Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice Kate Middleton hasn’t needed to sue the press. Because she has class.

I’m sure being white helps too.

She sued over the topless pictures. Classy, huh?

She sued over someone invading her privacy. Meghan is suing because...*squints and checks notes* she thought she could play the media and lost?

Kate did yoga topless on her balcony. She sues the press and is “classy” because they invaded her privacy - you know, when she went OUTSIDE with no shirt on.

Meghan writes a private letter that was personal and private. The letter is leaked to the press and Meghan sues for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy.

If Meghan had gone outside topless you would be calling her an attention whore. When Kate does it, she’s classy. Why do you think you have such a huge double standard?

Anonymous wrote:Good for them—and dang, that is one cute baby!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice Kate Middleton hasn’t needed to sue the press. Because she has class.

I’m sure being white helps too.

She sued over the topless pictures. Classy, huh?

She sued over someone invading her privacy. Meghan is suing because...*squints and checks notes* she thought she could play the media and lost?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing British press, you criticize Meghan and Harry for things you allow other royals to skate past on.

You can't lecture us that 'every footprint counts' then jump on private jets every two minutes.

You can't get the public to pay £2.4 million ($2.9 million) to refurbish your luxury (free!) home then refuse to let them take photos of you at Wimbledon.

You can't throw decadent $500,000 baby showers in New York with your celebrity mates, and blag a lift home on the Clooneys' plane, then tweet at the exact same time about the urgent need to combat poverty.

You can't enjoy all the global fame and attention from a royal wedding then refuse to share basic details, or photos, of your baby when he was born.

That's not how being a royal works.

I beg to differ.

Scenario A - Charles has been lecturing on the environment since the 60s. Meanwhile he as Prince of Wales he has his own private jet and two private helicopters to hop between his three homes at leisure.
Scenario B - Plenty of photos were taken. You don't get to push up into Meghan's face while she's seated, just like there are no close-ups of Kate in Kensington Park while she's out running.
Scenario C - The british didn't pay for any of that? Why are you complaining? How about William spending thousands of pounds to buy his MIL a mansion? $1M on a driveaway? $8M on refurbishing a flat he's barely at.
Scenario D - The Queen is guilty of this and her wedding was far more extravagant than the Sussex's. The public didn't see the royal's firstborn for FOUR MONTHS after his birth in privacy at the palace. People started to wonder if he was disabled.

There are examples for everything you've criticized Meghan over and the public isn't blind to your hypocrisy.

I think the major difference is that all of these people you've used as examples are direct heirs to the throne. With William's growing family and Harry's marriage it has become apparent that Harry is so far down the line now that his status is almost negligible. Add to the fact that MM flaunts her newfound wealth around and it's a recipe for the general public losing their collective patience with the actions of royals as a whole. In regards to how outdated the entire notion of royalty is, Harry and his family won't get a free pass the way the current Queen, direct heir (Charles) and next likely King (William) do. PH and MM are basically at the same level as their cousins (Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara, etc) in terms of importance so there is less tolerance for their hypocrisy and missteps. You can see the way even DCUM decries Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie living off of the RF and British public so it's no surprise that the same sentiment is shared for a royal whose place in line is practically the same with a wife who, at the very least, doesn't seem to respect their current culture or traditions. I think it is a tough pill for PH to swallow realizing that he is not as important as he once was.

Here's my response: SO. WHAT.

The only thing standing between William and Harry is three toddlers. The British Royal Family is using Harry and Meghan as secondary heirs. They're sending them to meet face-to-face with Prime Ministers, Kings, and Presidents.

To be perfectly honest, the people they are meeting with, the speeches they're making, the tours they've take on - those should be the sole purview of Prince William and his wife.

But the Cambridges seem unwilling to step up. If the BRF want the Sussex's to work and take on the responsibilities of a heir to the throne, they can't have it both ways.

I mean...unless you're going to send a 4-year-old to meet with the King of Morocco or Nelson Mandela's widow.

Honestly, you're comparing Harry to Beatrice/Eugenie/Zara etc but I think he realized last year that he's not only the most important royal actually working (with Prince Phillip officially retired and the Queen stuck to a 5-mile radius of her house because of age) but also the most popular.

He can do what he wants and if the British continue to ask him to take on duties above-and-beyond those of a 6th-in-line to the throne, they can deal with it.

DP. What the Sussex's seem to want is to have it both ways. They've declared their intention of living abroad for the next few years, raising their child/children outside of England. Harry wants to quit being a royal and Meghan wants to keep being not-British, but they also want attention and adulation and respect and to continue "royal duties".

It's very strange.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Please. Wallis is much more attractive.

Hmmm...this just says so much about the person you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Laws are totally different in UK. Public figures have much more protection.

Well I'm a lawyer, with admittedly little knowledge of UK law, but I do not see what the claim is at all. From news reports, it seems to center on the publication of Megan's letter (or the editing of the letter), but the paper likely got it from her father which seems to complicate any data privacy claim, and if it is a defamation case, unless the paper completely edited it to change its contents (in a defamatory way), I cannot see how this is grounds for much. And with respect to the latter, truth is always a defense and it does not seem like a good strategy for Megan/Harry to try to refute, one by one, each and every media allegation re: her family relationships, or day to day royal life, etc. I understand why they want to do this, and the British press is vicious, but I could see this case falling apart--though then again, perhaps that doesn't much matter, since this would only transpire months or even years from now, and they really just want to try to draw a hard line now.

If you were actually a lawyer, or if you were a good lawyer, you would know that if you have little to no knowledge of the UK laws than your opinion is essentially useless. You would also be someone who paid attention to detail and would understand they were suing for copyright infringement and not defamation.

But please illuminate us how a US attorney's opinions on a defamation case's viability are relevant when discussing a UK case for copyright infringement.

First, never ask a lawyer to "illuminate" you, however sarcastically... we always will.

And as I said above (attention to detail!), I think there may be some question whether the Data Protection Act would apply to a letter released by its intended recipient, and based on, yes, my very limited knowledge, it seems the scope and purpose of that Act is very different.

As for copyright, there will have to be some sort of fair use/news reporting exception, which is likely exactly what the Daily Mail will be litigating... Perhaps that is why the Sussex statement went into the whole nature of the paper's "quotation" of the letter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:t

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice Kate Middleton hasn’t needed to sue the press. Because she has class.

I’m sure being white helps too.

Ding, ding, ding! That's it! The difference between how they report on Kate and Megan is striking. Kate can do no wrong and Megan is the devil incarnate.

No, the press was just as hard--maybe even more so!--on Kate when she and Will were dating, and when they were newly married.

I'm not hysterically obsessed with the royals, but since some of my tax money DOES support them, I find H's and M's behaviour a bit galling. They SHOULD have allowed their remodelled home to be photographed for the little people whose money collectively funds these leeches. I know that the amount of tax money taken from me to support the royals isn't huge, but the fact that I have no choice in contributing to them means that I am owed something, I think, and since they are not actually ruling the country or playing any significant role in UK politics/government anymore, they need to perform for those who fund them. He who pays the piper, and all of that.

Now, if Harry wants to give up his rights to all publicly funded privileges and perks, I will absolutely get behind him in wanting to maintain his privacy. But he wants it both ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:t

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice Kate Middleton hasn’t needed to sue the press. Because she has class.

I’m sure being white helps too.

Ding, ding, ding! That's it! The difference between how they report on Kate and Megan is striking. Kate can do no wrong and Megan is the devil incarnate.

No, the press was just as hard--maybe even more so!--on Kate when she and Will were dating, and when they were newly married.

I'm not hysterically obsessed with the royals, but since some of my tax money DOES support them, I find H's and M's behaviour a bit galling. They SHOULD have allowed their remodelled home to be photographed for the little people whose money collectively funds these leeches. I know that the amount of tax money taken from me to support the royals isn't huge, but the fact that I have no choice in contributing to them means that I am owed something, I think, and since they are not actually ruling the country or playing any significant role in UK politics/government anymore, they need to perform for those who fund them. He who pays the piper, and all of that.

Now, if Harry wants to give up his rights to all publicly funded privileges and perks, I will absolutely get behind him in wanting to maintain his privacy. But he wants it both ways.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Please. Wallis is much more attractive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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....

*shrug*

I’m not sure Meghan cares. She has what she wanted and is officially back on vacation as of today.

Meanwhile you all are tearing your hair out over her once again.

Six senior royals had engagements today. The only one the press is talking about is Meghan.

I call that winning.

Anonymous wrote:t

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice Kate Middleton hasn’t needed to sue the press. Because she has class.

I’m sure being white helps too.

Ding, ding, ding! That's it! The difference between how they report on Kate and Megan is striking. Kate can do no wrong and Megan is the devil incarnate.

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

Laws are totally different in UK. Public figures have much more protection.

Well I'm a lawyer, with admittedly little knowledge of UK law, but I do not see what the claim is at all. From news reports, it seems to center on the publication of Megan's letter (or the editing of the letter), but the paper likely got it from her father which seems to complicate any data privacy claim, and if it is a defamation case, unless the paper completely edited it to change its contents (in a defamatory way), I cannot see how this is grounds for much. And with respect to the latter, truth is always a defense and it does not seem like a good strategy for Megan/Harry to try to refute, one by one, each and every media allegation re: her family relationships, or day to day royal life, etc. I understand why they want to do this, and the British press is vicious, but I could see this case falling apart--though then again, perhaps that doesn't much matter, since this would only transpire months or even years from now, and they really just want to try to draw a hard line now.

If you were actually a lawyer, or if you were a good lawyer, you would know that if you have little to no knowledge of the UK laws than your opinion is essentially useless. You would also be someone who paid attention to detail and would understand they were suing for copyright infringement and not defamation.

But please illuminate us how a US attorney's opinions on a defamation case's viability are relevant when discussing a UK case for copyright infringement.