Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

I agree about feeling a bit sorry for them - their timing is terrible and they seem like a pair of grasping brats.

Otherwise they're probably ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Well good thing that’s not what the lawsuit is about!

And that’s how it works with respect to other royals. Kate threatened to sue over the Tatler debacle. The queen also pressured folks not to do the prince Andrew story years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Well good thing that’s not what the lawsuit is about!

And that’s how it works with respect to other royals. Kate threatened to sue over the Tatler debacle. The queen also pressured folks not to do the prince Andrew story years ago.

Well that sure is what the headline is about. That she "felt" unprotected.

No this isn't how it works. In fact, I'd say the palace has lent unprecedented support to Markle when it put out a statement before they even married.

Kate did her own suing, and Markle can do her own. I don't think Kate cried over the palace not putting out supportive statements.

The queen doesn't respond to every negative article about Andrew, and there are plenty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Did anyone from the BRF — other than Harry — ever make a statement of any kind about the racism that characterized quite a bit of the attention that Meghan and Archie got from the press? That’s something that could have been openly censured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Did anyone from the BRF — other than Harry — ever make a statement of any kind about the racism that characterized quite a bit of the attention that Meghan and Archie got from the press? That’s something that could have been openly censured.

Wasn't there a statement before they even got married?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can step in with that. It was tone deaf, she’s an awful
Public speaker who is awkwardly self conscious of what she’s saying as she’s speaking and it hurts to watch her. She is a
Complete sociopath narcissist who quite literally speaks just to hear herself speak and try to get pats on the head for being woke. Just a gold digger whose only skill is conning men into marriage. Plus her weave looks awful and her hair is messy and unkempt as usual. STFU Meghan and get off the public stage, let the future king and queen of England have their rightful spotlight you pathetic attention hog.

I don’t have strong feelings about her, but you may want to examine your sad life and figure out why you have so much hate in your heart.

PPs, I think that post was meant to be tongue-in-in-cheek...predicting what naysayers would say because she just can’t win, no matter what she does.

No shit, Sherlock. I still get to have a opinion on the sociopathic narcissist mercher grifter Wallis 2.0, n'est-ce pas?

Np Also she is a bit like Princess Diana ( and not in a good way) Princess Diana made Charles step away from all his friends, just like Meghan did with Harry's best buddies. I am reading the Prince Charles book in sections since I am having a hard time concentrating and just read that part. Diana's reason was to keep him away from his friends who had known him while hanging out with Camilla so a valid reason, some might say. However, it isn't good to isolate your husband unless you have an ulterior motive.

Charles was no unhappy Harry. He kept carrying on with Camilla right under Diana’s nose.

Whoosh! That was the sound of something that went over your head!

Actually you’re the clueless one. Diana had no power in that relationship.

You obviously havent read the book prince charles by sally bedell Smith so no use continuing the conversation with you, the real clueless wonder.

I've read it, and the book is absolute garbage. I can't believe you take the nonsense written it seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Well good thing that’s not what the lawsuit is about!

And that’s how it works with respect to other royals. Kate threatened to sue over the Tatler debacle. The queen also pressured folks not to do the prince Andrew story years ago.

Well that sure is what the headline is about. That she "felt" unprotected.

No this isn't how it works. In fact, I'd say the palace has lent unprecedented support to Markle when it put out a statement before they even married.

Kate did her own suing, and Markle can do her own. I don't think Kate cried over the palace not putting out supportive statements.

The queen doesn't respond to every negative article about Andrew, and there are plenty.

Huh????

Did you read the article or were you just in a hurry to comment for unknown reasons? Unsupported is not in reference to the lawsuit or her expectation that the palace would sue on her behalf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Did anyone from the BRF — other than Harry — ever make a statement of any kind about the racism that characterized quite a bit of the attention that Meghan and Archie got from the press? That’s something that could have been openly censured.

Wasn't there a statement before they even got married?

No. That was Harry’s statement.

[Anonymous]

Not sure why pp thinks the press is getting "pulverized" in the litigation? So far, the court has ruled against a bunch of Megan's claims as a matter of law, and the testimony so far is to support her argument that her friends talked to the press about the letter to her father (a key point in the press' argument that the letter was no longer private) without her knowledge. Her argument is that she felt "unprotected" by the Royal Family and was prohibited from defending herself, so her friends did it for her, but without her knowledge or consent. IMO, that's just not believable. First, it is well known that friends of royalty don't talk to the press about them without consent (see how they reacted to the recent Jessica Mulroney incident), and second, how did they happen to have the letter, if Meghan herself didn't give it to them?

I'm the pp who said she felt sorry for them, but my pity is steadily evaporating. They've backed themselves into a corner with this ill-advised lawsuit, and making their case by trashing the Royal Family (who they are expecting to support them in the style to which they are accustomed).

To the pp who said "they can always go back to the Royal Family:" not so sure about that now. Particularly if the litigation is an indication of where they're going to go with their upcoming book.

[Anonymous]

Harry and Archie can always go back to the Royal Family and will be welcomed with open arms. Meghan will never enjoy the closeness she once had with the senior royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Well good thing that’s not what the lawsuit is about!

And that’s how it works with respect to other royals. Kate threatened to sue over the Tatler debacle. The queen also pressured folks not to do the prince Andrew story years ago.

Well that sure is what the headline is about. That she "felt" unprotected.

No this isn't how it works. In fact, I'd say the palace has lent unprecedented support to Markle when it put out a statement before they even married.

Kate did her own suing, and Markle can do her own. I don't think Kate cried over the palace not putting out supportive statements.

The queen doesn't respond to every negative article about Andrew, and there are plenty.

Huh????

Did you read the article or were you just in a hurry to comment for unknown reasons? Unsupported is not in reference to the lawsuit or her expectation that the palace would sue on her behalf.

Well you have special reading powers so why don't you tell us what you think "unsupported" means in this context. Enlighten us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why pp thinks the press is getting "pulverized" in the litigation? So far, the court has ruled against a bunch of Megan's claims as a matter of law, and the testimony so far is to support her argument that her friends talked to the press about the letter to her father (a key point in the press' argument that the letter was no longer private) without her knowledge. Her argument is that she felt "unprotected" by the Royal Family and was prohibited from defending herself, so her friends did it for her, but without her knowledge or consent. IMO, that's just not believable. First, it is well known that friends of royalty don't talk to the press about them without consent (see how they reacted to the recent Jessica Mulroney incident), and second, how did they happen to have the letter, if Meghan herself didn't give it to them?

I'm the pp who said she felt sorry for them, but my pity is steadily evaporating. They've backed themselves into a corner with this ill-advised lawsuit, and making their case by trashing the Royal Family (who they are expecting to support them in the style to which they are accustomed).

To the pp who said "they can always go back to the Royal Family:" not so sure about that now. Particularly if the litigation is an indication of where they're going to go with their upcoming book.

I have to agree with PP. Neither M or H is coming out of this smelling like roses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can step in with that. It was tone deaf, she’s an awful
Public speaker who is awkwardly self conscious of what she’s saying as she’s speaking and it hurts to watch her. She is a
Complete sociopath narcissist who quite literally speaks just to hear herself speak and try to get pats on the head for being woke. Just a gold digger whose only skill is conning men into marriage. Plus her weave looks awful and her hair is messy and unkempt as usual. STFU Meghan and get off the public stage, let the future king and queen of England have their rightful spotlight you pathetic attention hog.

I don’t have strong feelings about her, but you may want to examine your sad life and figure out why you have so much hate in your heart.

PPs, I think that post was meant to be tongue-in-in-cheek...predicting what naysayers would say because she just can’t win, no matter what she does.

No shit, Sherlock. I still get to have a opinion on the sociopathic narcissist mercher grifter Wallis 2.0, n'est-ce pas?

Np Also she is a bit like Princess Diana ( and not in a good way) Princess Diana made Charles step away from all his friends, just like Meghan did with Harry's best buddies. I am reading the Prince Charles book in sections since I am having a hard time concentrating and just read that part. Diana's reason was to keep him away from his friends who had known him while hanging out with Camilla so a valid reason, some might say. However, it isn't good to isolate your husband unless you have an ulterior motive.

Charles was no unhappy Harry. He kept carrying on with Camilla right under Diana’s nose.

Whoosh! That was the sound of something that went over your head!

Actually you’re the clueless one. Diana had no power in that relationship.

You obviously havent read the book prince charles by sally bedell Smith so no use continuing the conversation with you, the real clueless wonder.

I've read it, and the book is absolute garbage. I can't believe you take the nonsense written it seriously.

I'm not taking it seriously. It is just one point of view. Where is your book?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harry and Archie can always go back to the Royal Family and will be welcomed with open arms. Meghan will never enjoy the closeness she once had with the senior royals.

Harry doesn't have much of a family. It is just him and his brother, and a distant father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? How MM felt isn't really a part of anything. You can't sue for a feeling.

The BRF doesn't have a habit of protecting anyone against the news media. I get a feeling that Meghan expected them to counter every negative article and it doesn't really work this way over there.

Well good thing that’s not what the lawsuit is about!

And that’s how it works with respect to other royals. Kate threatened to sue over the Tatler debacle. The queen also pressured folks not to do the prince Andrew story years ago.

Well that sure is what the headline is about. That she "felt" unprotected.

No this isn't how it works. In fact, I'd say the palace has lent unprecedented support to Markle when it put out a statement before they even married.

Kate did her own suing, and Markle can do her own. I don't think Kate cried over the palace not putting out supportive statements.

The queen doesn't respond to every negative article about Andrew, and there are plenty.

Huh????

Did you read the article or were you just in a hurry to comment for unknown reasons? Unsupported is not in reference to the lawsuit or her expectation that the palace would sue on her behalf.

Well you have special reading powers so why don't you tell us what you think "unsupported" means in this context. Enlighten us!

You said she was suing for “a feeling” which you said was that she was unsupported. That’s not the legal claim. No special powers necessary.

Also do people ever sue about situations where they have absolutely no feelings about something? Even commercial litigation arises from disputes.