouPorn. They apologised without really having to.

That the MoS won’t even apologise strongly suggests they are are sure of their case. Their lawyers are every bit as expert as anyone Markle can hire.

This could get really good, you know.

Daily Mail is such a sleazy operation. It's kind of hilarious anyone would take its side.

Oh go away, R111. You’re the one on here hoping an elderly man will drop dead soon. Not only are you a bit thick you’re a hypocrite too.

Bore off. You are not interesting enough to engage with.

Which one was the newspaper that hacked the cellphones of a bunch of celebrities a few years ago?

Was that the Daily Mail or the News of the World?

"You’re the one on here hoping an elderly man will drop dead soon."

Where did THAT come from, r117? Out your fat ass!

Triggered MARY at r117!

r118:

Phone hacking

Under Peter Wright's editorship of the Mail on Sunday and his membership of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the Mail newspaper organisation withheld important evidence about phone hacking from the PCC when the latter held its inquiry into the News of the World's interception of voicemail messages. Specifically, the PCC was not informed that four Mail on Sunday journalists—investigations editor Dennis Rice, news editor Sebastian Hamilton, deputy news editor David Dillon and feature writer Laura Collins—had been told by the Metropolitan police in 2006 that their mobile phones had been hacked even though Wright, who was editor of the Mail on Sunday, had been made aware of the hacking. The facts did not emerge until several years later, when they were revealed in evidence at the News of the World phone hacking trial.[8]

Wright became a member of the PCC from May 2008.[9] He took over the place previously held by the Daily Mail's editor-in-chief Paul Dacre, who had served on the body from 1999 to April 2008. The PCC issued two reports, in 2007 and 2009, which were compiled in ignorance of the significant information from the Mail group about the hacking of its journalists’ phones. According to The Guardian journalist Nick Davies, whose revelations had resulted in the News of the World phone hacking trial and subsequent conviction of Andy Coulson, this reinforced News International's "rogue reporter" defence.[10] The PCC's 2009 report, which had rejected Davies' claims of widespread hacking at the News of the World, was retracted when it became clear that they were true.[11] Wright and Dacre both also failed to mention the hacking of the four Mail on Sunday staff in the evidence they gave to the Leveson inquiry in 2012.[12]

They will be thrilled when they have to pay the DM’s legal bills. That’s how it works in England.

Well, Melania sued them and won. And she's an actual whore.

Why did he marry that awful creature?

[quote]Well, Melania sued them and won. And she's an actual whore.

How did she get a settlement when what they wrote about her was basically true?

[quote]Why did he marry that awful creature?

Because I give a great blowjob.

[quote] The racially charged headlines need to absolutely stop.

Could someone actually link to an example of a "racist headline"?

[quote] The racially charged headlines need to absolutely stop.

Could someone link to an example of a "racist headline"?

R102, he didn't just shoot water buffalo - he hunted (and still hunts, despite his PR team trying to cover it up) all his life - in England, in Germany, in Argentina. The fact is that he obviously gets ENJOYMENT from owning GUNS and killing wild animals. Look at the smile-smirk on his face and posing like he's "a tough guy". Without a gun, that buffalo would cream him - but because he has a gun, even a fragile, whiny mommy's boy like him can role-play as "tough". He had a private chef on-call his whole life and kitchens stocked full with food - and yet he STILL likes killing, mostly "for the fun of it", as a "social pastime". It's a favourite redneck pastime of the Windsor-Mountbattens. The males in that family are mostly wimps and backstabbers (like Charles and Andrew), but like to shoot living things because it gives them a fake sense of "power".

[quote](and still hunts, despite his PR team trying to cover it up)

How do we know this?

Because he was spotted attending a hunting party with his inbred pals in Germany recently, R129. After he married anti-gun Markle, so he tried to keep it secret from the press. But he got exposed and he hates being exposed as a hypocrite - so his PR team went into over-drive: "Oh no, he was just "observing", not "participating" this time! Oh no, he was just there to support his gun-shooting, gun-loving pals and catch up with them!" and similar eyeroll-inducing excuses from his PR spin team.

He's fallen drastically in public opinion, r113

r114. You fail to make the necessary distinction between freelance writers and permanent editorial staff. Both DM and MoS may use writers contracted to the parent company, but the two publications are run by entirely separate editorial staff.

The MoS is a completely separate entity from the DM in the same way that Vogue is a separate entity from say, Teen Vogue, even though both are run by Conde Nast. If Teen Vogue were to publish articles from a writer who writes for Vogue, that still does not make Teen Vogue a part of Vogue or vice versa.

The Daily Mail using the headline "Royal car crash" is disgusting and almost a threat in context, it's gone beyond tabloid bitchiness at this point.

Back to legal matters, as posted on the newer thread, according to The Guardian, the author of a letter retains copyright even after sending it, the recipient doesn't. The MoS is standing by its publishing the letter and the story because the letter was not changed in any way. So, my question to any of you closeted barristers out there is, is the violation of copyright pendant upon changing the letter, or merely publishing it?

The Guardian piece also admits that there isn't much the Sussexes can do about negative stories about them, and that's why the Duchess chose the letter to strike back.

I'm curious as to what the fine point of the law is here. If it's altering the letter, the MoS has a good chance of winning. If merely publishing it is, then the DoS has a good chance of winning.

But one way or the other, it is now open warfare between the Sussexes and the press, and in my opinion, the press has the advantage here. The Sussexes cannot simply keep suing, the tabloids will be more incentivised than ever to print negative stories about her, they'll just be careful about how they do it, and the win, if it occurs, will I think be a pyhrric victory.

This litigation is being funded privately by the Sussexes. The BRF must not have approved this. So flabbergasting;!!

Horrors! First Brexit and now THIS!

r131 no, I specifically said they have separate editorial staff. What I am saying is that they share resources and are basically the same company. Editorial staff or not they are both conservative rags owned by the same corporation.

r134 no, it means they didn't want to get idiots (such as the ones in this thread) from crying about "taxpayer money". Of course, when you can invent entire conspiracies out of thin air, there's no need for actual facts.

[quote]Because he was spotted attending a hunting party with his inbred pals in Germany recently

Is this about Prince Harry's friendship with Franz-Albrecht? I know he does a lot of wild boar hunting.

This will work out as well as the last time Harry threatened the British media. And is he going to play the ‘dead Mummy’ card forever? It’s so not a good look for a 35 year old husband and father.

What is your investment in all this, r139? I have to ask.

r140 she's bitter and loves to wallow in it, even as it slowly kills her from within. It's sweet poison.

For the purposes of this case it doesn't matter that they are owned by the same corporation r136.

By the way, the editor of the DM is very vocally pro-Remain, so, not a conservative.

Wouldn't it seem outrageous to use taxpayers' money to fund a litigation against taxpayers? Didn't her PR team try to expose the names and photos of anti-MM trolls in DM comment sections some time ago? She means war now, gurlzzzz.

r142's the editor's view on Brexit aside (some Tories don't agree with it), actually it is conservative, it's listed as such. When did being a remainer mean you were automatically voting Labour?

What’s YOUR investment here, R140 and R141? You’re here too.

The people should file a class action lawsuit against Harry, for forcing us to look at Meghan's stupid face!

"By the way, the editor of the DM is very vocally pro-Remain, so, not a conservative." Doesn't mean DM isn't a gutter paper, r142.

r141, my question was about r139's investment of vitriol against Harry, not about her.

r145, this is my first time reading a thread about these two, and it's as much a DL shitshow as Chalamet threads. So I have no investment in this; it's curiosity, and believe me, it's now satisfied. And by investment, I mean investment in hatred. Why not save it for BoJo or Trump instead of some prince and princess?

Sorry, that's r140 posting above.

I'm with you OP. I hope they have to pay. I'm British and find her to be a breath of fresh air. The scrutiny and concocted BS is OTP. I don't worship Royals, nor do I put much energy into following their exploits and undertakings, but so sick of these people who live to hate her.

r145 because the ridiculous conspiracy theories and virulent hatred over her (which has now spread to Harry, because he defends her) is over the top and nasty. It's not funny, it's just meanness and spiteful hatred. And there's definitely a racist component to it, and probably some successful woman-hating as well. I'd prefer this place not turn into the Daily Fail's comments section.

I don't LOVE her, or really have much of an opinion other than she seems nice and wants to make an impact, if a little Frau-y, but she definitely does not deserve the way people behave when it comes to her. Every motive is looked at through the lens of some publicity-seeking sociopath, and frankly it says FAR more about the people posting the comments than it does about her.

If the BRF sued on behalf of the Sussex’s, they would be using private funds, not taxpayers money. So that’s an irrelevant point,

Smug and Mug are on their own here. Whether that’s significant or not, I don’t know, who sued over Kate’s tits? Was that them or the family?

[quote] “We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband. Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda”.

That’s the statement from the lawyers.

I don’t think they’ll get anywhere with the “private letter” bit as she (almost certainly) allowed her friends to talk to People about it & was therefore ultimately responsible for bringing it into the public domain and inviting comment.

The “campaign of false stories”.....well, let’s see. The MoS will presumably have to show the evidence they have for what they’ve published which will be fun & interesting.

I'm really glad they organized the tour around Archie's feeding schedule. I think it says a lot about Meghan that she shared that. Just like when she went to New York to watch the tennis. No doubt they copied that system.

r152 you were left behind as a child, weren't you? Poor thing.

[quote] Is this about Prince Harry's friendship with Franz-Albrecht? I know he does a lot of wild boar hunting.

R138, off-topic, but that reminded me: it was reported the Harry Mountbatten-Windsor took a [italic]private jet[/italic] to fly to his annual gun-shooting German "parties". So much for his claim that he always flies commercial and only takes private jets when he's "forced to protect his son" ("I don't want to take private jets - but I have to, to protect my family", he said) . His pal Oettingen-Spielberg is not his "family" or "baby" - but that still didn't stop Harry from jetting around on a polluting Gulfstream jet - and the purpose was just for so-called "fun": to shoot some guns at animals.

Sarcasm, R153. You may want to dust your towering intellect.

[quote] I don't LOVE her, or really have much of an opinion other than she seems nice and wants to make an impact

R150, you do obviously have an opinion on her. A very positive and slavish one: "She's very NICE and just wants to make an IMPACT". Whereas others, including me, think she's an obvious hypocrite. Being a hypocrite is not "nice".

[quote] and virulent hatred over her (which has now spread to Harry, because he defends her)

No, Henry Mountbatten-Windsor has been a fool and a constant national embarrassment since forever. Even the Taliban was bewildered by his public idiocy (when he called his own military team-member a "Paki" - which has racist overtones - and then compared the Afghan war to a console-game): "How could you have this moron as a prince?", even the Afghans said. And that was years before Markle. But Harry was protected by his mother's tragedy - until the age of ca. 30. After that, he's not a "young person" anymore - he's a full-fledged adult with a pattern of moronic, foot-in-mouth behaviour. But he's used to being coddled and being treated with kid gloves - so he doesn't like being questioned or criticised or held accountable for any of his actions. Which was on full display when he publicly LIED during his interview about his private-jetting and immediately did a trip & interviews to rehash the memory of his mom - to use his dead mom as a PR "pity-party" shield from any criticism he faced as an adult man for his backfired lies.

[QUOTE] rile up the press more as she has shown that it’s getting to her.

if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen, henny.

[quote]Wow she hired an attack-dog law firm who is universally abhorred by the British press

The British press is shit. If they're not rags, they're neocon mouthpieces. The BBC exclusively brings on assholes from neocon thinktanks to pretty much push anything that makes war more likely, so fuck the British media just like the US media which allowed a pos like Trump to become president.

[quote] they're neocon mouthpieces. The BBC exclusively brings on assholes from neocon thinktanks to pretty much push anything that makes war more likely

The BBC is often sub-par these days. But, in terms of war, e.g. Tony Blair wasn't a neo-con, he was a corrupt moderate liberal from a left-wing party.

Prince Harry--worse than Hitler AND his uncle Prince Andrew.

R156 I'm not defending the use of the abbreviation Paki if people are offended by it, but is common parlance amongst upper and upper-middle class Brits. I'll confess to having used it in the past, just as a distinction when someone wrongfully took a fellow to be Indian. The ones I knew were glad of the distinction I made. Many for some reason or another take it as an insult to be assumed to be "Indian". I never did bandy about the term as a pejorative slur. I happen to be mainly a Jew (with a touch of Irish) and growing up, felt Paki was a harmless noun akin to Jew.

Harry and Sparkle--worse than Hitler AND a modern-day Duke and Duchess of Windsor!

[quote] I'm not defending the use of the abbreviation Paki if people are offended by it, but is common parlance amongst upper and upper-middle class Brits ... I happen to be mainly a Jew (with a touch of Irish) and growing up, felt Paki was a harmless noun akin to Jew.

R161, no, "Paki" is not "akin" to "Jew". "Jew" is a full dictionary word - a noun that stands for a "Jewish person". It has a neutral connotation. Whereas "Paki" is more akin to "Jap" (a slur used against the Japanese and even Japanese-American citizens during WW2).

And most of Henry's military team-members would not be "upper and upper-middle class". He can chat like that in a private members' club in London, among other inbreds. But he was talking from his camp. A Pakistani or Indian soldier in his team would not be from the "upper class" like Henry. Most of the soldiers in his team were basically his 24/7 bodyguards (who were expected to die protecting him, if necessary), while Henry cavorted in the desert, flying multi-million, taxpayer-funded Apache helicopters like "PlayStation fun" (even though he kept flunking math and therefore shouldn't even have been selected as an "elite pilot").

I think Harry looks like a possum.

A bit.

R161 Are you British?

Presumably not otherwise you’d know that “Paki” here is an extremely offensive word - almost as offensive at the one that begins with “n”.

In the UK, you can be arrested and charged for using it. It’s hate speech. If you needed a word to describe a Pakistani person we already have one....Pakistani.

And, by the way, I don’t think Harry was using “Paki” to describe people from Pakistan....just brown people.

Which is unquestionably racist. As is “raghead” which he also used.

Henry

"Paki" is a derogatory word. What an asshole you must be to think it isn't. And you don't have to be British to know it.

Girls, girls! Have a Midol, y'all!

R165 reminded me of this.

Wasn’t there some other time they sued a paper for printing photos of their country house? Or did I make that up?

At any rate, if the press attention bothers them so much, the papers should just ignore them.

His teeth look terrible.

His teeth are worse than Hitler's.

She would die if the press ignored her. No joke

She's a regular Kardashian, r175!

r175 I'd prefer you died instead.

You’re making a bit of a fool of yourself with all your odd little comments R177. Neither witty not clever...just moronic and a bit teenage.

Says the queen at r178 getting her panties in a twist about the Royals.

"We are not amused."

r178 lol. Like I'd use my good material on you anti-Meghan freaks. I hope you don't write a 17-paragraph response and school me good!

r181, don't glom on to r178 acting superior and queenly over me!

We are very aware you don't use your "good material", you Harkle asslicker.

Now go on and call us all racist. I'll wait.

The other thing that's psychotic is how you freaks have your own lingo. First it was "sugars" and snide little nicknames for them (such as "Harkle", Megs, Mug, etc.) used to express your lip-curling disdain for the woman. It's almost cultlike, in fact. Don't you have a Landmark Forum brainwashing class to attend?

You're obviously sensitive about being called racist, but there's no legitimate reason to explain your emotional, rabid hatred of her otherwise.

Now go on, write me a 20-paragraph "summary" of all her flaws, trying to prove you aren't racist. I'll wait.

There's no emotional, rabid hatred. You're hilarious. Look at how worked up you get.

Compare our posts and really see who is bringing emotion into this. This isn't about you, although you're trying hard to make it just that. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[quote]The British press is shit. If they're not rags, they're neocon mouthpieces.

Excuse us?

r186, I would submit the vitriol you bring in your language about these two inconsequential people in your posts belies your supposedly above-it-all attitude. You hate them, that's clear.

R161 You really need to school yourself on which terms are racist and which aren’t. Your ignorance is astounding. As a comparison, middle class people in the US used to “bandy about” the N-word, not as a pejorative but just as a a description. The P-Word is the same. You also seems dumbfounded that a lot of Pakistanis were offended to be called Indian. Yes, just like the Chinese don’t want to be called Japanese. And just like your Irish grampy if he were to be called English.

Wonderful. The boring infighting has started and derailed this thread.

R190 What can we say? The Ginger Prince and his cringey wife bring out the worst in everyone and everything.

r190, I'm fine to step aside so that everyone can go onto the important business of Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex SUING The Daily Fail!

[quote]What can we say? The Ginger Prince and his cringey wife bring out the worst in everyone and everything.

Indeed. The worst.

And that in itself, speaks volumes about Preach and Leech. (Or Ginge and Cringe.....

Preach and Leech?

Well, since you asked R185.

Part one:

Markle went to Rwanda for less than a week a few years ago. A charity paid her expenses. She posted multiple stylised shots of herself (black and white of course) looking charming while interacting with little poor children (most of whom she didn’t even trouble to name) and allowed a magazine to use photographs of herself for a feature entitled “Humanitarian Fashion”. That’s right. A country as desperate and poverty stricken as Rwanda was the backdrop for a fashion shoot starring Meghan Markle.

She took the time to post a self-reverential essay about her selflessness for going and how her life was spent with one foot on the red carpet and the other in refugee camps. I repeat...she went to Rwanda ONCE for less than a week. And she never went to any other refugee camp....ever.

What she also didn’t do was spend any time at all talking about the people of Rwanda, what life is like there or how people could help. Not one word.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the essay (the only interesting thing) is when it was posted. Was it as soon as she came back from Rwanda? Nope. It was 8 months later and appeared front and centre on her blog just a couple of days before her relationship with Harry “leaked”.

How fortuitious that the first thing questing journalists looking for information on the unknown Meghan Markle would find when googling her was a self-penned hagiographic dissertation on her quite extraordinary life filled with selfless acts of charity!

Part 2:

In the same essay, she claimed she’d spent 6 years volunteering in a Toronto soup kitchen. She had not. On her profile on the Royal Family website there’s a load of guff about her volunteering in one as a child (it’s part of the curriculum for private Catholic schools in the US) - but not a whisper about her slaving away in Toronto for years. I wonder why?

She also bragged in multiple places that prior to becoming an actress she had a “career” working in an embassy in Argentia. Actually, she was an intern there for three weeks which she abandoned to go and open suitcases on a game show.

She claimed she “worked for the UN” and her work was “very important to her”. This “work” amounted to one speech...and that’s it. She never even went abroad on their behalf. That’s not “work” - that’s half an hour of self-congratulation in a carefully selected dress. The theme of the speech? That terribly important subject so vital to everyone - the glory and amazingness of Meghan “When Will I, Will I Be Famous?” Markle.

Part 3:

E) In the speech she told an uplifting story of herself, aged 11, becoming distressed at a TV advert she watched at school (kept in late because the LA riots were happening outside) for washing up liquid that had a sexist tag line. Boys sniggered and said, “Yeah..women are only fit for housework” and so she walked home with ash was drifting down from the riots and had a heart to heart with Dad who encouraged her to fight the sexism. She wrote to First Lady Hilary Clinton, famous feminist lawyer Gloria Aldred and ended up being interviewed by a famous female TV anchor. The ad makers changed their sexist tag line.

Lovely story.

Except the actual TV footage of the incident emerged and it turns out it was homework set by a teacher. All of the class watched different adverts, all of them were told to write to companies and Markle’s happened to be the only one that got a response.

The LA riots didn’t happen for another year. Hilary Clinton wasn’t First Lady yet. Gloria Aldred didn’t become famous until some years later and the person “interviewing” her was an anonymous male bod from some kids show not a famous female news anchor.

How embarrassing! Maybe she just has a poor memory?

Part 4:

Around the same time she claimed she was starting a girls’ program in India - she’d been working on it for 6 months and was sooooo excited. She’d never actually even visited India at that point and failed to talk about who the girls were, what the program was designed to achieve or how she was funding it. She didn’t mention any charity involvement or name any partner...just that it was her own project and that she was off there in January for two weeks.

When January rolled around she did indeed go to India - and spent a couple of days “observing” a menstrual health initiative started by a woman some years earlier who freely admitted she’d never even heard of Markle until about a week previously.

So, that’s strange, huh? What happened to her own girls’ program she was working on for girls she’d never met in a country she’d never visited? Six months of (presumably) research, fund raising, permit applications...all for nothing? Abandoned?

But if the program was cancelled, why go to India at the exact time she said she would anyway? And why did she need to quickly arrange to visit the charity a week beforehand?

Maybe she had plane tickets she had to use. Or maybe she was covering her arse because the girls program didn’t actually exist but she was on record talking about it? I’m not sure which to plump for!

Part 5:

While in India, when not “observing” a girls’ program she had nothing whatsoever to do with setting up, she got a seat at an extremely political conference attended by foreign ministers and diplomats. Quite why “Rachel off Suits” was there I have no idea...but she copped a strop at being asked to move seats for a group of Canadian diplomats (you know, people who had a reason to be there other than their own PR) and proclaimed that “no one would ever tell her to move seats again!”

A year or so earlier she gave a noble speech to the One World conference talking about her frustration at being forced into tight clothing on Suits - she’d even had to confront the producers about it but still they insisted! Her objection was on account of her feminist principles, you see,. Oddly, shortly afterwards she elected to be filmed for a men’s magazine (as herself, not a character) not only wearing tight, skimpy clothes but ripping them open to expose her underwear and then enjoying a burger with her tongue.

Yeah R194, Harry PREACHes to everyone about "doing their part" for the environment, while he larks about on private jets, hunting trips and oh, privately flying Range Rovers from England to South Africa.

And Megs, the Z list actress who goes from man to man (Father--->?Joe---->Numerous Men---->Trevor---->Corey----->Haz) LEECHing along the way.

Part 6:

When her relationship with Harry broke they made a complaint to IPSO regarding press intrusion. In it, Markle said she had no intention of speaking publicly about her relationship.

A few months later she spoke publicly about her relationship in return for the cover of Vanity Fair.

In the accompanying article she announced that she didn’t want to be defined by her relationship. The article was headed “Mad About Harry” and it seemingly didn’t occur to her (or she didn’t care) that without her famous boyfriend she wouldn’t even have made the cover of TV Week, let alone Vanity Fair.

I think it’s also worth mentioning that it’s rather strange that a committed feminist who doesn’t want to be defined by her relationship would allow herself to be styled as Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex - a courtesy title she only has because of who her husband is. She could legitimately have remained Meghan Markle and been just as married - completely her choice, and a genuinely empowering move.

Right, r195-r199, you're not consumed with hatred and emotionally invested in your positions--not you, Madame DeFarge.

Part 7:

Pre-Harry, on a trip to London, she demanded to be checked into an hotel under an assumed name, even though she had no public profile in the UK at all. On the same trip, she stalked out of the Grosvenor Hotel, refusing to stay because it’s owned by the Sultan of Brunei. How very principled of her!

However, Coworth Park is also owned by the Sultan of Brunei but she had no issue staying there when it meant being photographed watching her rich, famous, titled boyfriend playing polo. She was also happy for him to stay there the night before their wedding and they apparently both now use the spa there. Well, principles come and they go, I suppose.

Quite frequently she talked about how she hated having photographs of herself in magazines (she was rarely in them, to be honest) airbrushed - all the while posting endless filtered and airbrushed selfies on IG.

More recently she’s sagely warned about the dangers of perfect images in social media (“Is it really her?”) while sticking up stylised perfume ad worthy shots of herself every chance she gets.

Part 8:

Let’s talk about the baby shower. Meghan’s Mirror is a sychophantic site dedicated to what Markle wears. When she was in NY they were posting on Twitter where she was and where she’d be going. People started laying into them because the trip was supposed to be “private”.

So to defend themselves they posted the press briefing they’d been sent before Markle even left England. In it was an intinery of where she’d be and when. That’s why there were press barriers and photographers outside the hotels and restaurants....because she told them in advance she’d be there.

The fact is, Meghan Markle wanted to be photgraphed being showered with expensive and unecessary gifts by her millionaire “friends”. And this was at the exact same time her husband was in the UK talking about children whose only hot meal of the day was a free school dinner.

The security team’s report of the trip (obtained via freedom of information) said that she became concerned that she “might look as if she was enjoying the press attention”.

Compare and contrast that to Diana’s desperation to get away from them. Markle set it all up and then got embarrassed at the “optics”.

She goes on and on!!!

"Compare and contrast that to Diana’s desperation to get away from them."

r204, you lose credibility when you suggest Diana wasn't the biggest publicity whore and manipulator of the press you were likely to find. Come now.

In conclusion:

What is clear to me is that Meghan Markle has a long history of using “charity” to enhance her public profile. She boasted, bragged, invented and self-aggrandised to a quite extraordinary extent and nobody really cared because she wasn’t interesting enough to investigate.

But the embarrassing truth is that for a woman who is now claiming she’s been an “activist” and “humanitarian” her whole life her charity “work” adds up to about two weeks worth. And I’m not kidding. A few days in Rwanda and India, one USO tour, a single speech for the UN and another one for One World...and that’s it.

There’s a list of celebs and their charitable endeavours with about 750 names on it. Number one is the person with the most under their belt. Meghan Markle - selfless, lifelong campaigner according to her - comes in at about 745. There are dead people higher up the list.

It’s not nothing...but it is most assuredly not enough to be able to label yourself a “humanitarian” (who does that, anyway?) and claim that you divide your time between red carpets and refugee camps!

I don’t hate her...I think she’s a complete prat, quite honestly. I do, however, despise zelebs who blatantly and shamelessly exploit others for their own PR...and there’s no doubt in my mind that Markle is one of the worst examples of this.

If the cook book and the capsule wardrobe thing happen to benefit others that’s great...but it’s a by-product of Markle’s need for praise and adultation, as far as I can see. Thirty-eight year old leopards don’t change their spots and I don’t believe this woman has grown a conscience or suddenly started to genuinely give a crap about others when she patently never did before.

It’s all about her image. It’s all about HER. And we’re paying for this abhorrent and insulting showboating.

So tell me again that the only reasons anyone could possibly have to dislike this cunt are to do with her skin colour.

And yeah...I wrote this to post the last time we were all being accused by people like you of being racist, but couldn’t be bothered in the end.

Needs saying now, though.

Fascinating points R195-R201.

r207, these two people are such unimportant and minor human beings, it's really difficult to see why you'd get so worked up. The Royal Family have always always freeloaders and phonies--this is hardly a news flash. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were racist Nazi lovers who leeched off the country for decades.

DM just showed a ad blocker warning. If they think I would remove my Ad Block Plus for their trash they are delusional. The news always is available. Anyone else have this happen today 9 pm PST.

So Megs the grifter suing the media simply reinforces what a nasty, controlling cunt she is. Much like her defenders on this thread.

Does anyone remember when these letters were first published? Months before they were published, I had suggested that if she did write to her father, he'd probably sell them. Which he did. Does this letter look like it was supposed to remain private? I think she expected her father to sell them. It's a shame all around.

[quote][R207],The Royal Family have always always freeloaders and phonies--this is hardly a news flash. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were racist Nazi lovers who leeched off the country for decades.

Phil calls Markle "DOW" - for the Duchess of Windsor. Quite a few similarities, although, from the footage of the DOW, she did appear to be better well-groomed and dressed than our Markle.

[quote][R207], these two people are such unimportant and minor human beings, it's really difficult to see why you'd get so worked up.

Have you seen the flagrant and outrageous expenses our Markle has incurred? Her wardrobe alone, is more than ANY other Western royalty or leader. (In some cases, several times that of other royalty, e,g, Kate.)

Or the costs of security for her half-million dollar baby shower? While - as another poster said above -Haz was meeting with Britons who have a meal a day?

In these times of economic difficulty, Brexit uncertainty, flagrantly flaunting abuses of the British taxpayer is something many "get worked up over".

Hunty, r213, if your country is concerned about cutting costs, it should have cut the Royals loose a hundred years ago.

Jesus fucking Christ, the hyperfixated Essay Troll has been triggered, and, predictably, launched into endless paragraphs of misogynist loathing. This is the same mentally ill bitch who started a thread about Archie having Downs Syndrome.

The BRF threads from whence this obsessive originates are the habitat of more trolls than the rest of DL combined. The whores hate on MM as if it was their job. There is even a regular roll call of trolls on those threads.

R214

First off, I'm NOT your "Hunty".

Secondly, I have no say in British Royalty. (Have family there who are firmly Republicans.)

Third, I'm American and Markle is unfortunately, "ours" as she is (an) American (caricature). [Apologies, to the British.]

Lastly, I knew her briefly as she went to school with my sister here in L.A. Her reputation preceded her even then: a vapid, scheming, "mean girl". (The poster above with the series of posts about her is spot on.)

Wow, so many claims, r216! You hate her for her spendthrift ways but it's not even your taxpayer's money she's spending! You ARE crazy! AND you "knew" her! LMFAO!!!

R217, that poster who claims her sister knows Meghan also claims to know the ins and outs of every transaction the BTF makes. She pretends she has an insider in the Kensington Palace accounts dept.

"This is the same mentally ill bitch who started a thread about Archie having Downs Syndrome."

Is that true, r215? Wow--truly cuckoo.

Troll Troll at R215, you are showing your ugly colours again:

1) Name calling everyone as Trolls

2) Vulgar, unnecessary language

3) Victim accusations

4) Nonsensical Posts

You're wrong, r216. You will ALWAYS be my Hunty.

R219, yes. That poster who just wrote the essay is consumed with hatred for MM, just burning up like a demon. Her latest thing is saying Archie should wear an eye patch as she's convinced he has a vision problem. She also says Archie looks like 70 year old Thomas Markle.

The anti-Meghan freaks: Feeding off of each others' hatred and vitriol isn't healthy. And the minutiae you repeat as if it validates your points is unreal. You simply brand anything and everything she does as being motivated by self-interest and hubris and hint darkly at criminal intent, and then it somehow ALL MAKES SENSE to you, doesn't it? Even the things that doesn't really make sense? You're like the Birthers or the Hillary Clinton haters who are CONVINCED the people involved are criminal masterminds and ONLY YOU (and your other rabid freaks) can see through it.

If only you put as much thought and energy into your real lives, which I am sure you are severely neglecting...

Ooh, R220, accusing people of working for PR companies now, are we? Ugly Welp Troll.

R223, agree the MM haters are like false flaggers or other CT-ers. They genuinely believe MM has powerful backers and is scheming to bring down the BRF.

Oh dear, R223. Hurts seeing it all laid out like that and not being able to counter a single word. So what do you have left? A load of pointless insults. Have at it if it makes you feel better.

I posted all of that because I am FUCKING SICK of being called a racist for disliking a thoroughly dislikable person. If you can’t cope with that, that’s your problem.

R215 Just piss off. As usual your pronouncements are wrong. I’ve never started a thread in my life. Now, go away, you boring twat.

r226 oh, no, darling. Much like trying to convince a MAGA-hat wearing person that Trump is working against their interests and is damaging the country, you simply won't respond to actual facts. You declare them as purchased PR, or a fake story planted by shills, or some super powerful force that is working to undermine THE TRUTH from getting out! So there's simply no point in arguing with whatever slop you threw up in your 7-post essay. It won't matter one whit to you, because you are invested in the idea that this woman is the AntiChrist. Thank Jesus that we have YOU to warn us!!

[quote] "Paki" is a derogatory word. What an asshole you must be to think it isn't.

yet it is still an online web portal/social site for Pakistanis and they're fine with it

Meghan is not evil, just manipulative and less clever than she thinks.

The disgusting part is doing this during the Tour. South Africa pays for this Tour and they use it for their little PR war against the british tabloids.

Wait to be back home before launching your attack, but no Meghan put an effort to dress with potato bags just to be able to attack the press.

They don't care about Africa or African people, it was just a PR game to appear sweet and humble so they can play the victim.

I don't understand how people can still support those entitled assholes.

R228 Yes and black people use the N word, it doesn't mean you can use it if you're not black.

Interesting that you feel the need to put words in my mouth.

I don’t believe in dark forces, or planted articles or any of that shit. This is all about an ageing ‘actress” with a lacklustre career who invented a history of saintliness to try and boost her profile. She’s not the first and she won’t be the last to believe her own PR in this way.

And I don’t believe in either the Anti-Christ or Jesus. I leave such fairytales to the hard of thinking like you.

But you haven’t been able to counter or contradict one single thing I’ve said. Noted.

Now, isn’t there some TV show with a bewigged evangelical preacher that you should be rocking in front of?

👑 You Go, Princess Gurl !

[quote]Her latest thing is saying Archie should wear an eye patch

No, I’m the poster who suggested that, because it would look cool. I didn’t write those long posts because I don’t have the patience to address you for that long.

[QUOTE] Hurts seeing it all laid out like that and not being able to counter a single word.

Your inane points have been countered 100s of times before, but just to remind you:

Expensive wardrobe/baby shower - she came to the marriage worth $5m and bought many of the garments/paid for the shower herself.

Disowned father - he sold video interviews about her to the highest bidder. Why should she reconcile with him and have him leak more info? He can't be trusted.

Cradling her bump - natural behaviour. Only a creepy childless incel like you would be offended by it.

Renovating Frogmore - 3m is small change to the BRF when it comes to one of their listed buildings. PW spent 1m re-laying the drive at Kensington Palace.

Archie's Private Christening - he isn't titled, so why should it be public?

You don't like her clothes - she definitely doesn't like yours, dough monster

Virtue signalling - they're supposed to be involved in charities and raise awareness of issues

The sad fact is that you are in your 70s and DL is your only interest - why not post about someone you actually like for a change?

As I type this, Trump supporter Piers Morgan is on the TV slagging off Meghan and Harry. R231 ADORES him.

[quote]she came to the marriage worth $5m

Absolute pish. You must be Meghan herself to try to sell us such a load of horseshit.

R236, she'd starred in an internationally syndicated drama for seven years. She had a lot of endorsements. It's actually not hard to accrue that amount as an influencer and public figure. She also did many well paid interviews and photoshoots. There are articles saying she's worth that amount but none saying she isn't.

Whatever she is, she’s picked a hill to die on.

Would it have helped if they gave Meghan's father an offer of a non disclosure agreement of a substantial sum to stop him from running at the mouth? Seems like sister Samantha has been assuaged in some manner, since she is awfully quiet.

If daddy doesn't react in the coming days, I'll assume they finally paid him to shut up.

[quote] Renovating Frogmore - 3m is small change to the BRF when it comes to one of their listed buildings

In one of the many threads, someone was complaining that they had spent too much on Frogmore and an article was posted showing they'd actually spent just a little less than William and Kate on various renovations during the same year.

R241, William is the future "King" of England. Whereas Henry is the younger sibling, SIXTH in line to the throne. Not comparable at all. Henry should be costing the taxpayer ca. 6 times less than William. Henry's budget should be proportional to his lower rank in the "royal" family. He shouldn't cost "almost equal to" or "just a little less" than William.

Will and Kate live in a Historical building, any work gonna be expensive;

Frogmore Cottage is compared a shitty cottage to Kensington. It's surprising the renovation was that expensive.

Moreover, Kensington will be used by the Cambs when Will will be PoW. Frogmore Cottage will never be used for offices or reception.

[quote] I would submit the vitriol you bring in your language about these two inconsequential people in your posts belies your supposedly above-it-all attitude. You hate them, that's clear. - Amused American

[quote] these two people are such unimportant and minor human beings, it's really difficult to see why you'd get so worked up.

Mountbatten-Windsor and his wife are not “inconsequential people”, R188 / R209. You keep repeating it like some sort of defensive mantra for the Windsors. It shows that you’re an American - because you don’t understand anything about foreign affairs of other countries and British civil service structure.

They are essentially employed by the state to REPRESENT a whole union of countries (United Kingdom), on an international, global stage. (Why a 6th-in-line, inbred, nearly-school-dropout represents the nation - is a separate discussion). They are essentially civil servants (though without any suitable education or qualifications for the job) and heavily PRed “cultural ambassadors on behalf of Britain”. Why else do you think all their life expenses are being paid by British taxpayers? Because they’re supposed to work, representing the whole Union (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales).

You keep repeating the infantile defense “Why do you care?”. For an American like you to understand, the closest analogy is the First Lady position - a top-PRed cultural ambassador position with all expenses paid by US taxpayers. The First Lady doesn’t write government policy or legislation, doesn’t rule over courts, doesn’t sit in Congress - so you can argue that the First Lady position is “unimportant” and therefore the public should NEVER “focus any spotlight or criticism” on that role and person. However, you know that’s not true - it is not a “powerful” or even democratically "appointed" position (you just marry into it), but it’s still a significant cultural-ambassador role. First Ladies attend many (international) conferences and REPRESENT the US on a global stage. Not as politicians - but as cultural ambassadors on behalf of the whole nation. Similar to the Windsor clan.

[quote] if your country is concerned about cutting costs, it should have cut the Royals loose a hundred years ago.

R214, a hundred years ago (1919) much of Europe was still semi-ruled by Monarchy. Learn history, “amused American”. It was WW1 and then the inter-war period - not the right time to get rid of a symbol of national unity. Britain is gradually losing a feeling of support for the Monarchy. QEII is still more or less efficient. But after she passes, all her inbred crotchfuit and their trophy wives/husbands - are useless.

But the first-step question is not about the “Heir” (William) - it’s about why all his other “exteneded family” leeches (e.g. his uncle, his dunce of a brother, Henry, and whatever person Henry choses to impregnate) should receive taxpayer money and top civil service-like / ambassador-like cushy positions. The first step is to cut off anyone who is not a main (let's say top 2) heir - because supporting the entire, over-breeding Windsor clan (including the 6th-in-line, Henry) is too much and not worth it. Henry Mountbatten-Windsor can go open a gun shop and hunting lodge in Germany instead. If some people in Britain don't want to get rid of "Monarchy" just yet - that's one way of cutting costs: stop publicly funding anyone who is not top and runner-up on the list. The main 2 heirs are Charles and William (and William's under-age dependants, who are still minors) - everyone else in the Windsor clan (including Andrew and Henry) can go take a hike.

[quote] Jesus fucking Christ, the hyperfixated Essay Troll has been triggered, and, predictably, launched into endless paragraphs of MISOGYNIST loathing.

That poster’s points were actually very logical and sensible, R215. If you lack the attention span to read an “essay” - that’s your problem. And I love how you think just because of Markle’s genitals, any criticism of her actions and statements is “misogyny”. Stop using genitals as a shield from public criticism.

You write about “MISOGYNY”, “creepy CHILDLESS INCELS” - which is the parlance of a rabid feminist. Well, sorry, but Markle is a fake feminist. Markle is bragging about her faux-feminist credentials, while giving her full public support and backing to an almost Mormon-like family clan, whose leader is the Head of the Church of England and where all the males wife up females and expect them to pop out kids and “model” clothes. She might as well have married into the top LDS family in Utah or into Mitt Romney’s family.

[quote] Virtue signalling - they're supposed to be involved in charities and raise awareness of issues

R234, they’re supposed to either practice what they preach or (if not) then own up to their failure to follow their own recommendations. It’s like “raising awareness about lung cancer” and then buying a truckload of cigarettes. But Henry Mountbatten-Windsor uses any opportunity to run his mouth and grand-stand, lecturing the public - and then it turns out he does the complete opposite when it comes to his own elitist life. “Do as I say, not as I do”. And when people question & challenge him about it - he flat-out lies, to cover his own pathetic ass. While Markle keeps quiet and supports her elitist, cowardly dunce of a husband, like a good “wifey”, because she benefits financially from her husband being a self-serving hypocrite.

Do any of you realize how fucking boring it is for the rest of us normal human beings when you start playing Clue about which troll is which?

Shut the fuck up with it! If there's one thing I hate, one thing I am passionately invested in, it's despising the prattle of you no hopers. Fight your corner, not spooks.

Neener, neener, neener on who posted what when from a mental ward different than yours doesn't make you more credible.

I'll make this quick, r244 and r245.

They ARE inconsequential, and the parallel in the US is NOT the role of First Lady. Christopher Hitchens, upon the death of Diana, mocked the notion that she was important and did meaningful things by saying she did next to nothing and was an insignificant, so there's a Brit who would say the same thing about these two inconsequential figures.

The sovereign's role as a constitutional monarch is largely limited to non-partisan functions, such as granting honors. This role has been recognized since the 19th century. Certainly since WW2, they've been nothing more than ceremonial leeches.

Good luck to you all in your arguing over these insignificant people! Cheerio!

"Wasn’t there some other time they sued a paper for printing photos of their country house? Or did I make that up?"

R172 - You did not make that up. IIRC, I could be wrong but I believe the owners of the country house sold she the pictures to the press BEFORE Harry leased thecountry house. The press published the pictures until after Harry & Megs leased the country house. Then again, I could be mistaken and am making all this up too.

Oh, please, R248. You're conflating 2 separate meanings of the term "significant", which is disingenuous. The "royals" ARE "significant" in terms of the TOP SOCIAL position they hold in a very class-divided society. People BOW and CURTSY to them and call them "Highness"; the police & taxpayer-paid security move pedestrians out of the way so "royals" can pass along a road, etc - that should give you a clue about their top-social (i.e. significant) STATUS. "Significance" = as in "rigid social hierarchy". Just by existing as an "institution", the "royals" promote and perpetuate a rigid class divide (because you can't become a "royal" by working hard or even by winning a Nobel prize - you can only become one by fucking a "royal" in bed and being wifed/husbanded up by him). If you think such a rigid, inflexible class divide is not "significant" and doesn't [italic]affect[/italic] society - you're being naïve and blinkered. Britain has one of the worst social mobility rates in Europe - so having a rigid class divide is not helping matters. Only slaves bow down to people just because of their "higher" birth certificate or "higher" marriage certificate.

Whereas Christopher Hitchens was talking about "significance" not in terms of "social-divide hierarchy", but in terms of "effectiveness". And he is right in general - the Royals are often not very effective. Most of them don't work 9-5 and take too many holidays. Diana did not do "nothing" - but the social contribution of, say, Charles or Henry is minuscule (and therefore "insignificant") compared to actual social workers and doctors who actually do the job (which the "royals" then take credit for just by rocking up at a gala performance or waltzing into a school for a few hours.)

So, many royals' so-called 'work' is insignificant - but they themselves are not "insignificant" in terms of the social benefits and hierarchy status they demand and occupy.

But, fine, let's have it your way. If they are so "insignificant", as you claim - great! Then let's abolish taxpayer-funded security for each of the main "royals". Because they're so "insignificant" - right? And "insignificant" people do NOT need 24/7, 365-day taxpayer-funded security. Even "insignificant" people who live on Council estates and face daily crime assaults don't get such all-year-round taxpayer-funded security. So if they're "insignificant" - we should treat them as "insignificant" and stop paying for them like they're "significant".

There is no way a hustling actress who didn't come from money was worth $5 million. Just no.

Has anyone been able to answer my legal question, asked before the battle between the Meghan Haters Are Obsessed Racists! and the Meghan Critics ensued, pretty much derailing the thread (and a fine, time-hounoured tradition that is here on DL)?

Viz., to wit: the basis for this suit is infringement of copyright of an item (the letter) sold by the recipient to a third party for publication, whilst only the author of the letter holds copyright on it.

There seems to be some doubt whether that infringement claim rests on mere publication of the letter, OR editing or changing the letter. The former lower level of violation makes it likely the Sussexes will win; the latter makes the MoS more likely to win.

Does anyone have enough legal background in this sort of intellectual property/copyright issue to offer an opinion?

William sued Closer Magazine after they printed the photos taken of his wife sunbathing on a private secluded estate, using telephoto lens from the top of a tree. Closer claimed that as the Cambridges are public persons, they have no right to privacy, and anyway, the photos were "beautiful" and artistic. The magazine lost and paid damages.

But that suit was based, unsurprisingly, on invasion of privacy, not copyright infringement.

So, does anyone know, or know someone, who can clear this up and get a bead on whether Harry has acted shrewdly or recklessly.

And for you hysterics claiming that the rest of us are a bunch of racists haters with no lives, what's a life compared to waking up one morning and seeing Meghan in that mosque dress all over the DM?

I say, you don't have to be a racist to go into shock at those photos. Thankfully, there is a place (DL) where you can share your shock with others without being called a pouf, a pansy, or (by the more literate) a pederast.

Both sides please get over yourselves and let us get back to gossip. Meghan wore another shirtdress on her last day in Africa, which was slightly less offensive than the last three she's worn. First, it's longer, and second, the colour is more flattering, third, the belt is thinner.

Her hair, however, remains hopelessly unkempt and almost psychotically uncut, badly styled, and nakedly fake.

Kate, however, appearing this afternooon at the Aga Khan Center in London, yet again nailed it: a soft, feminine (I do love the floaty hem) chiffon dress that respects her host's valued by being high-necked and long-sleeved, but with a nice fitted bodice and in a soft forest-y green that suits her complexion, greenish eyes, and reddish brown hair.

When people observe the protocols around monarchy they are showing respect for the state, which is embodied in the monarchy. Head of state, head of government, separate entities.

Just as people rise when the American president enters a room, just as the refer to him as Mr. President, there are certain conventions that acknowledge and show respect for the [italic]purpose[/italic] of the institution, not necessarily the holder (considering that braying ass these days, note the number of people who speak of respect for the office, not the office holder.).

The only rigid class divide anywhere is now money. Deference as an indication of knowing your place in a class structure is dead. Anybody arguing otherwise is a manipulative, dishonest lefty, preaching the politics of resentment because there's no other saleable trick for the hard left.

They’re boring now, the novelty has worn off. The Mail should just stop covering them. Except when they’ve done something stupid. Actually, that could amount to quite a bit of coverage.

R253, why are you equating respect for the office of a President (an elected position, which changes every 4 years, to adjust for voters' changing needs and job performance evaluation) - with the inflexible, rigid status of the Monarchy (undemocratic, unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable, anachronistically hereditary by "blue blood").

It's even more ironic seeing gay people defend "observing & respecting the protocols of the Monarchy". The Monarchy is not representative of gay people. They're a bunch of straights (or people pretending to be straight) - who put a lot of emphasis on "breeding" and "monogamous matrimony" and "the Church of England" to survive as an institution. Unless Prince George turns out to be gay, Britain is stuck with 3 more generations of only straight, monogamous, breeding people being called "royalty".

[quote] The only rigid class divide anywhere is now money.

No, there is a class divide - to pretend there isn't is incorrect. An "aristocratic" dunce like Henry (who almost failed his exams, getting D grades) is given a free-pass to enter Sandhurst Academy (the British equivalent of the prestigious West Point Academy), while school reports show that many better candidates from the working-class areas in Northern England are being overlooked for college places. Even an impoverished "Viscount" is often given more respect and "ooh-aah" reception then a middle-class accountant in Britain, although it should be the reverse.

Oh, get over it, R255. Your invocation of the poor, benighted North exposes you. The north. Yes, the rest of the country thinks you're losers. Get over it and respect yourselves.

College isn't Sandhurst so don't mix up the two to reinforce your lefty resentments. Every prestigious college, one way or another, reinforces that prestige with legacies. It's the way the world works, always has, always will. There is no meritocracy. There never will be. Under the communist systems some animals are always more equal than others. You think Lenin or Breshnev or even Gorvbachev (prior to his awakening) lived like your average Russian in the Urals? Hah. Get real. You're preaching the fantasies of theorists.

Every country needs a system for head of state. Monarchy is the choice of many stable democracies. Look at the link... constitutional monarchies form at least half of the top ten leading countries for Rule of law, Government effectiveness, Control of corruption, Regulatory quality, Voice and accountability, Political stability, Corruption perceptions - Transparency International, Political rights, Civil liberties, Women in parliament.

[quote]why are you equating respect for the office of a President (an elected position, which changes every 4 years, to adjust for voters' changing needs and job performance evaluation) - with the inflexible, rigid status of the Monarchy (undemocratic, unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable, anachronistically hereditary by "blue blood").

Because monarchs can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state cannot. Monarchs represent the whole country in a way democratically elected leaders cannot and do not. The choice for monarchy is not influenced by or beholden to money, the media, or a political party. The institution is apart from the ugly business of making political sausage.

But that's a choice I make. I don't lose sleep over it.

Now back below stairs with you. Or better yet go back up norf.

R256 - I assume you are speaking of England. What is your problem or the problem with the "North". Why are you being so mean just because someone may be (and I say "may" as you cannot really know) from the "North".

The less I say about Harry and meghan the better. What I will say is that why don't they just fucking leave the royal family and do their own thing? No they won't do that, they still want their royal titles and money and prestige. I hope the queen and Charles and William get some guts and kick them out. Never to be known as Prince and Duke and duchess.

[quote] Your invocation of the poor, benighted North exposes you. The north. Yes, the rest of the country thinks you're losers. Get over it and respect yourselves. ... Now back below stairs with you. Or better yet go back up norf.

You're deranged with your projections, R256. I'm not from the "norf". I'm from the south.

[quote] College isn't Sandhurst so don't mix up the two to reinforce your lefty resentments. Every prestigious college, one way or another, reinforces that prestige with legacies. It's the way the world works, always has, always will. There is no meritocracy. There never will be.

Such nihilism, lol. And we'll "never beat world hunger" - so we might as well not have any state-assisted school meals, eh? Who cares if we never achieve "full meritocracy" or "full eradication of world hunger" - the point is to go in that direction. Especially when idiots like Henry Mountbatten-Windsor get PUBLICLY EXPOSED by their own teachers, who admit they were pressured into helping him cheat on his exams.

Sandhurst is the British Army equivalent of the Britannia Royal Naval COLLEGE and the Royal Air Force COLLEGE Cranwell. Military colleges are similar to law colleges (exams, etc) - they just study different disciplines.

[quote] Monarchy is the choice of many stable democracies.

Sure, Jan. Monarchy was one of the reasons for the WW1 clusterfuck (resulting in the "lost generation") and many other pointless wars between "royal inbred cousins". So "stable". Pffft. France guillotined and exiled their Monarchy way back - and they did just fine without them, even helped the US get rid of the British Monarchy.

But if you feel more "stable" when you bow down to your "higher-birth heterosexual superiors" - I'm sure you can join Theresa May in her pathetic grovelling display before Henry or even Kate Middleton. A Prime Minister of Britain (experienced, older, elected, deciding international policy) bowing down, like a servant, before William's housewife. How lovely and 21st C :). It's not simply about "meritocracy" - it's about the fact that e.g. Middleton has no qualifications for people to bow down to her WHATSOEVER. Her only qualifications are being heterosexual and fertile for breeding. The whole situation is a circus.

I agree Monarchy is useless.

There’s an interesting clip floating around, Meghan is wearing the white dress and helping Harry climb the steps to a podium to make some remarks. He staggers for a moment and has to take a deep breath, while she props him up. All this drama must be wearing on him.

[QUOTE] A Prime Minister of Britain (experienced, older, elected, deciding international policy) bowing down, like a servant, before William's housewife

This is the best thing I've ever read on these threads. Prepare for an avalanche of hatred from the Kate stans who deify her here.

A week of their best press in ages...and then they throw a bomb at it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I can’t stand the Daily Fail nor Harry and Meghan so I would be content to just sit back and watch them destroy each other.

Another reference to the Mysterious Jan!

Please, somebody - who the fuck is Jan, where did Jan come from, what does he stand for?

Seriously, they didn't inform the Queen and Charles that she was filing suit?!

Poster upthread is right: They need to leave the scene already. And while Harry can resign, and the Queen rescind the ducal titles she conferred on Harry (and by courtesy, Meghan) on his wedding day, no one can take away Harry's HRH, as he was born with it. To do that, Harry would have to waive the HRH voluntarily and resign his place in the line of succession. If he only loses the ducal title, Meghan turns from HRH The Duchess of Sussex into HRH The Princess Henry. The BRF could, of course, in settlement negotiations, force them to surrender their HRHs in return for more money, and just leave them as Their Graces the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Of course, how Meghan would feel about that is interesting. She'd have some sort of title, and a good deal of money and celebrity left, and Harry, but she would no longer have royal status, only aristocratic status, and her children would lose their place in the line of succession/

Then Edo and Bea can have Frogmore Cottage!

[quote]you care enough to attack her, based on nothing, since you don't know her.

Mary! who is 'attacking' here here? we are simply aimlessly gossiping and criticizing a famous person, one who is constantly in the press and constantly creating a ton of their own public drama (ie, this current press suit). Of course we don't know her. Irrelevant. She's a celebrity hence fodder for DL dissection. That is sometimes highly negative, if you've been here long enough.

r150 means well, but is lost I think. He/she clearly hasn't been on DL very long. We have always utterly -decimated- celebrities and famous people we don't like here, oftentimes those with rabid fanbases and otherwise strong public support. Take a stroll through the archives, or make a main post asking about previous irrational picking on certain celebs to get an earful about activities here over the years.

DL has always been about nasty ott gossip. It's never been iVillage (aged reference), CB or the forums on the trades. Its the unique trait of this board.

R264 - I regret having to say this, but Piers did make a few truthful points in that column.

[quote]There’s an interesting clip floating around, Meghan is wearing the white dress and helping Harry climb the steps to a podium to make some remarks. He staggers for a moment and has to take a deep breath, while she props him up. All this drama must be wearing on him.

Yes, what's wrong with Harry in this clip while MM is maniacally grinning????

[quote]He staggers for a moment and has to take a deep breath, while she props him up. All this drama must be wearing on him.

I'd put my money on him being drunk - what a loser.

[quote]He staggers for a moment and has to take a deep breath, while she props him up. All this drama must be wearing on him.

He must be too sick and tired of this vicious world to get out of bed that morning. What a loser. Looks kinda drunk to me though.

For your information, Harry stumbled because he was extremely weakened by an earth-shattering orgasm stemming from salad tossing.

He was drunk drunk drunk. Whoopsy oopsy, and the little wifey SMILED wide and held him up with both her hands.

"Also, fuck off and die, Meghan Markle racist haters, with your 10-paragraph rants on her color of nailpolish not being British enough."

You are truly a deranged moronic shitheel. And not worshipping the haughty Duchess (which you, being deranged, certainly do) doesn't make one a "racist", you pathetic cunt. It is you who needs to fuck off and die.

Saw the clip. Henry is a 6'1' ex-military dunce and probably weighs a ton - why is he stumbling and holding on to his smaller wife for balance (who just recently gave birth). What an embarrassment he is. He always wanted to be a "tough guy", but instead acts like a spoiled wimp. He's ex-military - he's not supposed to use smaller people / females as personal clutches to walk up a few steps, like a wimp. He has paid bodyguards - if he's feeling "woozy", clutch on to them instead.

Oh, come on and have a larf!

How many of you have met Meghan, spent time with her, and actually gotten to know her on a personal level?

And how many of you are simply repeating what you've read or heard, while embellishing that gossip along the way?

'Please, somebody - who the fuck is Jan, where did Jan come from, what does he stand for?'

Wow, you really don't know one of the most famous phrases from popular culture of the past few years. I guess you really are 87 years old with limited TV access.

^^^ Ding! Ding! Ding! There are more candidates for stupid around here than Democrats running for the nomination, but gosh darn I think we have a winner!

R278, seriously, you're functioning with an intellect like that?

So, they are suing the newspaper but not dear old dad who gave/sold them the letter?

Seems like there have been court cases in which someone sued to retrieve love letters or something.

r278 pretty much all of the ones shitposting her on every thread. They're obsessed and freakish.

r275 = triggered Markle-hating freak

William's housewife is looking stringy, with saggy eyes and plentiful crows' feet. If you check her roots, she has an inch of grey showing, too. Such a gross life long freeloader.

R278, most people here read her writings and speeches - which are basically her thoughts recorded on paper. Those articles that she penned reveal a lot more about a person than simply meeting a "smiley celeb" and shaking their hand and exchanging empty, sycophantic pleasantries for 30 min. The number of times she said "I" and "me" and "myself" in a short article is ridiculous. I don't need to "meet" her - reading her direct thoughts that she penned is more than enough. Only self-aggrandising, self-promoting narcissists use so many "MEs" like she does.

Similarly, a person doesn't need to "meet" e.g. a dead Churchill in person to get a glimpse into what he was like (based off of his public writings). It's obvious from his public speeches that he was a hardened military man who was very effective in terms of protecting his country, but also an unapologetic supporter of eugenics, etc. "Meeting" him would not reveal all that - but his public speeches do. Like his speech to the Palestine Commission ca. 1947. That infamous speech (where he let his guard down and truthfully said all the crap that he believed in) revealed more about him & his often gruesome thinking process than any "cordial meeting" would ever reveal.

R286, bravo but don't waste energy on these irrelevant assholes. They don't get that this post isn't personal. They apparently feel wounded when people don't kiss celebrity ass like they do. Block, block, block.

R284 = triggered Markle- loving freak

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Numerous examples of MM’s insufferable hypocrisy have been given and still, people defend her. I thought she was great at first but she has worn thin on me. The pair o FB them have become tiresome. Diana has radiance and self deprecating charm. I miss her.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Sorry about the typos.

If Sparkle and Dim have plans to move to the US (Please, NO! We don't want them.) how will pampered Harry and his spouse live without being able to file lawsuits against the press for stuff like this recent tale?

From a Mail column:

He is married to a woman who inevitably has little grasp of royal duties, and may believe that members of the Royal Family should be treated with the same reverence as Hollywood celebrities.

Their advisers, many of them non-British and unfamiliar with the scope and nature of royal duties, are plainly unable to guide them, while the advice of Prince Charles and the Queen is not sought as it should be.

Elton John/Clooneys are probably funding this lawsuit.

About the ridiculous lawsuit. I think it was the last straw for the royal pendejos that they got outed as the moochers they are when Queen Elton shouted it from the rooftops that he had funded their entire trip. Markle has no shame but it had to have been a blow to Harry's ego.

R293, Henry said South Africa felt like a "second home" to him, so maybe he can eventually move there. Chelsea Davy was born in neighbouring Zimbabwe and there are plenty of Henry's "aristocratic" school pals who party in SA all the time. He'll live in a gated community, like Oscar Pistorius, of course.

[quote]Please, NO! We don't want them

Who in the hell are you but some fucking loser?

How do you know the first thing about this poster you call a loser? It's an anonymous board. None of us know each other. You have nothing but personal attacks? All because this poster doesn't share your love for this public figure? Or do you enjoy provoking fights with people who can't actually reach out and put an end to your hysteria?

R297, you're welcome to have them then. Feed them, clothe them, give them pocket-money for beach holidays in Ibiza. And make sure to walk next to Henry - in case he needs to grab on to you when he gets too sloshed on Pinot Grigio on his self-promotional...err, I mean "humanitarian" tour.

This law suit has made the racist anti Meghan fraus here SO angry! Love skimming over their impassioned, illiterate, paragraph free rants, and then leaving a personal insult to enrage them.

The ancient, saggy bitch who has never heard of the phrase 'sure, Jan' is particularly easy to infuriate.

Is it really possible that the Queen and Charles knew nothing about this?

TROLL REGISTER

Paragraph Free Essay Troll ✔

Tiara Troll ❌

Anti Celebitchy Troll ✔

Meghan Is Short Waisted Like Me Troll ✔

Original Adderall Troll ❌

Welp Troll ✔

Welp Troll Accuser Troll ✔

Catherine Does Everything Right Troll ✔

Megstan Accuser Troll ✔

Scat Troll ❌

TROLL REGISTER

Paragraph Free Essay Troll ✔

Tiara Troll ❌

Anti Celebitchy Troll ✔

Meghan Is Short Waisted Like Me Troll ✔

Original Adderall Troll ❌

Welp Troll ✔

Welp Troll Accuser Troll ✔

Catherine Does Everything Right Troll ✔

Megstan Accuser Troll ✔

Scat Troll ❌

R300, you're being too hard on yourself. Few people are "enraged" by anything you post.

Do you think the Queen calls out, "What has she done now?" Or is that Phillip?

Philip has foot-in-mouth syndrome (that's where Henry probably gets it from), so you can bet he uses even more non-PC language than that.

You are certainly not insinuating that he says the N word, are you?

R270, looks like he might be having a back problem--makes it hard to go up stairs. While I'm sure he still loves to drink, I'd wager he does that with friends in the evening and not in the middle of the day with his wife around.

Meghan probably got Harry to make that long statement supporting the lawsuit (and probably wrote it)--she did, after all, get her friends to go on record with People magazine to support her. She must be dying to get out there and personally "defend" herself but is still contrainted by the royal role. If/when they do eventually divorce, the tell-all interview performances will be great fun.

Just as William and Kate are settling into (even more) boring reliability, this lawsuit plus Edo's upcoming entry into the royal family are keeping the gossip good .

Who else has a problem downloading DL?

Meghan's stans are always complaining the BRF don't support them.

But they don't want the BRF's support, they cut themselves from the BRF.

We may not know them, but surely Charles and William know them and want nothing to do with them. I don't think highly of Chuck and Bill, but I think Bill knows a grifter when he sees one.

R307, "aristocratic" males like Philip don't generally use such words against females. I think a word like "hussy" is more like something he would say.

R17 Does the abbreviation "Paki" offend Pakistanis or middle-class Woke British people?

I'm offended that British people have to bear their descriptor abbreviated to "Brit"; it's so obviously offensive.

R313 Paki is offensive, it's like the N word for Asian people.

Nah, "Paki" is genuinely unacceptable. "Brit" is offensive too, just not as much.

Come on, Brit is not offensive. It's not used as a racial slur.

r316 It is indeed used as a racial slur in the East End, where I used to live.

Brit isn't offensive at all.

The various spazzes on this thread are winding you up. I live in north London now and Brit is definitely not an insult. Paki definitely is now, although in the 20th century some called Asian run corner shops 'Paki shops'.

[QUOTE] We may not know them, but surely Charles and William know them and want nothing to do with them.

Charles wants nothing to do with his son? You are so naive and silly, projecting all your own petty spite onto the man who could be King of England at any time.

[QUOTE] I don't think highly of Chuck and Bill, but I think Bill knows a grifter when he sees one.

Yup, he is married to one.

I was offended at being called 'queer' for 20 years but now I'm told it isn't offensive'.

I was told for 20 years that Blackface was offensive but now the Justin-lovers tell me it's OK.

R315 I want you to find a genuine Pakistani to tell us that they're offended by this abbreviation.

The British people LOVE taking offensive on behalf of others (it's their 'White Man's Burden').

R321 Justin getting away with multiple blackface is genuinely shocking to me.

And I'm not shocked by much.

R321 Trudeau doesn't make blackface ok.

You see you.

R332 If Justin is making Blackface acceptable, I suspect a genuine Pakistani saying they're not offended by this abbreviation will force the Virtue-Signallers to rethink their prejudices.

R324 Will you stop with your bullshit right now?

TRUDEAU DOESN'T MAKE BLACKFACE ACCEPTABLE.

And good luck, finding a Pakistani telling Paki is not a slur.

You must be one of the deplorable idiot.

This is disgusting and offensive!!

It is completely unacceptable and WRONG!!

Deflecting one's own hypocrisy as fake news and racism. How ridiculous.

R319 Oh dear, you're not very bright are you? Charles has cut off their funding hence the cheap shitty clothes on this tour.

R319 Lol, you're the delusional one if you think Harry still has a good relationship with the family.

Harry is like Andrew, he's part of the Firm and they have to deal with him, it doesn't mean they want to put up with his shit.

R328, nah, the cheap clothes on the SA tour were a PR move and a result of her having mostly (only?) day appearances--did they even have any formal, evening occasions? There was even an article in the DM with fashion "experts" saying that she wanted to keep it business-like and not distract from the causes, lol.

Princess Diana was a loose cannon.

This Meghan is worse; she needs to be let go.

[quote] The Telegraph, last week: [bold]"Prince Harry says he 'struggles to get out of bed some days for worrying about the world'[/bold]"

[quote] "The weight of the world is on the Duke of Sussex’s shoulders. Yesterday on a visit to South Africa’s oldest mosque, [Henry Mountbatten-Windsor] confided in a teenager that there were days when [Henry] struggles to get out of bed in the morning because he was so “overwhelmed” by the world’s problems ... in the Auwal Mosque in the pretty Bo Kaap neighbourhood in Cape Town, the Duke, 35, made his own admission. He told Peter Oki, an 18-year-old ... student who attended the multi-faith reception, of his worries for the future"

[quote] "Harry said that he often woke up and felt overwhelmed by too many problems in the world and that sometimes it’s hard to get out of bed in the mornings because of all the issues,” said Mr Oki"

I love how Henry whines to an 18-year-old South African student (!) about how "hard" it is for Henry to get out of bed. Lol. I'm sure it's even harder for him when his pillows are not perfectly fluffed by his maid and his dry-cleaning is 5 min late. I'm beginning to think he has emotionally stunted growth - because he grew up in a total bubble, surrounded by sycophants, yes-men, yes-women and people who coddled him constantly because he lost a parent. He became a 35-year-old "kidult" with no self-perception whatsoever.

I think the solution would be to put him to work in a 9-7 desk job at his (soon-to-be-created?) non-profit. If he works 8-9 hours a day in an office with others and spends less time holidaying around the world, role-playing as a Ginger Western Messiah, on the taxpayers' dime - he'll have something more pragmatic to occupy his mind (personal deadlines, project evaluations, staff HR assessments) and less time for "worrying about the world" in aimless philosophical terms.

Though given that he's not the brightest bulb, if he is entrusted with the actual day-to-day director duties of the non-profit, there is a a chance that he'll run it into the ground. So perhaps he should start from the bottom up instead, learning how to run one first.

Please, R332, we've all seen how Harry dresses. The man does not use a dry cleaner.

[QUOTE] Charles has cut off their funding hence the cheap shitty clothes on this tour.

I just found the least intelligent person on Datalounge! Literally zero idea how things work.

[QUOTE] I think the solution would be to put him to work in a 9-7 desk job at his (soon-to-be-created?) non-profit.

Why don't we do the same to Replikate, who's a member of the long term unemployed.

Oh, Christ, it's the Replikate troll, who for some reason thinks that's a really clever nickname. It's right up there with Smegan. Whenever people use those, it completely undermines any legitimate criticism they might have.

Replikate??? A nickname from old obese fucktard in the US? Oh, dear, obese auntie, you stink. LOL.

It seems that they are hoping to force the RF to pay them out to leave?

Why would they sue her father when the goal is $$$? They won a lot in the last court case, it is their new grift.

In the clip it looked to me like he might be having back trouble, although her maniacal grinning did seem an attempt to deflect. When he spoke, did he sound bombed?

Of course they were going to blow up their good, go along, do what is expected PR, it is OFF BRAND. Of course they would file this now, when they have the most spotlight. Surely there are minders and those that listen, I think unaware meant did not approve. If MI6 did not give the RF a clue, then there are bigger problems.

Is something about to come out about Andrew? Is all this attention (best withheld from the Gruesome Twosome) and timing to draw our attention from him?

I can honestly see how Harry and Meghan are leading to serious talks about a republic. The insane spending, whining, entitlement and hypocrisy coupled with a commoner who now must be deferred to as a duchess all combine to underscore how ridiculous the concept of royal blood is. It's all smoke and mirrors, and only the public's good will makes it possible. As soon as that consensus is gone, well, William can go back to being a search-and-rescue helicopter pilot while Kate looks after the sprogs at Amner.

What was it Charles said to Harry? "With dramatic people, there is going to be drama," something like that. One of his wiser observations, learned the hard way.

In the clip, my first reaction wasn't that he could be bombed, but maybe hungover. He looked a little messy. It must be stifling hot there, imagine how one would feel. But who knows. He definitely had a woozy moment, and Meghan didn't look particularly surprised. Maybe he was also stressed about the storm he knew was coming.

While their nighttime-soap-opera antics make for good gossip, Harry's angst is not fun to watch. He really is that hotheaded ginger.

William never plays the "the poor pitiful me, I lost my mother Saint Diana in a car crash card when I was a child card." Seriously, we can start a drinking game based on how frequently Harry dredges her up to force people to pity him.

Yes, it looked like Henry was hungover. It it were back problems or anything health-serious (like a heat stroke), his wife wouldn't be laughing at him. She also looked completely unsurprised - so she probably saw him boozing the night before.

If so, it's ironic that Markle can hold her drink - and Windsor-Mountbatten can't, even "on tour".

R266 - Sussex children will not lose their place in line of succession to British Throne if Harry retires. York princesses will not lose their place in line of succession to British Throne if Andy retires.

R287 - Selling the letter to the Mail on Sunday was not illegal. Publishing the letter without the permission or Meghan is violation of copyright and is illegal.

R303 - What is a Scat Troll?

R345 - Sussex children will lose their place in the line of succession IF Harry resigns his place for him AND for his descendants.

Their places in the line of succession, though, like Harry's, are pretty much meaningless given the five people ahead of Harry. Those places that far down the line confer a certain status but no real meaning.

My guess is that IF Harry were to take all his marbles and leave, and resign his title and his place in the succession, he would specify the same for his descendants, because he would know that those places are meaningless. The Earl of St. Andrews is 39th in line. I'm sure he was pleased, as a Catholic, to be restored recently to that place in terms of religious affirmation - but the fact remains that his two Catholic children are still barred from the succession. His youngest, who is not a Catholic, remains in the line.

If Harry resigns his ducal title, then his son loses the subsidiary title, Earl Dumbarton; if Harry goes for broke and also resigns his HRH and his place in the line of succession, the BRF is likely to insist that his descendants lose their rights, as well, in return for a more generous financial settlement. But if Harry's money is where his mouth is, and he's that angry at his family and so estra nged from them, I can't imagine he won't specify, should the day come, that he is waiving the place and any titles for his descendants as well.

I don't know what is really going on here, but Harry and Meghan at this point are coming across as completely mental.

R347, they are trying to force the BRF to pay them off to go away. Expect them to keep upping the ante. If you look at all of their antics, from the smears of Kate, making tiny Charlotte cry, the coat at the wedding, the purposeful chaos around the birth, Google Camp, the lawsuit, etc, it is consistent with that goal. Their BRAND is chaos agents in opposition to the staid BRF, so of course, this week was an opportunity to step it UP in their eyes, not revel in things settling DOWN. People tell you what their goals are with their actions over time.

MM always lies through her teeth and always gets caught, and most of the time, preaches what she doesn't practice in real life. A real narcissistic hypocrite.

[quote]In 2017, Meghan told Vanity Fair, “I don’t read any press. I haven’t even read press for Suits. The people who are close to me anchor me in knowing who I am. The rest is noise.” That was great advice then and is great advice now.

R347 That’s not true.

If Harry renounces his claim on the throne & his title, he does that for himself only. Archie’s claim is his birthright and not dependent on Harry.

If William threw it all in tomorrow, George would just move up a spot.

It’s up to George & Archie to make their own decisions when they’re adults.

I really think they should go. She wants her shallow world. He's led by the nose. They are of no value to the monarchy if they can't behave in ways that don't damage it.

Chelsea Davy must be expelled from the United Kingdom for failing to save it from this idiot man child by marrying him.

I don't understand why they are holidaying in South Africa. It isn't a British colony.

R352, Chelsea Davy is 1 year younger than Henry. Whereas he clearly demands someone to be a wife-mother to him (because of his unresolved mother issues and also his coddled upbringing) - so he wants someone older.

Same with his father, Charles - he had his own unresolved mommy issues and was also a spoiled "prince". He wanted someone older to take care of him (like Camilla, who is a bit older) instead of being a daily carer for a much younger Diana. Even William chose a wife who was slightly older him.

All 3 Windsor "princes" don't want a family dynamic where they have to give more care to a younger partner - they want their spouses to be the primary home-carers for them instead. Like Henry hilariously expecting his wife to help him up the stairs when he's apparently hungover, even though she's just recently given birth and he's physically bigger than her. Females who are slightly older than them suit that role and the Windsor's "needs".

South Africa is indeed a former dominion of the British Empire, R353, and it remains a member of the Commonwealth. It’s also Britain’s largest trading partner in Africa.

[quote] I don't understand why they are holidaying in South Africa.

Because SA has a lot of elite party locations (frequented by British aristocrats) & 5-star fancy restaurants & hotels where they can "relax" and "detox", after a day of posing with the "downtrodden poor".

[quote] The Telegraph: "Where [they] stay during their time in Cape Town is still being kept under wraps, but what we do know is that the city certainly isn't short on world-class hotels suited to welcoming royalty."

"they want their spouses to be the primary home-carers for them"

R354 - Just like the Duke of Windsor and George VI. It definitely runs in the family. I wonder if this is the same dynamic in Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex's marriage.

a lovely exchange between Harry and the Sky News royal reporter:

But as he was being led away into a waiting vehicle by palace officials, Ms Mills asked him: 'That short conversation, what do you hope to achieve through it?

He replied: 'What? Ask them', pointing back towards the hospital – but the reporter added: 'Is that why it's important for you to come and talk to them?'

Harry appeared to become frustrated with Ms Mills and gestured for her to move away from him as he got into the car, saying: 'Rhiannon, don't behave like this.'

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] Ms Mills asked him: "That short conversation, what do you hope to achieve through it?" ... Harry appeared to become frustrated

He always becomes "frustrated" when people challenge him, even slightly. He reminds me of fellow Etonian, Boris Johnson. He probably didn't achieve much in that super-short visit to that health clinic - but of course he doesn't want his "grand tour" to be criticised as superficial and not particularly that helpful perhaps.

[quote] "He told the young people to 'hold on to your dreams' and he urged them to show kindness, empathy and work together.' "

Yes, I'm sure people in Malawi need to be reminded by a white British guy of such banal things. Because without Henry flying in and reminding them, they apparently don't know that they need to show 'kindness, empathy and work together'.

So according to the poster above who encountered Edo at uni, he was very taken with his title. That alone explains what he sees in the Princess. He clearly values social status to the point where he'd marry someone less pretty then himself. It's hard to see this ending well. I hope I'm wrong.

I suspect the "real" reason Hapless Harry finds it hard to get out of bed is not because of the world's problems but because of his own problems. The fact that many people don't like his wife the way he thought they would is eating him up inside. He has no one to blame but himself. He set her up for failure by saying "she's going to hit the ground running" at the time of their engagement? How did he figure that an ambitious, divorced, American actress from a bi-racial middle class LA background would "know" anything about royal life or how to behave like a royal?

[quote]How did he figure that an ambitious, divorced, American actress from a bi-racial middle class LA background would "know" anything about royal life or how to behave like a royal?

He didn't. He couldn't. He's dim.

If she loses this case, how could she donate money to anti-bullying charities?

so Harry was just there to get his picture taken and fucked off soon after, only chatting with them for a few min.

I knew it was just to boost his image. it's so fake and not working. As if he really cared about anything/anyone other than himself.

and telling that reporter "not to behave like this"...WTF? He should have just shut his mouth and left.

also read that he didn't tell his dad and others about his rant regarding the press...he's such a fucking child.

R365-Harry has become remarkably unlikeable. I feel like this is the real person we're seeing. The other one was all a PR fabrication.

r347, if you gave Harry the choice of either chopping off all his limbs or giving up his money and titles, he'd choose to become limbless. He is weakness and lack of principle personified.

R364 - FFS, Kate is half a year older than William, that is absurd. They are the same age between July and January. He may definitely have picked a specifically nurturing type, but tying that to the six months in age between them is mental.

And the same is true Camilla and Charles - did he want a motherly type and emotional caretaker? Yes, I think so. But there's only 3 years between them. That's hardly a generational issue.

This is about character not a few years' difference that are essentially meaningless.

Meghan's appeal wasn't the three years differecne in their ages: it was her exoticism ethnically, the narcissistic traits that mirrored his mother's persona, and the line she undoubtedly fed him about how important she could make him in their work together so he didn't have to go on feeling "less than" - that together they would buck the system and change the world.

It was Meghan's persuasion that gave Harry the idea that he could have his cake eat it, too: repackage himself as a Champion of the People (just not British people), get out of the rather boring work of regular patronage that all members of the BRF have to undertake and into more "exciting" humanitarian work, and stick it to the BRF whilst retaining the privileges, perks, and public financial support that gives him his platform in the first place.

I do think the negative PR Meghan engendered caught him off-guard - I think he honestly thought everyone would see her through his eyes. When that didn't happen, Harry had a Hobson's choice: double down on his selection of a mate in order to make his marriage bearable, and blame everyone else (including his blood family); or confront the fact that he might have been wrong about her.

It's understandable why Harry opted for the first approach, but it's sad for him and his family. Meghan still gets out with more than she came in with, but Harry will be the big loser eventually. So will his children, cut off from their cousins, aunts, uncles, grandfathers.

Harry's marriage should have brought more sun into extended the stability of the BRF, not all this shade and division and bad PR. It was so surprisig.

It is like the Tony Blair character said in the movie "The Queen": "Somebody needs to save these people from themselves".

' Block, block, block.'

So many 14 year olds here who think they're on Twitter.

[quote] FFS, Kate is half a year older than William, that is absurd.

R368, what is “absurd”? I specifically wrote the 3 wifes of the Moutbatten-Windsor heirs were all a bit older than them. What part of “a bit older” upset you so much, lol.

[quote] He may definitely have picked a specifically nurturing type, but tying that to the six months in age between them is mental.

It’s not “mental”. My college friend would constantly see William and Kate party @ Boujis and she observed that Kate would take care of William like an older sister. Before he’d enter the club - she’d go in first, make sure the arrangements were in order and then he’d finally waltz in, when everything was done for him. If Kate had been much younger than Will - you’d generally not see this dynamic of him relying on her like an older sister.

[quote] Camilla and Charles - did he want a motherly type and emotional caretaker? Yes, I think so. But there's only 3 years between them. That's hardly a generational issue.

I didn’t say it was a “generational issue”, you're arguing with yourself. They went for older partners who baby them. I didn’t say they went for octogenarians. But older is still older.

[quote] Meghan's appeal wasn't the three years differecne in their ages:

I think it was part of her appeal. Because some 18-year-old young fashion model would generally not be happy if a 35-y.o. kidult like Harry used her as a crutch to walk up stairs. But Markle is fine with that because she is older and babies him. And he needs it - because that’s how the Windsor males are brought up, with nannies.

Harry truly has all the intelligence of a block of wood. When the Nazi armband scandal hit (he wore one to a party) his excuse was that he didn't know the Nazis were bad! What an imbecile.

As for Meghan Markle...well, she's now a member of the British Royal family, an international celebrity. Which makes her fair game for scrutiny by everyone, including the tabloids and the paparazzi. If she didn't know that before she married Dimwit then she's as stupid as he is. Now that she's gotten all in, she'll just have to lump it. And so will her mentally disturbed fangurls. If they don't like the fact that the tabloids report on her or that some people (actually, many) dislike her they will just have to suck it the fuck up. Because the situation is NEVER going to change. Never. It's part of being a Royal. So, tough shit.

R372-I think Meghan truly was delusional enough to believe that she would be universally acclaimed, adored and admired. It probably came as an enormous shock to her ego that the majority of people revile her. It must also be unsettling that the public sees directly through her. She inveigled Harry into marrying her, but the poors aren't as stupid as he is and see her for exactly who she is. For someone who needs to rely on constant attention, it must exasperate the hell out of her,

R355 The Republic of South Africa voted to ditch the royals in 1960 and pretty soon they will be voting to confiscate all British property (if not exterminate all British people).

But Henry feels like SA is his "second home" :). Maybe he means 'spiritual home' because he hasn't actually lived there that much. Though I guess that sentiment might not be completely reciprocated by all locals.

I hope they take a payout and leave, then Meghan divorces him for half of it and he's left alone and (relatively) poor. He's an idiot and I blame him as much as her for their arsehole behaviour.

R376-he's definitely culpable for her behavior. He enables every narcissistic step she takes.

What did Piers say?

I'm so tired of this gold digging slut and her pussy whipped nitwit husband! There's a place at frogmore just waiting for her next to the other duchess.

Christ, R379, I'm no fan of Markle, but wishing her death? That's disturbingly harsh. Seek help.

That photo of them sitting on the ground with Markle's hair eating her scarf, lol. All that is lacking is the paper cup and a sign that reads, "Help me feed my family...and buy couture for my wife."

I know r380. You are not obligated to like Meghan Markle, or even think about her much. But the bitches on threads like this, damn, obsession doesn't begin to describe it.

"But the bitches on threads like this, damn, obsession doesn't begin to describe it."

The obsession goes both ways. She has smitten, worshipful fangurls who will defend her to the death. It is indeed insane.

Meghan is tough. I don't know if she understands that Harry isn't as resilient as she is, but I doubt the road she's set them on is going to end well. And I hope I'm wrong.

R384, he used to fly helicopters to retrieve the remains of soldiers killed by mines and gunfire. He's a hell of a lot tougher than you think.

William's the spaz who has done soft work all his life.

R385 cracks me up with her delusion. LOL. .

R385 Lol, Harry's fangurls are so funny.

When the Taliban attacked his base and all his team-members were fighting to protect him, getting wounded and dying - Henry sat out the fight and didn’t even get a face scratch. But he conveniently always had photographers around him during his tour, PRing him like “Rambo”:

[quote] Telegraph, 2012: “British troops help fight off Taliban attack on Afghan military base housing Prince Harry. At least 2 US Marines were killed in the strike on the base in Helmand province, which houses American and British troops among others ... British forces had been involved in repelling the attack ... The Prince, who was deployed recently, is NOT believed to have been involved in the fighting."

GI Joe Harry was pure PR, funny so many people felt for it.

Harry is earnest in a way is family is not, but he lived in a bubble all his life. He knows shit about real life and him pretending to be humble and one of us is ridiculous.

Amazing how much he laments the press when they've worked hand-in-hand with the BRF. I wonder how he'd feel if they really took off the gloves? Instead of Hero Harry would he prefer to be Cokehead Harry?

Harry doesn't realize what a real hostile press would be.

Imagine if the Daily Fail was a Republican newspaper, the Monarcy would be dead and burried since decades.

For his Xmas present this year, Harry should get a biography of Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre. And a laminated, framed copy of the FRENCH print news headlines and caricatures on the eve of 16 October 1793.

That would give him a sense of perspective - what real, gloves-off "hostility by the press" actually means. He'll realise that what he gets in the British press is a mild-tempered walk in the park by comparison.

If Brexit hits UK as hard as some say, Harry be better be ready to shut up about how hard his life is.

Harry always says South Africa is his spiritual home because that is where he met Chelsy Davy and spent so much time with her. Interestingly Chelsy turned up in South Africa during the 5 days of their tour. Maybe they caught up?

Leave this poor Chelsy alone. She dodged the bullet, it's not to go back with this loser.

[quote]For his Xmas present this year, Harry should get a biography of Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre. And a laminated, framed copy of the FRENCH print news headlines and caricatures on the eve of 16 October 1793.

He's too stupid to understand even though part of that is technically a "cartoon".

You reckon he will one day tire of all this and realize he married a big mess?

Was it ever disproved that diana's red headed bf was harrys daddy?

I don't think, if they divorce it will be Meghan's decision.

He's emotionaly dependant on her. He's the one always running after her, seeking her approval. I bet he's more upset by the bad articles than she is.

If she dumps him like she dumped her other relationships, he's gonna be a hot mess.

R398, some people thought that years ago (when Henry was young and looked more like Diana's family). But as he ages (rapidly), Henry (at 35) looks more and more like Charles. The Mountbatten-Windsor genes are really coming through now and overtaking the Spencer genes.

It's obvious Henry is Charles' son. Both from the hereditary dimness (though Diana Spencer's genes sure didn't help in that regard) and even looking at both Charles' and Henry's hereditary slightly broken-looking, oddly-shaped nose.

R398-Harry is clearly Charles' son. Those Windsor genes take no prisoners, and when they kick in, they dominate.

The genes that kicked in are Battenburg/Mountbatten. Harry, Charles and Phil all have the same close-set eyes and big beak as Dickie Mountbatten, inherited from Dickie's mum (Phil's grandma) Princess Victoria of Hesse.

R385 - yes, Will who flew ambulance helicopters picking up injured people in Wales for years is quite the spazz. Duh. Egg on face.

I'm Clytemnestra. I have a net I'd like to show my husband when he finally returns. What a homecoming I have planned!

WTF-I typed that in another thread and it popped up here. Apologies! Although ancient Greece melodrama certainly does seem at home in the BRF these days.

R403-Will has talked about the difficulty of not being able to rescue children who died in accidents around issues of his own mental health. But Harry is He-Man Hero.

Harry is out for blood, hoes! Suing the Mirror and the Sun.

The Murdoch and Mirror papers have a record of settling phone hacking cases at the door of the court. It costs them a lot of money, but it also prevents a public trial at which executives and reporters past and present would be required to account for themselves and at which all the facts would come into the open.

It also suits many complainants to settle because, angry though they may be, they are reluctant to risk the costs of a trial.

That logic may not apply to Prince Harry. It's too early to say, but depending on how much he wants to make the press bosses suffer, he might yet precipitate a sensational civil trial.

The claim against News UK is likely to make broader allegations than those previously placed on record after the targeting of Prince Harry and his brother Prince William by the News of The World’ and its former Royal Editor, Clive Goodman and in-house private detective Glenn Mulcaire.

The pair were convicted in 2007 for hacking the phone of members of the Royal household.

There was a link in OP's article that linked to a story from when they were dating. My, Meghan was beautiful then. WTF happened and how did it happen so fast?

[quote] WTF happened and how did it happen so fast?

From just a few years ago? To be fair, not much - she just took off the fake eyelashes and stopped putting on dark eyeshadow paint.

There are almost no 100% makeup-free (natural) photos of her from that period (just from her younger years). It's hard to know what a female (really) looks like when she's covered in makeup - because face paint makes an enormous difference.

Yes R408, her looks have changed dramatically.

And not for the better.

That's what brings to mind what all is really going on behind the (now) faux PDA and fixed smiles. (Truth be told, Harry's not even looking that happy.....or well, these days).

She had definitely had a nose job. Look at her potato nose at R409.

It's not all make-up. The shape of her jaw looks like it changed. Maybe it's just that pregnancy changed her face and she aged rapidly. She does look a hell of a lot older than she did two years ago. Then, I was surprised she was in her mid 30s. Now, I think she looks about 40.

R403, most on DL blocked the spazz/Harry Styles/Markle/SS? troll years ago. It gets so much better, highly recommend! YMMV.

R403, most on DL blocked the spazz/Harry Styles/Markle/SS? troll years ago. It gets so much better, highly recommend! YMMV.

Trolldar shows that R414 is the Welp Troll. Only the Welp Troll would be posting on Harry Styles threads and use a stupid phrase like 'YMMV'.

'YMMV' is the new WELP. And the troll still can't spell 'SPAZ'.

30 million Americans watched Harry marry Megs, 23 million watched William marry Kate.

The data speaks for itself. Meghan has captured hearts and minds. Bland Kate Middleslut has not.

And here comes the most annoying person of all, the one who likes to name all the different trolls. I wonder do they think they are funny and are so ignorant to how dumb and childish they really sound....sad really

Think he is paid to post, that is why blocking him works on many levels. He has literally posted thousands of times over the past few years.

How does it get paid exactly?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Many are paid to troll, it is a big industry.

As our webby recommends, best to block them and not engage.

I don’t think she carries the ‘HRH’ title, OP.

'Think he is paid to post, that is why blocking him works on many levels. He has literally posted thousands of times over the past few years.'

And here we have the Welp Troll again, saying what the Welp Troll says. Any prolific poster who disagrees with him is a paid shill or a Russian bot.

Wow, Markle was very slim in that picture. I don't think she looks bad now, she has just aged so much in such a short time.

Agree, R423. I have to admit that the Adderall Troll may have been on to something, the change is so drastic and use is so common in entertainment.

Meaning she’s no Royal Highness, hers, his or anyone’s.

No one will ever accuse SS of being timid, they are extremely aggressive and comprehensive.

'Use your imagination, [R418].

There are armies of people paid to post online from politics to entertainment, message boards to wiki. It is not just our Me-Gain and her brand managers, or Monsanto, even Quaker Oats has brand managers online. MM has been a Sunshine Sachs client for some time. So are many of her cough, completely authentic and organic, cough, friends - Serena, Amal, etc are SS clients as well.'

Yesss, this is a classic Welp Troll post, with all the cliches!

'Quaker Oats has brand managers'!

This hilarious loser is five fathoms deep in delusion, and actually believes the role of a social media manager involves making thousands of post on a minor traffic site like Datalounge. Such hubris! The Welp Troll actually thinks it's fighting professionals!

'Oh no, what's this?

A Welp Troll

And I'm caught in the middle.'

Geez at least quote fucking Clocks or something.

How does one get in on this paid-trolling gig?

Confusion that never stops

Welping trolls and ticking clocks

Gonna come back and take you home

I could not stop, that you now know..

The troll accusations are tedious beyond belief. Just take your toys, and go home. You add absolutely no new content to the thread, you assholes.

I turn the music up, I got my records on

From underneath the rubble sing a Welp Troll song

Don't want to see another generation drop

I'd rather be a Welp Troll than a full stop

Lyrics by Chris Martin

I'm not trying to be negative, but it must be really difficult for Markle to no longer be the stick-figure pretty young thing in the room. I don't think women deal with this too well.

Welp troll will guide you home??

Look what you made me do

I'm with somebody new

Ooh baby, baby, I'm dancing with a Welp Troll.

'I'm not trying to be negative, but it must be really difficult for Markle to no longer be the stick-figure pretty young thing in the room. I don't think women deal with this too well.'

She has traded a few months of being a stone heavier for a lifetime of being the mother of the king's grandson! You think it wasn't worth it? Such an unintellgent hoe.

I'm surprised at how fast Meghan has aged. She looks ten years older than she did just two years ago. The same thing happened to Kate. Those Windsor boys must suck the life forces out of their women.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Being a mother isn't that great. She will now pee anytime she sneezes, you pendejo. What's more, you think someone as vain as Markle prefers the glow of motherhood to being impossibly hot and desirable? Sit down fool.

R436 that creature sings (and IS) falsetto.

You're calling Sam a creature? Really?

Baby you light up my world like nobody else

The way you call me a shill gets me overwhelmed

But when you call me a bot it ain't hard to tell

You don't know, oh oh

You don't know you're a Welp Troll

If only you saw what I can see

You'll understand why I hate you so desperately

Right now I'm looking at you and I can't believe

You don't know, oh oh

You don't know you're a Welp Troll, oh oh

That's what makes you a Welp Troll.

When I first saw you

From across the thread

I could tell that you were curious (oh, yeah)

Troll, I hope you're sure

What you're looking for

'Cause I'm not good at making promises

But if you like causing trouble up on DL threads

And if you like having bashing everyone in One Dead

If you like to do the things you know that we shouldn't do

Welp Troll, I'm perfect

Welp Troll, I'm perfect for you

R441 How do you call them?

'You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Being a mother isn't that great. She will now pee anytime she sneezes, you pendejo. What's more, you think someone as vain as Markle prefers the glow of motherhood to being impossibly hot and desirable? Sit down fool.'

Behold the misogynist! Yes, she prefers being married to a prince of the realm and mother to his son rather than being a skinny actress! If she didn't prefer it, she wouldn't have married him.

And guess what, freak, only about 5% of mothers pee when they sneeze, or you'd never see mothers wearing skintight trousers and everywhere you go, you'd smell urine.

Such an incel, so unintelligent.

R445 Is that a quote from something?

You idiot. Still don't know what you're talking about. Only 5% of mothers? Did you pull that out of your ass? Or did you take a poll with the other fraus in your club? And bringing up skin tight trousers? Have you seen the pads they make today? They make them for thongs and with enough fucking baking soda so that you can pee gallons and never smell urine. Stop your foolishness.

Yeah, like popping out kids is every woman;s fantasy. You're funny.

She looks older probably due to her pregnancy (pregnancy did not agree with her) and the new pressures she's under. Plus, she has to dress much more conservatively now due to her new station, and that has also aged her. In marrying Dimwit she basically gave up her freedom. She's like a bug under a magnifying glass now. Her youth is gone.

.....

Isn't this the woman who forced her last husband to agree to a personal trainer and chef for postpartum) IF she agreed to have a child?

Someone on another thread today alluded to the fact that there is an African-American female from Chicago that is trolling many of DL's threads. Apparently clues to this person's posts include:

1) Naming everyone as A Troll

2) Attacking posters with differing perspectives

3) Virulent and Foul posts: name-calling and/or shaming and/or abusive ranting

Apparently this poster is well-known in the DL community and has clogged many of the BRF threads.

Shobe?

I hope the Daily Fail continues to expose Meghan as a phony and a heartless person (see her treatment of daddy).

'Have you seen the pads they make today? They make them for thongs and with enough fucking baking soda so that you can pee gallons and never smell urine. Stop your foolishness'

And with three sentences you prove you're an old man typing away in a care home, who has never been acquainted with female anatomy or any type of incontinence. This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read here.

'Yeah, like popping out kids is every woman;s fantasy. You're funny.'

You act as if she married him and had a child under duress. Such a warped perspective. You're so convinced that she wants her old life back. She had the Vanity Fair covers and was merching away to her heart's content and she GAVE ALL THAT UP!

She wants this, you dumbass troll.

Lots of social media jobs out there, R430, look online. There will be even more as we head into the election cycle.

You sound so stupid, acting like you actually know people on this anonymous board. Take it elsewhere, fool. It's obvious you are trying to derail this thread. Won't work. Or haven't you seen by now?

Markle desired fame and money. Harry was her way in. If she is happy with her life, that's awesome. But she comes off as if she would divorce him fast if a better offer came along. An offer that carried more fame and money without the limitaations of being a royal.

[quote]I hope the Daily Fail continues to expose Meghan as a phony and a heartless person (see her treatment of daddy).

It will be interesting to see how things play out, R454. Especially in light of the new press lawsuits. This timing, along with the Brexit issue and the issues of transparency in the U.S. (whistleblowers & leakers as well as the attempt to quash Ronan Farrow's new book of spurious practices), is not ideal for the Harkles.

The public may even turn on them further for attempts to squelch free press....or free expression.

It's been rumoured that the lawsuits are over past issues and the spotlight on the lawsuits via Harry's letter and PR pushes may have more to them than first meets the eye.

Nevertheless, not a great look for the Harkles. And the lawsuits have now overshadowed a perception of their Africa tour.

Look into groups similar to Correct the Record, R430. You will get scripts/talking points and it is an easy work from home gig. Pretty sure you can land something, then as you get experience you can get paid more. Good luck!

R461 genuinely thinks a social media role include posting Coldplay lyrics, okayyyyyy.

Is Meghan spiritual?

What the hell is that behind Meghan at R450

[quote] You act as if she married him and had a child under duress. Such a warped perspective. You're so convinced that she wants her old life back. She had the Vanity Fair covers and was merching away to her heart's content and she GAVE ALL THAT UP!

Ahem! Meghan's Mirror, R456. She gave Meghan's Mirror (the merching site) an itinerary of her half-million dollar baby shower so the press could surround her like she wished: a celebrity.

She shooed everyone away at Wimbledon so she could sit privately like a celebrity.

She attends premieres, book launches and fashion launches like a celebrity.

She genuinely does not act royal in many respects. She's disrespectful to protocol and inauthentic.

It's obvious from her behaviour and body language that she does not enjoy the traditional royal aspects of the BRF.

Don't know what you are smoking, but you're laughably deluded.

[quote]She wants this

As many other posters have noticed above, her looks have deteriorated. You think she wants this?

[quote]you dumbass troll

Congratulations. You've described yourself.

Bravo, r465.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I simply can't believe this is the same beloved Harry that wowed and captivated crowds in Sydney many years ago. This was prior to MM. He was happy, smiled and laughed. His popularity was through the roof. Now he's just an angry and bitter man child throwing tantrum after tantrum. Was the first Harry all an act? Or does he need serious help? I'm starting to think it is the latter. -DM

MM has brought out the worst in him R468. Also, I think it's possible he has always imagined that a happy marriage would erase the pain of the past. The marriage has not and his disappointment shows by his current temperament.

He seemed genuinely happy at that bizarre baby launch where Markle kept petting Archie like a hamster.

[QUOTE] Ahem! Meghan's Mirror, [R456]. She gave Meghan's Mirror (the merching site) an itinerary of her half-million dollar baby shower so the press could surround her like she wished: a celebrity.

What about the Instagram Replicate? Is that a merching account for Kate? It has ALL her outfits and accessories, with brands and pricing, as soon as she wears it, and has for years.

He was always a little shit - the family managed to keep it all under wraps.

R471-Replikate doesn't appear to receive details in advance. Meghan's Mirror blatantly does. Therein lies the difference.

The problem with using the insult "Replikate" for Kate is that the majority of British people not only like Kate, but think she is one of a kind and uniquely suited for her role. They can't imagine another human being who would be able to replace her. That's why "Replikate" sounds like nothing more than an expression of extreme bitter jealousy on the part of those who use it to refer to Kate.

[quote]But she comes off as if she would divorce him fast if a better offer came along. An offer that carried more fame and money without the limitaations of being a royal.

She's screwed on that score. She's nearing 40 and what looks she had have given way to I had a baby ass. She's got a reputation. She obviously trophy wife is closed to her and what ambitious U.S. politician eyeing the presidency would want her at present? (And he'd have to be eyeing the presidency.... she wouldn't settle for less.)

Her only escape route is a narrow one, which is to invest a couple years in cleaning up her act, getting royal humble right, and then divorcing him amicably. So she leaves on a wave of modest good will. She really did try, isn't it sad... Then she can try to assemble the life she wants by spending two years as a plucky, independent single woman and mom, free to go to all the parties and give ill reasoned if well intentioned speeches, before finding great love and becoming the wife of Senator Booker.

In fairness, R452, that describes a lot of people on this board, to one degree or another.

The Replickate nickname is not only insulting to Kate but to the (quite a few more than many like to admit), a women who enjoy playing a traditional role, especially when their children are young.

My sister would have loved to stay home with her two young ones, but it wasn't economically feasible.y A generation later, my niece is going through the same conflict, some of which, I absolutely believe, is hormonally driven when the children are first born and infants. It takes more than a year for woman's body to return fully to its pre-pregnancy hormonal levels. Later, both were happier outside the home than in, but in the frist years of their children's lives it was a real conflict.

Kate, of course, does work outside the home, but under very controlled conditions and with a great deal of help and no economic concerns.

Given who she married, it's absurd to suppose she could have played anything but a secondary role. He's the hereditary star; she isn't. She's doing the job she was brought in to do and doing it splendidly.

But there's usually not that many jobs like Kate's available at any one time. No one forced her to marry William, whom I think she genuinely loved and always has since their salad days. They went through a very long testing time together. Meghan and Harry didn't.

I think William's marriage is more like his grandparents - in a way, he married a girl just like Gran, not Mum. Traditional view of family and monarchy, fell in love early with one man, never fell out, and clung on through doubtful years (Elizabeth's father and mother took years to give permission for her to marry Philip, and insisted they wait an extran year when the couple's intentions become plain) until the barriers cleared.

Harry's marriage, however, much more mirrors his parents', and that's the problem. Unlike Charles, though, Harry is doubling down on his mistake. Charles knew his goose was cooking him by the time the honeymoon was over.

Piers Morgan tweeted a while ago that the "terrible press" should just quit covering the Sussex public engagement. Whatever you think of Piers, he's right. It would be the perfect response to their tantrum.

R467 That's the photo I referenced in this thread or another - Harry scowling, Meghan looking smug af.

That pursed-lips smile is so irritating. A lot of actresses do it. I imagine they practice. But how did it become a thing?

According to what I've read here, MM holds the copyright to the letter. But it was quoted in People magazine by her friends before. So is her defense going to be "I gave permission for People to use the letter but not The Mail on Sunday"? What's the legal answer to that?

It is not disputed in law she holds the copyright. So she can give permission for it to be used. Or withhold permission.

But there may bee some provision in law for fair use. They did not steal the letter. They were given it. In what little they've said the paper keeps saying they did not alter the contents of the letter. I am not sure why that is a defense. It is my understanding copyright is hers. But it's not like they wouldn't have known that before publishing.

[quote] What’s the legal answer to that.

You can’t bring something into the public domain and then announce that it’s private. She’ll fail if she tries that.

The issue will then be whether they breached copyright by reproducing it. That depends on how much of it they used. There’s a fair usage rule which allows the publication of excerpts, so it depends on how much of the whole they used.

What will be important is whether the judge decides that it was in the public interest to publish as much as they liked. Markle evidently brought the letter into the public domain to attack her father. He is entitled to defend himself and she invited comment by her actions. So the judge may well decide that it was fair that the letter be reproduced.

Thanks r482, clear and concise.

I thought she fucked off from Argentina to follow some older man she met - think it was to Greece? In any event, with no gratitude for her uncle pulling strings, she was there only a few weeks, a fraction of the short duration of the internship. Never change, Me-Again!

Meghan must be pleased that all the attention is back where it belongs, on her!

The Cambrideges are at the football, kiddies in tow, R485. They, or their handlers, are quite good at all this.

I do hope that Archie is allowed to spend time with his cousins growing up.

Not covering the Sussexes any longer was suggested easlier. The SUN, Mirror, and Mail could make an agreement, and leave the coverage to the TIMES, which certainly won't agree, and the Telegraph.

Only both the latter have paywalls.

MM is undeniably an attractive woman, but the stylists/hairdressers/makeup artists skills on Suits were clearly WAY above whatever team she is working with now. Has no one suggested a blunt trim on those ragged hair extensions? The ill-fitting clothes, shiny orange bronzer would never have made it past security on the Suits set.

Reminds me a bit of Grace Kelly. Truly a great beauty, but somehow once removed from the trusty hands of MGM’s hair, makeup and lighting experts, she could look just a bit drab.

R488 - Kelly didn't age well. That is to say, middle age turned her from a classic beauty into what in Britain we call a "handsome mature woman". The quality of her beauty was dependent on the sharp planes of youth. Once a bit of fat set in, she only looked attractive.

Meghan was no Kelly, for sure, but approaching middle age isn't doing her any favours, either. Like Kelly, her maximum good look was also dependent on youth. I think she believes all that hair is "youthful". It isn't, it makes her look like Cruella Deville. Spot on re trimming those ragged layers. The look of the uneven hanks of hair spilling out from the headscarf at the mosque last week was unbelievable in its slovenliness.

R486 - "I do hope that Archie is allowed to spend time with his cousins growing up"

Are you serious? Quite apart from the ill will between the two brothers, the Cambridges at this point probably think Meghan unhinged and wouldn't let her within five feet of their children. The look on Kate's face at that polo match at Meghan, Archie in her arms, inched closer to Kate and Louis, was priceless. They did not exchange a single word, I believe.

Meghan has deprived Archie of uncles, aunts, cousins, and probably a grandmother, as well.

And as she's cut herself off from both sides of her own family, Archie will be dependent on other celebrity kids and school friends. The Clooney twins will be his "cousins". Oh, and Serena's, as well.

'The Cambrideges are at the football, kiddies in tow, [R485]. They, or their handlers, are quite good at all this.I do hope that Archie is allowed to spend time with his cousins growing up.'

"Handlers'? This isn't One Direction, you idiotic Welp Troll. You always type 'kiddies'. So fucking creepy.

I think it's sad that her father has never seen his grandson. And probably never will. I know her family is "difficult" but I think that's awful.

He barely seems to have a relationship with the grandchildren he already has. Hell, Thomas Jr's kids rejected the Markle name in favor of their mother's.

Not a close knit family, no. She did trade on it, with her "growing up on the set" bullshit but we were supposed to understand that was just a tactic, a way to distinguish herself from the thousand other pretty girls.

No matter how some of you tart up your racism, it makes me feel good that with so much hate and fear, some of you have never felt a true happiness, or it was so far in the last millennium, you've forgotten.

R495, very true. The BRF threads are populated by querulous queens who last had sex in the 90s and by childless, spiteful old spinsters who think childbirth makes all women incontinent.

R495, very true. The BRF threads are populated by querulous queens who last had sex in the 90s and by childless, spiteful old spinsters who think childbirth makes all women incontinent.

R496 / R497, first of all - learn not to double-post. It makes you look like a troll. Second, you really think gays and sex-addicts in their 20s and married females with 5 kids never criticise celebrities? You're very naïve and must live in a bubble.

^ #BlockStupid

The Meghan Is A Goddess And You Are All Racists crowd are moles from CB sent here to try to undermine those of us who see the truth about that self-centered grifter.

After seeing Kaiser refer to Kate's polite smile through the car windows at the photographers snapping her driving off to church with the Queen at Balmoral as a "shit-eating grin", that lot has nothing to say here about bias and hate.

What's really burning their arses is not that Kate "doesn't work" (she does, but not at what they think she should be working at), but that a white English girl is beating the mixed-race American grifter at her own game.

The racism is entirely on their side. If Meghan were white and English and pulled the same stunts she did over the last year, they'd have crucified her. Their only interest in her is her DNA.

Kate smiles politetly as she is obligated to do at paps through a car window, and it's a "shit-eating grin". Meghan derails the final stage of a tour done at the request of the British government to serve her personal interest, and they salute her.

Just block them.

I blocked that fool who posted something like you are racists with empty lives. People like that are why I hate the internet. Before the internet they existed, but you never knew. They rode the bus, they got paid by the hour, they existed in their Dollar Store/TJ Maxx world, but you never knew and you were never exposed to the stupid that passes for thought with them. They're like stepping in dog shit.

Celebitchy posters are the worst. They contort themselves to slavishly support Harry and Meg. When he was rude to a female reporter who asked a legitimate question (does what does he expect a drop-in 15-minute inspirational speech to accomplish for anyone?), the comments were absurd. Harry was at his breaking point! Harry was stressed! Harry was tired! They bent over backwards to excuse his behavior. Had that been William, they would have vilified him as an entitled, spoiled misogynist who can't bear to be questioned. I can't stomach hypocrisy, and theirs is among the worst.

The real racists/hypocrites are the posters who would most certainly NOT be slavishly eating a mile of Megs' shit just to see where it came from if Megs were White, Asian, or Jewish.

Undoubtedly some are paid to post, R502. Best not to get so upset about it.

Your choice of words is spot on, but do watch your blood pressure. If posting is fun for you, you should defo try to find a pt paying gig either re: celebs or pols, as we head into 2020. You have a knack.

"He barely seems to have a relationship with the grandchildren he already has. Hell, Thomas Jr's kids rejected the Markle name in favor of their mother's."

So what? He has a grandson he's never seen, because his daughter and her dimwit husband think they're better than he is. They're not.

'Celebitchy posters are the worst.'

You are one of the few people in the world who even knows about that website, let alone posts there. I had never heard of it until you ranted over and over again about it, so you are clearly a shill for Celebitchy, trying to direct traffic there.

'Even Quaker Oats has brand managers online. '

THE WELP TROLL HAS SPOKEN, GUYS

Kate is disgusting.

Or are you, R506-Nothing ti see over there, folks! (Pssssr....go take a look!) Lots of people on these threads call out out the Clelebitchy cunts. We can smell them when they migrate over to defend their queen. They're whiffy.

R504 - You're not serious, are you? "Few people in the world" know about Celebitchy? It's one of the planet's best known celebrity gossip sites.

Try pulling the other one, love.

R509 - Anyone has as much right to be on DL as you unless Muriel ask them to leave and not come back..

There was a BI that SS had hired bots to be pro Meg. They have definitely found their way here.

Here it is, r512.

R512 = Welp Troll

Always and forever accusing people of being shills and bots.

[quote][R512] = Welp Troll Always and forever accusing people of being shills and bots.

R514 = Troll Troll

Always and forever accusing people of being Trolls.

(And we believe is paid PR with their thousands of accusatory posts!)

I'm with r512 and r515. The sheer insanity of the Megbot's hundreds of "Troll! Troll! Racist! Troll!" posts is simply staggering. It could indeed be a Sushine Sachs paid operative, but if it is, SS should be smarter and understand that posters like this one do a disproportionate amount of damage to the Duchess' reputation on boards like DL.

'(And we believe is paid PR with their thousands of accusatory posts!)'

The Welp Troll haunts this thread. As if any professional would be paid to be the Datalounge Spaz Troll and post thousands of times all over the board, on different issues. You hoes really think your tragic posts are that important?

R516 - Welp Troll !

The Welp Troll runs this thread and has no trouble convincing the gullible OAPs that they're fighting professionals.

Part of the strategy seems to be to get threads closed or to drive people off from posting on them, supressing discussion, due to their tactics, R516. The Harry Styles/spazz/Markle troll has been here for years, the volume is quite striking. Pretty sure he has been red tagged before.

There is always more than one, often they play off one another. Muriel advocates, and I agree, that simply blocking them is the best way to go. Make it harder for it to do the job by simply not engaging or even viewing the scripted posts. Encourage others to do the same.

Trolldar reveals that R519 is the original Welp Troll.

She came here from Tumblr as a Larrie in 2012, and went nuts up until 2016 trying to convince posters that Louis Tomlinson's baby was a reborn doll and Styles and Louis were secretly engaged. Famous mantra: 'welp, even grandmothers at Target call them the gay one and the other gay one.'

Eventually, she realised she was wrong, but has never forgiven Harry Styles for splitting up One Direction, and slags him off every day here on the various 1d threads.

She also thinks M and H are in a lavender marriage and gets behind any tinhat theory going. She's the one who says H has a thing for Adam.

Anyone who disagrees with her endless bitching about Markle or Styles is labelled a PR shill/Russian bot. She just can't stomach dissent of any kind, and has to label it PR intervention. Shame she has managed to convince other gullible posters here that they are facing a shill onslaught.

Phrases: welp/yikes/ymmv/oof/meh/uh/um/eh/even Quaker Oates has social media managers

Calls people 'fun' a lot. Refers to telenovellas and to children as 'kiddies'. Never spells 'spaz' or 'Azoff' correctly.

'Work on my medicine, work on

Thus credulous fools are caught.'

The Welp Troll is the Iago of the board. Don't be seduced by its machinations.

R508 If you can't tell that, that pic is a bad photoshop, there is no hope for you.

Good god. r520 is fucking intolerable.

"but has never forgiven Harry Styles for splitting up One Direction"

Does anyone really care if Harry Styles split up One Direction? Somehow I lost something or never got it in the first place.

I admit I am older than dirt but I cannot imagine anyone giving a fat rat's clacker about Harry Styles or One Direction or this Mendes Person.

R508, why are you double-posting that photoshopped photo in 2 threads already, and copy-pasting almost identical comments on 2 threads: "Kate is a degenerate!", "Kate is disgusting!". You also copy-pasted your precious "troll list" on 2 threads. The irony is that double-posting & copy-pasting so much, like you do, is actually troll-like behaviour.

You're the one lecturing everyone all the time about "Racism!" and "Misogyny!" - yet you have no qualms shitting on another female (Kate) just to elevate another female (Markle). If your aim is to decrease misogyny, the deep irony is that you're doing the exact opposite - you're actually perpetuating it.