Oh where did you red that?
I don't see how there's a legal basis to sue Meghan for those photos. She didn't take them or print them.
There’s no point complaining about them always being in the press, when you are the one stirring the pot.
To be fair I think losing your relationship with your brother would be something you wouldn’t just forget. It’s a loss that would affect you quite deeply, whatever the relationship you’d had in the first place. I know I’ve been through the loss of a close friendship and my husband is probably sick of hearing about it, esp when I know I’m going to be in the same place as the person. Not that it needs to be in the media, but I’m sure it’s something William thinks/talks about a lot.
I’m sure it is … it’s bound to, they would be human otherwise… and on a human level it is actually really sad, but there really is nothing to be gained by poking the embers every time it’s died down.
Was it just that he was never caught or more that The Spare was offered up to the press as part of their replacement duties instead?
Of course but it opens up retaliatory remarks from H&M supporters because William’s have said something and it ends up being a never ending cycle.
Oh I know, it shouldn’t be in the media. And I guess it comes from them, through these “friends” that the papers quote. But I guess one brother doesn’t want the other to have the last word. And it must be hard for William - he could never do an interview like that Oprah one and tell his side of the story! It sells papers and gets clicks on websites I guess because we’re all nosey so it’ll go on and on forever!
When the people giving the quotes are named, I always assume it’s done with prior approval. If there’s one thing we’ve learnt over the years it’s put so much as a toe out of line or a quote out of place, and the demotion from inner to out circle is swift and brutal.
i think it depends. I think a named source can still be not approved when they just rehearse what is already out there. Heck I could probably come up with the same stuff about him and be named. The question is who is named- actual friends he his seen with or ex-employees? And someone like an ex senior employee (e.g. PA) or an ex-security officer or hair dresser. Another question is - do the anonymous sources bring anything that sounds plausible and wasn’t known before?
There's a youtuber called Trevor Coult who reckons they've used the photos on their Archewell site. I've never looked at their site so don't know myself.
The photos are a matter of public record. If you are suing one publication for publushing them, you have to sue all of them. And you would have to sue newspapers for publishing photos they themselves allowed tacitly as they were at the Jubilee. Sounds like the usual publicity seekers and conspiracy theorists making something up.
Also, the longer Harry and Meghan are the baddies, the more Willliam and Kate are the saints. It suits him to keep the pressure up. They can get away with rubbish like moving to their 3rd house and not having any renovations ' unlike Meghan' from the press. He knows that once they slink away, it's open season.
This is such an interesting point because the public really hardly seems to hear about the Royal charity work, or maybe they just don't do that much of it
Trevor Coult seems to be pretty unhinged if you ask me. But most YT channels that have nothing better to provide than rants seem rather dodgy to me
I have struggled with this for some time.
It seems to me that a YT channel gives a spurious credibility to folk that in days gone by you’d have been side eyeing and giving a wide berth in the town centre in a ‘don’t make eye contact, just smile and nod’ kind of way.
William partied as hard as Harry did but only Harry for flak for it. At the party where Harry wore the Nazi uniform, William okayed it and went with him but Harry bore the brunt (quite rightly, but if William was ok with it questions should have been raised at him).
The story I heard was that Wiliam encouraged Harry to wear it and they were at the party together. I mean, Harry should have used his brain cell and said no ( in the same way that William should have said no to the Colonial Cosplay 20 years later) but he's clearly easily led and the family as a whole queen hardly know for their self-awareness or intelligence.
Yes without talking about funding of services for families it's all a bit pointless for someone with no experience of bringing up children while having to pay the bills to utter inane soundbites about the importance of early years and pretend to be an ' early years expert'. Not to mention that the existence of Surestart Centres and free hours of early years provision means that what prople are pretending is her ' groundbreaking' research was already done 20-30 years before. The provision was decimated by the government who probably sat there smiling and nodding and using her as a photo opportunity while having no intention of doing anything about it. It all seems like using very serious issues to make Kate look like she has a job outside of smiling and waving. Most of the older Royals don't pretend to be experts but still manage to look as if they are what they are- privileged people using their position to bring publicity to a cause- Camilla with women's refuges and osteoporosis ( which she does have experience of) and Princess Anne with Save the Children. It does seem that the Cambridges feel they should be pretending to be something they just aren't, even though everyone knows who they are. It may be an issue of the people they hire to do their PR. It makes them look hypocritical, amateurish and insincere.
