Meghan sues the Daily Mail for publishing letter to her father

They are publicity hungry but also publicity shy. They want it both ways.

"Pay attention to my inspiring messages and constantly headline them! Do not pay attention to my hypocrisies or to my problems, and bury them!"

It’s kind of shocking to hear people this privileged, well off, and even overprotected/sheltered refer to themselves as “victims”.

They both sound extremely out of touch and tone deaf to refer to themselves that way when the average citizen is contending with *real issues* in life like: finding affordable housing, attaining a stable job that offers a living wage, paying off student loan debt, taking care of elderly relatives, receiving affordable healthcare, saving up enough money to even afford to be able to have and care for their own children someday, etc...

If these two genuinely see themselves as “victims” in this world, they must be insufferable to be around in real life.

[quote]R2 They both sound extremely out of touch and tone deaf

What British royal isn't?

I don’t know who is right legally; however, Dimwit and Markle are simply unlikable.

Good for meghan. All power to her and harry

The heart bleeds for you Meghan, it really does.

I think it was remarkably unkind to print that letter--a tortured family relationship should never be broadcast just because you can. I don't think it's hypocritical to set boundaries but also want to present a public self. That is a facile argument with little insight. We all do it--there are things I would never talk about at work even though my life is pretty much an open book.

Harry is such a fucking drama queen.

His mother's death was not the paparazzi's fault; it was the drunk driver's fault for driving dangerously, Dodi's fault for hiring a drunk to drive him, and Diana's fault for not wearing her seat-belt. But it's been so much easier for Harry to blame the press his whole life for his mother's death--it prevents him from blaming her for leaving him.

OP is worse than Hitler.

It is fucking outrageous for Harry to 1) imply that the press killed his mother, they didn't, her moron toy-boy-for-the-summer lover's drunk driver did, and 2) assert that Meghan is also about to die from all the evil things written about her by the tabloid press.

Diana earned much of her bad PR and so have Meghan Markle and Harry. Painting as a victim that hard-arsed grifter who from the beginning made it clear the BRF were only a stepping-stone for her has gotten what she deserved.

I have not one jot of sympathy for them.

According to the piece in the Graun, the writer of the letter retains copyright over it even after it leaves the author's hand and is received by the addressee. It is on this basis that the suit is being brought. The issue is, then, if I'm not mistaken, whether that copyright was violated merely by publishing the letter, or if it had to be edited/changed to violate the copyright.

If the latter, and the letter was unedited and unchanged, the MoS can claim no copyright violation. I think this is the point upon which the suit will stand.

If the former, the MoS may have to apologise and pay up.

And no one will pay the slightest attention, and the press will go on making life as miserable for Meghan and Harry as possible.

Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan are being criticized by the press yet again because instead of just using a motorcade of local cars for their trip to South Africa they had a fleet of Range Rovers flown over from the UK.

Whatever they touch turns to shit.

It's wonderful she has a husband who sticks up for her so. That's love.

I actually do feel bad for her. It must be awful to have people going through your life with a fine toothed comb at all times just so that they can find ways to demonize you and excuses to attack you. Another part of me though thinks that she should have realized it would come with the territory because

A) She’s a black royal in a country that is INCREDIBLY racist towards black people.

B) Royalty now is practically being a reality tv star. Of course the media is just going to be sitting there, twiddling their thumbs, waiting for you to publicly fuck up.

I don’t think they are suing for copyright infringement...but rather invasion of privacy and false representation.

I doubt the MoS changed the letter. They may have selectively chosen specific paragraphs but no one can complain about that. She either wrote what she did or she didn’t.

The privacy issue won’t work - her friends were openly talking about the letter in a magazine which is how the MoS found out about it in the first place.

If she’s going to claim she didn’t give her friends permission, then why isn’t she suing them? It’s not even their letter so they can’t claim ownership like Dad can.

I strongly suspect that this is going to end very badly for the Sussexes. I believe that most of the stories about her are substantially and demonstrably true & I also think the DM know far more than they’ve so far shared which they may well feel inclined to drop if this goes their way. Or even if it doesn’t.

Idiots.

Go fuck yourself R14, you clueless moron.

The UK is not “INCREDIBLY racist” towards black people. We’re actually one of the most tolerant nations on Earth.

No one cares about a bit of melanin. We do care about lying hypocrites who live off our money & lecture us on how we should live.

No doubt you look at Markle and see colour. The rest of us see a human being...so stop projecting your ignorant bigotry on the rest is us, you cunt.

Wait, am I confused? I thought Meghan didn't read any press publications about herself, especially the negative ones. Did she lie about that as well?

Her piece of shit dad sold the letter to the paper

[quote] The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously. Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.

The daily fail makes up stuff sometimes, and they just admitted to altering the letter and publishing it as if she wrote the entire letter. That's why they will lose.

R16 I’m sorry that you’re unhealthily patriotic, but if you think that all of the shit she’s getting isn’t at least somewhat racially motivated then you’re fucking crazy. If it isn’t racially motivated then how come Kate didn’t get that kind of pushback? How come Kate still isn’t getting shit in the way Markle is? Yeah, I’m gonna assume it has to do with something else, mate.

Meanwhile, in America, Donald Trump is STILL your president.

What could possibly be more frightening?

Sunshine Sachs has arrived with the “RACIST!” posts.

Look for the “I’m not a fan/she’s a bit Frau-ish but she’s trying/y’all are so mean!” posts.

[quote]they had a fleet of Range Rovers flown over from the UK.

They think they’re Saudi billionaires or something.

Sussexes: this is why they hate you.

[quote] Meanwhile, in America, Donald Trump is STILL your president. What could possibly be more frightening?

Meanwhile, in the UK, Boris Johnson is STILL your prime minister.

Enough said.

R22, exactly. Do they not have cars in Africa?

Pretty sure that she wrote that letter knowing that her father would publish, hence the ridiculous penmanship and florid prose.

She’s a fuckwit.

i think she's struggling with the fact that no matter what progressive brand she tries to create for herself, people can see from a mile away that she's a social climbing, superficial poseur who's about as pleasant as root canal surgery.

R24 and R22

Do you actually believe everything the rags print? They have tons of Range Rover dealerships in Africa. There is no need to ship any over there.

I hope Meg and Harry win this suit. I hope they keep filing and keep getting paid.

R27, if the story about the RR-shipping isn’t true, the Sussexes can sue for libel and win. The story damages their eco-sanctimonious brand!

Isn’t that how it works? If it’s not true, ya gotta sue!

[quote].....but if you think that all of the shit she’s getting isn’t at least somewhat racially motivated then you’re fucking crazy.

Those that cover for an individual's poor behavior with the RACIST! trope, are actually racist. They are so blinded by outer (skin melanin) appearances, they fail to identify beyond anything other than this. They are so obsessed with racial issues, they paradoxically become blinded by the very thing they assert others are: RACIST! When others perceptively observe Markle and criticize her actions, words and/or behaviors, the RACIST! excuse does not fly.

[quote]If it isn’t racially motivated then how come Kate didn’t get that kind of pushback? How come Kate still isn’t getting shit in the way Markle is? Yeah, I’m gonna assume it has to do with something else, mate.

Kate received YEARS of "pushback". Where have you been?! It's only in the contrast light of the Harkles that she has been receiving appreciation.

Unlike Markle, Kate's persona was not nor is, pugilistic or inflammatory. The more Markle pushes, the more resistance and "pushback" she encounters. It is NOT about the color of her skin. It IS her persona.

Oh ho ho. Jaguar Land Rover paid for the fleet of their vehicles to be shipped to South Africa because on the continent of Africa, there did not exist vehicles “secure enough”.

My sister in law traveled to Johannesburg with her Fortune 50 company and was part of the CEO’s entourage. Somehow there were vehicles “secure enough” to accommodate them...

The carbon footprint of needlessly flying a fleet of vehicles thousands of miles on a minor royal’s paranoid whim is quite negligible, actually. Their organic vegetable garden surely offsets any effects of the jet fuel...

R31 Do you believe everything you read?

R32, everything? No.

This? Yes.

It’s been widely reported, and if it’s not true, the Sussexes can sue for libel. We all know that Harry merches for Jaguar. They should commission a PopeMobile-type thingy. Maybe it can run on solar-powered batteries or used cooking oil.

No, r32, we only believe what you tell us, because you're so unbiased.

[quote] The UK is not “INCREDIBLY racist” towards black people. We’re actually one of the most tolerant nations on Earth. No one cares about a bit of melanin.

That's pure bullshit.

The "Windrush Generation" of emigrés from the Caribbean in the late 40s and early 50s were among the first to experience incredible racism in the UK, in the 20th century and Indian and Pakistani emigrés have experienced it too. There have been race riots in the UK--people with dark skin have been beaten to death by skinheads and members of far-right groups like the National Front and the BNP (British National Party). There has been novel after novel after novel about the racism non-white people have experienced in the UK: by Sam Selvon, George Lamming, Caryl Phillips, Zadie Smith, Andrea Levy, Gautam Malkani.

r35. The UK is not racist. Nowhere near.

Sorry. I know you want it to be, but it is not.

Even I think he's a bit much

I enjoy celebrity gossip, just like everyone else on DL. Oftentimes, I read it because lots of it is really funny, & provides some humor, for fun and for free! I think that’s why most of us like it.

The above being said, I can admit that I’m often perplexed as to why people latch on to certain celebrities and/or public figures, in order to demonize them non-stop. This is why I understand when people believe that Meghan Markle is attacked continuously, due to her race; it’s because there isn’t another genuine reason in the minds of those whom speculate about the underlying motives of these attacks. Understand that I’m currently addressing the motives behind those who are anonymous posters on “comments” sections, & not the press, as I understand the motives behind the press, which are obviously financial.

Why do so many anons give a flying fuck about this woman? Really, let’s dig deep here. She’s not married to any of you, she’s not your relative, or your friend, she isn’t your coworker. She’s not the President of the United States, she isn’t the UK’s PM. There is absolutely nothing offensive about being the wife of a prince.

I have perused other websites where this type of vitriol is directed toward other women. There’s a website called Female First, which interestingly enough, has a UK genesis. There’s an entire forum there, dedicated to bashing Angelina Jolie. It’s one of THE MOST DISTURBING forums that I’ve ever read. I don’t post or participate in any discussions there, because frankly, the participants there are completely unhinged. But I am befuddled as to their obsession with Jolie. There are thousands upon thousands of threads there, where anon posters just constantly rip this woman apart, just because an actor fell for her. Who gives a flying fuck if Brad Pitt fell out of love with his first wife, and fell in love with Jolie? Sure, the gossip rags were quite salacious and even hilarious when all of that went down, but here’s the truth: no one knows anything about these people. THEY ARE NOT OUR RELATIVES OR FRIENDS! THEY ARE PUBLIC FIGURES WHO LEAD PRIVATE LIVES BEYOND GOSSIP TABLOIDS. Their forum in particular has existed for YEARS, scrutinizing, belittling, and demonizing a woman who they’ve never even met!

I wish one of you Meghan haters would answer honestly, as to how this woman actually effects your life? And if you’re British and paying taxes, please don’t use the bullshit trope about your tax dollars being spent in ways which you disapprove, because we all know the the BRF live large, always have, and none of this is regarding Meghan’s & Harry’s expenses are novel or groundbreaking.

Why do some of you here, live to hate total strangers? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Seriously.

Honestly, I don’t get it. Maybe I’m just totally ignorant about PR, & demonizing celebs is financially profitable for these people, but let’s not pretend that the people who constantly attack and berate Meghan Markle, or someone like Jolie, are mentally sound, emotionally healthy, & well adjusted individuals.

So is that the final verdict: her dad sold the letter to the paper?

Or did they go through his rubbish bins ( more likely)?

I somehow doubt he threw out the letter for anyone to find in his trash, r39.

[quote] And if you’re British and paying taxes, please don’t use the bullshit trope about your tax dollars being spent in ways which you disapprove, because we all know the the BRF live large, always have, and none of this is regarding Meghan’s & Harry’s expenses are novel or groundbreaking.

No, R38, he's SIXTH-in-line to the throne now (i.e. pushed way down the list) - so all the public expenses still wasted on Henry Mountbatten-Windsor are "novel and groundbreaking". He acts like he deserves as much money as the future "King" - Charles / William. No, he should get ca. 6 times less than Charles and William get. In fact, being 6th-in-line and 35 years old now (and balding) - he should stop sucking at the public's tit, get off the taxpayer payroll and start earning his own money now. Because he'll never be King, ever - there are 5 people already ahead of him in the hierarchy - so he needs to find a proper full-time job and pay for his own expenses now.

People who claim that UK and Europe aren’t racist at all don’t know any black or brown people from those countries. The British upper class founded colonialism and it’s holding firmly to those traditions . Megan’s faces blatant racist rhetoric from several reporters (and no I don’t really like her that much but it’s a fact). Racism is built into the monarchy and if they were really interested in changing things they’d tell grandmum to give back her jewels.

[quote] She’s a black royal in a country that is INCREDIBLY racist towards black people.

[quote] If it isn’t racially motivated then how come Kate didn’t get that kind of pushback? How come Kate still isn’t getting shit in the way Markle is? Yeah, I’m gonna assume it has to do with something else, mate.

It is “something else”, R16 / R19. Middleton kept her head down and tried to avoid making controversial statements (she didn’t portray herself as a fake “UN progressive feminist” who then did a 180 turn and married into one of the most conservative families in the world and started supporting conservative elitism; or as a fake “ecological activist” who takes 4 jets in 11 days). Middleton and William exhibited comparatively less condescending hypocrisy. Whereas, Henry and Markle promote themselves as “faux-progressives” while leading conservative, classist lifestyles - which is jarring.

Markle wasn’t the first biracial aristocrat in Britain - Emma Thynn, “Viscountess” Weymouth (and a future Marchioness), who is half-Nigerian and half-English, was here way ahead of Markle. She was walked down the aisle by her Nigerian dad - with everyone dressed in national Nigerian costumes. There was never as much public criticism of Thynn as there is of Markle - because, as someone who gained a position only thanks to marrying her husband, Thynn never pretended to be anything other than what she is.

But it seems some Americans (who cry "racism!" at every corner) only care about supporting their own Californian D-list celebs like Markle - and don’t give a heck about any other biracial aristocrats like Thynn in England, who is not just black, but also culturally part-Nigerian (with a dad who actually lives on the African continent).

[quote]Why do some of you here, live to hate total strangers?

It’s not that deep. It’s a gossip website. Relax.

R44 - Donald Trump is a total stranger, too. So is Boris Johnson. So is Vladimir Putin.

I never noticed that making a difference in the vitriol poured upon them routinely here.

And on this gossip site, lots of infatuation is also poured out on people who are total strangers, too.

It's a gossip site, focussed on people none of us have ever met or are likely to.

And, let us face it. the object of this alleged hatred (really, our digestive systems have continued to function normally after spending some time on these threads, it's not as bad as all that) is someone who has spent her life promotinhg herself, lying about herself, reinventinhg herself, and being unable to disguise her taste for celebrity.

I'm afraid it's really a hand in glove situation here.

YAY!!! Good for her. I hope she beat their asses to the ground and gets a public apology.

I just love the judgy, racist Brits getting their just desserts. Fuck them and their golden asshole sticks. The world is getting a lot of jollies around all of it.

*beats* as in legally.....we all know she'd had no problems kicking their asses physically. Shit, you could blow Middleton over with a sneeze.

I'm laughing at the troll who thinks Britain isn't racist or doesn't look at race. Sure, bitch, history has bone to pick with that fantasy. Current history proves you are a hypocrite, a liar, and need to read something other than your toilet paper ingredient roll.

Yeah, you want to just see the baby because he's so cute. No one is fooled.

Lol, R48, why are dragging Ireland into this? The Irish are Celts = Caucasian. The spats between Brits and the Irish, or the Spanish and the Catalans, or China and Taiwan are not "racist" - each pairing is the same race, it's just a fight for border territory.

And what does "history has a bone to pick" have to do with anything? Historically, many Americans were xenophobic against the Irish arriving in Boston (even the author of "Little Women" wrote "no Irish need apply" columns, advising fellow Americans to stop employing and drive out "inferior" Irish immigrants). So, what, are you saying Americans are still phobic against the Irish because "history has a bone to pick"?

Of course Britain has racism. Being biracial myself, I can tell you that Asia has racism against blacks and African countries like Zambia have racism against immigrant Asians. Even your own example (India) has skin-based discrimination. The ironic thing is that India has many sub-ethnicities - and some are charcoal-black (though not African). But these "dark-skinned" Indians are being discriminated against in their own country. The whiter you are - the more popular you are in India. That's why Aishwarya Rai (very light-skinned Indian) is the most popular Indian actress and model, even in her own billion-population country.

But the criticism against the Mountbattern-Windsors (Markle and Henry) transcends those things - they're both genuinely unlikeable and gratingly hypocritical. Henry has Scottish and German heritage - but that doesn't save him from the fact that he lied on record.

typical celebs, only like it when the papers kiss their asses. 100% hypocrites. useless cunts!

This story was on MSNBC and one of the morning shows on regular network TV. The British expert who was on the morning show was working very hard to shit all over Pa Markle and white-knight for Meghan. And obligatory reference to Saint Diana. Idly wondering if she’s the usual mouthpiece of SS.

They don’t make it easy, you know.

From R43:

“There was never as much public criticism of Thynn as there is of Markle - because, as someone who gained a position only thanks to marrying her husband, Thynn never pretended to be anything other than what she is.”

So what R43 is saying, is that Meghan is an uppity n*gger, as they say in the American South, because she has a degree in Drama from Northwestern, enjoys calligraphy, wears nice clothes, and is involved in philanthropy, as well as in high end fashion, yes???

Well, after perusing Emma Thynn’s Bio on Wikipedia, it appears that she and Meghan have lots in common, & have both followed an eerily similar trajectory since they wed into the British aristocracy.

There are some differences, such as Emma was born into great wealth, was raised with everything she ever wanted, and attended the very best schools that money can buy, with the children of other 1 Percenters. And I recall hearing some gossip, specifically while lunching in NYC a while back, that Emma’s betrothed has a mummy named Anna, who has made Emma’s life a living hell. Allegedly, Anna loves her spirits, and has been known to call her son & her daughter-in-law numerous times throughout the evening, once having imbibed more than her fair share of cocktails. She always starts off well, yet within minutes, she veers into verbal abuse, which includes nasty comments regarding Emma’s race, as well as reminding her son that he has ruined their bloodline.

Emma should count her lucky stars, that hypocritical, racist cunts like R43 take up for her, but not for Meghan.

[quote] So what [R43] is saying, is that Meghan is an uppity n*gger, as they say in the American South,

R52, it seems you have lived or visited the "American South" for too long. You now talk & think like them too :). And then project your own bias on other continents - because you seem to like the N-word very much and this gives you an excuse to write it.

[quote] Well, after perusing Emma Thynn’s Bio on Wikipedia, it appears that she and Meghan have lots in common

Sure, the offspring of an American TV worker from North America and the offspring of an Oil Executive, raised in Europe and Nigeria, have "lots in common". Lol. Thynn is more extravagant than Markle, but is ironically much more well-adjusted - she has a good relationship with her own paternal family (father and half-siblings). She doesn't sue British tabloids. Her dad is an actual African citizen, but she doesn't "tour" Africa, parading around like Mother Theresa with a Western saviour mentality complex. She's known her husband since they were kids, so they've had a long relationship. She's only been married once (current marriage) and she didn't mail back her wedding ring in an envelope in an acrimonious divorce.

It's actually ironic, you claim they have "lots in common" - so you'd think they'd be "best buds" then, both living as "aristocratic wives" in England. Nope. They don't even want to hang out together. While Markle is "touring" Africa, fake-calling everyone there "sisters" - she doesn't even hang out with the other actual African "Viscountess" in England, who preceded her. Maybe because Markle is concerned that Thynn (who seems to have a larger-than-life personality and gets invites to model in Milan and to appear on "Strictly Come Dancing") would overshadow her. Or maybe because Markle isn't actually interested in her "real African-region sisters" that much. After all, Markle only ever dated white/Caucasian guys and her best friend in Canada was predictably a white Canadian female.

R53, as Americans say, give me a fucking break.

Why does Meghan have to befriend Emma? Why is it wrong for Meghan to address others as her “sisters”?

And you cannot suggest with a straight face, that Emma would overshadow Meghan, because she appears on a TV show equivalent to America’s “Dancing With the Stars”.

Let’s cut to it, shall we? You are mentally and emotionally unsound. You’re obsessed with a woman whom you don’t know, and your pathological pursuit of denigrating her raises various red flags in regards to your mental health. Perhaps you have a problem with the drink?

[quote] as Americans say, give me a fucking break.

What kind of weird phrasing is that, R54. Not only "Americans" say that now. And you point that out as if it's somehow 'important' that it's precisely "Americans" who say that. It's such a trite, overused phrase - why even qualify its origin. I don't give a heck what Americans say.

What's wrong is idiot Californians like Markle and elitist Brits like Henry "touring" the world with a Messianic Western saviour complex, that's what. If some Chinese-American actress goes to Shanghai and starts telling everyone: "Sisters! Brothers! Brethren!" - it's fake. Because she won't remember any of her "sisters" or "brethren's" names in a week's time, and doesn't really give a heck about them - she's only there for a split-second, for photo opportunities, and then she's gone.

[quote] Let’s cut to it, shall we? You are mentally and emotionally unsound. You’re obsessed with a woman whom you don’t know, and your pathological pursuit of denigrating her raises various red flags in regards to your mental health. Perhaps you have a problem with the drink?

Lol, so if you don't "personally, privately" know a public person (who is, mind you, promoting themselves on global public platforms and issuing public statements) - then you can't have an opinion on them? You're ridiculous, R54. What next - you're going to tell me if I don't "know" Robespierre, I can't criticise him? :)

And, R54, you're obsessed with white-knighting for a celebrity you "don't know". None of the "Royals" would defend YOUR "honour" or even piss on you even if you were on fire. So pour yourself that drink - you need it more than me.

[quote] What kind of weird phrasing is that, [R54]. Not only "Americans" say that now. And you point that out as if it's somehow 'important' that it's precisely "Americans" who say that.

r55, you forgot you're dealing here with the Dowager Countess of Grantham!

[quote] And you cannot suggest with a straight face, that Emma would overshadow Meghan, because she appears on a TV show equivalent to America’s “Dancing With the Stars”.

Yes, I can say that with a straight face. I didn't say "because" she appeared on "Strictly", R54 - learn to read. I specifically said because she has a larger-than-life personality. And why not? Why can't British-Nigerian Thynn eventually over-shadow Californian Markle? While Markle was busy painting her nursery in grey "gender-neutral" colours, Thynn is not afraid of bold colours and is not preoccupied with role-playing as "Diana No 2". The only reason Markle is more well-known currently is because of who her husband is. But Harry's fake eco-antics made him less popular and he's now only 6th in line - and Markle's trajectory is tied with his.

Celebrities crying... boo fucking hoo.

You want the glory you take the gunk.

I don't know the legalities of the lawsuit so I have know idea who will win. But in a relatively short period of time, Harry and Markle have become extraordinarily unlikable. She was never all that likable; phony, full of shit from the start. Harry has tumbled far since connecting with her. I just don't like them, which I'm sure will be devastating to them. Maybe they can win back my affection, but it will take a lot.

[quote]Donald Trump is a total stranger, too. So is Boris Johnson. So is Vladimir Putin.

You are a genuinely stupid person surpassed only by any helmet-wearing fool who thought something so stupid was worthy of a "wisdom" vote.

[quote]According to the piece in the Graun, the writer of the letter retains copyright over it even after it leaves the author's hand and is received by the addressee. It is on this basis that the suit is being brought. The issue is, then, if I'm not mistaken, whether that copyright was violated merely by publishing the letter, or if it had to be edited/changed to violate the copyright. If the latter, and the letter was unedited and unchanged, the MoS can claim no copyright violation. I think this is the point upon which the suit will stand.

Speaking as an expert on GDPR law, the duchess is legally in the right. The Mail can't simply take a copyrighted letter, edit a few words out, and magically claim that the original author has "given up" their original copyright. Also, do you seriously think the Windsors would go to the trouble of *suing* the Daily Fail if they didn't know they had a case? How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of negative articles have the British tabloids published about them over the decades?

Btw note here that both European law and British law are MUCH stricter on such topics than the US, where the *recipient* of a letter can do whatever he or she pleases with it. The GDPR is essentially the *sole* reason using any European-based website is now such a colossal pain in the arse: it imposes significant rules on any and all publishers, both online and off, and most of all with respect to personal information.

[quote]Why do so many anons give a flying fuck about this woman? Really, let’s dig deep here. She’s not married to any of you, she’s not your relative, or your friend, she isn’t your coworker. She’s not the President of the United States, she isn’t the UK’s PM. There is absolutely nothing offensive about being the wife of a prince.

Of course there isn't. DL queens are in high dudgeon over Meghan - and have been ever since the news first broke of her dating Harry - because:

1. She's an American.

2. She's a half-black American, and is thus "impure breeding stock" for the British royal family.

3. She's older than her husband, even if only slightly so.

4. Harry is the only hot-male royal, and DL queens are desperately jealous. Not only does she get to fuck Harry; she's also a princess in spirit if not by title.

Our resident queens, and in particular the eldergays -- who otherwise go full-tilt-boogie batshit over any embrace of "heteronormative" behaviour -- are therefore predisposed to DETEST the woman, much in the fashion of a condescending mother-in-law. (It's not without irony that they are far more judgmental than Meghan's *actual* mother-in-law, the Queen herself.)

Um, r62, have you sen Harry lately? 'Hot' is not the descriptor that comes to mind. He looked hot for about two minutes years ago. He has aged poorly.

R61 - thanks for the input. The MoS is claiming it did not violate copyright BECAUSE it did NOT change a single syllable in the letter. That' was my question: does copyright violation hinge only on publishing without permission, or CHANGING the original?

My other question is, if the DoS has such a good case, why did the MoS refuset to settle privately? What is your educated guess on that? Surely, with the legal advice available to the parent company, if the DoS had that good a case, they were advised to settle? If they were advised that they stand a chance of winning the case, on what basis would that have been given? I'm thinking here possiblty of the fact that Meghan discussed the publication of the letter with the "friends" who were interviewed for PEOPLE Magazine and brought it up publicly.

Does that change anything?

So, I'm still looking for clarification on these.

R62 - Oh, yes, it's her DNA, her age, and citizenship. Her rudeness to the Yorks on Eugenie's wedding day, the tiaragate story the Palace never denied and that appeared in an authorised biography of Charles, the treatment of Melissa Tabouti that the Palace never denied, instead releasing a statement about Tabouti's wonderful qualities to keep her from telling the world what she'd seen of Markle the Marvellous on that tour, her abysmal taste in clothes, her handling of her son's birth and christening and godparents, the Wimbledon Diva debacle . . . did I forget to mention the six dozen or so times she mentions herself in her writings and speeches?

These have nothing to do with dislike of her, why, nothing at all!

It's just her DNA we don't like.

Her own behaviour has NOTHING to do with it.

She's a fucking charmless self-promoter, a c-lister aching to be an a-lister, on a silly cable show and approaching the shady side of 35, no husband, no kids, and aging rapidly out of the ingenue roles she covets, and for which she's now competed with 20 year olds who are fresher and prettier and probably better actresses.

Harry Windsor rescued her from what she knew bloody well was oblivion, with most of her chances and best shots behind her.

It's not her DNA, mate: it's HER.

[quote]Why do so many anons give a flying fuck about this woman?

Relax r38. Talk about over-analysis. She's a famous celebrity, we like to discuss and yes sometimes even demonize famous people here, on a gossip board. It's aimless talk.

As if the DoS is reading here or is being harmed by what's written here. Many of the BRF have had similar things posted about them here over the years.

Better question is why you're here or over at Female First reading thru all of these 'disturbing' boards, trying to distress yourself. Stop clutching your pearls over it all and move on to read something more substantial and less bothersome to you.

HM is not Markle’s mother in law, you fool, R62.

R65 correct but the more people reveal the truth about Harry and meghan and rightfully call them out on it, the more they push back. I've always said the best way for the media to get back to them is to give them zero attention. Ignore them. They thrive on bad press as well because they can push the victim narrative and get famous people to defend them. All the while megsy is loving it because shes the centre of attention. She's being compared to Diana which is all she wants. For them drama=interest. They will never be king and queen but they are determined to get the most attention.

[quote] 4. Harry [bold]was once, years ago,[/bold] the only hot-male royal,

FIXED

[quote]The MoS is claiming it did not violate copyright BECAUSE it did NOT change a single syllable in the letter. That' was my question: does copyright violation hinge only on publishing without permission, or CHANGING the original?

It applies to both. You cannot reuse ANYTHING someone else has written without their explicit permission, edited or not.

[quote]My other question is, if the DoS has such a good case, why did the MoS refuset to settle privately? What is your educated guess on that?

My educated guess is that they're wagering on Brexit invalidating the GDPR law under which Meghan is suing. If Britain is no longer a member of the EU, then the law's applicability will no longer be in effect there. That being said, it remains an open question whether Meghan would still have a case with an EU tribunal given that the transgression occurred *prior* to any formal Brexit (regardless of when, or even if, it happens), when Britain was still clearly bound by EU law. Seeing as Brexit itself is unprecedented, so is the matter of whether violations of EU-specific laws within Britain can be retroactively prosecuted.

[quote]She's a fucking charmless self-promoter, a c-lister aching to be an a-lister, on a silly cable show and approaching the shady side of 35, no husband, no kids, and aging rapidly out of the ingenue roles she covets, and for which she's now competed with 20 year olds who are fresher and prettier and probably better actresses.

This is self-delusional fiction. Do you seriously think Harry is some dolt who fell under the magic charms of some soon-to-be-has-been old hag with no redeeming qualities other than (rapidly fading) looks? Or that *any* member of the British royal family wouldn't see straight through a shameless self-promoter in all of a nanosecond? Please.

[quote]It's not her DNA, mate: it's HER.

Yes, if by "her" you include many of the same traits for which DL queens detest Princess Kate nearly as much. She was a "commoner"; her parents were (gasp!) middle-class; and she only landed a royal due to her looks (also doomed to fade within a decade) and fame-whore tendencies. The only real differences are Meghan being slightly older, American, and "mulatto." The horror!

I've written a letter to daddy!

Holy shit, R65. You are a fucking psycho

[quote]Her rudeness to the Yorks on Eugenie's wedding day,

Andrew is a fucking rapist of girls. Sarah USED the family to make a shitload of money. You and every other idiot need fucking help. You are a psycho obsessed with glorifying a family with a shitload of vile behavior in its past and present and creating some insane and warped view of a woman you hate solely for who she married. FUCK. YOU. DEMENTED. FOREIGN. SHITHEAD.

"This is self-delusional fiction. Do you seriously think Harry is some dolt who fell under the magic charms of some soon-to-be-has-been old hag with no redeeming qualities other than (rapidly fading) looks? Or that *any* member of the British royal family wouldn't see straight through a shameless self-promoter in all of a nanosecond?"

That is the single funniest post I think I seen in DL in a long time.

Dear, they don't call him Dimwit for nothing. And yeah, he fell for the manipulative skills of a woman who knew he was her last chance at glory and who played him like a violin. And, yeah, others in the BRF probably did see right through her buy couldn't do anything about it.

And lastly, ducky, there's precedent here: Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor, and his American grifter, Wallis Simpson. When he plaintively asked his mother, Queen Mary, why she woudln't "receive" his divorced American mistress, Queen Mary replied coldly, "Because she is an adventuress."

Thsi is old hat, mate. The BRF couldn't do anything about Wallis and the Queen had reservations about Diana but kept her mouth shut and I'm sure she saw right through Meghan Markle, too. But she's notoriously confrontation averse and really, with Harry about to become sixth in line, there was neither much use or much likelihood of a successful intervention.

I didn't say she was an old hag. But in the business she was in, a C-list actress over 35 might as well be 50 and she would certainly have been savvy enoght to know that. Harry was her chance and she grabbed it - ditching the hot Tornoto chef in an eyeblink. She HAS lied on her CVs, she has inflated her "story", she DID ghost her father the moment she began dating royalty - that poor fat old slob was just too off-brand to meet a Windsor before she'd made sure of him.

You're a deluded sugar, mate. This is an old story. She didn't marry him for his looks, charm, superior intellect, and noble character.

She married him because he was a high-status catch (and by the way, she was on the record as being on the hunt for a high profile British man around that same time).

She wouldn't have given him the time of day if he'd been a local middle-management type she met at a cocktail party in Toronto. And by the way, the Clooneys never gave her the time of day before she married, Harry, either.

Give it a rest. Or go play with the other adoring sugars on Celebitchy.

A lot of the hate is in fact coming from British trash because as someone who lived there for a couple of months, white Britons are some of the most racist shits you will ever encounter and to the hideous, American fraus who are either spinsters or in loveless marriages, go fucking do something with your lives. Your obsession with hating this woman is abnormal. Just because you lunatics found each other, doesn't suddenly make you normal. Incels found each other, too. So do people storming Area 51. Every crackpot finds its lid and you loons who hate this woman have found each other. Demented idiots.

R70 - Thanks for the explanation. I don't know how much stock I put in it, as the uncertainty of BREXIT over the last year makes counting on a bona fide exit rather risky, in my view - if that's the advice their legal team gave them, I'd sack the lot. The bloody Delphic Oracle probably wouldn't [lace a bet on BREXIT these days.

If your explanation is correct that simply publishing the letter rises to the level of copyright infringement, then the MoS has to KNOW it will lose, in which case, why fight it out?

If they got, on the other hand, good legal advice, then they know the DoS will prevail - so why take it forward?

I dunno. I smell some ulterior motivation at work, some sort of Martyrdrom of the Free Press by Privileged Royals?

Both sides want to make a big case out of this. I get the Sussex reason for doing so, but I'm still wondering about the MoS's reason - espcially if, as you suggest, they haven't a leg to stand on re infringement.

R61, R70, Thank you. As an American, most of that discussion is very obscure to me, and you've helped me understand the issue much better now.

[quote]And lastly, ducky, there's precedent here: Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor, and his American grifter, Wallis Simpson.

You're seriously comparing Meghan to Wallis Simpson?? If you're *that* daft and desperate enough to resort to such false equivalencies, I really don't know what else to say. (Well, except for the obvious jealousy *seething* through your post, along with more than a tinge of ageism, racism and xenophobia.)

R71 - Oh come off it with your outrage. No one in the family gave a fuck about her black Mum.

Who, by the way, seems to have a shrewd appreciation for her daughter's personality issues, stays far away living her own life, shows up for the appropriate photo ops (wedding, birth, christening, and one visit during the first months of Meghan's pregnancy), and the rest of the time maintains a safe distance from Meghan's penchant for turning everything, even something as mundane as a christening and godparent announcement, int oLa Gran Scena.

OMG she didn't want men in suits delivering her baby! OMG she couldn't spend 5 minutes waving to the plebs on the steps of the Portland Hosptial! OMG she would never tell who the doctors were! OMG the godparents needed privacy! Oddly enough, Kate Middleton seemed perfectly capable of a five-minute wave on the hospital steps, of giving the public a bit of personal interaction, and no one has ever hunted down or threatened any of the godparents of any of the three Cambridge children.

It's always. always drama with Meghan.

R78 - Oh Jesus, you really are fucking unhinged.

You are a mole from CB, aren't you? Those fraus always, when desperate, bring out that old dog-eared "jealous" card.

Yawn. Block.

R8 - from what I remember, the eventual verdict was that the paparazzi were partly to blame for the crash (as was the drunken chauffeur).

[quote]If your explanation is correct that simply publishing the letter rises to the level of copyright infringement, then the MoS has to KNOW it will lose, in which case, why fight it out?

Again, EVERYTHING will change if Brexit goes through - and like it or not (and I certainly don't), that's still by far the most likely outcome. At this point the main questions are whether Boris will succeed in getting the no-exit Brexit he wants (which are slim) or if the EU will at least temporarily grant Ireland a reprieve over the backstop issue (which is quite likely). It is not at all a given that the MoS will lose, except in the unlikely event the UK has a second referendum and ends up remaining in the EU.

If they *do* lose, they'll have to pay a relatively minor civil penalty to the DoS ("minor" like perhaps £10m). It's not like they'll be forced into receivership or something. Yes, the MoS is taking a gamble, but it's one with a reasonably strong likelihood of success, and one for which they won't suffer tremendously if they lose. (Under British law the only major problem the tabloids will face is its extremely lax libel laws, which strongly favour those allegedly defamed in some fashion. That's not the case here.)

R81 - The photographers may have prompted him to speed up, but the fact remains, he was too drunk to control the car. None of the photogs were prosecuted or ended up with any legal responsibility at all. And if Diana hadn't decided to let go of her protection officers, they wouldn't have let her get in the car.

The paps were part of a terrible scenario, but the primary responsibility was a drunk driver and the failure of Dodi and Diana to put on their seat belts. In fact, no one in the car was wearing a seat belt.

The paps were the least of it.

[quote]His mother's death was not the paparazzi's fault; it was the drunk driver's fault for driving dangerously, Dodi's fault for hiring a drunk to drive him, and Diana's fault for not wearing her seat-belt. But it's been so much easier for Harry to blame the press his whole life for his mother's death--it prevents him from blaming her for leaving him.

The press were chasing the limo down that tunnel which was well known to be treacherous. They bear some of the responsibility.

Meghan gets the same treatment that Diana gets by a bunch of old fraus who think wearing a dress above the kneecaps is scandalous.

R66, points well taken. Thanks. Frankly, I’m currently bored out of my skull. I injured myself at work several weeks ago, and due to the nature of my injuries, I cannot do much, as I am under Dr.’s orders to be still, relax, & heal. Other than physical therapy, I haven’t much to do, other than watch films, read, & surf the internet. So that’s why I’ve been looking through websites. It’s the proverbial rabbit hole.

I guess that I read and over analyze, because I’ve always been interested in what makes people tick. I find it fascinating and disturbing that people obsess over someone like Markle, because I’ve never disliked a complete stranger with such venom, & so ardently, as these whackos do Markle., with exception to our current president and some in his administration. However, Donald Trump & his sycophants DO affect us in our day to day lives, so I find that enormous dislike justified.

I’m no supermodel, but I don’t begrudge other women their romantic relationships, marriages, or families. I guess I just don’t understand the hoopla surrounding women like Markle and Jolie? No one’s perfect, the two aforementioned included, granted. But why repudiate them 24/7?

I guess I’ll have to accept that it’s something that I will never understand. And I say that as a pretty tough cookie with pretty thick skin, who has been targeted by other women throughout my life based on external judgements.

R72, LMAO!!!

[quote] I guess I just don’t understand the hoopla surrounding women like Markle and Jolie? No one’s perfect, the two aforementioned included, granted. But why repudiate them 24/7?

Why are you comparing Jolie to Markle, R85? Jolie does not pretend to do "charity" while basically living off charity from taxpayers. As a private citizen who pays for herself, Jolie can do whatever the heck she wants. If Markle gets off the public payroll (there are impoverished people in Britain who need that money more than she does) and starts paying for all her own expenses - she'll be able to do whatever the heck she wants too.

The public is giving feedback on them "24/7" because the Mountbatten-Windsors are promoting themselves 24/7 - in Italy, in Africa, in Canada, in Australia, etc, etc. If they keep parading in front of cameras, giving speeches in public conferences, releasing statements and photos and courting attention ("look at me! listen to me! watch me!") - the public WILL respond to them and voice feedback on their self-promotion.

The racist Megstans on here clearly don't know that Britain has already had TWO mixed-race Queens, meaning minor royal Meghan's skin colour is not some Royal 'revolution', nor does she fundamentally change anything about the BRF bloodline.

Phillippa of Hainault and Charlotte of Mecklenburg. Both of direct African Moorish descent. Read the contemporary descriptors of their facial features and in Phillipa's case, her "brown skin":

Meghan is working for the money she gets off the public. She is highlighting important issues that need to be addressed. She also spent a year editing her own issue of Vogue, going around the world getting interviews, taking photos. And let's not pretend that she doesn't have her own money. She was a very successful actress in a hit TV show for a number of years.

I love the poster who called Replikate 'William's housewife'.

Kate is a disgusting little servile hoe, isn't she? Remember when she was a yacht girl in the Solent? And her short lived job as a buyer at Jigsaw? And how William waited for nearly ten years before finally resigning himself to the fact he couldn't find anyone better, but all the time she was living with him and sponging off the Civil List?

R90, you seriously think the future king of the United Kingdom "couldn't find anyone better" and had to settle?

[quote] She is highlighting important issues that need to be addressed.

R88, the most important (non-partisan) urgent issues in Britain that need to be addressed are the (1) NHS deficit and the fact there isn't enough money anymore for enough hospital rooms; and (2) the police budget deficit, where the Met Police declared they don't have enough funds anymore to even examine street crimes below a certain monetary threshold.

Markle hasn't highlighted any of that - instead she's "touring" African countries in Messianic style (countries that don't even pay her upkeep) on British taxpayers' dime.

Markle would be working for her money if she instead "grand-toured" small, struggling, grimey towns in Britain: Newcastle's deteriorated neighbourhoods, Blackpool's cold council estates, Glasgow's and Cardiff's depressing rough parts, the towns that experienced fatal flooding this week. But of course the Mountbatten-Windsors don't want to visit struggling British towns in the cold, rainy autumn / winter - instead they're jetting around abroad and enjoying the sun, like a semi-holiday. Henry also seems to have over-indulged in the wine boozing or the sun-tanning, because he couldn't even walk in a straight line.

That gives me an idea, R93 - the royals should make a habit of holidaying in places like Blackpool! "They bring in lots of tourism" is the argument always trotted out to justify the monarchy, yet they always holiday abroad. Why not promote British holiday resorts? I'd pay good money to see Charles and Camilla slumming it at Butlin's or Pontins!

Charles & Camilla should holiday in Welsh seaport towns. Those places can be very grungy and slummy in places (Wales is one of the most economically deprived areas in Britain), but Charles is the "Prince of Wales" after all. About time he spends more time there and does more to help, instead of holidaying in Switzerland every year.

He might as well change his title to the "Prince of the Swiss Klosters Resort" - since he spends more annual time there than in Wales.

[quote] go fucking do something with your lives. Your obsession with hating this WOMAN is abnormal. Just because you lunatics found each other, doesn't suddenly make you normal. INCELS found each other, too … you loons who hate this WOMAN have found each other. Demented idiots.

R75, why don’t you yourself “do something with your life”, instead of white-knighting for a “celebrity” on a gossip forum that Markle doesn’t even read. You write post after post like a rabid feminist (‘she’s a WOMAN! a WOMAN! a WOMAN, I say! And anyone criticising a WOMAN is an INCEL! INCELS! MISOGYNY! MISOGYNY!’).

I don’t give a heck if she’s a woman, or a male drag-queen, or a cock-in-a-frock, or a conjoined twin. I don’t give a heck if she has a vulva, or a cock, or a “front-hole”. Markle’s CHARACTER (as a person) is ridiculously phony either way.

[quote] as someone who lived there for a couple of months, white Britons are some of the most racist shits you will ever encounter and to the hideous, American fraus who are either spinsters or in loveless marriages

Lol, I love how your superficial feminism disappears the minute you need to elevate Markle by bashing other females. And it's ironic that you immediately go after unmarried females as your perceived main witches. Lol, as if “happily married females” don’t ever do anything bad. Better look up criminal caselaw where lots of “happily married love-birds” merrily kill or maim victims - together - high on such “aphrodisiac bonding & foreplay”. The irony is that you're the one who sounds like an "incel", thinking any selfish “love-marriage” automatically elevates someone’s character and that only “female spinsters” can be villains. Lots of criminal couples passionately loved each other - problem was they loved ONLY their own partner and not their victims.

Also, you think living in a foreign country for just a “coupla months” gives you knowledge about it? Lol - superficial and anecdotal. A few months is not enough to even see a third of a country. Live somewhere for 5-10 years - then come back with your “comprehensive regional analysis”.

The Guardian just posted a story that says commentators think Harry is making a big mistake by venting all his pent-up fury against the press.

[quote]You're seriously comparing Meghan to Wallis Simpson?? If you're *that* daft and desperate enough to resort to such false equivalencies, I really don't know what else to say.

Well R78....

"Where to start with Wallis Simpson? An American who was married to her second husband when she met Edward, the Prince of Wales. When he became King she divorced her husband and convinced King Edward VIII to marry her. It caused a constitutional crisis and he was forced to abdicate the throne to marry her. They lived as celebs after that.

People draw distinctions as Markle has allegedly been married twice before and was living with a third man, Cory, when she met Harry. In the same way Wallis spent a fortune on clothing and jewelry so does Markle. They both loved the celeb life.

Some other facts:

Both Markle and Wallis were only children.

Both changed their names.

Both went to expensive private schools but were not from wealthy families.

Both had many husbands and lovers all wealthier and more connected than the previous one.

Both seemed to have the same hold over their husbands.

This from a biography of Wallis: “By the end of 1934, Edward was irretrievably besotted with Wallis, finding her domineering manner and abrasive irreverence toward his position appealing; in the words of his official biographer, he became “slavishly dependent” on her”

Wallis is buried at Frogmore.

The vehicle that Her Maj had Wallis transported in to her (3rd) husband's funeral, was the same vehicle the queen chose for Markle to ride in to arrive at her wedding.

Seems the queen - and her husband,Philip, who reportedly calls Smegs "DOW" for duchess of Windsor - have a finer perspective on the connections of the two American women. And they appreciate nuances with ironic humor.

Dear Daddy,

I am writing to you to let you know you are deeply hurting me by being poor trash living in Mexico, which is why I am not inviting you to my fabulous wedding and would die of embarrassment if you came. You will notice I am using elaborate calligraphy in this letter so you can keep it forever as a treasured souvenir of me. Good luck with the rest of your life.

Hugs and kisses,

Meghan

[QUOTE] You're seriously comparing Meghan to Wallis Simpson?? If you're *that* daft and desperate enough to resort to such false equivalencies, I really don't know what else to say. (Well, except for the obvious

The Wallis comparison is mild - these toxic bitches also compare Meghan to Anne Boleyn!

William did think he'd find someone more interesting and glamorous than Kate the student, but by age 25 he'd lost most of his hair, and attractive actresses and aristocrats stopped looking his way

The majority of wealthy women have no desire to be queen and lived fenced in by protocol. Pippa's kind of match and a life of leisure (rather than tedious engagements) is seen as ideal.

William the Bald was fifty shades of green when he saw Harry had captured a stunning American actress. Bald had tried to find a glamorous, exciting wife, and failed miserably.

Wallis married someone who used to be King. Boleyn married an actual King.

Markle married a lower-ranked sibling who is 6th-in-line and gives speeches barefoot.

[quote]William the Bald was fifty shades of green when he saw Harry had captured a stunning American actress. Bald had tried to find a glamorous, exciting wife, and failed miserably.

If we are speaking of hair loss when it comes to the Princes, if you consider William "bald", Harry is rapidly catching up with him. Truly stunning how he appears to be losing his hair....fast.

Speaking of which, why have Haz's looks deteriorated so rapidly since his marriage? He's lost weight, hair, tidy grooming, and a (happier, more pleasant) demeanor.

His wife has also transformed since the marriage. Someone put up photos of her in her Suits period to her most recent engagement in South Africa. Wow. She's gained weight, her hair is scraggly and unkempt, her facial (but not body) color is orange and her skin appears rough and irritated. Her appearance (combined with shirt dresses and belts that do not enhance her square, plumb torso) looks sad.

Despite smiles and PDA, everything is not well for The Harkles if their physical appearances have declined so quickly in such a short period of time.

[quote] William did think he'd find someone more interesting and glamorous than Kate the student, but by age 25 he'd lost most of his hair, and attractive actresses and aristocrats stopped looking his way

Lol, sure, Jan @ R101. As if most D-list actresses and aristocrats marry for “looks”. They often marry for the biggest WEALTH they can find. Even A-list celebs often do the same. Remember the beautiful Grace Kelly - as if she married for “looks”. One could project a movie onto Prince Albert’s forehead - and she still married him. And the pretty Charlene (a fit, Olympic swimmer representing South Africa in the Olympic Games) still married his son, Prince Albert II, even though he was balding, had 2 kids out of wedlock and even faced allegations of cheating on her. So why did she still marry him? Because he’s one of the richest “royals” in the world, with an estimated ca. $1 Billion fortune, that’s why.

William will have more money & real estate for his use than Henry. William lives in Kensington Palace, Henry lives in that “Frog” cottage. William could have his pick of females who’d marry him - but he needed someone he could trust and knew for years. So he chose Middleton because she was discrete, pretty enough and followed the rules.

*discreet

[QUOTE] She's gained weight, her hair is scraggly and unkempt, her facial (but not body) color ...

She had a BABY five months ago, you grotesque frau/queen. Her hair is fine; it's just not white hair. You are a repellent racist, so of course you criticise biracial people who don't have silky, ruler straight hair like William's housewife.

Harry's hair at 35 looks like William's did aged 25, so he's ten years behind the yellow toothed one in terms of balding. Harry has put on weight, not lost it, and is a bit jowly. His beard isn't flattering at all.

[QUOTE] Markle married a lower-ranked sibling who is 6th-in-line and gives speeches barefoot.

Markle married the queen's grandson, soon to be the king's son, then the king's brother. She wouldn't have married horse toothed William - too ugly.

[quote] Bald had tried to find a glamorous, exciting wife, and failed miserably.

That's really not true. He only dated a few women, and they were not actresses or models--they were wealthy girls and aristocrats.

William knew he had to marry someone who would not embarrass the Royal Family and who would be responsible. He also wanted someone pretty. That's what he got.

Harry wanted to marry his lost mother. He tried wealthy rich blondes at first, but that didn't work. Finally he realized he would be happiest with someone who wanted to BE his mother. That's what he got.

I don't know who is going to be happiest in the end. If their marriages work out, they both can be. It depends if William can be faithful and if Meghan does not get fed up with the limitations of both Harry and her position.

R62, recent pics of Harry suggest that Meghan has to sleep with him, not that she gets to sleep with him. Frizzy, thinning hair and beady eyes are not attractive (not to mention his stupidity). Hopefully she's got a setup like Charlotte Lucas whereby she can enjoy her new extreme wealth and spend as little time with him as possible, plus maybe a hottie on the side.

I'm not the poster you are arguing with, R53, but you really do need to cut the shit because you are making yourself look like a fucking idiot. Everyone on this thread can read the tea leaves threaded throughout your post at R43: Viscountess Emma is preferable to Duchess Meghan because, unlike Duchess Meghan, Viscountess Emma knows her place as a black person who married into the aristocracy (which isn't the same thing as royalty, but we will ignore that for the moment).

[quote]Thynn never pretended to be anything other than what she is.

That says it all.

So you can back peddle all you want, but don't expect others to debase their own intelligence by accepting you for anything other than what you are, which is a complete and utter racist pig.

Thanks for reading!

[quote]Wallis is buried at Frogmore

Wallis is buried at Frogmore because her husband made a formal request to the Queen to have Wallis buried next to him when her time came. Since the Queen was kindly disposed toward her uncle, she granted his request.

During her husband's burial at Frogmore, Wallis deemed the space next to her husband rather cramped, declaring "I'm small, but I'm not THAT small". A hedge was subsequently removed to enlarge the space.

The comparison between Megs and Wallis is spot on. Both women are imperious, self-absorbed social climbers. Both married weak men-children deeply scarred by their mothers. Both wanted the perks of royal life but not the obligations. And just like Wallis, Megs will end up an angry, bitter woman in exile.

By the way, those of you calling Meghan a D-List celebrity seem to be ignorant of the FACT that, during most of her time on the show, SUITS was the #2 rated show on all of television, second only to Game of Thrones. If she is a D-List celebrity then so is Lisa Kudrow. For some reason I doubt you'll be calling Kudrow D-List, am I right?

But keep minimizing the Duchess' accomplishments like any good racist knows to do.

R101, have you seen pics of the women William dated and supposedly wanted to marry? Have you seen Rose Ch-whatever? Seems his taste runs towards horsey, not Barbie. And even if he did want something more glamourous, he could get that on the side--affairs are common.

Your analysis of William's marriage prospects is correct and applies equally to Harry: the only one of his girlfriends willing to take on the constraints of the BRF was one who married him for the postion and wealth.

[quote]But continue grossly overstating the Duchess' accomplishments like any good racist knows to do.

R112 Works that way too!

How many times is Harry going to invoke his mother's death? He's does it now to garner support and sympathy. Both he and his wife are tiresome already. Shut the hell up and go live off your millions.

R112, now come on, if you're American you know that Meghan Markle (and the show Suits) had zero name recognition. (I live in Europe and here some people did know her and the show--big in Japan syndrome.)

When the news of their engagement broke, Stephen Colbert joked something to the effect that "an American actress from the USA network's hit show Suits is going to marry Prince Harry; the most surprising thing about that is that the USA network has a hit show called Suits."

[QUOTE] William knew he had to marry someone who would not embarrass the Royal Family and who would be responsible. He also wanted someone pretty.

Nothing could be more embarrassing than Kate exposing her naked buttocks to the military. If Meghan did that, you would be demanding she move to Africa/LA. Kate had a decade to get used to royal protocol and she still flashed her ass several times. Mortifying for the BRF.

R112, the resident racists tell blatant lies about Suits and say it wasn't popular at all and Meghan was paid poorly.

[quote]everything? No. This? Yes. It’s been widely reported.

Widely reported? Yeah, it has been dragged across every rag, and tabloids don't count. Plus, why would Meg & Harry ship cars on this trip. They've been to Botswana multiple times and other parts of Africa. Why would they do this for South Africa?

Looks like some of the racist US posters have been downplaying how successful Suits was.

From The Daily Beast in 2015:

Since its 2011 debut, Suits has been steadily building momentum and critical praise. Last summer, the first 10 episodes of Season 3 drew 5.36 million viewers, also becoming USA’s highest-rated series of 2013 in the advertiser-coveted 18-49 demo. The show, which like many USA series splits its season in two parts (more than half of the episodes air during the summer; the rest follow in the winter), returns for a six-episode run beginning Thursday, March 9, at 9 p.m. ET. And with White Collar’s future in limbo, Suits is poised to take over as USA’s flagship series.

[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]Looks like some of the racist US posters have been downplaying how successful Suits was.

Did you ever watch that show? It was hilarious. A parody of acting: like a poorly performed evening soap opera! Haha.

Markle is a poor, poor actress.

Hell, even members of the BRF are better actors than she!

R110, you’re a xenophobic “pig” yourself. The “tea leaves” are even more clear about your ugly prejudice. “Let’s cut to the shit”: Posters upthread unsuprisingly belittle Thynn and worship Markle. I mentioned that Thynn has a larger- than-life personality and can become even more popular than Markle - and the Markle-worshipping posters immedieately protested. It’s clear why. Because Markle is Californian (and apparently the world should revolve only around ‘Murican “celebs”) and Thynn is half Nigerian and therefore doesn’t “qualify” for fawning support. Such ugly, chauvinistic “pig” prejudice.

And, btw, you’re the “fucking idiot”. Thynn is more likeable because she doesn’t pretend to be a “progressive feminist” when she openly and knowingly married into a CONSERVATIVE establishment. I dislike Markle because she’s a transparent hypocrite who publicly supports CONSERVATIVE elitism for personal financial gain (hereditary monarchy, where you get status only by birth & marriage, is ultra-conservative by definition) and at the same time pretends to be “woke”. Wanting to be called “Your Highness” and wanting to be “progressive” at the same time doesn’t work - status gained solely on the basis of having “Church-of-England blue blood” or being married to “Church-of-England blue blood” is antithetical to progressivism. It’s one or the other - you can’t have your ass on both seats.

But of course you’re too dim to understand my point. You confuse “not being a transparent hypocrite” with “knowing her place”. If you support the continuation of a Conservative, religious hereditary social structure by “blue blood” and promote the elitist Windsor clan and their ridiculous “automatic birth right” to taxpayer money - then don’t PRETEND that you’re “progressive” (which is what Markle is laughably doing).

Nevermind r123, the only racists on this board are the Meg-worshippers, who only see skin colour.

To them, her skin colour absolves her of any and all.

The race-first idiots don't realise that her skin colour is not even a novelty in the BRF:

R81 Diana died because she went for a high speed ride with a drunk driver and while not wearing a seatbelt.

What could possibly go wrong?

R83 The only survivor of the crash was Trevor Rhys Jones - the bodyguard- who was wearing a seatbelt.

Buckle up everyone!

[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.]

R122 Kate is definitely a better actress than MM, did you see how she and her sister politely smiled and exchanged pleasantries with MM sandwiched between them at Wimbledon? Now that is good acting especially when you know they secretly can't stand the lying conniving bitch.

I'm not sure it's acting, r128. Kate has had to become tolerant of insane fans over time. She, quite rightly. identifies Meghan as one of those and so treats her accordingly.

I suspect something sent MM into a narcissistic rage and she fired up her dimwit husband to have a go at the press. You just know behind closed doors she crying and telling him she can't take it anymore and probably insinuating she has to leave. Narcs do this all the time, threaten abandonment.

I also assume it was done in Sth Africa because they were far enough away from the Palace courtiers, Wills, Charles and the Queen who would have no doubt stopped them. Problem is they really didn't think it through especially if someone like Sara Latham is distancing herself from it and Sam Cohen too. This will massively backfire.

They have a certain profile to promote their causes and to maintain a certain lifestyle - this profile comes off the back of an interest in gossip about them. It's all part and parcel of maintaining public relevance.

[quote]and telling him she can't take it anymore and probably insinuating she has to leave.

Megs won't go until she's found her next opportunity. Which she's no doubt desperately searching for. Either that or a generous financial settlement from the BRF to piss orf.

I think her narcissistic rage stems from her knowledge that interest is dwindling in them. Nothing they do generates the level of organic interest she needs to support herself after she leaves the BRF. She doesn't have the numbers to garner a Goop-style enterprise, a talk show, a political endeavor or whatever she has in mind. Archie seemed to be her last card to play and he didn't trend. Either they hope this lawsuit will generate more interest or maybe they hope the BRF pays them to go away.

Harry didn't bother to consult with the BRF prior to issuing this statement. He's going rogue. I wouldn't be surprised if he has his own Panorama-style interview.

R120, nobody's disputing that Suits was a hit for the USA network. Nevertheless it was a cheesy night-time soap with no cultural impact and whose stars were, at best, C or D-list. You can't deny that. If you persist, see the linked article which describes Miss M as a relative unknown when the engagement news broke causing everyone to google: Who is Meghan Markle?

If you don't know that then you must have terrible taste and deem lots of other nobodies to be big stars.

r132 is entirely correct.

I remember when Meghan first became famous via being Harry's girlfriend reading comments from one-time Suits viewers who had forgotten she had been on the show. She just does not have presence. There's nothing wrong with that, but she needs to stop getting mad at the world for not fawning over her. She's going to lose her mind when she hits 40 and she cannot rely on her youth or looks anymore.

[QUOTE] was a hit for the USA network. Nevertheless it was a cheesy night-time soap with no cultural impact and whose stars were, at best, C or D-list.

Who cares if it had a cultural impact? You sound like all the woke ppl you claim to despise. It was bought up by the UK and several European countries and did really well there too.

[QUOTE] She just does not have presence. There's nothing wrong with...

Yes, she does, or she wouldn't have been kept on the show for7 years. These threads are also proof that she has a LOT of presence and importance.

R93 - Thank you, someone else finally remembered that it isn't Malawi or Angola or Botswana paying for the million dollar wardrobe and four million dollar home she's returning to, but Britain in one form or another - and it's Britain that gave her the status she so nakedly aspired to.

Hence, bringing up the fact that her ill-times, OTT, nauseating celebrity conspicuous consumption baby shower at The Mark Hotel in Manhattan - because she went to it the same week 2,500 auto workers in Swindon found out they were losing their jobs as the Honda plant there was closing.

You never see her or Harry talking to white working class folk, to the post-industrial class in the northeast that lost so much through globalisation - when's the last time either of them were seen in Petersborough, or Middlesborogh, or Rochdale, or even fucking picturesque Cornwall, which may be Poldark Central, but is also one of the poorest areas of England?!

They've cut themselves out a nice photogenic niche hugging black kids in a country far, far away. You know who's doing the boring slog royal work in Britain - visiting ambulance companies, minor charities, schools, etc.? The Gloucesters, the Wessexes, Pss. Alexandra (Kens), and Pss. Anne, with the Cambridges, who also take on the more high profile trips abroad.

The Sussexes had one job on this tour: ONE job and ONE job only: to do some repair work with the press, the public, and their image.

Instead, and according to the TIMES today, and against the strong advice of his own senior aides and other senior royals, he drops this We're At War With The Press bombshell before the tour even ends, switching the focus to the lawsuit, and making damned sure the press, especially the tabloids, come after the Sussexes with a vengeance that will make their past shade-throwing look like hagiography.

Can you imagine it? The Queen is on the brink of being dragged into BREXIT, the country is in a virtual state of civil war, the clock is ticking on another confrontation/negotiation with Brussels, the country needs uplifting and pleasant news . . . and Meghan Markle, with her usual gift for making a crisis that is all about her, does this in the middle of it. Couldn't even wait to finish the tour.

Because, as we all know, the lousy PR this overprivileged twat earned over the last year is really the most important thing happening in Britain right now.

They just do NOT seem to get how fundamentally unimportant they are, they always come off as if the universe, and expecially the UK universe, revolves around them and their privacy and their son and how happy or unhappy they are.

For God's sake - they don't listen to anyone, anyonre! His own top aides warned him not to do this now. What fucking dreamworld is this dimwitted fool living in?

Remember when the Duke of Windsor, once Prince of Wales and then Kink Edward VIII for ten months went into those poverty-strkcen Welst mining cottages and came out thundering, "Something must be done!" endearing himself to the community . . . and three weeks later announced his abdication to marry Wallis Simpson?

I see his great-great Uncle Edward in Harry. Thundering about what must be done but essentially only interested in himself and his woman, and not doing anything that too terribly inconveniences his own life.

With any luck, he and Meghan will end up Edward and Wallis 2.0 - Mr and Mrs Windsor, comfily ensconced in a lovely home in the Hollywood Hills, doing the talk show rounds, getting their names on the letterheads of high profile charities, writing chatty columns in Vogue . . .

So the real royals can get on with the job of representing the monarchy and the "other" people of Britain that just don't interest Harry and Meghan.

I wonder if Sara Latham is considering quitting? (No worries about Sunshine Sachs - they'll have to drag her off the porch with splinters in her fingernails.)

R126 - Everyone, always, should indeed buckle up. But as far as Rhys-Jones is concerned, it came out much later that he, also, had failed to use his seat belt. He was just luckier than the other three.

R120 / R137, "Suits" was a fine show. But Markle wasn't the actor who made Suits popular. She wasn't the lead or the breakout star (unlike Zendaya in HBO's "Euphoria"). Zendaya helped "Euphoria" become a hit. Markle was just a semi-anonymous cast member on a show that became popular thanks to other creative forces (not because of Markle).

Very insightful points, R139.

It is typical of Meghan and Harry to forget that the security and other expenses for this tour were paid for by their African hosts and their taxpayers, who expected that the tour would finish on a happy high note for all the trouble it was to coordinate it and plan and pay for it.

It was reported in the TIMES that those hosts were dismayed to find it all undermined on the last couple of days by the Sussexes themselves, who had more important fish to fry.

This tour was also undertaken at the request of the F.O. I'm sure they're only too delighted at how the Sussexxes spoilt it.

Were I the F.O., I would inform the Queen that the F.O. had lost confidence in the Sussexes' ability to put the needs of their work above their own concerns, and would no longer request their services for official work such as this was.

Does anyone remember an incident in which Kate and William's car nearly crashed while they were being followed by the press? It was back in the 2000s. I vaguely remember people saying it just proved that the press hadn't learned from the death of Diana. I Googled it and I can't find anything. Maybe that's playing on Harry's mind.

That being said, it isn't very sensible of him to antagonise the press in this way. He relies on their goodwill.

It's not just the press - "prince" Philip caused an actual crash this year himself, causing injuries to people / other drivers. But of course he'll never be prosecuted for it - because he's a "royal".

[quote] "prince" Philip?

He's not a real prince? Since when?

I generally put 'royal' and 'blue-blood' in inverted commas too. And 'God' as well.

Do you do that for 'President of the United States'? 'Prime Minister'?

Prince and Princess and King and Queen are actual titles, certified by law, even if you dislike the institution of royalty.

I don’t give a heck about antiquated “titles”. I can write them as I please - there’s no law obligating me to recognise every ‘marquis’ in person or in writing. Not so long ago, the ‘royals’ claimed to derive their ‘special hereditary blood lineage’ from ‘God’ or ‘Gods’ - but I’m under no obligation to engage in their self-salutary roleplay.

“Certified by law” - so what? It’s a hollow, toothless law because there are no penalties for calling a “prince” - “a twatty descendant of some king’s pass-around concubine”, or for calling an impoverished ‘baron’ - “that old fat guy in the village pub, trying to make ends meet”. I don’t support these titles, nor am I obligated to under the law - so I can write them in inverted commas or even omit them completely and just call them e.g. “Wills and Kate”, and not “HRH”.

Meghan and Harry are going rogue. It’s delightful!

Regarding the Sky News reporter: in all fairness, I do think she was deliberately trying to provoke him. But he didn’t handle it well.

No one dare tell Miss r148 what to write! No one can ever be the boss of her!

She was questioning & challenging him, not provoking him. Provocation is something far more serious & sinister than simply asking an open-ended question about the goals of a health-clinic visit.

“Would your mother approve of your eco-hypocrisy?” - now that would be “provoking” him (to lash out).

R130, I agree that, behind closed doors, she winds him up. And he’s happy to be manipulated, because he can lash out with impunity. He’s got some grudge that he is working out with Meghan’s permission (and encouragement).

If they were complete nobodies, they’d be “no contact” with their families. But, since Harry’s family bestows a level of fame and relevance and privilege (which is why she worked so hard to connect with them), it’s difficult to give them up completely.

R152, that’s a valid distinction. I stand corrected and will agree.

It shows that the media is feeling attacked, and they’re returning the volley. It’s just beginning...

As someone who can’t stand Meaghan, I’m very happy they did this. When the press is done with her she will have to slink away and spend the rest of her life in seclusion (rather comfortably)

How very woke and feminist of Harry to tell a woman how to behave!

Did not Meg's own family members write letters to Harry warning him not to marry her?

She's definitely divisive: her own family, the BRF and now the Press.

What a disaster!

Harry looks and sounds depressed. (Sometimes he can't bring himself to get out of bed in the morning.). But his fawning syncophancy over Megs is startling: much like Edward with Wallis Simpson.

He'll likely collapse when Megs suddenly ups and leaves him in the same manner she did to Trevor and Corey.

Can't believe I read the whole thread... and came away with nothing. Carry On Posting, I guess.

How long does it take for a lawsuit like this to be finished?

Two week half term holiday coming up soon for the Cam-fug children. What's the betting Bald and Replikate will be flying them out via private jet to the Caribbean again, or the Maldives, accompanied by a full team of staff and security? Two private jets, hoes.

The Cambridges have their own problems, but they aren't the ones giving eyeroll-inducing speeches (pretentiously barefoot) at Google's Climate Change 'camp', dubbed the Billionaires' Sicilian Playground.

And if one does go with Monarchy (at least for the short-term) - then the main heir can get security. But why a 6th-in-line (who'll never, ever be Head of State now) still gets taxpayer-funded security at his Frog cottage is a more interesting question. He should just go rent an apartment with a concierge and pay for his life himself from now on.

So, if it's true that the Foreign Office, who instigate these trips, are not pleased to have the focus appropriated by the lawsuit, does that mean that Sparkle and Dim have blotted their copybooks on two continents? Australia and Africa?

Will the F.O. pass on any other "official" foreign trips for the Sussex duo?

Back before the the Sussex wedding, there was a reported supposed quote from Prince Charles to Harry about his intended bride. As I recall the quote was something like...

[quote] The problem with someone who is dramatic is that there will always be drama.

And so there has been with this pair ever since.

The aim of the F.O. is to cement relationships amongst Britain and other nations, including Commonwealth nations, with the underlying aim of cementing business, not only geopolitical, interests. Thus, when the F.O. requests that the royals go here or there, the royals are briefed by the F.O. on why this visit is important and what to emphasise and what to stay away from. The Cambridges didn't just decide that early autumn would be a terrific time to visit the Middle East. Either the visit was initiated by the foreign host, or the British F.O. reached out to the host country and sounded them out about the efficacy of such a visit.

But no matter who initiated it, it was always at the behest/suggestion of one foreign office or another, i.e., a matter of state. The host country pays considerable expenses for security and hospitality, and wants to get as much mileage out of a royal visit as possible.

So, Harry and Meghan totally eclipsing the last day or wo of this tour by prioritising their personal agenda, was a truly awful bit of bad manners toward their African hosts.

Their solicitors told them that the suit and Harry's rant would get maximum mileage if they announced before the end of the tour? Fine. But it won't be the solicitors that face the anger of the F.O., the embarassment of the Queen, or the African hosts' annoyance after being shoved into the background after all the speeches and photo ops of Meghan hugging African kids that the tour provided.

The tour had two purposes: the usual one of cementing relationships that is behing a F.O. request, and the need to repair the Sussex's image with the public - both of which were completely undermined by the Sussexes themselves.

No matter where the Sussexes start out, they end by putting all four feet into their mouths.

If they think for a nanosecond that the UK press is going to treat them with kid gloves from now on, they are in for a very rude awakening.

They should start packing for American now.

[quote] They should start packing for American now.

No. No. No.

You got her. She's yours.

We don't want her back.

We have more than enough fame whores. No need to take back your cast-offs.

[quote] does that mean that Sparkle and Dim have blotted their copybooks on two continents? Australia and Africa? Will the F.O. pass on any other "official" foreign trips for the Sussex duo?

I didn't follow the press at the time, but wasn't the Australian tour a strategic success for the Foreign Office? They shipped off Henry and a pregnant Markle there as soon as the BRF got a whiff of the rumours that anti-monarchist, pro-republic sentiment was potentially brewing in Oz. The Firm knew that the sight of a pregnant lady with a soon-to-be baby would squelch any plebby rebellion for the time being. Babies and pregnant-bellied ladies are always trotted out, even by career politicians, whenever it's necessary to appease and ingratiate themselves with the public (all the traditional "baby-kissing" political campaign-trail tricks, etc). And it seemed to work - baby news always make the plebs get down from the barricades and get all soft and blubbery.

Or did I miss something from that trip? Did they manage to screw up some part of that "pregnant with a cute baby" Down-Under public-appeasement tour?

R163, I like your comment. I think that, aside from the lawsuit bomb in the middle of it, they competed themselves pretty well.

[quote] Did they manage to screw up some part of that "pregnant with a cute baby" Down-Under public-appeasement tour?

You mean besides

(1) Insulting the King of Tonga by a barely there curtsy despite the extremely friendly relationship between QEII and the Royal Family of Tonga.

(2) Reportedly throwing tea in the face of one of the Embassy staffers together with the classic "Don't you know who I am?"

(3) Rushing out of the market in Fiji after only a few minutes after crowds had been waiting in the sun for her arrival

(4) Inappropriate wardrobe choices while representing the Queen (see below).

[quote] Did not Meg's own family members write letters to Harry warning him not to marry her?

But they did not match her standards of elaborate calligraphy, so of course he ignored them.

'Inappropriate wardrobe choices while representing the Queen.'

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT KATE MIDDLETON, WHO FLASHED HER BARE BUTT CHEEKS AT THE MILITARY, AND OTHER DIGNITARIES, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS?

And by this time, Kate had been with William for over a decade! She'd had so much time to learn what was and wasn't appropriate, and she behaved like a DIRTY SLAPPER. Who wears a skimpy dress WITHOUT A WEIGHTED HEM and pairs it with THONG KNICKERS? Only a FILTHY WHORE.

Absolutely disgusting.

Australia is where Harry gave an earnest dramatic speech in pouring rain with Meg not only looking on adoringly but simultaneously holding an umbrella over his head, like a servant or a concubine. It had to be seen to be believed.

WHORE MIDDLETON AND HER ASS FLASHING ANTICS EVEN MADE PEREZ HILTON.

THE SHAME!

The Queen was MORTIFIED.

Begone, all-caps troll.

'Australia is where Harry gave an earnest dramatic speech in pouring rain with Meg not only looking on adoringly but simultaneously holding an umbrella over his head, like a servant or a concubine. It had to be seen to be believed.'

Australia was where Whore Middleton embarked from a plane and flashed her ass and pussy yet again to the assembled hosts. Who wears a thong bikini with a tiny, unweighted skirt?

ONLY KATE MIDDLEHOE.

No Harry, your Dad (who is not your dad) killed your cheating Mom... it may be time to face the truth

R61, how does MeMe having friends/surrogates speak to People magazine about the letter in detail play into the legal case?

It works in the MoS's favour, r175

Found on another forum:

[quote] "I personally think it’s heroic to be this smug knowing what skeletons Megs has lurking 🙃No wonder her klassy fans admire her."

Insulting the Duchess of Cambridge isn't going to make anyone admire or like the Duchess of Sussex one tiny little bit more.

R164 - "They should start packing for American now. No. No. No.

You got her. She's yours.

We don't want her back.

We have more than enough fame whores. No need to take back your cast-offs."

But we are prepared to pay handsomely. The F.O. is sending Boris over with a proposal that I think will meet everyone's needs . . . just hear him out, will you?

She's a narcissistic fame whore. Can't stand 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.]

That seems wierd. i remember hacked voicemails from Kate's phone where William was just sweet boyfriend stuff. maybe Harrys's was too dull to print but they had it anyway. He seems to be trying to go nuclear on the press but I can't see it working now post Leveson. When the McCanns complained it turned out they had paid over a million to be kept in the press daily.

[quote] The Duke of Sussex has launched legal action against the owners of the Sun and the Daily Mirror over allegations his voicemail messages were illegally intercepted.

Who the heck uses "voicemail" anymore? Most people email or text.

Especially given that Mountbatten-Windsor does not even have a full-time job. It's not like he's in "meetings" all day and can't answer his phone.

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.

[quote] Who the heck uses "voicemail" anymore? Most people email or text.

I'm sure you speak for "most people," their having you appointed to that important position.

[quote] Especially given that Mountbatten-Windsor does not even have a full-time job. It's not like he's in "meetings" all day and can't answer his phone.

One of the benefits of being Duke of Sussex is not having to answer your phone when people call. Mere cubeslaves like you must, but he is beyond that. He answers to no one but his dad and grandmother.

r183. That is why I think it is pre Leveson stuff that never came out. I really find it hard to believe that press would phone hack after all that.

R187, apparently claims go back to 2000?

The tabloids he's suing should put an embargo on covering any Harry and Meghan related news.

R177, those creepy tinhats still think the press have a sex tape of Meghan. Clearly, they do not.

[quote] One of the benefits of being Duke of Sussex is not having to answer your phone when people call. Mere cubeslaves like you must, but he is beyond that. He answers to no one but his dad and grandmother.

R186, Lol, so having a private SECRETARY who could answer calls 24/7 and take messages for you is now NOT part of the "benefits of being Duke of Sussex"? Hehe, seems like Harry had to downsize. Poor thing - guess he now has to hand out his number to everyone, like a pleb, and then listen through hours of awkward voicemails every week.

Maybe that's why he now finds it hard to get up in the mornings. What a drag.

I read somewhere that Kate's phone was hacked 155 times.

I really don't know where Harry and Meghan think they are going with this. The tabs have been sued before, have lost and won cases, it never makes the slightest bit of difference in the long-term. In fact, it will worsen relations between the Sussexes and the press to a point that may make royal life for the pair well nigh impossible.a

And, one trembles to think of how the press will now double its fawning over William and Kate, throwing shade on the troublesome Sussexes without even mentioning their names.

I wonder if the Sussexes even realised the huge PR favour they were doing the Cambridges as they set off for Pakistan. I can see it now . . .

"Gentle Kate wows kids with her natural touch!"

"Kate stuns in gown featuring Pakistan's national colours!"

"Kate does Britain proud at the Embassy Reception!"

"William and Kate don't put a foot wrong in Pakistan tour!"

"William and Kate show as true British Royals on Pakistan tour!"

The voicemail stuff is from the early 2000s. So yes, very weird and random that Harry would take legal action now. Unless, as others have speculated on social media, this has been prompted by the Sussexes trying to get ahead of a bigger story about them that’s about to drop.

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

The data speaks for itself. Kate Middlewhore is not appealing.

^^And not American, you (choose your own label).^^

'Unless, as others have speculated on social media, this has been prompted by the Sussexes trying to get ahead of a bigger story about them that’s about to drop.'

I notice you won't say what it is, in case you are ridiculed for your belief that there is a salad tossing video out there that they press are just waiting to drop.

I wonder how it impacts the case that he waited over a decade to file this suit. Can't be helpful for him that it's readily apparent he wasn't fussed enough over it to bother doing anything about it before this. Also, if it bothers him this much, why was he silent during the Leveson inquiry?

[quote] 30 million Americans watched

No one cares what “Americans” or the Chinese watch. The only people who are important for the British monarchy to survive (or not) are British voters / taxpayers.

'No one cares what “Americans” or the Chinese watch. The only people who are important for the British monarchy to survive (or not) are British voters / taxpayers.'

You are an imbecile. The Royal Family's main role is to boost the TOURIST industry. Royal properties are the number one tourist attraction here. Tourists are not British, but they frequently are Chinese and American.

R169 is incoherent with rage! Is that the Welp Troll Hunter?

R199 is the actual Welp Troll, guys!

'Even Quaker Oats has social media managers'. You insane troll.

That wasn’t me, R200. Feel free to block me and read my posts. I’m just one of many posters who think you’re CRAZY.

I watched Harry and Meghan's wedding, along with many on DL. I actually liked her dress, and the whole setting, and said it was a beautiful wedding. Eventually, those 'Dangling Tendrils' threads popped up, but they were rather light-hearted comments about her fashion sense. Somewhere, on the way, they got deeper. The British Royal Family threads were actually begun as an antidote to the comments about Meghan and Harry (you'd never know it). The Dangling Tendrils threads were apparently FFed into oblivion (I was in the hospital, and didn't notice until I was released). I actually thought, at the time, that Harry was marrying a cute young American actress. I had never heard of her, and knew nothing about her. To keep the story brief, I've grown to loathe her. From her constant behavior. You may as well block me now.

'To keep the story brief, I've grown to loathe her. From her constant behavior. You may as well block me now.'

Oh, honey, you're on the Welp Troll Thread. Nearly every incel on here hates her.

This whole thing is very odd.

For a start, UK law is that you have 6 years from when you found out about the issue to bring legal action. This is pretty strict, and you need to demonstrate to the courts that that the situation is grave enough that it is in the interests of justice to overlook this. The courts do have discretion, but it’s rare that you can sue beyond the 6 years.

“The press are still being mean to me so now I want to sue them for things they did 20 years ago” will absolutely not do.

For him to be allowed to proceed in the suit he must have persuaded the court that he has only just come into possession of information that he could not reasonably have known 20 years ago. Remember...you have 6 years from when you first became aware.

Given the entire scandal (which resulted in prison sentences & a newspaper that’s existed since Victorian times being shut down) plus the Levenson enquiry, it seems incredible that Harry’s only recently come into information of such import that it’s worth suing over.

And if it’s so important and so potentially damaging, why does he not have BRF support in pursuing this?

If he loses, and Markle loses her batshit “privacy” claim, they will probably go bankrupt. They’ll be paying not only their own legal fees (likely to run into the millions) but those of the opposing sides as well.

Interesting times.

Also in his rant he mentioned Markle taking legal action. Why didn’t he mention that he was too?

Most peculiar.

Great points R204 & R205.

There seems to be more to the story of both Meg's and Haz's lawsuits.

The gist of which appears to be vengeful on the surface as the Suits (interesting corollary) from both of them don't seem to be the result of hugely detrimental press intrusions: Meg's and her letter that seemed like she baited her father (with friends leaking to People magazine) and Haz being phone hacked (years ago) 9 times.

Are the Harkles still simmering over Jetgate and wish to tighten the screws on the press?

Are they generally angry at their own negative press (without taking an introspective look at themselves)?

Or are they attempting to pre-emptively frighten the press over something they know that could be detrimental? (Rumours of the staff member who quit after the Oz tour are circulating: she's been looking at a way to work around her NDA. Also there remain persistent surrogate rumours....just sayin')

I don’t buy the surrogacy thing at all. I do think she’s exactly the type to hire a surrogate, but given the state of her now, there’s no way she did.

The other stuff has more merit, imo.

I think the staff member leaving after Oz has an immense amount of dirt to share & I also think Trevor does too. I think Markle cheated on him more than once - and rumour has it that one of the men was married with kids. He is not constrained by any NDA, maybe he or someone close to him is ready to talk.

The big problem Markle has, I am certain, is that most people she has dealings with can’t stand her. For all of her smarmy smiling when there’s cameras around, I think she’s a complete cunt when there aren’t.

Apparently she’s gotten through 6 CPOs, is on her third nanny and multiple staff have left because of her, not just the Oz woman. Put that together with what looks like complete alienation from Harry’s family & friends (HM doesn’t even want them mentioned in passing to her) and there’s a high likelihood that stories are dropping to the MSM groups daily. None of them nice and all of them potentially massively damaging to Markle.

The idea that if he successfully sues the Mirror and Sun groups he can demand future privacy in lieu (or as well as) damages is completely bogus. A free press is a vital component of any democratic society, and the Sussexes are not private people - no court would grant them this. Checks and balances are already in place and they work.

95% of the coverage they’ve received is sychophantic in the extreme. They haven’t been bullied - they’ve behaved badly and been called on it, as any public figure would be.

No credible lawyer would advise them to take the action they are taking - the potential risks far outweigh any possible benefits. So it must be the case that the risks of these actions are significantly less than the potential damage they could face if they don’t take them.

They are definitely trying to muzzle the press & can’t do it via injunctions (which they’d be granted if there was private info floating around that is not in the public interest to publish) so this looks strategic.

Won’t work, imo.

Thanks R207.

Do you sense the press will go after them with greater fervor?

I also find it curious that they are using Mr Superinjunction as lawyer in the MOS case. That didn't work out too well for Ryan Giggs. I hope the press fight these claims and do not settle. If the sussex pair lose then they will be liable for a huge payout in costs which will lead to questions of their finances.

R208 Not really. None of them want to face accusations of bullying or vendettas so I doubt there’ll be a ramping up of negative stories as such. They won’t stop calling them out when they do something hypocritical though, and neither should they.

What I do think we’ll see is less syrupy stuff . Why should they fall over themselves in praise of two people so ungrateful for the unrelentingly good press they’ve had that they want to sue over the few negative stories?

I also think there’ll be passive aggressive “Aren’t Kate & William amazing?” stories - and I think they’ll be hyped as the “future of the monarchy” and “Pride of Britain” etc far more than they usually are. I also think when there’s Sussex vs Cambridge stuff on the same day, the Cambridges will be higher up the page.

The big danger is the information that could well emerge during the two trials if they get that far. The news outlets will vigorously defend themselves and there’s no nod to privacy during a court case. If it turns out that Markle briefed her “friends” about the contents of the letter in the certain knowledge that they’d tell People (or worse but possible - that there were no “friends” and she was the only source) then she’s done. Her reputation will not recover from that.

With Harry’s stuff - who knows. If it is genuinely the case that he’s found out new information regarding a gross intrusion into his privacy such as phone hacking then it’s right that he should sue. Doesn’t matter who you are, no one should ever listen to your voicemails..

The big danger with regard to negative stories is the “the gloves are off now” effect. When you have a very serious story that damages the reputation of someone like Markle, it’s a million times easier for other outlets to pile on.

For example, if she takes a hammering and her popularity (such as it is) plummets, Trevor has more legitimacy when he tells a magazine “You think that’s bad.....guess what she did when we were married?”

JMO.

Interesting R208 & R209.

Thanks for the insights....

^^^^ R209 & R210

R189 I’m sure there’s no sex tape, but even if there were, how could anyone publish it without violating the copyright (which belongs to Meghan)?

Good point, r213, but if Meghan has indeed been filmed tossing someone's salad, and I'm not saying she has been filmed tossing someone's salad, but if she were, perhaps, filmed tossing someone's salad, wouldn't the film rights belong to... the yacht owner?

My guess is the public will loathe her even more after this. She has lost the battle already.

She's playing the "Protect me!" game. Makes boy Harry feel like the man he isn't.

R214 omg, salad tossing? I guess feminists would call it ‚‘empowering’.

BTW, why is it called salad tossing when straight people do it? When the news about Monica Lewinksy and Bill Clinton was published, they called it salad tossing as well, never rimming.

Because it's not rimming

R217, R218, I'm sorry, but you're confusing me. And I'm afraid you're going to derail a perfectly sensible thread. I'm a gay man. I know very well what rimming is. I just assumed straight people referred to it as 'salad tossing'. Different terms, same thing, I think. But I stand to be corrected.

So, to try to get this thread back on track, I have a question (maybe two). Some of the private correspondence between Diana and Prince Philip was published. I'm American, so obviously not knowledgeable about how things work in the UK. It's been very interesting for me to read about the differences in libel law in the USA and the UK. But it's strange that these letters between the Prince Philip and Princess Diana could have been published under these restrictions. The whole thing is pretty sad. I don't generally pick sides in these kinds of arguments, since I don't think most people are engaged in cagefights in real life. I just hope to understand things better.

R149 has stated her boundaries

Salad tossing is a hand job.

Do you people follow the Kardashians as well, or is all your energy devoted to these two?

The Kardashians earn and spend their own money, not that of the taxpayer. Also, the Kardashians aren't busy pulling down a thousand year old institution in order to promote themselves, r222.

Although I freely admit Meghan is more Kardashian in essence than she is Windsor.

'Put that together with what looks like complete alienation from Harry’s family & friends (HM doesn’t even want them mentioned in passing to her)'

And here we have the hilarious Royal Insider Troll.

This is the same lunatic who writes the long essays full of fake info about how Charles paid for the Diana divorce. She's the Essays Troll as well. The Queen looked very happy meeting Archie back in May. Since then, Meghan and Harry haven't done anything except have successful tour of SA. Why would the Queen's attitude have changed so dramatically since then?

'Also, the Kardashians aren't busy pulling down a thousand year old institution in order to promote themselves, [R222].'

You assign them so much power, and then in the next breath say they are inconsequential and that Harry is only sixth in line. Chop logic. Try to do better.

There is no sex tape. If there were, it would be up on Porn Hub like all the other celebrity sex tapes. She worked on Suits since she was 27 so why would she need to stoop to that kind of desperation? This is the kind of thing Skippy and Danjazone discuss endlessly.

The same British press who hacked the phone of a dead girl and gave her mother false hope that she was alive. How would you like it if you wrote something to a relative with whom you have a fraught relationship and it was published all over your workplace and social media? Her father is mentally ill. Have any of you dealt with that in your lives? He left the family. I wouldn't give him the time of day, but I suppose she wanted to explain things to him and he turned around and sold it. Prick.

I do feel bad for Diana because I worked in an ER and saw people who looked fine die in car accidents. An 8 year old boy crossing the street with his 10 year old brother. He was DOA but once we cleaned the blood he had nothing more than a bruise. It was so hard seeing this young boy as if he was sleeping, looking well, but never moving. His brother said, "He's never been quiet before. I wish he wasn't quiet now."

One night I heard an overhead page "Any surgeon in the hospital please report to the OR stat. Any. Surgeon, in. The. Hospital. To the ER stat." That was ominous. One of our respiratory therapists came to our floor, white as a sheet. He was the chief therapist, a guy who did not mess around or get involved in dramatics. "Guys, I have to go out for a drink tonight, please come with me. All go you. As many as possible."

What was going on in the ER, we asked. Sounded grim. He told me it was a young man in his late teens crossing a busy street - a car was driving with its lights out and be didn't see it. He was hit and the car had a hood ornament , like most cars do . Unfortunately for him the hood ornament tore him in half lengthwise. From his chest to his perineal area he was split open. The quickly got a foot cradle to keep the covers off his body so he couldn't see the extent of his injuries. A general surgeon and a GU surgeon looked at him pulling the sheets back in a way where the guy couldn't see. His liver was torn and his bladder was shredded. "You're gonna take me to the OR, right? You have to call my mom and let her know."

Another respiratory therapist came up to our floor, all shaky. "He's talking to me. He's asking if he's going to be ok. He's saying "I don't want to die man, please don't let me dieI Do everything you can to save me because I can't die. I'm engaged. You'll make me better right? I don't care what it takes, I have to live. I'm not ready to die. get havin to my life." It took him 40 minutes to die. He was conscious the whole time, crying please I'm going to be all right, don't let me die."

So I felt sorry for Diana. She probably was in schock from the impact and didn't feel pain at first., She probably immediately thought of her sons and believed "This isn't so bad. I'm alive, I survived. They can come see me in the hospital." Her bleeding was internal, she couldn't see it. The accident scene was a cock up, mass confusion of tabloid ghouls trying to get shots. If she came to the realisation she was dying, she'd be leaving her sons behind and would feel terrible,

[quote] How would you like it if you wrote something to a relative with whom you have a fraught relationship and it was published all over your workplace and social media?

Are you just going to ignore the fact that Markle herself sought to have the letter & it’s contents publicised by getting her “friends” to tell People magazine all about it?

[quote]The Queen looked very happy meeting Archie back in May. Since then, Meghan and Harry haven't done anything except have successful tour of SA.

You can't be serious?

Over the summer, Markle moved paid spectators from their seats at Wimbledon, so she could have "privacy". She then had her security accost folks in Markle's line of view who were taking photos of the tennis. It caused an uproar.

Jetgate: once again, the Harkles demonstrated privilege hypocrisy by chastising folks on environmental issues with their carbon footprint, then promptly taking multiple holidays on private planes.

And the African tour was compromised by their lawsuit announcement. On the final leg of the tour, meetings weren't covered adequately - according to royal reporters - as Meg's lawsuit was a surprise and the reporters - and even the unaware Harkles' staff - were scrambling to address its drop.

I am yet another poster who is aware of the tweet that an aristo Brit posted. It referenced a friend who was warned prior to a one-to-one outing with the queen to discuss any subject EXCEPT the Harkles. Her Maj does not want to discuss them.

[quote] the same lunatic

Yes, you are: "the same lunatic". You have a habit of repeatedly describing yourself in your posts on these threads, R224.

You're also the Troll Troll: once again naming everyone as a troll. When the irony is, you're the biggest troll of all on these threads.

This quote from Macbeth sums up your post, R229:

'A tale told by an idiot

Full of sound and fury

Signifying nothing.'

The Queen isn't a petty little snowflake like you, R229. She probably barely noticed Meghan asking for privacy at Wimbledon, and Charles and William also travel by private jet and preach about the environment, so that won't have shocked her. She is in her 90s, semi retired and deals with very little at during her time at Balmoral. If she focuses on anything, it will be Brexit and Johnson's machinations, which directly affect her.

[QUOTE] Her bleeding was internal, she couldn't see it.

Diana went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance and was never conscious again, so she didn't endure the harrowing ordeal you describe so vividly. Why didn't the doctors sedate that poor guy who was pleading for his life? He could have gone out on a wave of morphine and ketamine.

Extract from a Daily Telegraph article about the medical details of Diana's injuries:

Diana suffered massive internal injuries when the car in which she was a passenger crashed in the Alma underpass at around 12.25am on August 31, 1997. Her heart was displaced from the left side of her body to the right.

The “compressive right haemothorax” in turn put pressure on the Princess’s right lung and her heart, Dr Eyraud explained.

Her heart stopped for the first time as she was taken out of the wreck of the Mercedes by emergency service staff at around 1am.

Immediate cardiac massage was applied and her heart restarted.

But as she was being taken to hospital by ambulance, her condition deteriorated again and the vehicle had to be stopped to allow a doctor to work on her, the court heard.

By the time she arrived at the hospital, staff were on hand, ready for a “worst case scenario”, the anaesthetist said.

Diana was already unconscious and, although she did have a heartbeat, she quickly needed artificial help to breathe.

“Upon her arrival, the Princess was 'intubated-ventilated’ which means that a piece of apparatus was making her breathe,” Dr Eyraud said.

“She was unconscious, I’m positive of that, and on artificial respiration.

“She was in shock, but nevertheless had a heart rhythm.

“This means that her blood pressure was very low but that her heart was still beating. We worked to repair her cardiac artery but she went into permanent arrest and was pronounced dead at 4am'.

Oh, she noticed, r230 . It flies viciously hard in the face of everything she's spent 60+ constructing.

She. Noticed.

Like his marriage, this will end in tears for Harry and joy for the tabloids

Oh sweet child at r231 - the doctors didn't sedate because it never happened.

R230 - you should read Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" instead:

"I am ashamed that women are so simple / To offer war where they should kneel for peace / Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway / When they are bound to serve, love, and obey ... Such duty as the subject owes the prince, Even such a woman oweth to her husband."

So better not quote Shakespeare, it will backfire - he would have likely called Markle "a conniving shrew".

As for Lady Macbeth - she wanted power and it blew up in her face and she offed herself. Not a good outcome either.

"I am ashamed that women are so simple / To offer war where they should kneel for peace / Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway / When they are bound to serve, love, and obey ... Such duty as the subject owes the prince, Even such a woman oweth to her husband."

You believe women should behave like this? In 2019? You need to talk to a psychiatrist about all this internalised misogyny you have going on.

This quotation pertains to Kate more: 'look like the innocent flower/But be the serpent under it.'

It also bears repeating that the object of the title of the play's name (i.e., the Shrew) was named "Kate". It is the Kate of the play's end who is sitting pretty in the BRF, isn't it?

But in my view it's Freud, not Shakespeare, whose observations are more pertinent to the Harkle mess. Harry is his mother all over, and his wife suffers from the same malady as he does and his mother clearly did.

How William escaped is a bit mysterious. I think much is still not known about the brain, and I wonder if some forms of mental illness have at least a partial biological as well as family background cause, and it's just the luck of the draw on which kid gets which personality gene. After all, Diana has three siblings, none of whom seem to have suffered the onset of NPD the way she did. In fact, the least attractive sister seemed to live the most placid life; once past her adolescent issues, the middle sister did all right; Earl Spencer looks like a prick and a half, but as the much desired A Son At Last! it's small wonder he thinks a lot of himself. It was the beautiful Diana who got the serious mental issues, and they were compounded by an unhappy marriage and the glare of public life.

Diana's habit of "fibbing" showed very early in her life, according to teachers and governesses. She was rearranging reality at a very early age. Most children do, to some extent, it's part of the charm of childhood - only Diana never outgrew the habit.

She wrote the letter to him, it's his letter so if he released it, what's her beef? Is she just upset coz the contents are now public and they know she fucking lied about it?

The letter techinically still belongs to Meghan and in that sense, she has a strong case; but her father's public assertion that he held onto the letter until he saw it mischaracterised in that dreadful PEOPLE Magazine article, and then gave the letter to the MoS to set the record straight, puts a card in the hands of the MoS: Meghan had already discussed the letter with friends who then discussed it publicly in PEOPLE Magazine - otherwise, how would they have known she'd sent it?

I haven't a doubt that the MoS will play that card strongly. It's a very fine legal line to walk, but even if they lose, they've already told the public that Meghan is a two-faced hypocrite. The public won't believe for a moment that Meghan had nothing to do with that PEOPLE Magazine article, and told her friends about the letter and what to say about it in the article. She didn't mind it being publicised when it made her look good, only when it made her look bad.

It's a fine legal line that will be fought out here, but Associates Papers have deep enough pockets to do so, and will still land solid blows to the Sussex's public image even if they lose. The MoS has nothing to lose but a fine going to charity and then going on its merry way doing what it's always done.

The Sussexes, however, will lose a good deal of money in solicitor's fees, which they will not recoup as they have already promised any damages to an "anti-bullying" organisation; will have enhanced their public image of wanting to have their cake and eat it, too; a further damaged relationship between Harry and his father and brother whose input Harry bypassed on this; and the anger of the Foreign Office and the distaste of the Queen for putting themselves first before the interests of the British government and their foreign hosts, interests they agreed to support by doing the tour in the first place.

No one will remember or care that the Sussexes "won" their case if they do, nor will it change the press's now vastly increased hostility toward them, nor will it stop the tabloids from shading Meghan within legal bounds at every opporunity.

But the F.O. will remember how Meghan derailed its interests in the final stages of the tour, as will the Queen and Charles, who know better than anyone how important is the demonstration of reliability in that arena. Thetyy were out on the business of representing the British government and the monarchy. That is the core responsibility of senior working royals, for which they are handsomely rewarded.

Meghan's and Harry's legal actions and Harry's OTT and highly disingenuos rant have basically made anything resembling normal royal life an impossibility.

My bet is that Meghan will get herself up the duff again as quickly as possible to try to curry more public grace and ensure that the second child is at least born technically a member of the BRF.

Wow, there is a racist lunatic infesting this thread. I'll leave her to it and she can strenuously argue with herself

R240 That’s really well put & I largely agree with you, but not entirely.

With copyright issues it’s not as black & white as “you must have permission to reproduce”. In most cases it comes down to that, but sometimes it can be considered to be in the public interest to publish something that might otherwise be a) private and/or b) subject to copyright laws.

The letter & it’s contents was referred to within the MSM & specifically used to cast aspersions on the character of Pa Markle.

The law will almost certainly agree that he has the right to defend himself (as we all do) and it would be absurd to prevent him from using the exact same letter that was used against him to do this.

Markle violated her own privacy. The world and the MoS would not even know it existed if she hadn’t gotten her friends to tell People all about it. It’s hard to see how Pa Markle would have defended himself without using the letter.

There’s no fine line for me - she’s blown it and is highly unlikely to prevail. If the court accepts that Pa had the right to make the letter available to the MoS and they had the right to publish excerpts then all three prongs of her claim fail....privacy, infringement of copyright & data protection.

For what it’s worth, I think they are using the celeb lawyers because the BRF ones (who conducted most of the back & forth letters until now) declined to act. Schillings (or whatever they are called) don’t care if they win or not....the publicity alone is worth it’s weight in gold for them.

yeah, what fucking privacy? She is not entitled to it when she herself already told others about it.

This just makes her look even worse...

I think my friend might be right, she's gonna bring down the whole royal family. She's already done a lot of damage and she hasn't even been there for that long.

"...she's gonna bring down the whole royal family."

Some would say that's a good thing.

R244 - If the polls supporting the monarchy are anything to go by, there are far more who would never forgive her for it. Enter Wallis Simpson 2.0.

One moment she's inconsequential, the next she is so powerful she's going to destroy a thousand year old monarchy, the most famous in the world, attracting millions of tourists to London every year.

The tabloids should stop covering M and H and leave it to Hello magazine and the broadsheets.

Kate is a disgusting degenerate.

Which has what to do with you, R244?

R247 why do people flip out when people go commando? It means no underwear line and it’s breezy!

R248 And what’s it got to fucking do with you, Rosella? Start paying for the royals (which you don’t) and you’ll get a say, you annoying fat old frau.

Actually, R250, HM the Queen is the head of state of my country. My taxes do pay for her, and for her family, when they deign to visit.

Don’t comment on that which you don’t understand - it only makes you look stupid.

“Stupider”, rather.

Not to mention the continuing costs of her representatives in this country (as she lives 17,000 km away and is too old to travel these days): the Governor General and Lieutenant Governor General of Australia and the Governors and Lieutenants Governor of the six states. Apart from their salaries they all live in grand style and are accorded security for them and their families commensurate with their position. It’s rather a large amount of taxpayer funded money, as a matter of fact.

R250, so many ugly, lecturing fraus on this thread. That one you call out is in her 70s and spends all day posting here.

R247 is a troll. Celebrity Jihad photoshops almost all its content, it's patently obvious when you look at those photos because they're so bad at it.

Asserting that Kate posed for those pictures is so laughable as to crack the ribs. CJ are known liars and trolls themselves, just looking for clickbait.

.My toddler great-niece could probably do a better job.

R247 is the same CB Hate Kate troll who is here to deflect attention from the disaster that Meghan Markle has made of being elevated to a royal.

R251 You are wrong. The only country that pays via taxes for the BRF is the UK. Commonwealth counties assist with the costs of visits, and that’s it.

No, fuck off back to the forums lying about how you used to live in the UK, you miserable old fantasist.

R251 You are wrong. The only country that pays via taxes for the BRF is the UK. Commonwealth counties assist with the costs of visits, and that’s it.

No, fuck off back to the forums lying about how you used to live in the UK, you miserable old fantasist.

While I may be sympathetic to the hounding that they face from some in the news media, the Royal Family has an interesting way to deflect attention away from news that is in the public interest. First, announcing the engagement of Princess Beatrice, then the caring tour of South Africa and humanitarian side trips, now the lawsuits...all a way to draw attention from inquiries into the relationship between Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein.

R257 - Nice try, but in fact Pss. Beatrice is dying to get married, she's 31 years old, there is no reason she should have put her life on hold because of her father, and the trip to Africa was planned, like all royal tours, well in advance and they are done at the request of the Foreign Office, i.e., the British government, not at the whim of the BRF.

It is the F.O. who asked that the royals be sent off on this tour. The BRF only gulps and says, "Yes, of course." Harry's connection with Africa (in his own mind) goes back many years - they were considered "naturals" for this tour.

Royal calendars are planned far in advance of news stories. If you think Bea was going to wait for the Epstein case to go away and move on with her life before she hit 35, think again.

R257 - Oh, and the Sussexes have been negotiating with the Mail on Sunday since the letter was published, trying to settle out of court. He didn't instigate the lawsuit due to a phone call from HM saying, "Harry, dear, do your Uncle Andrew a favour, will you, and stop negotiating with the Mail on Sunday and announce the lawsuit now, and don't worry about annoying the Foreign Office about ruining the last stage of the tour they asked you and Meghan to undertake on their behalf - you just leave them to Gran here."

And, by the way, the Met has closed their investipgation of the Epstein case at the British end this week.y

Pss. Beatrice got engaged because she doesn't want to wait any longer and she's crazy in love. Harry and Meghan undertook a tour they agreed to do a long time ago. The lawsuits are part and parcel of Harry's and Meghan's obsession with their own sense of vicitmisation.

Piss Beatroll and Piss Hugenie. The princesses who ate all the pies.

No, R256 - it’s you who are wrong. There is an entire layer of salary, accommodation and security for The Queen’s representatives in Australia. If she wasn’t the head of state here, these would not be required. Yes, they would be required for a popularly or parliamentary elevated President, should Australia eventually become a republic. But we’d have an option about deciding on that model.

But for now they are solely in place for the Head of State of Australia, who is a 93 year old English woman who lives 17,000 ks away. She has done an amazing job and I have great respect for her but it’s a bit of a joke that the role of Head of State in my country is the only job not available to any Australian. It’s silly.

Whether I’ve lived in the UK or otherwise is immaterial - I’ve also lived and worked in Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Netherlands. So what? I’m Australian. We travel a lot. I’ve been a republican since I was old enough to vote.

You might want to get out a little yourself - maybe then you’ll realise that as soon as you get personal (“miserable old fantasist”? I’m none of these) you’ve lost the argument.

Keep smiling, R256! Or maybe start smiling, and learn a little about the rest of the world. You’re sadly limited.

R258 and R259, Do you like your employment in the Royal Household?

No matter how much planning goes into visits and events around the world by this family, why not create a greater hoopla by calling attention to the "nastiness" of the press through well-timed announcements of lawsuits? And although Beatrice Windsor-Mountbatten may be getting on in years (31 is hardly long in the tooth, btw), the announcement of her engagement may have come just at the right moment to deflect attention from her dear Papa's escapades.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but many questions remain about this lout and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

get a blog, R227

[quote] The Queen isn't a petty little snowflake like you, [R229]. She probably barely noticed Meghan asking for privacy at Wimbledon, and Charles and William also travel by private jet and preach about the environment, so that won't have shocked her. She is in her 90s, semi retired and deals with very little at during her time at Balmoral. If she focuses on anything, it will be Brexit and Johnson's machinations, which directly affect her.

Well R230, you once again appear to be incorrect.

The Royal Reporters agree with R229.

Queen is unhappy with the Harkles.

*Also note, when you resort to attacks and name-calling, you know you've lost credibility.

She's a fucking cunt. The way she treated the wait staff is evidence. The Queen even had to tell her "we don't talk to people like that here" When she was questioning the staff about vegan chicken.

She thinks she's American and is above all of them, and also playing the race card, one of the few mixed blood in the royal family, she expects special treatment!

"The tabloids should stop covering M and H and leave it to Hello magazine and the broadsheets."

R246 - This is the most sensible comment I have read in a very long time,

r266, i think that too.. just have media blackout and they can do basic crap on isntagram to their hearts content.

[quote] You believe women should behave like this? In 2019? You need to talk to a psychiatrist about all this internalised misogyny you have going on.

Triggered feminist @ R237, you immediately get riled up because you’re a bit dense, perpetually ‘offended’ and fail at BASIC reading comprehension. What part of my post did you not get? I advised you not to haughtily quote Shakespeare because it will “backfire” - because he wrote a lot of openly sexist narratives. But here you are, haughtily quoting sexist Shakespeare, as if he’s some kind of ‘wise old MAN / authority figure’. You’re shooting yourself in the foot - that was my point. If you’re going to quote someone to prove a point - then at least do some research on them first. Because otherwise it’s hilariously counter-productive - you’re quoting someone who wrote a popular play teaching that female “shrews” can be “tamed” and (successfully) taught to “serve and obey” their husbands, lol.

[quote] Kate is a disgusting degenerate … Nothing could be more embarrassing than Kate exposing her naked buttocks to the military.

On the other hand, R237 / R247 - you’re more of a fake feminist. Virtue-signalling and pearl-clutching about the treatment of “women” in “2019” (“INTERNALISED MISOGYNY!”), while you’re laughably dissing another female (meh) just to defend your personal US idol, Markle. Slow clap.

Btw, I think wearing a Nazi uniform (when you know your extended family had historic ties with the Nazis) is a bit more “embarassing”. And having your own Eton school teacher admit you were helped to cheat on exams (to even get a B) - also more hilariously pie-in-the-face embarrassing. All (and many more :) of those deep embarrassments belong to Henry Mountbatten-Windsor. But, hey, it appears you're the one with the "internalised misogyny", convinced that “NOTHING could be more embarrassing” than Kate, eh?

ignore the troll. Kate wore thong underwear and got caught in a breeze..it was years ago and the rest of the world have stopped swooning.

[quote] One moment she's inconsequential, the next she is so powerful she's going to destroy a thousand year old monarchy, the most famous in the world, attracting millions of tourists to London every year.

And this is another one of your dense posts, triggered fake-feminist & Markle-worshipper @ R246. One can be BOTH trivial in ranking (i.e. not a "powerful" entity or person on their own) AND destructive (by intentionally or accidentally creating bad circumstances that result in an implosion affecting your work space and others) at the same time. Let me give you a general example: a bus driver is generally considered a "trivial" profession - but if a bus driver screws things up, many people can suffer and the whole bus company can get sued and implode. So is a bus driver "powerful" in society? No. But can a bus driver drag their company into a PR scandal and taint its reputation? Yes.

As for "millions of tourists" - eyeroll. London is like Paris - a monumental, happening, party city now. People from all over come here to shop in fashion stores (Harrods), see the world-class museums & theatre (West End), party in Mayfair clubs, watch the football games, launder their money :). Paris, Milan, Munich, Rome, Hong Kong, NYC - all don't have a monarchy anymore, but doesn't stop "millions" going there to visit and party.

'I advised you not to haughtily quote Shakespeare because it will “backfire” - because he wrote a lot of openly sexist narratives'

This really does show how unintelligent you are. Shakespeare cannot be viewed through a 21st century filter. He was writing in the 16th and early 17th century, and he was one of the first playwrights to create huge, nuanced parts for women, instead of treating them like stock characters.

The BRF do cost significantly more than other royal families, but bring in far, far in excess of that amount.

The royals, in fact, brought in £430 million more than they cost the UK last year, leaving other royals such as the Spanish or Belgian ones lagging far behind.

Overall, in 2018, the British royals contributed £595m via tourism, merchandise and the arts, while costing £165m.

This makes them 18 times more profitable than Belgium’s royals, and an amazing 29 times more than the Spanish monarchy.

In the past five years, in fact, they have contributed £2.8 billion to the UK economy.

So no, Meghan and Harry's spending/hypocrisy etc isn't going to bring the lucrative BRF crashing down.

But the optics of Harry and Meghan's spending and hypocrisy could verily easily bring the entire House down. You forget the human factor in your many calculations.

A 35 million pound wedding when the actual heir to throne's wedding only cost 26 million pounds?

A 75,000 dollar engagement picture dress vs Kate's 300 pound engagement dress?

A half a million dollars for a weekend baby shower? Paid for by whom? The taxpayer - that's who.

And, to top it off nicely, A THREE million dollar taxpayer-funded renovation on Froggy Cottage - which hasn't even been finished yet, so the price will rise.

Then there are the private, carbon-spewing jets and all the cars and security.

And then there are the hectoring speeches from them about how we should live.

We UK taxpayers are more than irritated. They are damned lucky we are not French and prone to violence.

In fairness, that Look How Rich We Are! baby shower was paid for by Meghan's friends. That didn't change the optics of her participation, the obviously set up in advance publicity, her extravagant wardrobe in NY, and taking the Clooney's private jet home with her "gifts".

But the rest listed above is spot on. And it all could have been avoided if Meghan Markle weren't intent on living the life she's always wanted to live: a rich A-List celebrity hobnobing with other A-List celebrities - complete with huge dark glasses as if, forsooth, she was trying to evade the cameras as she exited The Mark - the most expensive hotel in Manhattan.

It's the optics, all of which, with a few impulses of self-restraint and sensitivity, Meghan Markle could have avoided. Kate's got rich friends, too (the richest man in Britain is godfather to Prince George), and a rich family. She may very well have had a baby shower but none of us really know if she did or not, because you didn't see her parading about in the most expensive hotel in London with celebrities cooing all over her and making a huge production out of it, complete with the entries of said celebrities bringing in shopping bags, boxes, and tonnes of flowers being brought in to decorate the penthouse.

Meghan's stubborn obtuseness is how she handed the tabloids their ammo.

^*hobnobbing

R274

[QUOTE] A 35 million pound wedding when the actual heir to throne's wedding only cost 26 million pounds? A $75,000 dollar engagement picture dress vs Kate's 300 pound engagement dress?

These figures aren't being bandied around by the British public, only by monomaniacs like yourself who suffer from an almost autistic obsession with the couple.

The info that MM was worth 5m when she married Harry was widely shared, and many Brits, if they considered the costs at all, thought she paid for the 75k gown herself. She wasn't married to Harry so wasn't receiving any money from the civil list at the time.

The royals are already being reigned in. Beatrice's wedding won't be paid for by the public. MM's wedding, shower and the FC renovation were unique expenses that won't be repeated and will soon be forgotten. She is already wearing much cheaper garments.

The vast majority of Brits are indifferent to the royals, and aren't following MM's antics avidly like the people on this board. Henry Viii isn't on the throne, levying extra taxes to pay for his whims. Frogmore etc had no impact on people's monthly salaries or hourly wage.

As I already pointed out, the royal family bring in over four hundred million a year in revenue, and cost 25% of that. It's naive to think the whole institution will be abolished because MM and Harry spent 4m renovating a house.

[quote] The info that MM was worth 5m when she married Harry was widely shared,

^^^^^That is incorrect and misinformation.

Don't know how Megs gets her exorbitant clothing, but do know one thing: the $5 mill reported is not true. PR at its finest.

Corey was giving her money (and paying for their last vacation a month before she "took off"). He was doing so because SHE was low on it. (Not the greatest with money....see her past history with the IRS.)

R277 is very invested in the story. Easy, girl

[quote] This really does show how unintelligent you are. Shakespeare cannot be viewed through a 21st century filter. He was writing in the 16th and early 17th century, and he was one of the first playwrights to create huge, nuanced parts for women, instead of treating them like stock characters.

No, it shows how arrogant, “unintelligent” and obtuse you are, R271. I love how you rant about “MISOGYNY!” whenever anyone dares to criticise Markle - and yet you yourself shit all over Middleton (calling her a “degenerate”) and make excuses for Shakespeare (a male). You talk out of both sides of your mouth, which is hilarious.

As for Shakespeare, you seem to forget that he lived at a time when an unmarried female (!) was in power. Yet he still merrily wrote a play about “taming the female shrew”, lol. So don’t give me that crap about his ‘time period’ as an excuse.

And you’re also “unintelligent” if you think he was “one of the FIRST playwrights to create huge, nuanced parts for women, instead of treating them like stock characters". It seems you're oblivious about his predecessors and haven't read many plays. Many Greek playwrights wrote complex plays with big, central parts for complex female characters (brave heroines, murderers, victims - the whole psychological spectrum): Medea, Antigone, Athena, Cassandra, etc. None of those were “stock characters”. And those plays were written ca. 2,000 years before Shakespeare, way before him. So he was hardly “one of the first”, lol.

The Swedish monarchy just announced last week they're CUTTING OFF (from state taxpayer funds) most of the grandchildren who are not at the top of the succession line to the throne!

[quote] CNN: "Swedish royals: 5 of King's grandchildren no longer official members. The King of Sweden has reduced the number of family members who will continue to receive taxpayer funds, stripping 5 of his grandchildren of their [HRH] status, according to an official statement.

[quote] Express: "KING Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has sensationally removed several members from the Royal House, a move Prince Charles has already announced he would also like to take in the UK."

Oh-oh, Harry is only 6th-in-line now (way down the succession tree, he'll never be king), yet he still at the moment gets taxpayer money on par with William (even though William is the actual future King, not Henry). The optics of this are not good, especially when there's more progressive change in Sweden.

The Meghan Markle Female Empowerment Rule Book:

Let your hapless father put you through school at high expense so you get out not burdened by school loans, then ditch him when you start dating royalty.

Be yourself! But dhange your hair and nose to look less like you're half-black and more "racially ambiguous" to further your chances in show biz.

Cultivate whatever circle of friends can best get you up the social ladder, and make sure most of them are white.

Only date and marry well-placed white men who can help you tick off something on your "bucket list" (an acting job, social status, celebrity).

Take advantage of every perk your convenient marriages get you but never admit for a moment that your life is actually really, really difficult and you deserve the world's compassion for everything you've suffered.

Make sure your offspring are as white as possible whilst extolling your creds as a WOC.

Most of all, believe in yourself! Never, ever take anyone else's advice or experience into consideration, even if they understand the landscape you just entered after years of hungering to get in, and you don't.

^* neve admit for a moment that your life isn't (not is)

Loved your comment, r279.

Meghan and Harry should steady themselves.

These very old playwrights might have written parts for women, but they were typically played by men until probably the 17th century or so.

It's not about "parts for women" (who cares, people had bigger problems in Ancient Greece, with all the endless wars, pederasty involving barely pubescent boys and girls, etc) - it's about storytelling about females, R284. And the mentioned female characters were written not as "stock characters", but as quite complex and multi-dimensional. The point was it's silly to hail Shakespeare as some kind of pioneer just because he happened to write in the English language.

Besides, "acting" / "entertaining" was often looked down upon as a 'profession' historically - it wasn't a profession for respectable male or females, but more for hippy-esque travelling (nomadic) minstrels from the lower classes. It was often considered déclassé, seedy, bawdy, and even dangerous. Actor troupes would criss-cross around a country a lot (like a visiting circus) - and travel was risky back then (most normal people stayed in the safety of their villages and towns their whole lives). So having female actors travelling, with a gang of non-related, unruly, often inebriated ancient or medieval males, into distant towns, dark roads and brawl-heavy taverns, would be a recipe for disaster and rape.

Why are we even debating Shakespeare in a Meghan thread?

Because a Meghan faux-feminist superfan @ R230, who tsk-tsked at posters for their so-called 'misogyny', used a Shakespeare quote to try to school anyone who criticises Markle. Which is deeply ironic, since Shakespeare wrote a lot of misogynistic things himself.

Btw, it's reported that the first woman to appear in a Shakespeare play did so in 1660 – 44 years after Shakespeare's death.

Actresses until the early-mid-20th century were little better than courtesans - ditto, in fact even renowned ballet dancers like Karsavina, who were often kept as mistresses by the nobility. Until the laws changed, there were no such animals as actresses, only male actors dressed up as women.

Shakespeare, like most artists, both reflected the age he lived in but challenged in.

Few people realise, for example, that Merchant of Venice is counted amongst the Bard's comedies, not dramas. Today the focus is all on the embedded antisemitism of the day; but at the time, this was uproariously funny to Elizabethans - lines like, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" were intended to get laughs. My guess is that few people in light of more recent European history laugh at the line and it is produced from a different perspective.

Using Shakespeare to make points about feminism is dangerously reductionist/

^challenged it

'Corey was giving her money (and paying for their last vacation a month before she "took off"). He was doing so because SHE was low on it. (Not the greatest with money....see her past history with the IRS.)'

Sure he was. She owned her own house in LA, and sold that too, which would have been a million on its own. Plenty of evidence that she was worth millions but none at all that she wasn't.

[quote]Few people realise, for example, that Merchant of Venice is counted amongst the Bard's comedies, not dramas. Today the focus is all on the embedded antisemitism of the day; but at the time, this was uproariously funny to Elizabethans - lines like, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" were intended to get laughs.

Have you actually studied Shakespeare? Shakespearean comedy didn't mean that every line in them was to be uproariously funny, and often included a mix of humor and tragedy. They were basically like a "very special" episode of a 1970s-90s sitcom. There is no reason to think that "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" was intended to get laughs, anymore than to think we were supposed to laugh when Edith Bunker was almost raped on All In The Family.

Off-topic, but "comedy" used to simply mean a play with a "happy ending". "Tragedy" used to mean a play with a sad ending. This was a general historical theatre tradition which the Brits took from the Greeks. The Merchant of Venice was a 'comedy' because the play ended with the main protagonists living happily ever after (and the antagonist, Shylock, was successfully vanquished). By comparison, R & J was a tragedy because all the main protagonists died by the end.

R291 - No, you don't say?! Why, I never would have guessed that not every line in one of the Bard's comedies was meant to be funny, or there were not dark undersides to his comedies.

Gosh, thanks for the condescension and the assumption that anyone who points out that the antisemitism of 15th and 16th century Europe was framed somewhat differently and a given in a way it can't be a given today when the play is performed, just hasn't studied Shakespeare.

Merchant is listed amongst the Bard's comedies. But no one can put the play on today without addressing its antisemitism front and centre, as pointed out, in light of what we know of recent European history.

It was different then. Or maybe you should sit down and do a study of European attitudes towards Jews in the Elizabethan era.

R293 It wasn't condescension or assumption. R288 specifically said "this was uproariously funny to Elizabethans - lines like, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" were intended to get laughs"

I never said their wasn't antisemitic attitudes in European history. There weren't even any recorded Jews in England at the time, because they had been expelled 1290.

Can we please stop talking about Shakespeare? This thread is about ME.

R294 Excuse me, I meant there not their