Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,438
The royal family actually does just that. They have a select group of reporters whom they trust, and they work closely with the royal rota to get the coverage they want. There's an understanding that in return for access to the royals, the royal rota will cover said royals in a favorable way. The only time that doesn't happen is when the news is bigger than something the royal family can control. See: Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. Even then, it didn't really blow up until Andrew blew it up himself with that disastrous BBC interview. Another example would be the marital troubles of Charles and Diana. That was beyond something the BRF could control. Most politicians are the same way -- they establish a good relationship with a few trusted reporters and will selectively leak information to those sources.

The difference with Harry and Meghan IMO is how they've said the quiet part out loud, and made it clear who is on the good list and who isn't. I hate to make the comparison but it's a bit like the Trump news conferences where CNN, WaPo, NYT, and NBC get berated as "Fake News" and "terrible reporting" and Fox, OAN, DailyWire, and whatever else are given preferential treatment.

Having media contacts (formal or otherwise) and using them to get the official message out is not the same thing at all as being able to turn media coverage off and on at will. Yes, the royals have their trusted reporters, but that doesn't stop the non-trusted media outlets from running the "Unnamed sources say that Prince Philip is mean to the grandkids" type of story.

Thousands of public figures have found out the hard way that the media who give them flattering coverage during the good times are not going to go away during the bad times, even if they ask them to. No matter how many times they "ask for privacy during this difficult time".
 
Last edited:

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
26,028
When the tabloids first started appearing at the grocery newsstands their "reporters" were looked at as scum. Nowadays people say "they just need to make a living too". After all these years I still can't understand how good people can buy their filth or give them clicks. It's kind of like being a voyeur. But when it's not even remotely true it's dangerous.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
It's ironic though, that a lot of the tabloids who have been blocked are actually the ones which at the end of the day support the existance of the monarchy. The reason they report a lot about the royals is that they view them as relevant. Many of the papers who don't report about them, actually when asked, would take a republican stance.

I do actually think that if there was ever a republican movement in the UK, the monarchy would actually be relying on publications like The Sun to support them. Whereas publications like The Guardian (who don't bother with Harry and Meghan gossip) would likely be advocating a dismantling of the monarchy.

I think this is noteworthy, because aside from perhaps one speaking fee, Harry and Meghan haven't made any money - yet but are still able to rent an LA mansion and are purportedly in the market to purchase a home in the $12 to $18 million price range. That's all royal money. At the end of the day, they are still reliant on the institution for their cash flow.

Many of the figures and publications that support any damage to the monarchy (in particular the dispute Meghan and Harry have initiated) would also be looking to remove the monarchy. And that would include removing the cash flow from the Duchy of Cornwall from the royals private pockets. That's the money Meghan and Harry are living off. So I just think those two need to be careful what they wish for.
 
Last edited:

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,261
It would hurt and it probably wouldn’t be what she wants, but Meghan spent nearly her entire life not being a royal or relying on that money, so she’ll be fine in the end. Harry may have trouble adapting. The only issue is that not being a royal won’t get rid of the allure of them. I’m sure there will be people with :bribe: who are willing to financially assist them as former royals as tends to happen to bigger named royals as we’ve seen in the past.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
I’m sure there will be people with :bribe: who are willing to financially assist them as former royals as tends to happen to bigger named royals as we’ve seen in the past.

I suppose this was the case with a lot of the European royals that went into exile after being replaced with republics? Although I suppose that support may have come from loyalists to the crown.

Whereas, as Harry and Meghan have left the royal family, it's a bit of different situation. But then again, they were given that Vancouver Island property for free for months by a friend so there's always someone who would see something to be gained from the association.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,261
They could always blame Oprah and try to get her to subsidize them since apparently she encouraged their current decision to step back from being major Royals. Oprah could always counter with saying she didn't tell them to try to destroy the monarchy. Who knows? Maybe she did. :lol:. I'm just kidding, of course.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
26,028
It's ironic though, that a lot of the tabloids who have been blocked are actually the ones which at the end of the day support the existance of the monarchy. The reason they report a lot about the royals is that they view them as relevant. Many of the papers who don't report about them, actually when asked, would take a republican stance.

I do actually think that if there was ever a republican movement in the UK, the monarchy would actually be relying on publications like The Sun to support them. Whereas publications like The Guardian (who don't bother with Harry and Meghan gossip) would likely be advocating a dismantling of the monarchy.

I think this is noteworthy, because aside from perhaps one speaking fee, Harry and Meghan haven't made any money - yet but are still able to rent an LA mansion and are purportedly in the market to purchase a home in the $12 to $18 million price range. That's all royal money. At the end of the day, they are still reliant on the institution for their cash flow.

Many of the figures and publications that support any damage to the monarchy (in particular the dispute Meghan and Harry have initiated) would also be looking to remove the monarchy. And that would include removing the cash flow from the Duchy of Cornwall from the royals private pockets. That's the money Meghan and Harry are living off. So I just think those two need to be careful what they wish for.

The thing wrong with your premise is that there is lots of coverage of the RF that doesn't make stuff up or dramatize ordinary happenings. If those 4 publications went under (they won't) there would be just as much coverage as usual by others but the main thing is that they would be on notice that some stories won't be tolerated. H&M can't sue everyone & I doubt they want to but egregious intrusion & outright lies should be dealt with. W&K sued over those topless pictures & the monarchy went on as usual. Any printed gossip should be stuff like What Kate Wore or Louis's 2nd birthday pictures. Do any of us need in our lives that Camilla is furious with Kate when that incident never happened? I for one will not be diminished by the lack of that kind of gossip.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
I think my question is that should a ruling family be allowed such power and money without scrutiny? Should politicians be given the same indulgences?

Certainly a former politician doesn’t get $18 million to spend on an LA mansion.
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
26,028
I think my question is that should a ruling family be allowed such power and money without scrutiny? Should politicians be given the same indulgences?

Certainly a former politician doesn’t get $18 million to spend on an LA mansion.

Are you equating made up lies with scrutiny? IMO Andrew got lots of scrutiny because he did something wrong. When Charles cheated on Diana he got lots of scrutiny. But what did H&M do that was so terrible that one tabloid called their son a monkey? You sound like one of Daily Mail's loyal readers.

BTW H&M didn't rob a bank in order to get $18 million. It was available because of past income of royal lands. You could rebel & overthrow the monarchy & force them to distribute all their wealth. Until then it's no one's business how that money is spent. At least it's in circulation.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
BTW H&M didn't rob a bank in order to get $18 million. It was available because of past income of royal lands. You could rebel & overthrow the monarchy & force them to distribute all their wealth. Until then it's no one's business how that money is spent. At least it's in circulation.

I just don't get how people can support Harry & Meghan tearing down the royal institution and then also think that it's OK for them to ship enormous sums of royal money from the Duchy of Cornwall off to the USA. I think they either need to pick one or the other. It's a bit like biting the hand that feeds you whilst frantically stuffing your pockets with cash.

This sort of stuff from royals sure does make an argument for the removal of the monarchy. That $18 million sure could make a difference to the NHS right now.

In terms of leaders, take Boris Johnson - people have been actively hoping that he'd die. But hey, that's what you get when you are the leader of a country - it comes with the territory. My wonder is where do royals sit in this framework? Are they down with the politicians (who on a daily basis deal with criticism eclipsing anything ever directed at the royals) Or do they sit on some different untouchable platform? They sure do make more money from the country than the politicians do.
 
Last edited:

SkateSand

Cat Servant
Messages
1,276
I think this is noteworthy, because aside from perhaps one speaking fee, Harry and Meghan haven't made any money - yet but are still able to rent an LA mansion and are purportedly in the market to purchase a home in the $12 to $18 million price range. That's all royal money. At the end of the day, they are still reliant on the institution for their cash flow.

Do we really know where this money is coming from? I believe I read Diana left Harry a decent inheritance; in the millions. Would anyone want to deprive him of his deceased mother's bequest?
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,663
I just don't get how people can support Harry & Meghan tearing down the royal institution
Well, that's a bit dramatic.

If you don't look at what they did as "reading down the royal institution" then maybe it makes more sense to think it's okay for them to spend Harry's inheritance and any allowance his father deigns to give him in any fashion they like. :D

Personally, I would be fine if all monarchies were gone yesterday but that doesn't mean I think all current royals should be stripped of their titles and lands and forced to work as a Wal-mart greeter. (A good use of the royal wave, I'm thinking.)
 

MLIS

Well-Known Member
Messages
353
Do we really know where this money is coming from? I believe I read Diana left Harry a decent inheritance; in the millions. Would anyone want to deprive him of his deceased mother's bequest?
Others have done the math, but my understanding is that while Diana left Harry a large bequest, even if it has been invested well it is not enough for them to maintain this lifestyle for long. They are big spenders (no judgement here, I would be too if I had the funds), and yes, they have more money than most of us could ever dream of, but they travel a lot, buy a lot of high end luxury clothes and items, and will have to pay a fortune for their security. They have also committed to paying back the money that was spent on the renovations at Frogmore in Windsor, which is in the millions. They are incredibly wealthy, yes, but for Harry in particular he does not have enough money of his own to live the lifestyle he has always had (at least for more than a year or two). (Meghan, of course, is quite used to not living in a palace and having to keep to a budget, so it will be a lot less of a shock for her!) And while they wanted to step away from palaces and royal receptions, they clearly don’t intend to live in a two bedroom fifth floor walk up in LA and take public transit. (Again, neither would I if I could afford it, so I’m not throwing shade, just saying that their lifestyle is expensive.)
 

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
26,028
Re the lawsuit "The Mail on Sunday and parent company Associated Newspapers has previously said it stands by the original story and has argued that there is "huge and legitimate" public interest in members of the royal family and their "personal relationships.""

I guess what they're saying is because people are nosy & have "legitimate interest" in the royal family & their personal (read private) relationships that makes it alright to do anything to get those details. They should be able to zoom in to private property to take pictures & they should be able to manipulate or completely make up facts. I am very interested in the outcome of this case.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,438
@MLIS Honestly I would be surprised if H&M buy a lot of the high-end clothing they wear. I would guess they get at least some freebies from designers who want the $$$$ that will result when Harry or Meghan are spotted in one of their outfits. And Archie too - supposedly the toque he was wearing in the New Years photo sold out online within a few hours of the photo being released.

But that sort of freebie is only going to keep coming as long as they are being photographed out and about. A designer isn't going to give them free clothes if they're rarely or never seen in public in those clothes.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
There is a huge interest in the lives of Royalty. No one would give two cents for Harry’s opinion on anything if he were not Royal. The huge sum he received for the private speech he did recently was paid because he is royal. I am not saying that it was not interesting or informative, only that there are many interesting and informative people who do not get paid millions for a dinner speech. Harry’s speech at the Climate Summit was also because he is Royal. Again, no would care about his opinions on climate change if he was plain old Harry Wales. I am also not saying he isn’t entitled to a private life.

As for this lawsuit, the Mail did not take long range photos and did not fabricate a story. They are being sued because they printed excerpts of a letter Meghan wrote to her father and Meghan is alleging that the editing the Mail did changed the meaning, and also that the letter was private. The letter was used by a number of Meghan’s “friends” when they spoke to People magazine to defend her position and paint Mr. Markle in a negative light. Mr. Markle claims he spoke to the Mail in order to defend himself and set the record straight. He clearly believed at the time that the letter was his property and so his decision about whether or not he shared it. I am sure there are laws around that that will come into play. Meghan has now stated that she did not know these “friends” were going to spill to People magazine. I guess we will soon find out who they are as I imagine they will be required to testify.

I have no idea who, if anyone, is telling the truth. The fact that neither side appears interested in settling makes me think they both think they have the truth on their side. I suspect neither side will come out unscathed which is fine with me because as far as I can see both have behaved badly and are wasting the court’s time trying to make a point.

IMHO, in these sorts of matters it is very rarely about right and wrong, truth and fiction. Getting on a high horse and being righteous, as both parties appear to be doing, is a privilege few of us regular people can afford. Sitting down and working out your differences is a much more mature and impressive way to deal.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
If there were really stringent privacy laws around the royals, on the flip side, it would make behaviour like Andrew's much easier to conceal.

@overedge Actually, the royals have a policy of not accepting gifts of clothing etc. There have been examples though, of brands sending product to royals and them politely returning it --- only to then put in an order to purchase the same thing themselves. I think it's a means to stop them being externally influenced through freebies etc.

However, I think that policy may have changed now for Meghan and Harry, so they could accept gifts of clothes etc.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,438
If there were really stringent privacy laws around the royals, on the flip side, it would make behaviour like Andrew's much easier to conceal.

@overedge Actually, the royals have a policy of not accepting gifts of clothing etc. There have been examples though, of brands sending product to royals and them politely returning it --- only to then put in an order to purchase the same thing themselves. I think it's a means to stop them being externally influenced through freebies etc.

However, I think that policy may have changed now for Meghan and Harry, so they could accept gifts of clothes etc.

@starrynight I could be wrong, but I thought the way it worked was that the royals told their staff what types of clothes or styles they were interested in, and the staff used the household budget to purchase the goods and let them choose. Or if the staff knew of something they thought the royal would like - which could have been influenced by a sample the designer sent to the staff - they would suggest it to them. IOW the solicitation was done by the staff and not directly by the royals themselves.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,261
They concealed Andrew pretty well. He seems to still be a part of the franchise and hasn’t truly paid for what he did. It’s only his own interview where he received huge backlash. Had he not done that, I’m sure he’d still be a more visible member of that family.

As for the letters and stuff and how regular people wouldn’t be able to afford to take this measure, the situation is one where most regular people wouldn’t be in. That said, regular people file lawsuits and the sheer volume that courts have to deal with has reached the point where tort reform is a hot button topic.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
This is a quick article, but I notice one thing. Meghan has claimed that she didn’t know her friends would mention the letter when being interviewed by People magazine. Now this could be sloppy reporting, but it doesn’t say that Meghan denies telling the friends about the letter. I have no knowledge of British privacy laws, but assuming she did speak to five people about the letter, would she still have a claim that it was private?

 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,261
I think the biggest issue is that whoever represented Meghan made the case overblown. It should have just been about copyright, IMO. I’m not sure about privacy because as you brought up, if she spoke to her friends about the letter, and they spoke to the press before Mr. Markle did, then it was no longer a private matter and he does have the right to defend himself. I forget who did what first. Did Mr. Markle do that interview and did the Mail publish those letters first and then the friends spoke? If so, then I can see the privacy claim standing. I think the issue is that she and Harry have a chip on their shoulder regarding the British tabloids (for good reason) and have turned what was essentially a copyright case into a crusade hoping for a systemic change in tabloid culture and liability. As sympathetic as I am to them, I also think this was a misstep. But then I’m sure if they simply filed a claim for copyright, it would seem sort of petty so they felt the need to turn it into some worthy cause, but as we see, there’s no overwhelming majority siding with them.

I can see the appeal of making the case that is really about one thing to make it about another, more important thing. Ambitious lawyers have successfully changed legal doctrine by doing that.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,001
@VGThuy I believe Meghan's friends spoke to People Magazine first and then Thomas Markle gave the letter to the Daily Mail in response.

This whole case is just playing into the hands of the tabloids anyway. Chances are, the appeal of getting both Meghan and Thomas Markle into the witness box under oath is so juicy that it would actually be worth the legal fees and any award of damages. Has a member of the royal family been cross examined in court before?
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
I think the issue is that she and Harry have a chip on their shoulder regarding the British tabloids (for good reason) and have turned what was essentially a copyright case into a crusade hoping for a systemic change in tabloid culture and liability. As sympathetic as I am to them, I also think this was a misstep. But then I’m sure if they simply filed a claim for copyright, it would seem sort of petty so they felt the need to turn it into some worthy cause, but as we see, there’s no overwhelming majority siding with them.

I suspect there is no overwhelming majority siding with them because, this whole sordid case aside, I think many people feel sorry for Thomas Markle. If it has been one of the step siblings involved, there may have been more sympathy. I am not saying Mr. Markle is the victim here, really none of us know enough about the whole situation to judge, just that he is old, clearly not well. He is up against a wealthy power couple who have great connections and the ability to get their side of the story out to publications like People, and who are organized enough to write and save perfectly correct texts that back up their side of the story.

That is not say that Harry and Meghan should be less organized or write texts that say “me again,” rather than that whole sentence about how many times they had tried to contact him, just that he clearly is no match for them, and rooting against the underdog is not really the American or British way. Of course, the lawsuit is against the tabloid, but it is still going to pull both Mr. Markle and Harry and Meghan through the mud which will make even more money for those reporting on it.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
Just speaking for me, I don’t feel sorry for him at all. I just think they could have just ignored it. It’s not like the Hugh Grant phone tapping case.

I do a bit because I think he was duped into the first round with the photos and it spiraled from there. His other children have also been awful and I think it is wrong for Meghan or anyone else to think he has control over them. They are, after all adults.

I also feel a bit sorry for Harry and Meghan because I think they have ended up somewhere they didn’t plan to be and don’t seem to be able to move forward without putting their foot in their mouth, so to speak. Yes they have money and fame, but while it helps, it doesn’t guarantee happiness.

It is the same way I felt sorry for both Charles and Diana. They had wealth, status, fame, and even love I think at the start, but lacked the skills needed to make it all work for them. I fear while completely different in content, Harry and Meghan are falling into the same trap.

I am unlikely to lose any sleep over it. Many more problems in life right now! Oh, and I completely agree. Ignoring it would have been best. Once again I ponder, are they not getting good advice, or are they ignoring it?
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,663
but they travel a lot,
Well, they'll be saving on that for the next year or so. :slinkaway

This is a quick article, but I notice one thing. Meghan has claimed that she didn’t know her friends would mention the letter when being interviewed by People magazine. Now this could be sloppy reporting, but it doesn’t say that Meghan denies telling the friends about the letter. I have no knowledge of British privacy laws, but assuming she did speak to five people about the letter, would she still have a claim that it was private?
I don't see how she can have an expectation of privacy about a letter that she sent to someone else. Once you send someone a letter, you can't control what they do with it. Of course, if it's a letter like that, they will show it to someone(s) and those someone(s) might talk to other someones about it.
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue about an expectation of privacy here.

Now I do understand that the law isn't about a person's common sense so maybe she does have a legal leg to stand on. But my understanding of law in the UK is that famous people have fewer rights to privacy than famous people in the US so I am very doubtful about this.

I think she would be better served by going after the copyright issue and also pursuing the "they edited the letter to change the meaning" which is bad journalism, if not illegal.

I suspect there is no overwhelming majority siding with them because, this whole sordid case aside, I think many people feel sorry for Thomas Markle.
I would be surprised. He's come off as someone who cares more about money and being right than about mending his relationship with his daughter.

I think there aren't a lot people on H&M's side because their side is stupid. :D
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
I would be surprised. He's come off as someone who cares more about money and being right than about mending his relationship with his daughter.

I think there aren't a lot people on H&M's side because their side is stupid. :D

I agree their side is stupid. I also agree he comes across the way you say, But then H&M come across to me like caring more about appearances and being right then mending their relationship with him. I guess, as my grandmother used to say, they aren’t ruining two families.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information