#sussex lawsuit

[worldspotlightnews]

Prince Harry back in U.K. for surprise court appearance in privacy case amid speculation over king's coronation

London — Britain’s Prince Harry was back in the U.K. Monday for an unannounced appearance at the country’s High Court as legal proceedings began in a privacy case in which the prince and six others are suing the Associated Newspapers group, which publishes the Daily Mail tabloid. Harry, the California-based youngest son of King Charles III, is among the high-profile figures, including singer…

[celticcrossanon]

Celta, I sent you Neil Sean's latest video on Archie & Lilibet. I talked to a British friend of mine. The surrogate is the baby's birth parent. In order to get the child the parents have to to legally adopt the child, but the certificate is not changed. That's how many adopted children find their real parents. If Archie was born in the UK to a surrogate and the Home Office lawsuit requests Archie's original birth certificate, then we'll see if he was born to a surrogate as that can't be changed.

Hi TeaWithBooks,

That is very good information to have. Thank you for sending this ask and clarifying the situation. :)

Edit: Further to this, here is my theory on what happened:

The surrogate was booked into the hospital under the name of 'The Duchess of Sussex'. She entered the hospital and gave birth under that name. There fore, the hospital records will show 'The Duchess of Sussex' as giving birth in their facility.

A few days/weeks later, Harry and Meghan faked Meghan giving birth by sitting at home and sending out press statements.

The birth certificate had to be altered to read 'The Duchess of Sussex' as otherwise their scam would be revealed . Neither of the two are good with details so this was a change to the original certificate, which actually listed Meghan's names.

So a Duchess of Sussex gave birth and is on the birth certificate as Archie's mother. This will agree with the hospital records. Whether that Duchess of Sussex is Meghan or another person is the important question (most people will assume that it is, but it is a title and not a name, and so not a unique identifier).

Article on alteration to birth certificate (sorry for the picture of Meghan and Harry in the link for the article).

[royaltyspeaking]

Mistreatment of their staff by Harry and Meghan, especially Meghan has been mentioned by multiple news outlets. The Times, Hollywood Reporter and now Vanity Fair, these are not tabloids but credible news outlets. I don't understand how one can completely dismiss these claims. You know two things can be true at once, that the media is unfair towards Harry & Meghan and its also possible that Harry and Meghan are not good bosses.

Credible news outlets also reported that Charles sent Harry to rehab when he was caught smoking weed, and we all know that turned out to be a flat out lie, fed to the press to make Charles look good.

These news outlets are just regurgitating the same old talking points from anonymous sources with ever changing details. First, it was Meghan sent 5am emails. Then it was, okay, she sent 5am emails, but she did specify that she happened to wake up early, and she didn't need a response until later. Then it was she screamed at staff...now it's okay she didn't actually scream. In fact, she spoke in a totally normal tone. But she was direct, so it felt like being yelled at.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of current and former staff who have gone on the record stating what great bosses the Sussex's are. Until some of these sources calling them awful to work with are willing to put their names out there, I take what they say with a grain of salt. Don't forget that the royal reporters are known for using other RRs as their "sources close to the Royal Family" when reporting on some garbage they heard through the grapevine. Then, those stories are picked up by other news outlets and incessantly reported on until they are eventually accepted at the truth. It's also a known fact that tabloids have offered people thousands of dollars to make up lies about the Sussexs. So, pardon me for being hesitant to believe these stories with dodgy reporting.

One last thing, these negative stories always ramp up when Harry's lawsuits against publishers are going to court. I don't know how you can look at the timing of all this and not think that the smearing is an intimidation tactic.

[saintmeghanmarkle]

New info re: 2023 NYC paparazzi "car chase"...an email that I just received from NYPD indicates that PH felt "intentionally misled" and "suspicious of a coverup" and contacted CA Governor Gavin Newsom to get help finding the right person in the Manhattan DA's office "or higher ups." Entitled much?! by u/BuildtheHerd

New info re: 2023 NYC paparazzi "car chase"...an email that I just received from NYPD indicates that PH felt "intentionally misled" and "suspicious of a coverup" and contacted CA Governor Gavin Newsom to get help finding the right person in the Manhattan DA's office "or higher ups." Entitled much?! This email is from Sussex's security company & is addressed to Chief John Hart, the NYPD Chief of Intelligence who sent a letter dated Dec 6, 2023 to MET Police, which was included as evidence in Harry's lawsuit for tax-payer funded security. Note the mention of RASP in first bullet point (Royalty and Specialist Protection branch of the MET Police). post link: https://ift.tt/ViuOBz6 author: BuildtheHerd submitted: December 11, 2024 at 09:37PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[feministsforkatemiddleton]

Meghan's jam smearing

Two people names in Blake Lively's lawsuit are sisters Melissa and Sara Nathan.

Melissa Nathan founded The Agency Group, the PR firm hired by Justin Baldoni for "crisis PR."

Sara Nathan is the Editor at Large for the New York Post. She also wrote the Page Six item in March (leaked by the Sussexes, 99.9% likely) that Meghan would never have a photoshop fail the way Kate did.

Regardless of how much Sussex-approved PR played into the Kate saga, they had a hand, and they benefitted from it (or attempted to). Never once did they condemn the misogyny Catherine was facing. And, for Harry, he said nothing while some of the most vile lies and smears against his brother were being thrown around for fun.

Later in March, Meghan "launched" American Riveria Orchard. Never mind whether products will ever come out--Netflix greenlighted her cooking show based around. Which, again, was a harebrained attempt to gain attention and one-up her SIL who was undergoing cancer treatment.

[royal-confessions]

“On the 22nd of January 2025 HRH Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex finally achieved his goal of proving that certain sections of the press are more than liars, they are law breakers, like he said he would in his autobiography Spare. Congratulations your royal highness. Much respect.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Prince Harry got Rupert Murdoch to admit he's a criminal who employs criminals and for this he will always be my Good King Harry.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Harry walked away from this lawsuit with a full admission of unlawful behavior by Murdoch's media empire, an apology to himself and his mother and "substantial damages": I'd expect nothing less from Rachel Zane's husband. The bonus I will add is the fact that he doesn't have to travel to Sunken Island on February to testify so it's all about Canada baby!” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Murdoch has settled thousands of cases throughout the years to avoid being found guilty and has always managed to avoid admitting any wrongdoing. Prince Harry and Lord Watson are the first to get him to admit his reporters are guilty of engaging in criminal practices. This is why this settlement is so much different from all the others (including the Prince William one which btw we only know about because of Harry revealing its existence in "Spare"), this is why it's so much more significant.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“It's so heartwarming how Prince Harry made NGN include an apology for the criminal intrusion in Princess Diana's life: he truly is her heir. God bless him.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“I got so much respect for the Sussexes because it is so much easier to do what the firm royals are doing. How easy is it to appease and buy the press and get all the fawning propaganda coverage all the time... It's much harder to say "hey I don't think that's ethical" and drag the press to court resulting in years of vendetta journalism, smear campaigns and even incitement of violence against you. It takes a strong person and marriage to take on billion dollars media empires without backing down” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Tbh it is beyond me how anyone could believe a word about Harry and Meghan coming from the media that they're currently in litigation with. There's a clear as day conflict of interest that makes those reports at best biased and at worst could be considered intimidation/vendetta journalism.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“It's so admirable how hard Prince Harry continues to fight to get justice for his mother by exposing the corrupt parts of the media that killed her. For him to get the first-ever admission of intrusion using law-breaking means into Princess Diana's life by the Murdoch media empire almost three decades after her death is so important and it vindicates his mother who was often called paranoid by the Firm + its supporters for believing that she was being tracked, listened to and spied on in general” - Submitted by Anonymous

“HRH The Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson vs NGN is the UK version of Dominion vs Fox News.” - Submitted by Anonymous

“Prince Harry fought so hard for justice that he got the tabloid industry to issue a public apology to his mother Princess Diana 28 years after they caused her death. I couldn't respect this man more. Son goals.” - Submitted by Anonymous

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

Dear British Royal Family-

Meghan Markle rejected your offer to physically & emotionally equip her with professional medical support & guidance during pregnancy and after childbirth.

You graciously offered Meghan Markle the best geriatric pregnancy and pediatric health care in the world. Health Care that is NOT afforded to employees, but was offered to her as a member of the family.

Meghan Markle rejected your generous offer in favor of GENDER & PRIVACY preferences which she publicly confirmed to Oprah Winfrey.

During weekly medical appointments with her PRIVATE geriatric obstetrics and gynecological team(s), Meghan Markle was asked to provide updates on her mood and psychosocial wellbeing.

EVERY week for five (5)+ months leading up to birth, Meghan Markle told her PRIVATE medical team(s) that she was emotionally and mentally fit and well.

Meghan Markle told her PRIVATE care team(s) that her moods were normal and she was not experiencing thoughts of harming herself or unborn child.

Meghan Markle told her PRIVATE care team(s) that her moods were stable/good and she was NOT experiencing suicidal ideation or thoughts of harming baby (Archie).

File a lawsuit against the daughter-in-law from hell and sue her arse for defamation of character.

The royal household's gynaecologists Alan Farthing and Guy Thorpe-Beeston, who specialises in high-risk childbirth, were present at the births of all three of William and Kate's children.

A royal source told the Mail on Sunday: "Meghan said she doesn’t want the men in suits. She was adamant that she wanted her own people. It did leave a few of us a little baffled."

But, despite being two of the best in the business, the pair have been denied a leading role in the delivery of Prince Harry's baby.

According to royal protocol, the doctors cannot be excluded from the process entirely, and should anything go wrong in the birth they will be present to step in.

Another said: "It is slightly surprising. These people [the Queen’s doctors] are the best of the best and when it comes down to it, their role would actually be very limited in the birth itself, assuming all goes to plan."

The move to shun the royal gynaecologists could be seen by some as unnecessary extravagance, as the Queen's physicians do not charge a fee and taking on a new team of specialists will cost tens of thousands.

A source explained: "Working for the Royal Household is seen as an honour and attracts other high-profile fee-paying patients."

In another break from royal tradition,is not planning to pose with her newborn baby on the hospital steps like Kate Middleton and Diana, it is understood.

[feminegra]

Harry Achieves Justice as NGN Admits Guilt and Apologizes for Intrusions on Princess Diana

Prince Harry has achieved a significant victory in his legal battle against News Group Newspapers (NGN), publishers of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World. The Duke of Sussex settled his lawsuit shortly before the trial began, securing a public apology and substantial damages for unlawful information-gathering. Background of the Lawsuit Prince Harry and Lord Tom Watson, former Deputy…

[sassyfrassboss]

“these two are deluding themselves that the past four years never happened.” Or maybe they just have really good weed?

I’m just surprised they admitted it took a year to build that website. It does nothing and offers nothing other than their bios. That should not have taken so long. I’d love to know what the web designer has to say about working with them.

Not gonna lie, Sussex Royal was pretty legit. I mean is was sleek and detailed.

This new website is just an addition to their Archewell site.

They ran out of money so this was the best they can produce.

Also it took them a year to roll out because the coronation hadn’t happened yet. Plus, I bet the creators refused to launch without payment.

Guess Harry’s lawsuit check cleared,

[trexalicious]

Prince Harry's US visa drugs lawsuit is set for first court hearing since Donald Trump's inauguration - after US president said he 'wouldn't protect' duke on his return to the White House...

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

"It’s just weird how obsessed they are with their own victimhood" It's textbook narcissism. It's how a narcissist manipulates others into siding with them. It elevates M&H and makes the paps and the tabloids the bad guys, which supports the standard Sussex narrative and talking points. It allies them with Diana, and like Diana, they were "cast out" of the BRF -- even though H&M left on their own accord + Diana forced TQ's hand -- which makes the BRF the bad guys. Pure black + white, good + bad.

True, but still. Their documentary, which blamed the UK tabloids and paps for everything and claimed they now had a peaceful idyllic life in the pap-free US, aired less than six months ago. They still have lawsuits in the UK where they blame the specific tabloid culture there.

It's a sudden swerve (to use a driving analogy). Too sudden.

And Americans are going to lash back, as Mayor Adams and the NYPD demonstrated. It's one thing to blame foreigners. It's different when you're blaming Americans.

[celticcrossanon]

Neil Sean reports that allegedly, Harry and Meghan are going ahead with the appeal over the RAVEC Royal Protection lawsuit because the Sussexes “think there won’t be any backlash from the British public simply because the public won’t mind paying for Harry and Meghan’s security because they know Harry is very much a well-loved prince from birth." I commend Neil Sean for saying all this with a straight face!

*

Hi TeaWithBooks,

Thank you for sending this in. I needed a good laugh today.

Meghan really needs to realise that just because she says something, it doesn’t make that something true.

[ingek73]

‘This is about witnesses speaking their truth’: Prince Harry gets his day in court against Murdoch’s newspapers

The Duke of Sussex and the former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson are the last two claimants still suing

Vanessa Thorpe Arts and Media Correspondent

Sun 19 Jan 2025 13.00 CET

An extraordinary personal legal battle which has been years in preparation is to pit one of the most famous members of the British royal family against the world’s best-known media baron this week. On Tuesday Prince Harry’s lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper group, owners of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World, will officially begin at the High Court in London.

Fifth in line to the throne, King Charles’s younger son lives in self-imposed exile in California, but is due to appear in court in person once the case gets fully under way next month. The Duke of Sussex, 40, is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), over claims that journalists on his popular titles worked unlawfully with private investigators, delving into his private life, between 1996 and 2011. He sees himself as the last man standing in a struggle to get the newspapers to take legal responsibility for the crimes he and others have alleged. Another surviving case brought by Lord Watson, the former Labour deputy leader, will be heard alongside the Prince’s.

About 40 other claimants, many of them celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, have already settled claims against Murdoch’s group. Most were deterred from going to trial by the huge legal bills that could be imposed on them, even after a win in court. If they had previously rejected a financial offer from NGN to pursue their grievance, they could have been found liable for millions. After accepting a settlement last year, Hugh Grant said he did so after finding out he could be liable for £10m in costs.

“They have settled because they’ve had to settle,” Prince Harry told the New York Times before Christmas. “One of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability, because I’m the last person that can actually achieve that.”

However, the civil trial, scheduled to run until mid-March, is likely to draw in other famous witnesses, including Grant, Miller, and Lily Allen, as well as testimony from eminent figures such as former prime minister Gordon Brown and the justice minister, Shabana Mahmood. It will also involve public statements from whistleblowing journalists.

Defending their reputations from allegations that they were aware of unlawful activities and even attempted to conceal them, will be many of the most powerful names in British media, including Murdoch and his son, James, Rebekah Brooks, now CEO of News UK, Victoria Newton, editor of the Sun, and the British journalist Will Lewis, who is today controversially in charge at the Washington Post, as its publisher and CEO. Lawyers for the Prince claim Lewis was implicated in a ruse to conceal evidence of hacking by removing computer files. Lewis told the the Times last summer: “Any allegations of wrongdoing are untrue.”

A spokesperson for NGN said: “Both [Watson and the Duke of Sussex] allege unlawful destruction of emails by News International between 2010-2011. This allegation is wrong, unsustainable, and is strongly denied. NGN will be calling a number of witnesses including technologists, lawyers and senior staff to defeat the claim.”

A source close to the Prince’s legal team told the Observer: “People concentrate on the allegations of phone hacking, but that is actually a small part of it. In fact, the unlawful activities we will provide evidence of were much broader, including phone tapping, blagging – or gaining information through trickery – and going through bins for paperwork.” The extent of payments to private investigators will also be considered.

The newspaper group’s bosses have previously suggested that many of their stories about the private lives of well-known or powerful people were legitimately sourced through anonymous tip-offs or by people ringing the newsroom in return for money.

The Prince launched his legal action against NGN in 2019, the same week that his wife, Meghan Markle, launched her own case against the Mail on Sunday for alleged breach of privacy and copyright infringement, over its publishing of a private letter she had sent to her father.

Harry is believed to want to hold key people accountable for the damage that he alleges was done to himself and his wider family as a result of intrusion and harassment from the press. Murdoch and his organisation have so far avoided public discussion about a document trail that the claimants argue reveals criminal activityand a concerted cover-up.

Early weeks in court will cover what are termed “generic issues”, such as examining how widespread any unlawful practices were and who knew of them. Worryingly for the defendants, broad legal proofs that unlawful information gathering was routine could be established here just by “inference”, rather than with explicit documentation. Signs of concealment, use of coded language, or that the destruction of paperwork was rife would also be damaging to the defence. This first phase will also examine allegations that NGN misled police and provided false statements to the Leveson public inquiry into media ethics between 2011 and 2012.

Those presenting the Prince’s lawsuit, it is understood, do not expect to lose any of more than 30 individual allegations of unlawful activity, but the bigger prize is the final hearing of the evidence in open court. “This will be about witnesses speaking their truth in front of the police and in public,” the source said. Most significant may be any evidence supporting the claims that newspaper staff committed perjury or perverted the course of justice.

Tom Watson’s case, which will allege the hacking of the parliamentary committee he formerly chaired while it sat to consider the hacking allegations themselves, will be heard from 10 February 10th, before the Prince’s case.

The Prince wants to attend the Invictus Games, of which he is founder and patron, and which begins on 8 February, before appearing in court. He is also thought to be planning to call on only a few witnesses, to spare others from being thrust into the spotlight. One witness may be the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack.

Harry has testified before in a hacking case brought against Mirror Group Newspapers, in the summer of 2023. The judge in the upcoming case, Timothy Fancourt, also heard that case and ruled the Prince had been a victim of “widespread and habitual hacking”. He was awarded £140,600 and then settled the rest of his privacy claims against the Mirror Group for at least £400,000.

A spokesperson for NGN said: “In 2011 an apology was published by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News of the World. The company publicly committed to paying financial compensation and since then has paid settlements to those with claims. In some cases, particularly those relating to The Sun, it has made commercial sense (and in accordance with common litigation practice) for the parties to come to a financial settlement without NGN accepting liability.

“NGN strongly denies that any of its titles hacked Mr Watson or acted unlawfully and will also argue his claim is brought out of time ... [The Duke of Sussex’s] allegations of mobile phone hacking have been struck out by the court so will not be part of the trial. His claim focuses now on allegations of unlawful information gathering … His claim will be fully defended, including on the grounds that it is brought out of time.”

-

Go Harry your mum would have been so proud!

[saintmeghanmarkle]

And right on schedule let the blame game begin: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had their Netflix polo show taken 'out of their control' by bosses insider claims - as couple face withering reviews and even pro-Sussex magazine admits the Duchess's projects 'keep flopping' - Daily Mail by u/wenfot

And right on schedule, let the blame game begin: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had their Netflix polo show taken 'out of their control' by bosses, insider claims - as couple face withering reviews and even pro-Sussex magazine admits the Duchess's projects 'keep flopping' - Daily Mail Okay, we know that the Mail is trying to play both sides here to get Harry to settle his lawsuit against them, as well as get clicks. But I have no doubt who the "source" was. (We also saw the rumblings of this last week, so it's no shocker.Rotten Tomatoes: 22% (still can't post a review). IMDb: holding steady at 2.6 Archive: https://ift.tt/Rn5hYPX post link: https://ift.tt/tN3sJWx author: wenfot submitted: December 15, 2024 at 07:01PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[follow-up-news]

Prince Harry and his legal team thrashed out a last-minute deal with Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper group Wednesday to settle claims of widespread wrongdoing at the publisher. The prince received a “full apology” but fell short of his mission to hold British tabloids accountable in open court.  The Duke of Sussex’s decision to settle his claims against News Group Newspapers (NGN) ends his efforts expose the misdeeds of the publisher of The Sun and long-shuttered News of the World in open trial. Along with former lawmaker Tom Watson, Harry, 40, the younger son of King Charles III, had sued NGN over alleged unlawful activities carried out by journalists and private investigators working for the newspapers.  The group, which had long denied the allegations, offered what it called a “full and unequivocal apology” to Harry “for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life.”

[royal-confessions]

“no matter which ‘side’ you’re on, you have to admit that both the Wales and sussexes have TERRIBLE PR. Like the waleses disappearing for a literal month, that carribean photo op disaster, and the over hyped awareness campaign without tangible results. And then the sussexes books and Meghan’s ‘one child is a hobby’ comment and their multiple lawsuits like WHO IS ADVISING THESE PEOPLE.” - Submitted by Anonymous