Meghan Markle at it again..more litigation

[Crimson Dynamo]

This time she is suing a drone

:rolleyes:




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53522181?utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral

[Oliver_W]

Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor is protective over her child? And doesn't want him photographed by strangers when they're in their own home?

What an awful woman!!!!

[Captain.Remy]

Her constantly feeding her lawyers firm with new cases :lovedup::lovedup:
We love a Princess that supports the economy.

[Ammi]

...Queen of channelling her Rachel Zane..:lovedup:..

[Niamh.]

Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor is protective over her child? And doesn't want him photographed by strangers when they're in their own home?

What an awful woman!!!!

.

She's not actually suing a drone LT, is she? Also it's not "she" it's they, her and Harry. Can't imagine anyone would be happy about a drone flying on to their property to take pictures of their children though.......

[LukeB]

.

She's not actually suing a drone LT, is she? Also it's not "she" it's they, her and Harry. Can't imagine anyone would be happy about a drone flying on to their property to take pictures of their children though.......

To me it seems quite creepy to take pics of children even if they are well known. It shouldn’t be allowed.

[Ammi]

...I think it’s creepy to want to photograph anyone, child/adult in the privacy of their home...unless specifically invited to...

[Niamh.]

...I think it’s creepy to want to photograph anyone, child/adult in their privacy of their home...unless specifically invited to...

And also illegal in California but LT thinks these perps should get away with it because .................Meghan Markle

[AnnieK]

Yep, no matter what you think of Meghan, I honestly can't see how anyone can defend paparazzi thinking its ok to fly drones or helicopters over anyone's house to take photos of very young children. Its creepy and pretty sinister really. And then to use the fact that Meghan AND Harry are pissed off about that to try and make it out to be diva behaviour.

Kate did exactly the same thing when her privacy was breached when they took pics of her sunbathing in France and was awarded damages for those pictures

[Ammi]

And also illegal in California but LT thinks these perps should get away with it because .................Meghan Markle

...if only Diana had taken more legal action over the invasions of privacy taken by the paparazzi, maybe she would still be alive...

[GoldHeart]

.

She's not actually suing a drone LT, is she? Also it's not "she" it's they, her and Harry. Can't imagine anyone would be happy about a drone flying on to their property to take pictures of their children though.......

Ikr all I ever hear is " she " "Meghan did this " and "Meghan did that " blah blah :sleep:

Anyone would think Meghan is the spawn of Satan who has Harry prisoner and has a hold of his tongue while controlling him . Even though it's quite clear Harry has a big input in all this .

But no it's easier to blame Meghan and pick on her . They're a couple and a family and they make decisions together :idc: .

[Niamh.]

...if only Diana had taken more legal action over the invasions of privacy taken by the paparazzi, maybe she would still be alive...



Ikr all I ever hear is " she " "Meghan did this " and "Meghan did that " blah blah :sleep:

Anyone would think Meghan is the spawn of Satan who has Harry prisoner and has a hold of his tongue while controlling him . Even though it's quite clear Harry has a big input in all this .

But no it's easier to blame Meghan and pick on her . They're a couple and a family and they make decisions together :idc: .

I know and Meghan gets all the blame when it must really hit a nerve with Harry, he lost his own mother at such a young age, he has to be thinking about his own son here and comparing it to his own situation as a child

[Cherie]

The irony about it is Royal kids are protected in the UK from this type of invasion of privacy, not looking too well thought out this getting away from the evil UK press now is it :laugh:

[GoldHeart]

Oh 100% I think the treatment of Diana has definitely had a huge impact on Harry , losing his mother at such a young age and how she died aswell was a horrible outcome. And it's obvious Harry wants to protect Meghan & his son .

Invasion of privacy is unacceptable , the paparazzi are creeps with no boundaries . Celebrity or not this is too much and I'm glad they're taking legal action .

[Liam-]

Queen of litigation :love:

[joeysteele]

Well if I had children, I wouldn't want or accept anyone sending drones over to spy on them.
Especially as a baby.

Sounds pretty sick and desperate to me that.
Hardly necessary or newsworthy.

[Ammi]

..get that mask awareness in, bots...:love:..

[Cherie]

i think it's your imagination :smug:

:fist:

[Livia]

Who cares? They're just plain old celebrities now. Deal with it.

[AnnieK]

Who cares? They're just plain old celebrities now. Deal with it.

I think that's what they are doing by suing :laugh:

Royal, Celebrity or normal person, you have the right to privacy in your own home and to not expect the safety of your child to be compromised by unauthorised photographs being taken.

[The Slim Reaper]

Annie selling her authorised baby photo rights to hello, then fighting for Megan's rights to do the same. You love to see it.

[joeysteele]

I think that's what they are doing by suing :laugh:

Royal, Celebrity or normal person, you have the right to privacy in your own home and to not expect the safety of your child to be compromised by unauthorised photographs being taken.


Absolutely right Annie..

[Niamh.]

Well if I had children, I wouldn't want or accept anyone sending drones over to spy on them.
Especially as a baby.

Sounds pretty sick and desperate to me that.
Hardly necessary or newsworthy.

Exactly, what parent would be OK with that?

[Swan]

Sad thing is, watch in 6 months when they make a deal (for a huge sum) with OK for pictures of their kid to be plastered all over the rag.

[rusticgal]

The irony about it is Royal kids are protected in the UK from this type of invasion of privacy, not looking too well thought out this getting away from the evil UK press now is it :laugh:


Yup...there are no drones or helicopters flying over Royal residences doing this sort of thing...:laugh:

[rusticgal]

To me it seems quite creepy to take pics of children even if they are well known. It shouldn’t be allowed.


Its not 'creepy'....its big money. The Americans love a bit of Royalty its all good money to them.

[rusticgal]

...I think it’s creepy to want to photograph anyone, child/adult in the privacy of their home...unless specifically invited to...


But they are not just 'anyone' are they? Why would the press want a picture of joe bloggs in his garden :shrug:

[LukeB]

Its not 'creepy'....its big money. The Americans love a bit of Royalty its all good money to them.

The child is 1 years old and the photos were not authorised... it is creepy royal or not.

[rusticgal]

The child is 1 years old and the photos were not authorised... it is creepy royal or not.


If it was Mr Smith down the road flying a drone over a garden to get a picture of a child in the garden...then thats creepy. But this is the press trying to get pictures of English Royalty. They probably were not specifically after pictures of Archie but he was obviously in the garden at the time. Its not creepy its opportunist and an invasion of privicy.

[bots]

in america, the laws differ state to state but the principle is

Photography may be prohibited or restricted by a property owner on their property. However, a property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are not within the bounds of the property.

[rusticgal]

in america, the laws differ state to state but the principle is


I mean are we not all open to drones flying over our property taking photos? or is there a law against it?

[Liam-]

So taking pictures of someone’s child on private property isn’t creepy, as long as the person is in the public eye? That’s beyond ridiculous, but anything to attack Meghan I suppose

[Cherie]

I mean are we not all open to drones flying over our property taking photos? or is there a law against it?

You can hone on on google earth if you had a mind to on peoples property so not sure what the law is :shrug:

Anne, Edward and Andrew (until now) managed to avoid much public scrutiny and have lived their lives pretty peacefully, not quite sure why Harry and Meg’s can’t do the same, .cake and eat it springs to mind with these two

[Cherie]

So taking pictures of someone’s child on private property isn’t creepy, as long as the person is in the public eye? That’s beyond ridiculous, but anything to attack Meghan I suppose

It would be creepy if the person wanted them for themselves yes, but I assume they were taken for money? .so no I don’t find it particularly creepy, just someone seizing an opportunity

[Niamh.]

You can hone on on google earth if you had a mind to on peoples property so not sure what the law is :shrug:

Anne, Edward and Andrew (until now) managed to avoid much public scrutiny and have lived their lives pretty peacefully, not quite sure why Harry and Meg’s can’t do the same, .cake and eat it springs to mind with these two

He managed a very secret life indeed :skull:

[AnnieK]

I mean are we not all open to drones flying over our property taking photos? or is there a law against it?

According to Californian law:

"This law prohibits entering the airspace of an individual in order to capture an image or recording of that individual engaging in a private, personal or familial activity without permission. This legislation is a response to the use of UAS by the press in covering celebrities and other public figures."

[thesheriff443]

...I think it’s creepy to want to photograph anyone, child/adult in the privacy of their home...unless specifically invited to...

It’s wrong to be photographing children in their own homes but please stop with the creepy line of defence.

The press get paid to get exclusive pictures, the one’s that are worth the most are the ones people don’t want the public to see.

[Mystic Mock]

You must really like her LT! :love: always mentioning Meghan, she’s in your mind rent free :lovedup:

:joker:

[LukeB]

It would be creepy if the person wanted them for themselves yes, but I assume they were taken for money? .so no I don’t find it particularly creepy, just someone seizing an opportunity

But they could have. taken it for money and their own pleasure... no one actually knows what they are going to do with that picture thats how wrong it is. It’s still creepy regardless

[thesheriff443]

We all had photos taken as kids growing up in our school uniforms and that’s acceptable but someone taking pictures of kids in school uniforms at the park is not.

There is a difference.

Meghan has every right to sue.

[Nicky91]

everyone has rights to their privacy at home, regular people and celebrities

Meghan is in her full right to sue

[UserSince2005]

that drone is so racist

[Cherie]

But they could have. taken it for money and their own pleasure... no one actually knows what they are going to do with that picture thats how wrong it is. It’s still creepy regardless

It no more creepy than someone in the bushes with a long lens :shrug: its just a new twist on that

[Ramsay]

You must really like her LT! :love: always mentioning Meghan, she’s in your mind rent free :lovedup:
:laugh:

[armand.kay]

Its not 'creepy'....its big money. The Americans love a bit of Royalty its all good money to them.

Just because theres money to be made doesn't make it any less creepy. Let kids be kids.

[Niamh.]

It no more creepy than someone in the bushes with a long lens :shrug: its just a new twist on that

That's creepy enough as well tbf

[Cherie]

He managed a very secret life indeed :skull:

:laugh:

Princess Anne is the hardest working Royal and we don't hear a word about it
she is the perfect Royal tbh, seen but not heard :hee:

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2020032086616/princess-anne-hardest-working-royal-during-coronavirus-pandemic/

[Cherie]

The 10 most charitable working royals
According to the GivingAssistant.org study, these are the most charitable working royals ranked by the number of patron visits they made between July 2019 and July 2020.

1.) Princess Anne - 73

2.) Prince William - 58

3.) Prince Charles - 48

4.) Prince Richard (The Duke of Gloucester) - 34

5.) Prince Edward - 33

who is Prince Richard :shrug:

[Ammi]

Just because theres money to be made doesn't make it any less creepy. Let kids be kids.

...if it’s illegal to take those photographs, which it is...then it’s surely also illegal to publish them in the media...which leaves open the purpose for why they were taken and where they would appear...

[The Slim Reaper]

He managed a very secret life indeed :skull:

I wouldn't say hanging out in pizza express in woking was particularly secret.

[arista]

...if it’s illegal to take those photographs, which it is...then it’s surely also illegal to publish them in the media...which leaves open the purpose for why they were taken and where they would appear...


The Remote Drone
getting up close for 4K pictures /film
does not care , Ammi.

[rusticgal]

Just because theres money to be made doesn't make it any less creepy. Let kids be kids.


They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

[Ammi]

The Remote Drone
getting up close for 4K pictures /film
does not care , Ammi.

...well, it’s good that drone is getting sued McSuefaced then, Arista...because taking photographs in someone’s home without their invitation/permission is not acceptable at all...if someone was doing that in our own homes, we would definitely feel creeped out by it...

[rusticgal]

The 10 most charitable working royals
According to the GivingAssistant.org study, these are the most charitable working royals ranked by the number of patron visits they made between July 2019 and July 2020.

1.) Princess Anne - 73

2.) Prince William - 58

3.) Prince Charles - 48

4.) Prince Richard (The Duke of Gloucester) - 34

5.) Prince Edward - 33

who is Prince Richard :shrug:


I know who the Duke of Gloucester is but he isnt a prince :shrug:

[Mystic Mock]

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

I would say taking photos of people without their consent or initial awareness of it is creepy.

It may not be the "sexually perverted" kinda creepy, but still creepy regardless imo.

[The Slim Reaper]

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.


I'm sure you'd be this relaxed if the press were doing this to your kids. So many parents in here defending things that any normal parent would find completely unacceptable,

[Nicky91]

not 4k :skull:

that is truly a invasion of privacy, if you got best of best camera quality

[arista]

...well, it’s good that drone is getting sued McSuefaced then, Arista...because taking photographs in someone’s home without their invitation/permission is not acceptable at all...if someone was doing that in our own homes, we would definitely feel creeped out by it...


They are asking for it.


More 4K Drones are going to Photo them.

Its LA
money to be made

[LukeB]

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

You do not know that... you don’t know them as people no one does, their full intentions isn’t clear. The person who took them could secretly be a nonce who sold pics and used them for their own pleasure.

The child is 1 years old as i mentioned, it’s really creepy to do it regardless what the intention is. Makes me shiver that people do it

[Ammi]

They are asking for it.


More 4K Drones are going to Photo them.

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...

[Niamh.]

I wouldn't say hanging out in pizza express in woking was particularly secret.

Well no one spotted him in there , did they? :hee:

[Niamh.]

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing? Or that time Kate Middleton was photographed topless in the grounds of a holiday home in France by paparazzi with long lense cameras?

[LukeB]

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...

Something needs to be done, child/baby pics should always be authorised by the parents, i know they are celebrities but that doesn’t matter. Background checks too because they are dodgy people out there. Children should have protection no matter what.

[LukeB]

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing?

Even that’s creepy. I don’t know why that was allowed either

[Ammi]

...they’re in California, in the land of sunshine and outdoor swimming pools ...who would know if any Meghan or Archie would be naked, if Archie would...even if not, is it appropriate for any of them to be photographed in swimsuits in their homes for instance...or would that be considered creepy, because I find it so...if any photographs appeared online of their child in a swimsuit or naked in a pool...then would they have appeared not diligent enough to have allowed that to happen...

[rusticgal]

I'm sure you'd be this relaxed if the press were doing this to your kids. So many parents in here defending things that any normal parent would find completely unacceptable,



Im not Royalty...and thats the difference. I have clearly stated it is an invasion of privacy and unacceptable but when you are famous or Royal thats the sort of press coverage you sadly get.
Ive seen famous people getting married with paparazzi in helicopters trying to get shots...drones will come in to play now.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I wonder how they knew
It was a camera drone, that it was taking pictures, that the pictures were of the son and that the drone was for them?

I take it lots of people fly drones in LA?

[rusticgal]

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing? Or that time Kate Middleton was photographed topless in the grounds of a holiday home in France by paparazzi with long lense cameras?

I agree...they can be.

[arista]

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...

Living in LA
they are asking for it.


They need a Sniper
that can shoot those $5K drones down

[Crimson Dynamo]

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing? Or that time Kate Middleton was photographed topless in the grounds of a holiday home in France by paparazzi with long lense cameras?

That was German tabloid, different laws there

[Ammi]

Living in LA
they are asking for it.


They need a Sniper
that can shoot those $5K drones down

...I think it’s more they are living, they are asking for it...?...except they haven’t asked for it, it’s the media obsession with them regardless of where they are living...

[Glenn.]

Wow literally anything to have a pop at our Megs.

People actually defending the press though :umm2:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wow literally anything to have a pop at our Megs.

People actually defending the press though :umm2:

We ho buys the newspapers?

[The Slim Reaper]

We ho

[Cherie]

I don't know why people on the thread who are parents are being dragged for this, they moved away from the UK to get away from press intrusion but then moved to LA 'for a quiet life' did they think the press would ignore them or something, any parent in their position who truly wanted to protect their child wouldn't have done that imo

[Oliver_W]

I don't know why people on the thread who are parents are being dragged for this, they moved away from the UK to get away from press intrusion but then moved to LA 'for a quiet life' did they think the press would ignore them or something, any parent in their position who truly wanted to protect their child wouldn't have done that imo

True, if they actually wanted a quiet life they'd move to Bumble****, Ohio or something. But then Miss Thing wouldn't be able to also live the life of a celeb :idc:

But that doesn't excuse strangers taking pictures of her kid, especially in their own home.

edit: Not that there's anything wrong with her chasing the stars. The correct response to her (actress who married a prince) wanted to do celeb stuff is "well duh". It's fine. But pretending she wanted to get away from all that is silly.

[Cherie]

True, if they actually wanted a quiet life they'd move to Bumble****, Ohio or something. But then Miss Thing wouldn't be able to also live the life of a celeb :idc:

But that doesn't excuse strangers taking pictures of her kid, especially in their own home.

No of course not, and I don't think anyone is condoning it, but we understand why it is happening

[rusticgal]

Im going to have to sue Google...my garden is all over the internet...

[Glenn.]

Im going to have to sue Google...my garden is all over the internet...

Yeah because that’s the same as taking a photo of a child...

[AnnieK]

Im going to have to sue Google...my garden is all over the internet...

Yes but were you in the pic Google have an obligation to blur your face and car reg numbers etc because of privacy laws.

[Swan]

I thought they were planning on moving to Canada? Literally my only news source for these people is this forum. Maybe i misread Canada for California, but didn't they say Toronto or something?

Anyway, no one is disputing that's it's messed up, and they're well within their rights to sue however, im giving it 6 months before their child is plastered all over OK or People or any number of rubishy magazines in an exclusive deal worth a hefty sum.

[Tom4784]

How disgusting of her to sue someone for invading her family's privacy with a drone and taking pictures of her child!

[arista]

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...


Sure
the best advice
I would give them
Hire a professional Sniper
get him to shoot down all the Drones.
Hide him away from the House.


Well worth Hiring/Paying the Fella.

[Dogeatdog]

I think she has every right to sue to be honest. It’s bad enough that there are paparazzi hanging around outside their home every minute of the day but for someone to fly a drone over their garden taking pictures of their child is just creepy.

[Swan]

If they win, which they should, i hope they donate the money to charity (i would say that about every celeb with their wealth fwiw).

[Glenn.]

But this is what they WANT! Little miss Hollywood wants the press to take photos of her because she’s so full of herself!

[Swan]

But this is what they WANT! Little miss Hollywood wants the press to take photos of her because she’s so full of herself!

I thought they were taking pictures of their kid?

[rusticgal]

Yeah because that’s the same as taking a photo of a child...



you need to lighten up...

[rusticgal]

How disgusting of her to sue someone for invading her family's privacy with a drone and taking pictures of her child!


No one is saying it is..:laugh:

[jet]

They leave the UK(and then Toronto) to get away from ‘press intrusion’ and move to LA, which is known as the Paparazzi capital. A ridiculous excuse to get back to where she intended to get back to all along. Is it more important to have a Hollywood lifestyle or to make sure your child is protected?
No way would invasion like that happen in the UK, but its par for the course in LA celebrity land. When they come out of lockdown and are out and about they are going to be papped wherever they go. But Meghan will have known that….

[Liam-]

It shouldn’t have happened there either as what happened is against the law, which Meghan knows because they’re now suing as a result

[jet]

I doubt the aim was to specifically get a pic of Archie....any of them would have done. He happened to be there, so bingo....
They need to put Archie first and get out of rabid Paparazzi land, LA. Pronto.

[jet]

It shouldn’t have happened there either as what happened is against the law, which Meghan knows because they’re now suing as a result

The paps don't care in LA ...read what celebs who lives there have to say on the subject. Its the last place you want to live if you really want privacy...

[MB.]

Im going to have to sue Google...my garden is all over the internet...

What a ridiculous comparison

[rusticgal]

What a ridiculous comparison



:joker:....it was a joke

[arista]

1286728066148990978

[Amy Jade]

Sad thing is, watch in 6 months when they make a deal (for a huge sum) with OK for pictures of their kid to be plastered all over the rag.

Even if they did have professional pictures taken of their kids it is vastly different than a random bloke taking pictures of them using a drone.

Can you seriously not see the difference?

[Crimson Dynamo]

How disgusting of her to sue someone for invading her family's privacy with a drone and taking pictures of her child!

Where does it say this?

[Crimson Dynamo]

They leave the UK(and then Toronto) to get away from ‘press intrusion’ and move to LA, which is known as the Paparazzi capital. A ridiculous excuse to get back to where she intended to get back to all along. Is it more important to have a Hollywood lifestyle or to make sure your child is protected?
No way would invasion like that happen in the UK, but its par for the course in LA celebrity land. When they come out of lockdown and are out and about they are going to be papped wherever they go. But Meghan will have known that….

Spot on Jet

[Swan]

Even if they did have professional pictures taken of their kids it is vastly different than a random bloke taking pictures of them using a drone.

Can you seriously not see the difference?

Oh i see the difference, i also see the hypocrisy too. It's the whole 'we don't want media attention, actually we do, but on our terms only'

That's not how it works when you're an A list celeb like they are.

[Gypsy]

Where does it say this?

literally in the first sentence of the BBC article you linked when posting the thread :conf2:

they have every right to sue to protect their child's privacy whether they live in LA or London!

[hijaxers]

I am cheesed off with hearing their names , it was obvious this would happen and i can see these two spending half their life in court suing individuals and papers, whilst over prrotecting Archie.

[Crimson Dynamo]

They leave the UK(and then Toronto) to get away from ‘press intrusion’ and move to LA, which is known as the Paparazzi capital. A ridiculous excuse to get back to where she intended to get back to all along. Is it more important to have a Hollywood lifestyle or to make sure your child is protected?
No way would invasion like that happen in the UK, but its par for the course in LA celebrity land. When they come out of lockdown and are out and about they are going to be papped wherever they go. But Meghan will have known that….

literally in the first sentence of the BBC article you linked when posting the thread :conf2:

they have every right to sue to protect their child's privacy whether they live in LA or London!
Do you not understand allegation?

[jet]

1286728066148990978

They should be living somewhere that suits them both...not just 'I want the big celebrity lifestyle' Meghan.
If she really loves Harry and isn't just using him to climb to the heights she has lusted after her whole life, she needs to think about him and their child too, not just her selfish self.

[GoldHeart]

Sad thing is, watch in 6 months when they make a deal (for a huge sum) with OK for pictures of their kid to be plastered all over the rag.

That's not really the point though is it Swan :rolleyes: , and even if they do decide to do that it's irrelevant.

Arranging a photo or magazine deal is on your terms and it's a mutual agreement. How can you think a drone / paparazzi flying over someone's home without their permission is the same ??? .

Even the biggest lime light lover would still need privacy to recuperate and relax :facepalm: .

[jet]

That's not really the point though is it Swan :rolleyes: , and even if they do decide to do that it's irrelevant.

Arranging a photo or magazine deal is on your terms and it's a mutual agreement. How can you think a drone / paparazzi flying over someone's home without their permission is the same ??? .

Even the biggest lime light lover would still need privacy to recuperate and relax :facepalm: .

As has just been said on Sky News, there was an agreement with the UK press not to take any photos of them or any royal children unless they were authorised. They walked away from all that knowingly into a lion’s den.
They can live anywhere they want to, but they chose LA, the paparazzi capital of the world? If they really want the privacy they insist they do, does that make any sense?

[Glenn.]

Let’s be honest the Meghan haters will think this is completely fine because it goes against Meghan. May as well just close the thread.

[Swan]

Let’s be honest the Meghan haters will think this is completely fine because it goes against Meghan. May as well just close the thread.

I dislike both. Proud to be an anti-royalist. I think both of them are equally ridiculous.

But again, i only see what goes on with them via this forum.

[Glenn.]

I dislike both. Proud to be an anti-royalist. I think both of them are equally ridiculous.

But again, i only see what goes on with them via this forum.

At least you’re honest about why you dislike them though.

[Swan]

At least you’re honest about why you dislike them though.

I guess. The only thing i'd debate about her is that she's not a beautiful looking woman, she quite clearly is.

But again, yeah i have no time for any Royals whatsoever, i hate everything they stand for.

[Mitchell]

Anne, Edward and Andrew (until now) managed to avoid much public scrutiny and have lived their lives pretty peacefully

I mean

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/5b/66/eb5b6658a2b502fd3acd005aa8b639dc.jpg

[Cherie]

I mean

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/5b/66/eb5b6658a2b502fd3acd005aa8b639dc.jpg

Some charity event? what’s your point, Anne goes about her duties and there is no fanfare, she is the future Kings sister just like Harry is the future Kings brother, if he really wanted a quite life it’s there for him, how often do you read about Anne ...rarely yet she carries out the most duties

[Mitchell]

Some charity event? what’s your point, Anne goes about her duties and there is no fanfare, she is the future Kings sister just like Harry is the future Kings brother, if he really wanted a quite life it’s there for him, how often do you read about Anne ...rarely yet she carries out the most duties

So if Meghan did a charity gameshow on telly and said she was actively seeking a career in TV and theatre, nobody would be complaining? If so, why did she get so much **** for that elephant documentary that was for charity?

[rusticgal]

At least you’re honest about why you dislike them though.


:joker:

[Amy Jade]

Oh and Andrew kept his life private because he's a peado.

Allegedly.

[Swan]

People who think like you honestly disturb me.

A parent can pick and choose where a picture of their child is take and put, taking a photo with a photographer in a safe environment is totally normal, flying a ****ing drone over a home to slyly sneak pictures of kids is disgusting.

People like you disturb me too when they can't quite grasp what im saying, and heaven't read my other posts in this thread.

[GoldHeart]

As has just been said on Sky News, there was an agreement with the UK press not to take any photos of them or any royal children unless they were authorised. They walked away from all that knowingly into a lion’s den.
They can live anywhere they want to, but they chose LA, the paparazzi capital of the world? If they really want the privacy they insist they do, does that make any sense?

Put yourself in their shoes would you be happy? , yeah so what ?? What about famous actors in Hollywood are you saying they don't deserve any privacy Either? .

This isn't Sandra bullock walking down the street with shades or Chris Hemsworth in a coffee shop ie public places .

If bullock & Hemsworth were in their gardens & homes then it would be crossing the line for paparazzi to photograph & spy on them .

why is thst hard to understand ? Especially when Harry & Meghan have a child they're trying to protect .

[Marsh.]

Its not 'creepy'....its big money. The Americans love a bit of Royalty its all good money to them.

It's not creepy.... because they make money from it.

Yeah, that makes it more so. :facepalm:

[Marsh.]

Im going to have to sue Google...my garden is all over the internet...

When in doubt, outright lie about why she is suing I guess?

[Marsh.]

They should be living somewhere that suits them both...not just 'I want the big celebrity lifestyle' Meghan.
If she really loves Harry and isn't just using him to climb to the heights she has lusted after her whole life, she needs to think about him and their child too, not just her selfish self.

Harry's confidante is back. :laugh2:

[Glenn.]

Put yourself in their shoes would you be happy? , yeah so what ?? What about famous actors in Hollywood are you saying they don't deserve any privacy Either? .

This isn't Sandra bullock walking down the street with shades or Chris Hemsworth in a coffee shop ie public places .

If bullock & Hemsworth were in their gardens & homes then it would be crossing the line for paparazzi to photograph & spy on them .

why is thst hard to understand ? Especially when Harry & Meghan have a child they're trying to protect .

Because it means agreeing with something Meghan is doing... they despise her that much that they refuse to see things rationally.

[Glenn.]

They should be living somewhere that suits them both...not just 'I want the big celebrity lifestyle' Meghan.
If she really loves Harry and isn't just using him to climb to the heights she has lusted after her whole life, she needs to think about him and their child too, not just her selfish self.

Jesus Christ just give it a rest.

[Marsh.]

Jesus Christ just give it a rest.

Literally the Meghan Markle version of Candyman. :skull:

[Brother Leon]

What was your opinion when Kate sued The French magazine because of their photos mate?

[GoldHeart]

What was your opinion when Kate sued The French magazine because of their photos mate?

This !

[Mokka]

What was your opinion when Kate sued The French magazine because of their photos mate?

Or when Kate sells photos of her kids to the magazines ??

[Glenn.]

Kate’s white

[Cherie]

As has just been said on Sky News, there was an agreement with the UK press not to take any photos of them or any royal children unless they were authorised. They walked away from all that knowingly into a lion’s den.
They can live anywhere they want to, but they chose LA, the paparazzi capital of the world? If they really want the privacy they insist they do, does that make any sense?

No one wants to acknowledge this Jet or to admit that they lied about their reasons for leaving the UK, if they had been upfront to begin with it might have been a different story

[Nicky91]

Or when Kate sells photos of her kids to the magazines ??

then it is not a problem, given it is precious kate middleton

[Nicky91]

if someone would fly a drone and look whatever Andrew is up to, or what secrets he's hiding, then that would put surveillance to good usage i guess

[Crimson Dynamo]

In the Times it's revealed that poor wills and Kate were at breaking point with markle and Harry due to their despicable actions in march and couldn't bear to even talk to them. Now we all know how mild mannered William is :(

I think it tells us all we need know, devastating

[Beso]

Poor kid having those pair as parents.

[Nicky91]

In the Times it's revealed that poor wills and Kate were at breaking point with markle and Harry due to their despicable actions in march and couldn't bear to even talk to them. Now we all know how mild mannered William is :(

I think it tells us all we need know, devastating

poor Kate lmao, if you are really at breaking point, you can't even do interviews with gossip tabloids

but that is what she loves, bragging about her perfect lifestyle, and bringing down poor meghan to the media

[joeysteele]

then it is not a problem, given it is precious kate middleton

I like them both.
I mean they never will have any impact on my life.

So I can't get worked up about them really.
I am a Royalist, I'd hate to not have a Monarch in place.

Meghan and Kate are different people.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Plus Harry was further down the being in line to the throne too, as William and Kate had their children.

My disappointment was Harry seeming to lose his sense of duty to the family who gave him all his opportunities.
To leave his Grandparents in their 90s.
Then leaving his Father in his 70s and Brother with his family having to take on more and more duties.

On the other side, Harry now has his own family, and it's clear as day he adores Meghan.
I think most people in marriages want to make each other happy and secure.
Now with their own child, they made a surprising choice to step back.
Which is their right to make.

On this issue however.
In reality, I personally doubt, just my view, anyone with a child, would welcome in their own private home area, a drone flying over to try to gain photographs of said child, likely for personal gain.
All parent's have a right to privacy for them and their children.
Their own home should certainly provide that setting for them, no matter where that home is.

Had this been in a public park, fair enough.

The venom directed at Meghan is concerning to read.
No one on here knows her or Harry personally.

No matter her qualities or faults, nor Harry's for that matter.
This wanting privacy for their baby in their own home setting.
Then I find that commendable as to any parents.
No matter who they may be.

It is them.both who have complained about this drone.
It isn't just Meghan.
I also do not believe Harry would do or be anywhere he wasn't happy doing so.

I really believe any parent, responsible parent in my view, would he very concerned at for whatever reason, a drone being flown over their home to photograph a baby.
Commercial, personal or unsavoury reason doesn't matter to me anyway.
To me it's simply wrong, inappropriate and should be unacceptable.

[Liam-]

Because it means agreeing with something Meghan is doing... they despise her that much that they refuse to see things rationally.

Nail, head.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I really believe any parent, responsible parent in my view, would he very concerned at for whatever reason, a drone being flown over their home to photograph a baby.
Commercial, personal or unsavoury reason doesn't matter to me anyway.
To me it's simply wrong, inappropriate and should be unacceptable.


How do you know the drone was taking pictures of them and not just a drone?


(If this has been ascertained then I apologize but it seems rather crucial to this thread/story?)

[thesheriff443]

Jesus Christ just give it a rest.

Do the same, if you don’t like what’s being said don’t read it.

[joeysteele]

How do you know the drone was taking pictures of them and not just a drone?


(If this has been ascertained then I apologize but it seems rather crucial to this thread/story?)

I don't, it seems to be the concensus here that was the reason.

I can't see much point in sending a drone over anyone's house and garden to not gather some information and then to be able to substantiate anything that was seen without pictures

Taking pictures or not, to fly over a private garden to gather information on the adults or child..
Doesn't alter my view, it should be wrong, inappropriate and unacceptable.

However, I'd lay bets it was to get pictures of the baby.
For whatever reasons but as has been extensively said on here to be sold on.

I would have thought, that both Prince Harry and Meghan with their lawyers would have strong grounds of the drone attempting to be a way to gather images of their baby however.
Before putting in a legal challenge to the issue

[Cherie]

This was an item on the main news, so not sure why some people are so annoyed that it was posted on here? If they announce they are going to sue, we can discuss it, it's not a secret

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdwsRUcXsAAYDhv?format=jpg&name=medium

[Liam-]

I love that picture of them, so much joy and obvious devotion to one another :love:

[Beso]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdwsRUcXsAAYDhv?format=jpg&name=medium

:joker::joker:

Shut up you daft cow.

[joeysteele]

I love that picture of them, so much joy and obvious devotion to one another :love:

It is a great picture Liam.

They adore each other, that's clear to see to anyone.

[Cherie]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdwsRUcXsAAYDhv?format=jpg&name=medium

That’s what you do if you fall in love with someone from another country and move to be with them, it’s not unheard of :shrug:

But be honest it didn’t work for you, so rather than blaming the whole country for your woes just acknowledge you made a mistake and moved back where you feel more comfortable

[Nicky91]

:joker::joker:

Shut up you daft cow.

lol, you wouldn't say this if it was Kate who said something like this

[Oliver_W]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdwsRUcXsAAYDhv?format=jpg&name=medium

That is a lovely picture tbh <3

But it's a bit rich really ... they renounced their titles and moved to LA of all places, so who was the one giving up everything?

[jet]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-meghan-harry-and-finding-freedom-royal-rift-vzgpppf68

Whatever one’s views on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the extracts we publish today from a new book that details their rift with the royal family make for uncomfortable reading. Few will have been unmoved by the wedding of the royal couple two years ago. The country had watched Harry mature after the early loss of his mother into an apparently upstanding young man who had served on the front line in the armed services and brought passion to his charitable causes. His marriage to Meghan, a glamorous American actress of mixed-race heritage, was overwhelmingly welcomed and seemed likely to promise a new era of modernity for the monarchy. That those early hopes should have given way to the bitter divisions and recriminations detailed in Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the making of a royal family is first and foremost a source of sadness.

Two things stand out from the extracts. The first is that the couple’s ambitions were always going to be hard to reconcile with the responsibilities of the monarchy. The book talks of Harry and Meghan’s popularity “propelling the monarchy to new heights around the world” and the couple’s frustration that the “men in grey suits” sometimes forced them to “take a back seat” to other family members. This was apparently particularly galling when an analysis of the online popularity of the Cambridges and Sussexes showed that Harry and Meghan accounted for 83 per cent of the world’s interest in the two couples. Yet this obsession with the power of their own celebrity shows a striking lack of awareness of what Britain expects of its royals. The monarchy is not a brand that requires global promotion but a core part of the constitution whose value lies in its stability. That requires the restraint of its members.

What also stands out is the impetuous way that Harry and Meghan handled their exit. Whatever their frustrations, their attempt to bounce the Queen into yielding to their demands for half-in-half-out royal status by publishing their plans on their Sussex Royal website without consultation was deeply discourteous. The book notes that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were “devastated” by the couple’s behaviour, which also appears to have deepened the rift with the Cambridges. Besides, Harry and Meghan had not anticipated any of the complexities that arose from their demand to be allowed to earn private money while remaining royals. The result has been a much deeper rupture than the Sussexes had contemplated. Or indeed might have been necessary had they approached the situation more judiciously.

The consequences for them and the monarchy are troubling. There is little doubt now that the psychodrama that followed Harry’s own mother’s rift with the royal family will extend into a new generation. Indeed it was a similar book by the journalist Andrew Morton in 1992, which lifted the lid on Princess Diana’s unhappiness at her treatment by the palace, that turned that split into what at times appeared to be an existential threat to the monarchy. This book, which similarly appears to have been written with co-operation from Harry and Meghan, can only deepen the rift. And with the couple now ensconced in a multi-millionaire rapper’s home in Los Angeles, determined to earn their living as global celebrities, they are certain to remain in the public eye. Indeed, further drama is assured as the couple pursue two ill-judged legal cases against the press.

The country is fortunate that the core institution of the monarchy looks robust enough to withstand these challenges. The Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William continue to do their duty and to conduct themselves with the dignity and restraint that the public expects. Nonetheless, the royals are diminished by this rift. It is hard not to look back to the hopes aroused by Meghan’s arrival and think what might have been.

[Nicky91]

wonder if the person behind this drone is that attention seeker Perez Hilton :suspect:

i mean that creep is stalking literally every celeb he can find

[Beso]

lol, you wouldn't say this if it was Kate who said something like this

She would have meant it.

[jet]

The new book has been dubbed 'The Gospel according to Harry and Meghan'.
The authors 'talked extensively to their friends' and to the couple themselves. I'm sure her fans will love it. :hehe:

[Livia]

This paragraph from Jet's posted article from The Times sums up the whole thing for me.

"The book talks of Harry and Meghan’s popularity “propelling the monarchy to new heights around the world” and the couple’s frustration that the “men in grey suits” sometimes forced them to “take a back seat” to other family members. This was apparently particularly galling when an analysis of the online popularity of the Cambridges and Sussexes showed that Harry and Meghan accounted for 83 per cent of the world’s interest in the two couples. Yet this obsession with the power of their own celebrity shows a striking lack of awareness of what Britain expects of its royals. The monarchy is not a brand that requires global promotion but a core part of the constitution whose value lies in its stability. That requires the restraint of its members."

[rusticgal]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-meghan-harry-and-finding-freedom-royal-rift-vzgpppf68


A very interesting read...:clap1::clap1::clap1:

..and I agree with it all.

[Crimson Dynamo]

From reading the press it seems as if Meghan was simply jealous of Kate and thought she would just be a celebrity and it hadnt occurred to her she would have to work as being a royal as a job

[user104658]

From reading the press it seems as if Meghan was simply jealous of Kate and thought she would just be a celebrity and it hadnt occurred to her she would have to work as being a royal as a job"From reading the press" :hehe:

[Crimson Dynamo]

"From reading the press" :hehe:

yes because we are discussing the book about pair have given to be serialised by the Times but in all media

The biography is written by journalists Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, who are fans of the couple and have set out to 'correct the record' and shift the spotlight on to their charitable ventures.

The Sussexes say they did not contribute to the book, but Scobie and Durand's account is based on extensive insight from friends of the couple.

[Ammi]

A statement said: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not interviewed and did not contribute to Finding Freedom.
"This book is based on the authors' own experiences as members of the royal press corps and their own independent reporting."



...so it’s basically ...the book version, continuation of their media portrayal...


...I have to say though, it doesn’t paint the Royals in general in a great light, including William and Kate....

[Ammi]

...I’ll probably wait and watch the movie based on the book based on the media slants, when it comes out...

[Liam-]

A book by a couple of journalists, about a couple they haven’t spoken to, based on press stories and anonymous ‘sources’

I’m sure it’ll be incredibly accurate

[jet]

A book by a couple of journalists, about a couple they haven’t spoken to, based on press stories and anonymous ‘sources’

I’m sure it’ll be incredibly accurate

The book is written by authors sympathetic to the couple, who have spoken extensively to their friends, and tells Harry and Meghans side of the story as told to their freinds...so glad you aren't going to believe most of this biased journalism. :whistle:

[Ammi]

A book by a couple of journalists, about a couple they haven’t spoken to, based on press stories and anonymous ‘sources’

I’m sure it’ll be incredibly accurate

...yeah, whatever it’s slant, a book aimed at making money above all else...

[jet]

I wonder when Harry and Meghan are going to sue their friends for talking to journalists and invading their privacy...:think:

[Liam-]

The book is written by authors sympathetic to the couple, who have spoken extensively to their friends, and tells Harry and Meghans side of the story as told to their freinds...so glad you aren't going to believe most of this biased journalism. :whistle:

They might be sympathetic towards them, but they can’t claim it’s their story or that it’s from their point of view, if they haven’t spoken to the couple directly, it’s based off of hearsay and press reports

[jet]

They might be sympathetic towards them, but they can’t claim it’s their story or that it’s from their point of view, if they haven’t spoken to the couple directly, it’s based off of hearsay and press reports

They knew this book was going to be written a year ago. The authors themselves said they were contacted by the couple about their intentions for the book way back. Harry and Meghan talk to their friends....the friends talk to the authors. Surely you know how these things work.

[Ammi]

‘Speaking about the book in an interview with the Times, also published on Saturday, co-author Omid Scobie stated that he felt Meghan was ‘ripe for exploitation by certain tabloids... She was a biracial woman stepping into the House of Windsor. That was going to ruffle feathers. We only need look at the Duchess Difficult narrative. What is “difficult”? Difficult is pushy, aggressive. It’s all the things that we throw on black women as a society regardless of what their actual personality is.’

The Daily Mail previously reported that there was a sense of apprehension among ‘Palace insiders’, who are concerned it will be used to ‘settle scores’. Although the work bills itself as having been authored ‘with the participation of those closest to the couple,’ the newspaper alleges that Harry and Meghan may even have spoken to the authors directly themselves. This has been denied by a spokesman for the Sussexes and by the book’s authors.‘

[rusticgal]

They knew this book was going to be written a year ago. The authors themselves said they were contacted by the couple about their intentions for the book way back. Harry and Meghan talk to their friends....the friends talk to the authors. Surely you know how these things work.


I guess if any untruth is spoken..they will be in touch with their Lawyers :laugh:

[bots]

it was their decision to leave the press protection they had in the UK and move overseas. It's not right that people invade privacy but it's hardly unexpected

[jet]

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/05/04/harry-meghan-new-book-tell-real-story-defend-them-critics/3080320001/
New book to tell Harry and Meghan's 'real' story (and defend them from critics)

LONDON — Freed from the constraints of life as full-time royals — and enmeshed in an increasingly bitter feud with Britain's tabloids — Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan of Sussex plan to tell their story in a book penned by sympathetic journalists.

Harper Collins U.K. announced Monday that it will publish "Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family" in Britain and the Commonwealth on Aug. 11.

The book will be published in the U.S. the same day by HarperCollins-owned Dey Street Books.

It won't be the first book about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – at least a dozen have been published, many by British royal reporters – but it appears to be the first in which they have cooperated with the intention of refuting their critics.

The book's authors are Harper's Bazaar royal editor Omid Scobie and Elle magazine royal correspondent Carolyn Durand, who said they aim to capture "the real Harry and Meghan" and "finally present the truth of misreported stories" about them.

Scobie has been an admirer and defender of Meghan since her relationship with Harry began in 2016. He was one of the few journalists invited to her tearful farewell to Buckingham Palace staff in early March, when she carried out her last public engagement and departed London for Canada.

Meghan, 38, and Harry, 35, and baby Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, who turns 1 on Wednesday, have since moved to her hometown of Los Angeles where they are building a new non-royal life while in quarantine during the coronavirus pandemic.

The publisher said the book will tackle "the many rumors and misconceptions that plague the couple on both sides of the pond." It says the authors have been given "unique access" and the cooperation of those closest to the couple.

[James]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-meghan-harry-and-finding-freedom-royal-rift-vzgpppf68

I looked up the authors' names and they are American royal correspondents so I wouldn't expect it to be the most accurate thing ever.

Ultimately all of this with Harry and Meghan probably won't be that significant for the monarchy because Harry isn't a direct heir to the throne. If it was William it would be different.

I did go down a bit of a rabbit hole on Wiki there reading up on Prince Regents - the person that would become the temporary Monarch if, say, Prince George was due to be King but he was still too young - and the current rules say Prince Harry would be entitled to it (but he'd have to move back to the UK).

Although parliament could make a new law (happened in 1952) to give the position to someone like Kate.

[Crimson Dynamo]

we still have no evidence the drone was taking pics or was up there due to them. Lots of drones in LA

[rusticgal]

I looked up the authors' names and they are American royal correspondents so I wouldn't expect it to be the most accurate thing ever.

Ultimately all of this with Harry and Meghan probably won't be that significant for the monarchy because Harry isn't a direct heir to the throne. If it was William it would be different.

I did go down a bit of a rabbit hole on Wiki there reading up on Prince Regents - the person that would become the temporary Monarch if, say, Prince George was due to be King but he was still too young - and the current rules say Prince Harry would be entitled to it (but he'd have to move back to the UK).

Although parliament could make a new law (happened in 1952) to give the position to someone like Kate.

Thats interesting....imagine Queen Kate :laugh:

[Nicky91]

well i can imagine that, since we call ours Queen Maxima too so

you guys have every right of the ''Queen Kate'' title

[Nicky91]

royalty news is among my interests yes

if some were doubting that from me, i personally like Harry/Meghan as couple, i Always knew of Harry he was into women who aren't from royal/upper class world, and Harry living in glamorous hollywood, good for him too

would they have been aware there being drones in LA, yes but do they have rights to sue, yes they do

invasion of privacy, no matter where is just wrong and against the law

[rusticgal]

royalty news is among my interests yes

if some were doubting that from me, i personally like Harry/Meghan as couple, i Always knew of Harry he was into women who aren't from royal/upper class world, and Harry living in glamorous hollywood, good for him too

would they have been aware there being drones in LA, yes but do they have rights to sue, yes they do

invasion of privacy, no matter where is just wrong and against the law

Yes and I guess you 'like' them rather than 'love' them. Just like I 'dislike' but dont 'hate' them.
Harrys previous girlfriends have come from well established families so you are wrong there...
...also no one has said that drones are acceptable and that they dont have a right to sue...

[Kizzy]

As if Meghan should have rights like everyone else though....

[Nicky91]

Yes and I guess you 'like' them rather than 'love' them. Just like I 'dislike' but dont 'hate' them.
Harrys previous girlfriends have come from well established families so you are wrong there...
...also no one has said that drones are acceptable and that they dont have a right to sue...

yeah ok fair enough, also even though Thomas Markle's personality i don't like, i do like his work as camera guy for Married with Children

[rusticgal]

As if Meghan should have rights like everyone else though....


sorry....who said she hasnt? :shrug:

[Kizzy]

sorry....who said she hasnt? :shrug:

Did I say anyone had?... The fact is she has, and she is as free as anyone to excersise those rights.
Privacy is an important issue imo, fair play she should seek to maintain it.

[rusticgal]

Did I say anyone had?... The fact is she has, and she is as free as anyone to excersise those rights.
Privacy is an important issue imo, fair play she should seek to maintain it.


Like I said before...No one has said otherwise..:laugh:

[Brother Leon]

Let’s hope no one randomly takes photos of your kids without consent when you are out and about then. According to you there is no reason to be upset about that.




Never mind someone doing it on your own property.

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/OCbM7HRFWXl1k2Kp_hjC7w/https/media.fyre.co/kYwKIe5OQAmB0wmN88XR_times-front-260720_1595712832_001.png


Very Large Sunday Times

[Marsh.]

He supported William and Kate and expected the same in return. Shameful.

[Liam-]

William has always seemed like a snotty prat, just like his dad.

[jet]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8560269/Kate-Middleton-Prince-William-hit-biography-said-shunned-Meghan-Harry.html

'We rolled out the red carpet for Meghan': Frustrated Kate Middleton and Prince William hit back at claims in devastating biography that Duchess and Harry felt shunned by the Royal Family and insist they welcomed her with open arms

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge last night hit back at claims in a bombshell new biography that they actively spurned Meghan Markle.

The authors of Finding Freedom claim relations between the Sussexes and Cambridges became so bitter that Kate humiliatingly snubbed her sister-in-law at Meghan's farewell appearance as a senior Royal.

But close friends of William and Kate issued a fierce defence, insisting the couple had 'rolled out the red carpet' for Meghan and 'done all they possibly could' to welcome the US actress into the Royal Family.

According to the friends, the Cambridges 'welcomed Meghan with open arms' by inviting her to Anmer Hall, their family home in Norfolk, where Kate personally cooked vegan meals for her brother-in-law's then fiance.

William and Kate also invited Meghan's friends, bridesmaids and page boys to a party before her wedding to Harry in May 2018, and keen tennis fan Kate asked Meghan to join her in the Royal Box at Wimbledon for two successive years.

'It's just completely wrong to suggest they didn't talk and plain wrong to say the Cambridges weren't welcoming,' a friend told The Mail on Sunday............

[Marsh.]

daily mail

a friend told The Mail on Sunday............

Versed.

[jet]

Versed.

No article by a named royal correspondent this time - especially for you.
You're welcome!

[Marsh.]

No article by a named royal correspondent this time - especially for you.
You're welcome!

A tabloid article... citing unnamed "sources". The same ones you cast aside when it doesn't fit your narrative?

Nope. The article isn't doing what you think it is doing.

[jet]

A tabloid article... citing unnamed "sources". The same ones you cast aside when it doesn't fit your narrative?

Nope. The article isn't doing what you think it is doing.

Could you clarify what you are trying to say? :conf:

[Marsh.]

Could you clarify what you are trying to say? :conf:

Tabloid. Gossip. Is. Not. Factual.

Books. Written. Based. On. Hearsay. Are. Just. That.

[jet]

Tabloid. Gossip. Is. Not. Factual.

Books. Written. Based. On. Hearsay. Are. Just. That.

What are you on about?
I posted a DM item that wasn't written by a respected royal correspondent like those I usually post.
I said it was especially for you.
Your responses are making no sense.

[jet]

Anyway....Back to Harry and Meghan...

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/07/19/amazon-slashes-price-of-new-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-book/

Amazon has slashed the price of the new Prince Harry and Meghan Markle book from £20 to £13.60 before it has even been released.

The much-hyped Finding Freedom, due out next month, will give an insight into the events which led up to Megxit and the Sussexes relocation to the United States.
But even before the release of the first, “epic and true story of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s life together”, the price of the biography has been cut by more than 25 per cent........

The pre - orders have been disappointing....

[Marsh.]

I imagine they are. Nobody wants a book version of what was all over the news already months ago.

[Ammi]

...I was watching the Princess Diana V the Media programme last night...and a Royal corespondent themselves said that, that title means they’ll always go with the most commercially profitable slant/story and other than that it doesn’t give any special insight over any other media...which makes complete sense obviously...

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/15346/production/_113645868_sundaytimes.jpg

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/10526/production/_113645866_mailonsunday-1.jpg

[Oliver_W]

It's probably a "column a, column b" thing.

The royals were probably welcoming, and just expected Meghan to slot into the princess shaped slot and behave herself. But that's not who Meghan is, she's Hollywood and not aristocracy. So when she was showing glimmers of individuality, she got the frosty reception.

[bots]

i can see them getting divorced soon and that being blamed on the public too

[Cherie]

I don’t follow the Royals very much but early on they were interviewed together and dubbed the fab 4, they set up a charity together, Megs attended Wimbledon with Kate, there wasn’t any tense body language between the couples at all, fast forward to that final service they attended and it was clear there was tension, so I would say if there were tensions in the early days they were well hidden

[joeysteele]

I don’t follow the Royals very much but early on they were interviewed together and dubbed the fab 4, they set up a charity together, Megs attended Wimbledon with Kate, there wasn’t any tense body language between the couples at all, fast forward to that final service they attended and it was clear there was tension, so I would say if there were tensions in the early days they were well hidden

You see Cherie for me..
I think the Royal life must be really weird.

To any outsider going into it, to have their natural personalities made more robotic.
I doubt anything before really becoming entrenched into the set up, in the ' firm ' as it was termed, that you could ever be prepared for the reality.

I think it's hard enough for those born into it.
I mean, Princess Margaret was quite rebellious as the Queen's Sister.
Princess Anne made many gaffes too although I really think she found the balance of being her own person while dutifully performing as a Royal too.

Diana and Sarah Ferguson threatened the ' Royal protocol set up ',they found themselves just about hounded out.

It must be really difficult pretending to like or get along with people you cannot.

So for me, while I think the Royal set up needs dragging into the 21st century, while I remain a Royalist certainly.

I can understand pressures, particularly on any outsider joining becoming just too intense.

It's why I choose not to.judge them too harshly.

As to these 2, well married couples make their beds and have to lie in them.
So again all I do is wish them well.
I totally support them both, protecting and looking out for their child against media or any unnecessary intrusion to their, as private as it can get, life.

Equally to the Cambridge's too.
They represent the dutiful side of the Royals..
However it doesn't have to be that Brothers and their wives have to get along.

Across the Country, there will be families with daughters in law not getting on with each other, uneasy truces between Brothers and the rest of the family.
Even Mother's and Father's not getting on with their in laws family.

The fact things gets so stifled in Royalty only likely adds to the pressure in my view

Of course they can choose to step back but I'd hate to live the Royal life.

[Cherie]

You see Cherie for me..
I think the Royal life must be really weird.

To any outsider going into it, to have their natural personalities made more robotic.
I doubt anything before really becoming entrenched into the set up, in the ' firm ' as it was termed, that you could ever be prepared for the reality.

I think it's hard enough for those born into it.
I mean, Princess Margaret was quite rebellious as the Queen's Sister.
Princess Anne made many gaffes too although I really think she found the balance of being her own person while dutifully performing as a Royal too.

Diana and Sarah Ferguson threatened the ' Royal protocol set up ',they found themselves just about hounded out.

It must be really difficult pretending to like or get along with people you cannot.

So for me, while I think the Royal set up needs dragging into the 21st century, while I remain a Royalist certainly.

I can understand pressures, particularly on any outsider joining becoming just too intense.

It's why I choose not to.judge them too harshly.

As to these 2, well married couples make their beds and have to lie in them.
So again all I do is wish them well.
I totally support them both, protecting and looking out for their child against media or any unnecessary intrusion to their, as private as it can get, life.

Equally to the Cambridge's too.
They represent the dutiful side of the Royals..
However it doesn't have to be that Brothers and their wives have to get along.

Across the Country, there will be families with daughters in law not getting on with each other, uneasy truces between Brothers and the rest of the family.
Even Mother's and Father's not getting on with their in laws family.

The fact things gets so stifled in Royalty only likely adds to the pressure in my view

Of course they can choose to step back but I'd hate to live the Royal life.

Agree with all of that Joey

[bots]

I can't stand the royal family. Meghan and Harry can do what they want as far as i'm concerned, providing i'm not paying for it. Those of them who are claiming a salary, I expect them to carry out the duties they are paid for, nothing more, nothing less

[Oliver_W]

I can't stand the royal family. Meghan and Harry can do what they want as far as i'm concerned, providing i'm not paying for it. Those of them who are claiming a salary, I expect them to carry out the duties they are paid for, nothing more, nothing less

Okay, sure. But whatever the circumstances - if they were continuing to be Royals, if they were doing celebrity stuff, or if they wanted to live a private life - there's no justification for drones to take creepshots of their child. The gutter press gets away with **** like that far too much.

It's no better than an old perv hiding in the bushes with a camera at the play park.

[The Slim Reaper]

I can't stand the royal family. Meghan and Harry can do what they want as far as i'm concerned, providing i'm not paying for it. Those of them who are claiming a salary, I expect them to carry out the duties they are paid for, nothing more, nothing less

Massive Karen energy.

[joeysteele]

Okay, sure. But whatever the circumstances - if they were continuing to be Royals, if they were doing celebrity stuff, or if they wanted to live a private life - there's no justification for drones to take creepshots of their child. The gutter press gets away with **** like that far too much.

It's no better than an old perv hiding in the bushes with a camera at the play park.

Really good points there.

[jet]

I’d have more sympathy for Meghan if her past wasn’t littered with people she ruthlessly dropped like a hot potato when they didn’t please her or stopped being of use to her. The Royal family are just the latest. I just hope Harry isn’t next down the line, I don’t think he is mentally strong enough to cope.

[AnnieK]

I’d have more sympathy for Meghan if her past wasn’t littered with people she ruthlessly dropped like a hot potato when they didn’t please her or stopped being of use to her. The Royal family are just the latest. I just hope Harry isn’t next down the line, I don’t think he is mentally strong enough to cope.

To be fair though Jet, most people by the age Meghan met Harry would have a past and sone baggage. People have to be ruthless at times to get ahead. I'm sure there are people who we all were very close with at points of our lives who feel dumped or discarded when our lives move on.

[Ammi]

...the only slant we know about Meghan’s past is that which the media has given us and it’s our own choice what we believe ...

[jet]

To be fair though Jet, most people by the age Meghan met Harry would have a past and sone baggage. People have to be ruthless at times to get ahead. I'm sure there are people who we all were very close with at points of our lives who feel dumped or discarded when our lives move on.

Of course, but why be ruthless and cruel about it?

As an example her husband found out their marriage was over when she sent her wedding ring back to him in the post.
He (a film producer) had helped her get the part in Suits. After which she had no more use for him. By all accounts he was a wonderful husband. He has never spoken about his hurt publicly or said anything about Meghan but their mutual friends and his family were outraged on his behalf.

[Oliver_W]

Of course, but why be ruthless and cruel about it?

As an example her husband found out their marriage was over when she sent her wedding ring back to him in the post.
He (a film producer) had helped her get the part in Suits. After which she had no more use for him. By all accounts he was a wonderful husband. He has never spoken about his hurt publicly or said anything about Meghan but their mutual friends and his family were outraged on his behalf.

"Hollywood actress uses personal connection to get big role", let's run the headlines!!

[Nicky91]

"Hollywood actress uses personal connection to get big role", let's run the headlines!!

:joker: :joker:

[Cherie]

Harry knew exactly what Meghan was getting into, in his mid 30s he should have had the foresight to steer them away right from the off and that’s why they ended up in this mess, if they had withdrawn from Royal life from day dot things might be different

[Ammi]

...an ex husband/wife wouldn’t be someone that would often be thought to have ‘impartiality’ ...but again it’s a choice of believing what is essentially gossip...

[The Slim Reaper]

Of course, but why be ruthless and cruel about it?

As an example her husband found out their marriage was over when she sent her wedding ring back to him in the post.
He (a film producer) had helped her get the part in Suits. After which she had no more use for him. By all accounts he was a wonderful husband. He has never spoken about his hurt publicly or said anything about Meghan but their mutual friends and his family were outraged on his behalf.

You have no idea whether any of that is true, or how much is embellished. Let's be honest, you wouldn't have any more sympathy for her, which is why you're using gossip as nothing more than another stick to beat her with in a thread that isn't about her first marriage.

[Niamh.]

Of course, but why be ruthless and cruel about it?



As an example her husband found out their marriage was over when she sent her wedding ring back to him in the post.

He (a film producer) had helped her get the part in Suits. After which she had no more use for him. By all accounts he was a wonderful husband. He has never spoken about his hurt publicly or said anything about Meghan but their mutual friends and his family were outraged on his behalf.How on Earth could you possibly know he was a "wonderful" husband? What an odd statement

[Ammi]

...her past hasn’t changed from when it’s frequently been said that the dislike of her has come through the course of the Royal marriage..

[The Slim Reaper]

How on Earth could you possibly know he was a "wonderful" husband? What an odd statement

https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/13-5e1dce9118edf__700.jpg

[Nicky91]

Harry knew exactly what Meghan was getting into, in his mid 30s he should have had the foresight to steer them away right from the off and that’s why they ended up in this mess, if they had withdrawn from Royal life from day dot things might be different

yep, some valid points here

[The Slim Reaper]

https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton-fb24-png__700.jpg

[Ammi]

https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/13-5e1dce9118edf__700.jpg

...it was interesting watching the Princess Diana V The Media programme last night and comparing it to the relationship with the two Royal wives now...Kate may be the ‘media darling’, which she is in how they report her..?...but Meghan is the one they report the most because she’s the commercially profitable one....how they hate that she’s never been grateful for that, how very dare she ..:laugh:..

[jet]

She was spoilt rotten by her family, her father, mother and step brother all doted on her. She wanted for nothing. She had a loving family, (did anyone see the C5 documentary about this?) yet she told Harry a different story when they met to get his sympathy and inspire feelings of protection towards her.
Remember Harry telling the radio host just after their engagement that the Royal family ‘was the family she never had’?
Thats what started the whole family feud off, with the step sister, step brother and her Dad.
No wonder she didn’t bring Harry to meet her father before the wedding, he would have painted a different family picture and her sob story would have been exposed for the pack of lies that it was.

[Nicky91]

nice bit of bias what you see from that, how you can see they suck up to Kate as little miss perfect, fits so well in with royal family

and brand Meghan as some sort of villain


*pretendstobeshockedgif*

[jet]

How on Earth could you possibly know he was a "wonderful" husband? What an odd statement

I couldn't, I said 'by all accounts'. I'm relating what their close mutual friends said. I have not heard of any reason to disbelieve them so far. :shrug:

[rusticgal]

Anyway....Back to Harry and Meghan...

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/07/19/amazon-slashes-price-of-new-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-book/



The pre - orders have been disappointing....


Im not surprised...people are getting a bit tired of their self centred self pity story.

[Ammi]

...nothing of what has been reported about any family relationships is anything other than gossip and hearsay, if it wasn’t then different versions of things wouldn’t exist but there is always more than one truth ...the only thing that we decide is which truth we’ll believe based on our own feelings toward someone...and it’s fine to not like someone with no reason at all, that’s our prerogative too...

[jet]

https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/13-5e1dce9118edf__700.jpg

in a thread that isn't about her first marriage.

This thread isn't about the royal ladies clothes choices either....

[AnnieK]

Of course, but why be ruthless and cruel about it?

As an example her husband found out their marriage was over when she sent her wedding ring back to him in the post.
He (a film producer) had helped her get the part in Suits. After which she had no more use for him. By all accounts he was a wonderful husband. He has never spoken about his hurt publicly or said anything about Meghan but their mutual friends and his family were outraged on his behalf.

Impossible to comment on someone's marriage. It could look perfect to friends and family but behind closed doors its a very different story.

[jet]

Impossible to comment on someone's marriage. It could look perfect to friends and family but behind closed doors its a very different story.

Does Meghan strike you as being someone who would suffer in siilence? :joker:

[jet]

Im not surprised...people are getting a bit tired of their self centred self pity story.

Yep, the perennial victims. :wavey:

[rusticgal]

I don’t follow the Royals very much but early on they were interviewed together and dubbed the fab 4, they set up a charity together, Megs attended Wimbledon with Kate, there wasn’t any tense body language between the couples at all, fast forward to that final service they attended and it was clear there was tension, so I would say if there were tensions in the early days they were well hidden


I would imagine Kate and Meghan were chalk and cheese. They did seem to get along at first probably with them both making an effort. However, they seem so different. Meghan, an actress from LA strong headed and probably a bit demanding...Kate extremely polite and respectful. Didnt Meghan go to Wimbledon with a friend last year and no one was allowed to sit in the seats around her?...its little things like that, the diva like behaviour that didnt sit right with the GBP and most likely William and Kate. Then there were issues leading up to the Royal wedding, with demands and behaviour that I think just created a bigger rift.

[Ammi]

...but she did ‘suffer in silence’ for over 30 years in that she hasn’t lived out her private life in full publicity so far as I’m aware...Until the media chose a different story for her because she was now their ‘Royal property’...

[AnnieK]

Does Meghan strike you as being someone who would suffer in siilence? :joker:

I have no idea Jet...problems in marriages are very personal. I just wouldn't take the views of friends and family as gospel and use it as a stick to beat someone.

[rusticgal]

Yep, the perennial victims. :wavey:


:kiss:

[The Slim Reaper]

I have no idea Jet...problems in marriages are very personal. I just wouldn't take the views of friends and family as gospel and use it as a stick to beat someone.

Come on Annie, jet saw it in a magazine and we all know relationships and especially break ups are always handled in a fair, unbiased manner.

[Ammi]

...(...in my opinion...)...the crux of it Is that Meghan never ticked enough Royal boxes to be accepted by our Great British media and some of the general public...

[AnnieK]

...(...in my opinion...)...the crux of it Is that Meghan never ticked enough Royal boxes to be accepted by our Great British media and some of the general public...

I agree, she wasn't "Stepford wife" enough. Seen and not heard

[Livia]

How many more American divorcees will it take before the royal family learn...?

[bots]

The royal institution has a lot to answer for. It will get a clear out when the queen and charles are in the past

[jet]

Come on Annie, jet saw it in a magazine and we all know relationships and especially break ups are always handled in a fair, unbiased manner.

I didn't see it in a magazine. Their mutual friends were part of a C5 documentary, they seemed like genuine people who were hurt on Trevors behalf at Meghan ending the marriage in such a cruel way.
They said Trevor was totally blindsided and baffled, as were they.

Meghan then took up with some top chef - not sure of the timeline on that one though....

[Ammi]

I agree, she wasn't "Stepford wife" enough. Seen and not heard

...yeah, I like Kate, but the way the press report her does often have quite a cringy feel for me for exactly that reason...’oh and Kate wore a pretty dress, doesn’t she look lovely and those legs and that smile...’...it has a very ‘Stepford’ feel for someone who doesn’t deserve to be reported as so ‘surface’...

...but yeah, Annie...the media and Royal brides has often seemed quite ‘obsessive’... I was reminded last night when I was watching that account of ‘Tampongate’ with Charles and Camilla...?...and while the tapes did get media coverage for sure...the media eyes were still more on Diana and what she was wearing and who she was stepping out with../..go figure...

[Tom4784]

I didn't see it in a magazine. Their mutual friends were part of a C5 documentary, they seemed like genuine people who were hurt on Trevors behalf at Meghan ending the marriage in such a cruel way.
They said Trevor was totally blindsided and baffled, as were they.

Meghan then took up with some top chef - not sure of the timeline on that one though....

_n5E7feJHw0

I'm sure a C5 documentary is a solid source of information, after all, how can a channel that relies on poverty porn and sensationalism ever be wrong?

[jet]

I agree, she wasn't "Stepford wife" enough. Seen and not heard

Nope, thats just an easy excuse. It was her own behaviour and attitudes and the 'poor me' that turned off a lot of people. The GBP are no fools.
Just after the wedding, her popularity rating was around 85%, now it is consistently below 30%.
She was an American mixed race divorcee with a strong personality at the time of her wedding and people loved her, so the 'Stepford' wife excuse doesn't wash.

[jet]

Anyone can be a victim that suffers in silence.

You think you know this person but you don't, you know a version that's been peddled to you by media that you've handpicked to create a certain image of her. It's honestly creepy.

How do you have the time or energy to focus on some inconsequential ex-royal and hate her with every fibre of your being? It's so weird.

You're a hoot Dezzy. :joker:

[Liam-]

Meghan made the mistake of being a strong woman with her own voice and thinking while marrying into a family where they want their women silent and having children

[Ammi]

...she also had her same past at the time of her wedding so that can’t be why she’s so disliked either...

[jet]

People have learned more about her since the wedding....and as I said, her behaviour since has turned many people off.

[The Slim Reaper]

...she also had her same past at the time of her wedding so that can’t be why she’s so disliked either...

But people are saying, and many people have said. Not sure how you get out of a checkmate like that.

[AnnieK]

Nope, thats just an easy excuse. It was her own behaviour and attitudes and the 'poor me' that turned off a lot of people. The GBP are no fools.
Just after the wedding, her popularity rating was around 85%, now it is consistently below 30%.
She was an American mixed race divorcee with a strong personality at the time of her wedding and people loved her, so the 'Stepford' wife excuse doesn't wash.

The GBP expects Royal wives to act a certain way. Prior to the wedding, Meghans profile and expectations of her were lower. After the wedding the comparisons to Kate started in earnest. She didn't comply to what we expect of the monarchy and her popularity plummeted.

[AnnieK]

Nope, thats just an easy excuse. It was her own behaviour and attitudes and the 'poor me' that turned off a lot of people. The GBP are no fools.
Just after the wedding, her popularity rating was around 85%, now it is consistently below 30%.
She was an American mixed race divorcee with a strong personality at the time of her wedding and people loved her, so the 'Stepford' wife excuse doesn't wash.

People have learned more about her since the wedding....and as I said, her behaviour since has turned many people off.

So you saying she was the same at the point of the wedding isn't quite right is it? Once she became a Royal,she was expected to toe the line (and be a Stepford wife), she didn't and her popularity with ardent royalists plummeted

[jet]

The GBP expects Royal wives to act a certain way. Prior to the wedding, Meghans profile and expectations of her were lower. After the wedding the comparisons to Kate started in earnest. She didn't comply to what we expect of the monarchy and her popularity plummeted.

If that is what you believe, fair enough, but I disagree. It was not as simple as that.

[Ammi]

...there was nothing new to learn about her past since their wedding ...:laugh:...all there has been is an onslaught of gossip column frenzy...if anyone feels ‘turned off’ by her that’s cool and dandy, it’s a complete prerogative to feel that without any reasoning whatsoever...but it has no bearing on behaviour from Meghan...a dislike of someone always tries to find justification when it really doesn’t need to at all...obviously there is now ‘justification’, she took our ‘Arry away to foreign lands ...how very dare she have turned her face away from the hateful media....

[Ammi]

But people are saying, and many people have said. Not sure how you get out of a checkmate like that.

...do you have a list of these people, can I question these people with a bright light...:laugh:..