Meghan and Harry file major lawsuit against British press

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won’t bode well for them. There is nothing they can do to turn the tide of dislike against them. She will always remain ME-Gan, who happens to look a lot like Wallace Simpson, another divorcee that married into the royal family. And she happens to be living in the same house she did too. Go figure.

You just compared her to an actual Nazi. But sure you're totally a reasonable person.

PP compared Meghan to Wallis Simpson, "another divorcee that married into the royal family". You're the one who jumped to "actual Nazi".

+1.

Poster sounds to me like an actual Nazi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won’t bode well for them. There is nothing they can do to turn the tide of dislike against them. She will always remain ME-Gan, who happens to look a lot like Wallace Simpson, another divorcee that married into the royal family. And she happens to be living in the same house she did too. Go figure.

You just compared her to an actual Nazi. But sure you're totally a reasonable person.

PP compared Meghan to Wallis Simpson, "another divorcee that married into the royal family". You're the one who jumped to "actual Nazi".

Wallis was villified for her Nazi connections and the British government moved to exile her husband to the Bahamas because they received damning proof that he was collaborating with the Third Reich and had agreed with Hitler to rule England if the Nazis took it in a campaign.

So yeah, comparing Meghan to Wallis is pretty uncalled for.

Not to mention the fact that the Prince of Wales is *shocker* a divorcee. So his is wife. He's also a stepfather though no one seems to acknowledge that.

Typical DCUM reasoning--jump to the most far-fetched and insulting conclusion though no such words were written.

[Anonymous]

Daily Mail Lead Editor avoiding reporter questions. Wow, what a turn of events. How do you like having a microphone pushed in your face you loathsome toad?

Can't wait for the trial.

https://twitter.com/meghanxharry/status/1179461156789993472

[Anonymous]

Copyright law states that the AUTHOR is the owner of the legal rights to the letter. Thomas didn't write it so he couldn't sell it without Meghan's permission. Which is exactly why numerous other papers refused to touch it. The DM was just foolish enough to go ahead.

It's a letter, not a novel. She has no legal rights to a letter she willingly sent to another person.

Other papers refused to touch it b/c it's an unethical move to publish it - and to share it, for that matter. But it's not illegal.

She sent him a "gift" and he "re-gifted" it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Copyright law states that the AUTHOR is the owner of the legal rights to the letter. Thomas didn't write it so he couldn't sell it without Meghan's permission. Which is exactly why numerous other papers refused to touch it. The DM was just foolish enough to go ahead.

It's a letter, not a novel. She has no legal rights to a letter she willingly sent to another person.

Other papers refused to touch it b/c it's an unethical move to publish it - and to share it, for that matter. But it's not illegal.

She sent him a "gift" and he "re-gifted" it.

Poor Brits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Copyright law states that the AUTHOR is the owner of the legal rights to the letter. Thomas didn't write it so he couldn't sell it without Meghan's permission. Which is exactly why numerous other papers refused to touch it. The DM was just foolish enough to go ahead.

It's a letter, not a novel. She has no legal rights to a letter she willingly sent to another person.

Other papers refused to touch it b/c it's an unethical move to publish it - and to share it, for that matter. But it's not illegal.

She sent him a "gift" and he "re-gifted" it.

This isn't correct. She is the author of the letter and anyone who publishes it is in violation of copyright. However, the penalty for that is a fine per infringement. Here, one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I liked this take -- https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/02/harry-and-meghans-war-on-press-freedom/

Harry’s statement about the tabloids is an ugly, elitist act of monarchical privilege.



There is a striking irony in The Harry and Meghan Show. This pair present themselves as a new kind of royal: chilled out, PC, green, more likely to visit a Peckham radio station run by struggling youths than a cake-making charity run by women with blue-rinsed helmet hair. And yet scrape away their chilled, chatty veneer and what we have here are two of the most elitist and snobby royals in the Windsor household. And that’s saying something.

Consider Prince Harry’s outrageous statement about the tabloid press, published yesterday. Its censoriousness and elitism are staggering. It echoes the pre-1960s period in which the monarchy arrogantly assumed it could bully the media into telling only happy, agreeable stories about royal personages. It drips with contempt for the tabloid press in particular. Harry describes Meghan as ‘one of the latest victims of [the] British tabloid press’, which apparently pumps out ‘relentless propaganda’ that is designed to ‘manipulate you, the reader’. Oh gracious prince, please save us gullible plebs from manipulation by evil newspapers! What a pompous ass he is.

Harry issued the statement to coincide with legal action that Meghan is taking against the Mail on Sunday for ‘unlawfully’ publishing the ‘contents of a private letter’. This pertains to the Mail on Sunday’s publication in February of a handwritten letter Meghan sent to her estranged father, Thomas Markle. This is a deeply disturbing legal action. It poses a very serious threat to the freedom of the press. Reading Harry’s statement and some of the gushing coverage of it from the tabloid-hating liberal elite, you could be forgiven for thinking that hacks from the Mail on Sunday got hold of the letter by sinister, criminal means. Not so. The letter was given to the newspaper by Meghan’s father.

In her letter, Meghan pleads with her father to stop selling stories to the press. Mr Markle then gave the letter itself to the press – to the Mail on Sunday. If newspapers are to be reprimanded or punished for publishing documents freely given to them by the owners of those documents, that will represent a devastating blow for press freedom. It is astonishing and highly ill-advised that the Sussexes are taking this action; it suggests that in certain quarters of the royal family there lingers a pre-modern disdain for the right of mere mortals and cheap newspapers to question royal personages....

(article continues at link)

What the hell is a spiked online? Someone's blog.

How about...the Guardian. Respectable with a journalism degree and a PhD...how novel.

Prince Harry’s letter resonates because it's not just the royals bullied by the red-tops

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2019/oct/02/prince-harry-letter-shows-you-dont-have-to-be-royal-to-be-bullied-by-the-red-tops

My wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences,” wrote Prince Harry as he and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday for publishing a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.

I am a lifelong republican but reading Harry’s letter, I found myself practically cheering. Seeing the red-tops turn on Meghan Markle over the last year has been like watching a type of abusive relationship from afar, in which various gossips have worked with the worst parts of the press to relentlessly harass, bully, and vilify a new mother. Royal hangers-on will talk of how speaking out in such terms is an unprecedented move for the monarchy but Harry’s letter is powerful because it is human; it is the words of a husband who has watched the wife he loves suffer and has finally had enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won’t bode well for them. There is nothing they can do to turn the tide of dislike against them. She will always remain ME-Gan, who happens to look a lot like Wallace Simpson, another divorcee that married into the royal family. And she happens to be living in the same house she did too. Go figure.

You just compared her to an actual Nazi. But sure you're totally a reasonable person.

PP compared Meghan to Wallis Simpson, "another divorcee that married into the royal family". You're the one who jumped to "actual Nazi".

Wallis was villified for her Nazi connections and the British government moved to exile her husband to the Bahamas because they received damning proof that he was collaborating with the Third Reich and had agreed with Hitler to rule England if the Nazis took it in a campaign.

So yeah, comparing Meghan to Wallis is pretty uncalled for.

Not to mention the fact that the Prince of Wales is *shocker* a divorcee. So his is wife. He's also a stepfather though no one seems to acknowledge that.

Typical DCUM reasoning--jump to the most far-fetched and insulting conclusion though no such words were written.

PP said Megan looked like Wallis. She doesn't, at all, see below.



So if Megan looks nothing like Wallis and it is easily (EASILY) disproven then what were they aiming for in linking the two women? Wallis was notorious for sullying the British family's name by associating herself and the former King with the third reich. That is what she is known for. So other than being a divorcee, why bring her into this conversation if not to bring nazi allusions into Megan's sphere.

You people are so racist and so revolting. I don't know why I come back to these threads. But it is just so wrong, how you talk about her. It feels like letting you spew your vile uncontested would be participating in this vile racism myself.

[Anonymous]

She kind of does look like her. How about that.

I'm only a hobbyist Anglohpile, not a professional. When I think of Wallis Simpson, I think of abdication and being a divorcee. The Third Reich is not the first association in my head. But what do I know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won’t bode well for them. There is nothing they can do to turn the tide of dislike against them. She will always remain ME-Gan, who happens to look a lot like Wallace Simpson, another divorcee that married into the royal family. And she happens to be living in the same house she did too. Go figure.

You just compared her to an actual Nazi. But sure you're totally a reasonable person.

PP compared Meghan to Wallis Simpson, "another divorcee that married into the royal family". You're the one who jumped to "actual Nazi".

Wallis was villified for her Nazi connections and the British government moved to exile her husband to the Bahamas because they received damning proof that he was collaborating with the Third Reich and had agreed with Hitler to rule England if the Nazis took it in a campaign.

So yeah, comparing Meghan to Wallis is pretty uncalled for.

Not to mention the fact that the Prince of Wales is *shocker* a divorcee. So his is wife. He's also a stepfather though no one seems to acknowledge that.

Typical DCUM reasoning--jump to the most far-fetched and insulting conclusion though no such words were written.

PP said Megan looked like Wallis. She doesn't, at all, see below.



So if Megan looks nothing like Wallis and it is easily (EASILY) disproven then what were they aiming for in linking the two women? Wallis was notorious for sullying the British family's name by associating herself and the former King with the third reich. That is what she is known for. So other than being a divorcee, why bring her into this conversation if not to bring nazi allusions into Megan's sphere.

You people are so racist and so revolting. I don't know why I come back to these threads. But it is just so wrong, how you talk about her. It feels like letting you spew your vile uncontested would be participating in this vile racism myself.

Oh my, you're being willfully obtuse. Did you forget the part where Wallis was blamed for a King abdicating the throne? Per Wikipedia, she "was an American socialite whose intended marriage to the British king Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis that led to Edward's abdication....due to the King's desire to marry a woman who had two living ex-husbands. Constitutionally, the King was required to be in communion with the Church of England, but his proposed marriage conflicted with the Church's teachings." So her sordid past full of divorces (check!) with living ex-husbands (check!) sullied her reputation and, by extension, her husband's (check!). Her introduction in to the family caused chaos and tore the family structure that was in place apart (check!). But let's not let a little thing like history get in the way of your narrative on fabricated racism and MM's victimhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won’t bode well for them. There is nothing they can do to turn the tide of dislike against them. She will always remain ME-Gan, who happens to look a lot like Wallace Simpson, another divorcee that married into the royal family. And she happens to be living in the same house she did too. Go figure.

You just compared her to an actual Nazi. But sure you're totally a reasonable person.

PP compared Meghan to Wallis Simpson, "another divorcee that married into the royal family". You're the one who jumped to "actual Nazi".

Wallis was villified for her Nazi connections and the British government moved to exile her husband to the Bahamas because they received damning proof that he was collaborating with the Third Reich and had agreed with Hitler to rule England if the Nazis took it in a campaign.

So yeah, comparing Meghan to Wallis is pretty uncalled for.

Not to mention the fact that the Prince of Wales is *shocker* a divorcee. So his is wife. He's also a stepfather though no one seems to acknowledge that.

Typical DCUM reasoning--jump to the most far-fetched and insulting conclusion though no such words were written.

PP said Megan looked like Wallis. She doesn't, at all, see below.



So if Megan looks nothing like Wallis and it is easily (EASILY) disproven then what were they aiming for in linking the two women? Wallis was notorious for sullying the British family's name by associating herself and the former King with the third reich. That is what she is known for. So other than being a divorcee, why bring her into this conversation if not to bring nazi allusions into Megan's sphere.

You people are so racist and so revolting. I don't know why I come back to these threads. But it is just so wrong, how you talk about her. It feels like letting you spew your vile uncontested would be participating in this vile racism myself.

Oh my, you're being willfully obtuse. Did you forget the part where Wallis was blamed for a King abdicating the throne? Per Wikipedia, she "was an American socialite whose intended marriage to the British king Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis that led to Edward's abdication....due to the King's desire to marry a woman who had two living ex-husbands. Constitutionally, the King was required to be in communion with the Church of England, but his proposed marriage conflicted with the Church's teachings." So her sordid past full of divorces (check!) with living ex-husbands (check!) sullied her reputation and, by extension, her husband's (check!). Her introduction in to the family caused chaos and tore the family structure that was in place apart (check!). But let's not let a little thing like history get in the way of your narrative on fabricated racism and MM's victimhood.

Oh please. Edward was a weak man and even weaker King. He was 43 and unmarried for heaven's sake!

I would think any problems the BRF had are down to how he was raised, what values they placed in, and how he lived his life as Prince Of Wales in the FORTY YEARS before he met Wallis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Copyright law states that the AUTHOR is the owner of the legal rights to the letter. Thomas didn't write it so he couldn't sell it without Meghan's permission. Which is exactly why numerous other papers refused to touch it. The DM was just foolish enough to go ahead.

It's a letter, not a novel. She has no legal rights to a letter she willingly sent to another person.

Other papers refused to touch it b/c it's an unethical move to publish it - and to share it, for that matter. But it's not illegal.

She sent him a "gift" and he "re-gifted" it.

If you don't understand the first thing about copyright law, perhaps you should stay away from spouting this gibberish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won’t bode well for them. There is nothing they can do to turn the tide of dislike against them. She will always remain ME-Gan, who happens to look a lot like Wallace Simpson, another divorcee that married into the royal family. And she happens to be living in the same house she did too. Go figure.

You just compared her to an actual Nazi. But sure you're totally a reasonable person.

PP compared Meghan to Wallis Simpson, "another divorcee that married into the royal family". You're the one who jumped to "actual Nazi".

Wallis was villified for her Nazi connections and the British government moved to exile her husband to the Bahamas because they received damning proof that he was collaborating with the Third Reich and had agreed with Hitler to rule England if the Nazis took it in a campaign.

So yeah, comparing Meghan to Wallis is pretty uncalled for.

Not to mention the fact that the Prince of Wales is *shocker* a divorcee. So his is wife. He's also a stepfather though no one seems to acknowledge that.

Typical DCUM reasoning--jump to the most far-fetched and insulting conclusion though no such words were written.

PP said Megan looked like Wallis. She doesn't, at all, see below.



So if Megan looks nothing like Wallis and it is easily (EASILY) disproven then what were they aiming for in linking the two women? Wallis was notorious for sullying the British family's name by associating herself and the former King with the third reich. That is what she is known for. So other than being a divorcee, why bring her into this conversation if not to bring nazi allusions into Megan's sphere.

You people are so racist and so revolting. I don't know why I come back to these threads. But it is just so wrong, how you talk about her. It feels like letting you spew your vile uncontested would be participating in this vile racism myself.

Oh my, you're being willfully obtuse. Did you forget the part where Wallis was blamed for a King abdicating the throne? Per Wikipedia, she "was an American socialite whose intended marriage to the British king Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis that led to Edward's abdication....due to the King's desire to marry a woman who had two living ex-husbands. Constitutionally, the King was required to be in communion with the Church of England, but his proposed marriage conflicted with the Church's teachings." So her sordid past full of divorces (check!) with living ex-husbands (check!) sullied her reputation and, by extension, her husband's (check!). Her introduction in to the family caused chaos and tore the family structure that was in place apart (check!). But let's not let a little thing like history get in the way of your narrative on fabricated racism and MM's victimhood.

Oh please. Edward was a weak man and even weaker King. He was 43 and unmarried for heaven's sake!

I would think any problems the BRF had are down to how he was raised, what values they placed in, and how he lived his life as Prince Of Wales in the FORTY YEARS before he met Wallis.

Not to mention Meghan will NEVER be in the position to be responsible for Harry abdicating the throne! And even if she WAS due to some horrible circumstances she has already produced a male heir so he wouldn't ever have to abdicate he would just step down.

I am not the one forgetting my history in order to make a gross point pp.

[Anonymous]

to whoever said this was "great timing" - we are spending our time talking about this letter from ages ago that she sent to her dad (who the eff writes letters to their DAD in 2019??)... instead of violence against women in Africa which is way, way more important than this manufactured drama.

her relationship with her dad is bizarre- instead of slapping a lawsuit at a tabloid , why cant she just figure out how to deal with him privately? On the Tig she was falling over herself describing what a loving, nurturing and compassionate father he was - who gave her strength hand support....

[Anonymous]

i also think MM looks a little like Wallis Simpson - its the close set eyes