Is there anything to the criticism of Harry & Meghan’s tabloid-Sussexit statement?

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry visit Auwal Mosque in Cape Town

As I’ve been hunting for leads this week, I keep seeing all of these British-tabloid editorials about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their statement, days ago, about how they were cutting off access to The Sun, the Express, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror. Those are the four outlets which smeared Meghan the hardest and ran multiple stories over the course of several years in which they racially abused her and attacked her regularly over everything and nothing. Just looking at the Sun, I found no fewer than FOUR different editorials denouncing the Sussexes’ announcement, including one from Dan Wootton (“Harry and Meghan, these conspiracies and fights with the media are pathetic – the world’s moved on”), one from The Sun’s editorial board (“THE SUN SAYS: Has there ever been a more ill-timed bid for publicity as Harry & Meghan’s?”) and one from some woman, “Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are boycotting The Sun but without publicity what are they?” You get the idea.

I didn’t think too much of it and I wasn’t going to write about it at first, but it’s really been nagging at me as I absorb all of the nasty, salty coverage of the Sussexes this week in particular. It’s clear that those same tabloids are nervous about the lawsuits and what will come out. It’s obvious that there will be a major move to deflect from any story which makes the Sussexes look sympathetic, or makes the tabloids look like pathological liars. But, I found myself asking, is there something there? Was it actually a bad move or a poorly-thought out move for the Sussexes to announce their Sussexit from the British tabloids?

When I covered the news, my initial reaction was “old news.” We knew that they were moving this way anyway and the statement just seemed to formalize something we already suspected. But was it the wrong time? Or the wrong issue to focus on? I still suspect that Meghan and Harry had a reason for announcing the tabloid-Sussexit when they did, just days before Meghan’s important hearing on her Mail lawsuit. I feel like three months from now, we’ll probably look back on that statement and understand that it was part of a larger media strategy. So, yeah. Maybe we could nitpick their timing or their own sense of self-importance, but I still believe they had their reasons. Maybe what we’re seeing now is the tabloids reorganizing how they cover Harry and Meghan.

Britain's Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in South Africa

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

154 Responses to “Is there anything to the criticism of Harry & Meghan’s tabloid-Sussexit statement?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Natalee says:

    I’ll just say that on the daily fail there was an article of the picture of Charles hugging Louis and at least 50% of the comments brought up the sussexes. The British media and parts of the British public are OBSESSED with Harry and Meghan and will scream every day about not caring about them while simultaneously thinking and writing about them every second of the day.

    • incognito08 says:

      Natalee, that pretty much sums it up! I find the folks who constantly complain about Meghan & Harry reportedly “abandoning the Royal Family” and their faux pearl-clutching/outrage incredibly amusing! They need to pick a struggle!

    • june says:

      @Natalee, the commenters are mostly MAGAt Americans. And the “British media” is not obsessed, you mean the British tabloids.

      • Bella says:

        + 1
        For the millionth time.

      • Natalee says:

        When I look at the locations it’s mostly British places.

        I don’t differentiate the “British media” from the tabloids. The Sun, daily fail and express are the most read “newspapers” in Britain. Good morning Britain is absolutely obsessed with them.

      • Sofia says:

        @june what’s funnier is that I often see complaints of the Sussexes wasting THEIR taxpayer money from Americans who’s taxes don’t even fund the royal family on a day to day basis.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Sofia – True! But these Americans paid full price for the Deluxe Special Edition Box Set of Downton via so they really think they have right to complain.

      • June says:

        @Natalee, “I don’t distinguish British press from the tabloids”. Well you should. They are very different things and to mix up the two is dangerous to our society and politics. And guess who else differentiates between the tabloids and the general press? The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I for one am very happy that they called out specific gutter press. These four they named are vile.
        I’m tired of this narrative of Britons hating them and driving them away. I didn’t do that, I like them! Some of us are even WOC like Meghan you know.

      • Hannah says:

        I beg to differ, the 3 most vile & notorious hate accounts are 3 white, lower middle class, late middle aged British women with dedicated anti Meghan Twitter & Instagram accs, YouTube channels, Tumblrs, Podcasts AND the most revolting of the lot actually has an online store where you can buy her branded anti Meghan merchandize. I blame this lot just as much as I do the British tabloids and I wish M&H could sue the pants off them, as all too frequently, I read their preposterous conspiracy theories only to find a fleshed out hack job by the British tabloids the day after.

        * Edit: changed ‘hash’ to hack

      • Original Leigh says:

        June et al – I completely get what you’re saying and I think we all know that there are many wonderful people in the U.K., but the fact is there are also many horrible racists in the U.K. and those people have hated Meghan from the beginning. The racist BM is feeding off of the racist British people, just like FOX news is feeding off of the racist American people. I am a proud and patriotic American but I can’t just pretend to not see that we have a huge problem with racism here, and the British people really need to do the same.

      • Olenna says:

        This information about the 3 sociopaths is disturbing but, unfortunately, not surprising. By publicly promoting hate, these despicable women are getting more attention and notoriety than they ever imagined possible in their miserable lives. They’re like the St*rmfront for the disenfranchised, powerless, bigoted or racist woman who is living with any number of behavioral health problems of her own or someone close to her. Sad.

      • Bella says:

        @Original, nobody is pretending not to see racism. Acknowledging racism exists while refusing to recognise any individual instance of it is very common here but that’s not what June is talking about. June’s comment was about differentiating between the tabloids and the British media in general.
        What you seem unwilling to accept is that many of Meghan’s tormentors online are Americans – Magats. The Sussexes themselves said they knew it wasn’t the British people, it was sections of the press who had it in for Meghan.

      • Nahema says:

        What I don’t get in all this is how these British tabloids so obviously market themselves to an American audience. It used to be more subtle but now it’s just in your face, to the point that they don’t really feel all that British anymore.

        They still cover some British & Irish only celebs, like they always have done but they also cover so many American celebs that British people have no idea about. Even their style of writing, right down to talking about temperatures in Fahrenheit rather than Celsius now.

      • Tessa says:

        I notice in the blogs now there is talk about the Queen having custody of all her great grandchildren and Meghan wanted to leave because the Queen would “take Archie.” No mention of the other great grandchildren. Just Archie. It is so disgusting.

    • Tessa says:

      and all the “Tom Markle will never see his grandson”. They ignore how he rushed to the media to trash Meghan and also, how he does not see his other grandchildren (or so I heard). Samantha is estranged from her own children.

      • Lee says:

        That’s the biggest kicker, isn’t it! Neither one of them have relationships with their own children/grandchildren but they have the audacity to criticize H&M!! I think I read an article quite awhile back that they interviewed Samathas kids and they have all gone NC for years. They claim that she is a liar, manipulative and steals from them or only hear from her when she needs money. So now Samantha has no way of contacting them as they have entirely cut ties with no source of contact from her end. I also found it interesting that they had cut her out before they were adults, she is that toxic!

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      I was wondering if there were looking at legal definitions of harassment or stalking and were showing cause for criminal not just civil proceedings- interesting if so.
      For that you have to be clear that the course of events behaviours they are carrying out is unwanted and state your reasons why.
      They have done this.
      They are private citizens, who wish to live their life without fear, their false commentary, hounding and harassment
      They have drawn a very public line in the sand.

      • Tashiro says:

        I was thinking about this angle too. I think there was some legal reasons they made that statement. I think the papers mentioned know this but as usual are using any excuse to drag them. I’m down with it, throw down the quantlet and let’s get this party started.

    • Otaku fairy says:

      Yeah. It’s strange but not all that unusual. 💩🐝🐝🐝

    • VKES says:

      Also lots of people bemoaning Archie missing out on these moments with Charles, not even realizing that when they were in the U.K., he was missing out on those moments with his only living grandmother. Doria doesn’t matter to them, it’s all about Charles and Thomas.

      They’re complaining Archie will not know his heritage growing up in the US, but in the U.K., you could easily say he will not know his American heritage. It’s a dumb competition.

    • Becks1 says:

      Well, we know that there are double standards, obviously, and that the tabloids have treated Meghan horribly. But the question here is, was this statement necessary? could they have just stopped engaging with the tabloids?

      • Ladyjax says:

        I think it has to do with legalities. The papers can no longer truthfully publicly claim insider information from Harry and Meghan’s camp. It’ll make further slander suits easier, I’m sure. It’s a step in the process of legal escalation.

      • adastraperaspera says:

        @Ladyjax, I agree with you that this is an action from H&M’s law firm–most likely prepping lawsuits against the tabloids.

      • Marie says:

        Thats how I took it Ladyjax. Their statement was telling the tabloids that they are free to write about them but if they are based on lies they will get their lawyers involved.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        i think it’s not enough to just ignore them they probably had to give formal notice of the discontinuation of communication from an official source. hopefully it’s the beginning of a cease and desist where they say not only don’t reach out for comments, but also stop printing false information about us, as anything you plan to print did not come from an official source. that’s why the tabloids are crying censorship

      • Redgrl says:

        @ladyjax – I agree. To give an example – in Canada, in a lower level criminal harassment/stalking case police will sometimes go and warn the perpetrator – “contact is unwanted – anything further and you’ll be charged.” Perp calls victim again – police warning used as further evidence perp knew contact was unwanted. Here – there’s a clear statement saying we will no longer engage. So the tabs in question are on notice (as is the general public). That’s my take.

    • Thank you for passing the artcle. These are things I saw and couldn’t figure out the hypocrisy

    • Feeshalori says:

      I read that article when it was initially published and it certainly bears re-reading several times over. The hypocrisy and double standards are absolutely appalling and are just as shocking every time reading it again.

    • Jessica says:

      Nailed it.

  2. LadyMTL says:

    This is a no-win situation for Harry and Meghan. If they hadn’t said anything and had started ‘ignoring’ the tabs then the publications would have had a field day writing up hundreds of posts and articles speculating about it: Meghan is forcing Harry to ignore the UK press! Mean Meghan silences Harry! and so on. Conversely, by releasing the statement they nipped that in the bud but now have to deal with all of these reactions and ridiculous criticisms.

    IMHO they will never be able to do anything right in the eyes of those tabloids…damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    • ReneeM says:

      I agree it is a no-win situation. Do you think by sending this letter,knowing it would be published, was a preemptive measure against the tabloids being able to make statements in court like” you didn’t push back when we wrote this” or ” you didn’t speak out about that”? I also feel that perhaps this was a heads-up statement to the public that any story published by these companies from now on are false. Period.

      • Shelley says:

        Also, H and M couldn’t release a statement like this until they stepped down as senior royals. By no longer being working royals, they are free to really go after these hateful tabloid people. Folks seem to forget this or not know that they couldn’t do anything as senior royals. Hell, I’m surprised they were able to start their lawsuits while senior. We know they couldn’t do any of that while still under kensington palace (will’s rule) . Truly a blessing the Queen got them out of there. The queen or charles!

  3. Becks1 says:

    I think your point about looking back in 3 months is good and probably the way this will work out. I also think there is probably a lot going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about that triggered this statement.

    My understanding though is that this was a letter they sent to the organizations. they clearly knew it would be published, but it didn’t HAVE to be, the tabloids decided to do that on their own. So if they didn’t want to make this into a big deal, they wouldn’t.

    But it is kind of hilarious that the tabloids are falling over themselves to insist that H&M are so irrelevant and no one cares about them ANYWAY… they write story after story about them.

    • Nic919 says:

      The lawyers were the ones who drafted the letter so there is likely some underlying case strategy for the letter, even though we generally already knew they weren’t going to deal with the tabloids. (I guess except for the Daily Star, which wrote an article about how they weren’t part of the excluded group).

      • Becks1 says:

        that’s a good point about the lawyer’s involvement and like you said points to some underlying strategy.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have never heard of the Daily Star I had to check it out.

        “The Daily Star is published by Reach plc. The paper predominantly focuses on stories largely revolving around celebrities, sport, and news and gossip about popular television programmes, such as soap operas and reality TV shows.”

        Just spoke with a friend in the UK. The Daily Star heavily covered the women of “The Real Housewives of Cheshire” and heavily covers WAGS of Footballers, Rugby Dudes and Cricketers.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        the lawyers needed to send an official notice to the agencies to advise them that no official communication will be made to them going forward. so if they do print something that they have fabricated, as they usually do, they can’t say oh we confirmed with official sources that this is true. because it’s not, and therefore if they go ahead and print something that’s false they can get their asses sued .

      • panda says:

        A letter written now won’t have any impact on the pending case. I’m sure they had their reasons for it, but it isn’t part of the case strategy.

        Edited to add that I think their reason was stated clearly in the Guardian article quoted here at the beginning of the week: “The move is designed to signal to the wider public not to trust any of the reporting about the couple carried by British tabloids.”

    • Abby says:

      My exact thought,if the argument is about timing,the letter isn’t a statement that was put out in the public domain.They sent it out individually to the agencies.

  4. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    If it were me, and I was suing tabloids, I’d never discuss anything tabloid-related until legal pursuits were behind me.

  5. Suzy says:

    This process was always going to be difficult and messy. And they’re going to experience a loooot of setbacks, especially given they seemingly have a whole country mobilized against them. I just hope they have the right advisors guiding them through this bc tbh, I haven’t been impressed with their PR so far. The organic stuff, like Project Angel Food clients sharing stories about their generosity — fantastic. The pap walks and grandiose letters to the tabloids — not so much.

    • Natalee says:

      Julia Roberts was just spotted on a walk by paparazzi. She’s only photographed by the paparazzi a few times a year. Do you think she set it up?

      But lol that your other comment got deleted. You tried.

      • Suzy says:

        what other comment? even if they didn’t set it up, the optics aren’t great. and optics are exactly what they pay their PR people to curate. it’s okay to hold them/their people accountable for potential missteps. though i don’t think it’ll matter much at all in the grand scheme.

      • Becks1 says:

        Why aren’t the optics great? they’re out walking their dogs.

      • Suzy says:

        @Becks1 I’d assume that if they wanted to counter the narrative that they’re in LA to be famous and hang out with rich celebrities, they wouldn’t be photographed like famous and rich celebrities. Of course, they are objectively rich and very famous — but is that the brand they’re going for? If it is, and it’s totally okay if it is, the optics are fine. But if not, it may be a misstep because it just gives their enemies ammunition.

        That’s what I’m personally trying to figure it out. And they may be trying to figure it out as well. Only time will tell.

      • Becks1 says:

        How is it their fault they were photographed walking their dogs? come on now. you’re really reaching with this. They got photographed in London a few times and now they’re being photographed in LA.

        I would think the fact that the first photos we saw of them in LA were when they were delivering meals to be enough to “counter the narrative” that they’re in LA for the “celebrity lifestyle.”

      • Bella says:

        Blimey! So being out walking your dog proves you’re a celebrity, does it? Who knew?

      • MsIam says:

        @Suzy, Doria has been photographed walking her dogs. Does that make her Hollywood too? And so what, H&M are celebrities and they are going to be treated that way. They didn’t join a convent or a monastery. They are going to be out and about and will be photographed. And they are in LA so they can breath and get away from those nasty courtiers who are always wagging their fingers and clucking their tongues.

    • Nic919 says:

      The letter was written by lawyers to the tabloids directly. It is the media who made it public so it was not a statement made to the public by the Sussexes. And there is nothing grandiose in the wording of the letter. It is standard vocabulary used by lawyers in legal correspondence. If the tabloids didn’t make a story about the letter then it would never have been made public.

      • Suzy says:

        The letter was absolutely written with the intent of being publicly facing. And if it wasn’t written with that intent, then their lawyers would be incompetent and extremely lacking in foresight, because the press was always going to make a story out of it.

        Whether the language was grandiose is subjective, and that is probably too strong of a word. But if it was indeed purely legal correspondence, I’d expect less flowery language.

      • Yoyo says:

        @suzy, you sound just like the tabloids, pick a side and stick to it, instead of talking out of both sides of your

      • Nic919 says:

        That is a huge jump in assumptions. There are plenty of legal letters that don’t end up in the public domain. Lawyers write letters anticipating they will show up in a court record and reviewed by the judge. They are not writing to please the general public.

        And let me know your years of practice in law? I have over 15 years in litigation and this is exactly what you would expect to see from a lawyer.

      • BYk says:

        If my lawyer writes on my behalf that I would have “zero engagement” with someone I’m at odds with, I’d fire the mothafu in a heartbeat and tell them to go back to law school. That, among other things written in that letter make them look really amateur and childish.

      • MsIam says:

        I’m sure that H&M have better attorneys than the “legal experts” here on Celebitchy. I would trust their judgement and opinion and I’m sure H&M will do the same.

      • panda says:

        It reads more like a PR release than a legal document or letter. I also think we’ll understand it better looking back in a few months.

    • Eyfalia says:

      The lawyers have nothing to do with the PR. These lawyers have a reputation and they know what they are doing.

      • Enny says:

        This was essentially just a “cease and desist” letter, but one they knew the recipients would make public, which has the added bonus of instructing the public to “cease and desist” believing anything these publications write about them. It’s lawyering 101, actually.

    • Cynthia says:

      Meghan was chased out of the UK and now she can’t even go back to her hometown, to be near her mom! Where would you like her to go? When they went to Vancouver Island (which is not exactly pap central), they were papped. Let’s say they decide to move to a remote town. How long do you think before people find out where they live? It’ll be even harder to live in a remote town because they’ll be the only celebrities there. At least, in LA, paps have other targets.

  6. Ali says:

    I think this is the start of Harry and Meghan’s post-royal life.

    They will be launching their nonprofit in the next few months and I see this as setting the record straight.

  7. TheOriginalMia says:

    I think legally they needed to make this statement, so there’s no way those organizations can go into court and muddy the waters by saying the Sussexes sometimes use us to deliver their messages. This way we know anything that comes from the tabs is bullshit. It isn’t officially sanctioned by the Sussexes and therefore is a lie.

  8. Sofia says:

    I think it’s super easy for us to say “If I were them I would do this” or “I wouldn’t do this” – I do it too. But we don’t have all the details like they do. I mean we have some good theories but that’s what they are – theories. Most of it is stuff we can’t prove and stuff that will never be proven (but we do get little drips along the way)

    That said, we also don’t know what their legal team is advising them. We don’t what their PR is advising them. Like I said we don’t have all the details like they do. So it could their PR team told them to send the letter. Their legal team said too. They both said too. Neither of them said too. Thing is: we don’t know exactly what’s going on behind the scenes.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      and being the nosy person I am who spends a great deal of time on gossip sites, I really want to know exactly what’s going on behind the scenes. LOL! LOL!

      • Sofia says:

        @Bay: Oh I definitely do want to know all the finer details! I hope we get the truth in our lifetime!

    • L4frimaire says:

      I checked out the page of Shillings and suggest anyone questioning their strategy go over there. This is what they specialize in. One of their partners is the formerU.S. Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to President Obama. They are a London based firm and they specialize in these types of cases With media violating privacy or instigating hostile campaigns. They don’t just deal with the actual cases, but reputation management and media relations as well. They know the landscape they are dealing with. They’re not perfect and have also lost cases in the past, especially if they try to go too broad. That letter was definitely released to the editors knowing it would make the news. Also, despite what the Sussexes statements say, the actual case is very focused on this on issue. It’s not take on the entire tabloid industry, but they are aware that it will have ripple effects.

  9. Wilma says:

    I thought it was a very smart statement and very fitting for who they are. Lots of people detest the tabloids, especially because the British tabloids are so clearly politically aligned with the right. The people Harry and Meghan want to appeal to won’t be bothered by this.

  10. Veronica S. says:

    It has its element of, “I’m ignoring you, but I’m telling you I’m ignoring you!!” However, I’m wondering if it’s a legal requirement for future lawsuits if necessary. As for timing….well, this pandemic isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon, so that’s not really an issue to me.

    • Priscila Bezerra-Fischer says:

      I think has an element of it yes. Like restraining orders. You have to prove you made clear your harasser is not welcomed and the person is ignoring you and you feel threatened. They are telling the Court they have no interest in keep this relationship going, their celebrity notwithstanding. The Tabloids can report on them- negative, positive- but not expect to be included .

  11. Bella says:

    To answer the question in the title…

    “I’m ignoring you from now on, and I’m telling you *why*.”

  12. maggi says:

    There is no “good time” for a designated kicking post to set a boundary with an abuser (individual or collective). I respect their action and see it as necessary, regardless of world events.

    • Sofia says:

      Plus it’s the Sussexes. Never is a “good time” for them pandemic or not

    • S808 says:

      This!! It’ll always be “not the right time” for folks that want to be abuse them and their son without reprimand.

  13. Priscila Bezerra-Fischer says:

    I do believe this is part of their legal strategy yes because if you look back at the statements they released so far, they never come out and name names. Never. My gut feeling is that they would have probably ghosted the outlets, but their lawyers came up and say ” You better be very specific now, lest they will use your silence against you at Court.”

    They are very clever people. The last thing they wanted was to be accused of censorship. By now, they can predict ( as we can) exactly what the tabloids are saying.

    The tabloids public opinion defense is “they are happy if we give them complimentary coverage, and they just complain because we tell it as it is”. Well, right now, they can not say that, ca they? because Meghan and Harry publically said they will NEVER engage with them again- which means: No matter if the ROtA kiss their asses, they will not engage.

    The Rota cannot claim at Court that Meghan and Harry went behind the scenes and leaked something as of now…they cannot claim Meghan and Harry agreed to pose for pictures to any of their photographers…they cannot do this anymore.

    Legally, this means that one part is not in agreement with the other, that has made this publically clear, and still, the other part does not get the message.

    Maybe It is like divorce proceedings back in the day. The date of the split is the date a spouse moved out of the house. It is like restraining orders, I suppose; you have to prove you made clear you do not want to engage with said person, that said person has crossed lines trying to contact you, that you already did everything you possibly could in a friendly way ( spoke politely to the person; did not answer the phone calls ) but said person still insists in contacting you.

    • Feeshalori says:

      They’ve basically drawn a legal line in the sand and said, Do Not Cross.

    • BYk says:

      yes, they can and they’re doing and saying exactly those things, actually: before they would have never said it, because the tacit agreement, even for the tabloids, is that the UK press, tabloids included would never outed the behind the scenes of the royals. Now, with these two is open season: the tabloids have not those royal boundaries anymore. Is gonna get ugly now

      • Feeshalori says:

        Harry and Meghan know that the tabloids can write what they want, it’s already been open season consistently the last several years for them, but the tabloids are now left out in the cold since they’ve left royal life. H&M can’t stop what they write, but they won’t deal with the RRs. End of story. It’s already been ugly for them, but the tabloids are put on notice. H&M aren’t complying with any tacit agreement like the other royals are and aren’t playing the game. The tabloids have done too much to them and have gone to far. And the more rabid the tabloids become, the more their agenda is out in the open. Hence, that stark legal line in the sand. I admire them so much for their strength of purpose and the legacy they want to leave for Archie and any future child.

    • Amy Too says:

      I think they might also be saying to the tabloids, “when you print lies about us we’re no longer going to call you up and deny it and then work with you to get the real story out, and to have you print a redaction or correction. Now, when you print lies, you’ll be hearing directly from our lawyers and there will be legal action taken. There will not be any back and forth or negotiation.”

      We see how the tabloids work. They’ll print something slightly scandalous or unflattering or untrue about the other royals in order to get those royals to call them and work with them. “If you want this story redacted, this photo taken down, this rumor ignored, you need to give us something else. We’ll take down the articles about Will being a cheater or Kate’s brother selling Nazi marshmallows, but we want info on the Sussexes instead, or a picture of your kids, or inside information about what you’re up to, or a full on interview with Carole Middleton.”

      I think this is the Sussexes saying “we’re not doing that. We’re not going to call you to give you a heads up that we’re trying to fight your story. Were no longer going to call you directly to complain and tell you that this story is a lie and ask you nicely to take it down. We’re just going right to suing you when you lie now.”

      • Feeshalori says:

        Amy Too, good breakdown of how the tabloids operate. They certainly are slimy slugs, aren’t they?

  14. Harla says:

    I don’t know if it’s part of a larger media strategy or part of their current legal strategy. But I don’t believe this letter would have been sent without the advice and support from their legal team.

    I’m finding it quite hilarious that people seem to think that H&M woke up one morning and said “hey, let’s send out a letter” in the middle of their lawsuits against the various tabloids. That just didn’t happen, they have been advised every step of the way by their legal, media and pr teams. We are not dealing with rank amateurs here and as Kaiser said we are not privy to the inner workings of their teams or their strategies. It would be wonderful if everyone could take a deep breath, relax and understand that they’ve got this.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Agreed Harla. It’s so obvious that the letter was crafted and sent with a legal strategy in mind. People love to act like Harry and Meghan are haphazardly moving about, when they’ve repeatedly shown that they like to carefully plan things out and keep it close to the chest (when they’re not being thwarted by palace leakers). We only see the surface of things, and moreover we only see that surface through the perspective of the press.

  15. Amy says:

    Yes there was! LIsten there is no denying that the tabloids were terrible to Meghan- they were racist, xenophobic and hateful. They had different standards for Kate and Meghan. It was wrong. And there is no reason for them to engage with them.

    That being said- when I think tabloids i think Star and something that everyone really just ignores. So why make an issue. Possibly the Daily Mail isn’t like that and is more like the NY Post? H&M in their statement said they’d pick and choose who they would allow to report on them and that isn’t how it works. I mean it can now I guess since they aren’t figure head representatives to a country and just regular celebrities. But how long before some creepy chemical company that is polluting rivers says we aren’t engaging with this paper because we don’t like the coverage.

    I think it is amazing Meghan is suing and standing up for herself. I think it is great she is setting boundaries and saying I am not putting up with lies etc. But I found the statement inappropriate and it does give the impression they only want positive press. which I get who wants negative but I think this was a misstep.

    • Natalee says:

      Yikes, you have no idea how any of this works. “Creepy chemical companies” can already talk to or not talk to whoever the hell they want. Why you’re comparing that to two people who have been subject to racial, misogynistic and unhinged abuse though is beyond me….

      • Amy says:

        I do understand how it works- and i know companies try to do this all the time. I know the current president tries to do it. What I am saying Is I don’t like it!!!

        It makes me uncomfortable. And as much as I like Meghan and Harry and think they are doing great things (and have the most adorable little guy) I don’t like what they did with the statement. It was inappropriate in my opinion.

        And while I am a fan of theirs I am not a Stan so I have no problem pointing out when I think they did something not great or wrong.

    • Becks1 says:

      They aren’t picking and choosing who they will allow to report on them.

      They are picking and choosing who they will respond to and engage with. Those are very different things. Under the Royal Rota, they had no control over this. Now they do.

    • GuestWho says:

      They didn’t say they were going to pick and choose who could REPORT on them. They are picking and choosing who they deal with. That’s very different. They are under no obligation to deal with any outlet they don’t want to. They can’t stop the reporting, but they can stop the “sources close to the couple say” bullshit that the tabloids have been getting away with.

    • S808 says:

      They’re not asking for positive coverage only, they’re asking for FAIR coverage and is not willing to work with publications that have done nothing but harass and assassinate their character for 3 years. They’re not even saying the tabloids can’t write about them. They’re simply stating they won’t be responding ever again. Based on the amount of articles written about them every day by these 4 publications alone, their comms team is probably always getting harassed for comments from journalists who will do nothing but twist whatever comment they give. I don’t fault anyone who doesn’t want to deal with that bs. I don’t think it’s inappropriate in the slightest. And they’re no longer working royals beholden to the public so they CAN choose who to work with.

      • Amy says:

        Listen I like them a lot, and think they are doing some great things and its ok to ask for Fair coverage but even on this site people talk all the time how they are only working with “friendly” outlets. they have that right especially now that they are basic celebrities and not “representing a country.” But the statement gave the impression that they will pick and choose which says they will only go with those that give them positive coverage. i get this right J Lo does that I am sure and I don’t think anything of it. However, J Lo never released a statement like that.

        I am objective enough to say that i didn’t like the statement and i am also objective enough to be able to not like the statement and how they handled this and still think her cookbook was fantastic, the treatment she got was horrific and wrong and I appreciate them delivery food. I also think them not being working royals is a huge loss to the Royal family as I believe they added a lot.

        I can hold two thoughts in my head at the same time, and don’t need to think everything someone does is right to respect or like them.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        That’s a lot of twisting yourself into knots into justifying why you ultimately think they shouldn’t speak up for themselves.

      • GuestWho says:

        That’s the impression you are taking. They’ve already released one statement to ITV – along with other outlets – and ITV/Chris Ship has certainly NOT always been positive (in fact he’s a shit-stirring POS), but they have been more even handed. Those are the people they will be dealing with – outlets who can reign in their personal grudges against H&M and report largely using facts – as well as more non-traditional outlets.

        J Lo hasn’t received the kind of relentless battering every, single, solitary day, MULTIPLE times a day, nor has she been involved in a law suit with a tabloid (to my recollection) on this scale. It’s not a fair comparison. In fact, I’m hard put to think of anyone who has had their reputation deliberately dismantled to this extent since Diana.

        Trust that their attorneys know what they are dong and they sent that letter for very specific reasons. We don’t need to know why.

      • Amy says:

        Actually @beachdreams it is to prevent then insane attacks by stans.

      • GuestWho says:

        @Amy – that’s dramatic.

      • windyriver says:

        @Amy –

        “But the statement gave the impression that they will pick and choose which says they will only go with those that give them positive coverage.”

        From their statement:

        “This policy is not about avoiding criticism. It’s not about shutting down public conversation or censoring accurate reporting. Media have every right to report on and indeed have an opinion on The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, good or bad. But it can’t be based on a lie.”

        So, completely contradicting your statement, in the most explicit way. Maybe also go back and reread the paragraph that follows, about the kind of organizations they hope to work more with in the future and why – regional and local media worldwide that will help them highlight important causes; looking for “more diverse and underrepresented voices”. In other words, they’re done with the BS peddled particularly by the four named tabloids; they have more important work to focus on, and are ready to get on with it.

    • L84Tea says:

      Just to clarify, Meghan AND Harry are suing.

    • MsIam says:

      Amy that is not what they said at all. Any publication is free to report on them but H&M are not bound to give every publication information. They are simply saying they are only going to share information directly with certain reputable publications. Anything from these tabloids named is not from the Sussexes and there for it is gossip and not “news”.

      • L4frimaire says:

        That’s my takeaway too. Any news outlet can report on them or editorialize on them. Those publications are well within their rights as a free press to do so. However, the Sussexes are under zero obligation to respond to those stories, or comment on them. If they don’t want to speak to the Sun but decide to verify facts for an article by Town and Country, what is the problem? The tabloid can choose to report on that article, but they will get nothing from the Sussex team regarding it. I don’t see how it will benefit them to engage further with those 4 tabloids. They have been openly hostile and adversarial to Meghan from the beginning. They have never once just gave straight forward reporting on anything they’ve down.Theres always some angle, which questions their motivations or honesty. The tabloids would have gotten clicks and engagement, without being so blatantly racist, sexist, and xenophobic. So let them cry censorship because I’m not buying it at all.

    • Amy Too says:

      You are really twisting yourself in pretzels here, Amy. If you like them and support them, and you agree that they don’t have to work with people that harass them, and you’re proud of Meghan for taking a stand and even suing the tabloids, and you’re pleased she’s setting boundaries (which this letter does: it sets a very clear boundary), and you agree that the tabloids are racist and sexist and xenophobic, then what’s the problem? You agree with literally everything they want to do, you agree they have the right to speak with or not speak with anyone they want to, you agree with the lawsuit, you agree with setting boundaries, you just don’t like this one particular letter being sent out? This one particular boundary being set out in writing? The letter/boundary that is surely being sent out as part of the lawsuit? The lawsuit you claim to support? Because you appear to support everything that the letter says (at least in some of your sentences, you also appear to flip flop)…. you just wish it wasn’t said out loud?

      It sounds like all the things you don’t agree with and find inappropriate are things that weren’t actually even said or implied. You’re mad about the meaning that could possibly be implied if one twisted the letter, read it sideways, didn’t read the whole thing, added a bunch of asides into it, and then asked the very tabloids that it was sent to to summarize it. They didn’t say that only certain media are allowed to report about them. They didn’t say they will only work with media that reports on them positively. They didn’t say that they never want to be held accountable for their actions (real actions, not perceived actions or what-if or supposed actions). So if you just go by what was actually stated in the letter, and you see the letter as a necessary step in their lawsuit, which you claim to support, and you see it as a clear statement of a boundary that Meghan is setting, then what is there to find inappropriate or disagree with? Unless you’re being disingenuous about being a supporter?

    • BabsORIG says:

      @Amy, I don’t know why you repeatedly misrepresent Harry and Meghan statement to the British tabloids. You have gotten quite a bit of push back in the past but you ignore all reason and continue to intentionally spew non truths. They never said” from now forward they’ll chose who they’ll allow to report about them”, they did not even imply that. Please read the statement again and try to present some facts in yr comments.
      And calling posters insane attacker stans while you obsessively read and post on anything Harry and Meghan related and attack anyone that doesn’t agree with you is such a reach!!

  16. S808 says:

    Well, the tabloids didn’t care about timing when they abused her every day, multiple times a day, during her pregnancy. They didn’t care about timing when they consistently put the Sussexes on the front page during this pandemic. They STILL put them on the front page after the letter was sent out. Why question the timing of this other than to have a reason to bitch about whatever they do like always? H&M are grown people likely getting excellent legal advice. We don’t know the specifics of the situation so I’m not gonna rush to say they should’ve done this or that. I’m not an expert in PR (yet, recent graduate!) and I’m definitely not a lawyer.

    • Aria says:

      The tabloids says how selfish Sussex are releasing statement during pandemic but everyone fawing over prince louis birthday post. Is pandemic got over today in uk ?? Are pandemic standard doesnt apply for cambriges ??

    • Ruby_Woo says:

      Exactly! Personally to me, it sounds more like a legal strategy than a media one.

      But I love how people moan about the ‘optics’ when they are private citizens now; they can do whatever they want. Before if she so much as sneezed, the tabloids would moan about her taking public funds, but now they are working towards becoming financially independent, they do whatever they like.

      I was thinking that this time last year, Meghan was still pregnant with Archie and the tabloids went in overdrive; they literally had no sympathy for a pregnant woman. And now they are free and doing their own thing .

  17. Case says:

    I think they did the right thing. I personally would be happy if they never talked about the tabloids at all and just ignored it, but as others have mentioned, it might be part of their legal strategy. And although there are much more important things happening in the world right now than what media outlets they’re speaking with — this global situation will continue for the foreseeable future, and they needed to get that statement out there to move forward with their lives.

  18. ABritGuest says:

    Timing is never good when the Sussexes speak out against the press. I did think a simpler statement eg ‘only future communications with these tabloids will be via lawyers in response to false stories’ would do rather than rehash issues but as there is legal action with these specific tabloids&we don’t have the facts hard to judge.

    This article had interesting points on tabloids reaction on timing, strategy generally

    I also think many journalists are upset about timing of letter because like most businesses, press orgs are struggling during the pandemic& think they sympathise with their colleagues at the tabloids. It also shows me that people are nervous about implications of their cases.

    However journalists saying they are outraged about the timing of the letter is hypocritical, unless they also criticised the (ongoing) coverage of the Sussexes during the pandemic, when going by popular comment, focus should have only been on the pandemic. So like Dan Wootton and other columnists who clearly haven’t moved on if they felt need to respond.

    • C-Shell says:

      I just read this because it was linked on Twitter, but you are right to reference this PR Week article and the perspective the writer brings to this question. Personally, I think the letter to the Four Rags is part of a larger, legal strategy with the upcoming litigation, but H&M’s statements about their future media strategy mirror these points …. they plan to work with (and are) new media outlets; “if it’s not on our website, it’s not verified”; “no one (unnamed source) has the right to speak for us” …. they have broken the old mold. I think the coming months will be exciting to watch.

      • Thirtynine says:

        Suzanne Moore did a rather confused, negative opinion piece in the Guardian in which she called their actions both petty and grandiose, that they wanted to be both special and left alone- and now is not the time for this! Disappointing, because the Guardian, while pro-republic in principle, is usually quite fair to Harry and Meghan and the racism which has motivated the tabloid media attacks. It seems quite obvious that the letter’s timing is part of a wider legal strategy. It wouldn’t have made any difference when it was put out, there would have been a storm of complaints for one reason or another. If you howl, you’re hit, as the old saying goes. The pandemic certainly hasn’t slowed the flow of H&M stories in the tabs when it suited them.

    • Thirtynine says:

      Just read that link you provided, ABritGuest. Great article! Thanks!

    • L4frimaire says:

      Its not Harry and Meghan’s job to prop up the newspaper industry or subsidize it at the expense of their private life and reputation. I think the lengthy statement was to spell it out real slow for the tabloids, which seem to lack basic comprehension skills and are allergic to truth and fact checking when it comes to the Sussexes.

    • Ruby_Woo says:

      “I also think many journalists are upset about timing of letter because like most businesses, press orgs are struggling during the pandemic& think they sympathise with their colleagues at the tabloids.”

      This 100%!

      This is what I have learnt – the papers are really panicking about profit loss. But to be honest, where was all this concern when the press whipped up hate towards minorities or towards people in and out of the public eye? That’s not a question directed at you, just a general question I ask myself.

      Many a innocent people has been driving towards drugs, alcohol and suicide because of the onslaught of the press smears. When Amy Winehouse was really unwell in her last few years (she was practically a skeleton; the press would ring her doorbell and take pictures of her when she was clearly struggling.

      When Meghan was pregnant, the lack of concern from other more legitimate journalists spoke volumes. I have no sympathy if they go bust.

  19. L4frimaire says:

    Saw a very good thread on this on Twitter. Anything they are putting out there now is based on advice they are getting from their teams. We don’t know the whole story and definitely think this recent action is tied to the case. We can think, “well I wouldn’t do that, the timing is not right”, but the courts don’t fully stop if there is a global pandemic, and quite frankly, neither do the tabloids. It’s ok to be concerned and a bit frustrated because we don’t have a clear outcome, or know where this will all lead to. I’m sure they question themselves on everything they do or put out there. Nice side note, Playwright Tom Stoppard basically defended the Sussexes against the charge of censoring newspapers by this move. Was a short little response in the Times regarding the statement from those editors, but basically said that these editors need to look up what censorship actually means because what the Sussexes are doing “really,really doesn’t “ amount to censorship.

  20. emmy says:

    Well, there will be no good timing in 2020, right? They have legal proceedings pending, that’s not going anywhere. And their lawyers probably didn’t think in terms of media strategy. But who the hell knows.

    I wish they had left a lot earlier so that they didn’t have to go into lockdown with things so unfinished. But nobody saw this disaster coming and I think they’re making the best of it. Laying low, doing charity work. That’s really the best and only option for them. It must have been and still be a nightmare and a half and yes, I know, they are privileged beyond belief but still. Upending your life like that … oof.

  21. Nev says:

    The DUCHESS was newly married then pregnant and there was no consideration when the tabloids unleashed on her so why should they now be concerned about timing?
    GTFOH. Sit down.

  22. Awkward symphony says:

    I think it was to set the record straight on those “a close friend of Meghan” “sources close to the Sussexs”..etc nonsense which were the new smearing angle. It could also be timed to bring focus to the court hearing tomorrow.
    Reading hannah furness’s new piece about Meghan sharing her public funding costs could suggest that the tabs along with palace were pressuring her to drop this but the Sussexs are standing firm. The statement blacklisting the go to palace/courtiers tabs was probably a message that they wont change their minds and wont be bullied

  23. Aurora says:

    The Sussexes didn’t make an announcement though. Their lawyers sent a letter to several papers who then chose to publicize it.

    Also if their non-profit launch is imminent they likely wanted to set the new standard now and not have the negative publicity overshadowing their official launch.

  24. aquarius64 says:

    Irrevelant? Then why constantly write about the Sussexes? Let’s call it for what it is. The British Media is being put on trial starting tomorrow and it’s terrified. Their victims Meghan and Harry didn’t cave they’re fighting back and it sounds like Meghan hired the legal equivalent of the Avengers (in Endgame) to defend her. The regular royal reporters would have cut a deal. The Royal disorters and their ilk are afraid if it goes forward there will be revelations that may require them to hire a criminal defense lawyer. They know Toxic Tom would be a hot mess on the stand; one well phrased question from Meghan’s lawyers and he will incriminate the whole Rota. As for their employers, if MoS and the industry takes a financial hit – short or long term – the owners will fire these idiots to restore confidence – especially if there is a loss of customers and advertising revenue. The RRs and talking heads know they are not irreplaceable – not when you cost the boss a boatload of money and the boss won’t see it back unless you’re gone for good. This is why Morgan, Wooten, Vine and the rest of the coven are venting their frustrations on social media and their various platforms. This lawsuit could end their careers – and their freedom.

    • Aria says:

      I remember that one time pier Morgan in good britain complain that Sussex hire the firm which usually deals with footballer who was accused of woman rape like that. That firm is very ruthless and tabloids are afraid of thta firm because in uk many footballer sometimes wrongly accused and tabloids are sued with heavy fine. That’s why tabloids and palace are doing everything they can to drop the lawsuit. I think many house hold of royals are involved. At most bad many private secretaries and important people from that household will be sacked when the case goes which way. Anyway that firm is badass firm because it’s not easy to do dealing with footballer accused crimes.

    • Nic919 says:

      I think it is only a hearing tomorrow and not the trial. It is likely a case management hearing where the lawyers will be discussing procedural issues that need to be dealt with prior to the trial. I assume scheduling issues as well. I don’t expect this trial to happen until 2021 at the earliest, especially not with the delays caused by the pandemic.

      I am not even sure the UK courts are up and running for trials, especially not for civil and non urgent matters. They are still in a general lockdown and running a trial through virtual means is still something most jurisdictions are trying to figure out.

      • Lara says:

        From what I’ve been able to glean from excerpts of the response and reply briefs (if you can direct me to a site which has the entire text, I would be very grateful. I have only been able to find summaries and some paragraphs in the context of legal analysis), part of the hearing is for ANL’s oral argument seeking to strike portions of Meghan’s claim, in particular that there have been no breaches in GDPR. It sounds somewhat like the equivalent of a Motion for Summary Judgment hearing.

      • Eyfalia says:

        This is correct. But the trial should start very soon, since these alt-right rags keep on trying to damage the Sussexes and this needs to be stopped.

  25. Mary says:

    Yes, the letter should have been, and needed to be, sent. Was the timing bad? Only in that it needed to be sent earlier, like in January or when they officially stepped down. While not a bad thing to release it this week, it does seem awkward. Had it been released in January along with other statements on their website, it would not have been received, I think, so badly (at least not as sensationally by the now hysterical British tabloids).

    This rather inelegant, seemingly (but not really) out-of-nowhere and gratuitous release says to me that they needed to release it before the first court date, e g., to support one of their legal arguments or defend against one, but, not having done so earlier, just sent it out.

    It smacks almost of an afterthought or as though they had just forgotten to do it earlier.

    • ABritGuest says:

      They were still working royals in January so were likely still required to work with the rota until official step down on 31 March.

      • Mary says:

        Yes, they were still working Royals in January but were they not explaining in their website how things would work going forward? And, why not release it on the 31st, or the First? That would have made sense.

    • MsIam says:

      @Mary so they release it two weeks later and somehow that makes all the difference? Plus H&M didn’t release that letter the tabloids did.

    • Yoyo says:

      They could not release it earlier because the defendants were using all the delaying tactics to get the trial dismiss.
      The plaintiffs lawyers had to back to court to ask the Judge to put a stop to the delaying tactics.

  26. June says:

    The four named tabloids are like poison in our society. They are powerful and have huge impact on our society and our political processes. The treatment of Meghan has been vile, as a British WOC it has been painful to witness. I’m not a supporter of the RF, I’m a republican, but Meghan has done nothing to deserve the treatment meted out to her in this country. I’m embarrassed of it, even though it has nothing to do with me. So all that to say, I do enjoy them going after the gutter press like this, naming names and all that. To the tabloids whining about how this isn’t the right time, oh really? So why have the articles about them not slowed down during these days of crisis? Hypocrisy at its finest. I don’t know about the PR angle of this and I’m no expert in that but I’m cheering them on for going after those that traffic in lies and misinformation. This goes beyond H&M and their personal lives. This is about our society and it’s time someone called them out.

  27. Janet says:

    There may be legal reasons for doing this, I don’t know.
    Personally I found it a bit redundant because let’s face it… did anyone here actually think they had any plans of dealing with the RR ever again? In my case, I thought that was already a given. Maybe there were some behind the scenes attempts by the RR to contact Harry while bypassing Meghan, who knows?

    They might have chosen a different day than the Queen’s birthday though. There is no need to step on someone else’s day and press cycle like that.

    • ABritGuest says:

      @Mary true- I’m just suggesting that might have been a reason a statement wasn’t out in January when they were still working royals& for all we know they might have stopped communicating with certain rota outlets after 31 March. However I wouldn’t be surprised if these tabloids were still reaching out to them for comment on their multiple stories etc& part of this was drawing a line that you won’t be getting a response anymore.

      Janet the letter was publicised on Sunday night, the Queen’s birthday was Tuesday.

    • Olenna says:

      Good grief, this letters-to-the-editors thing is not that deep nor is it that important for endless analysis that continues to circle around 2-3 varying opinions about why the letters were sent. And, let me reiterate: The Sussexes’ lawyers didn’t tell these greedy editors (who received the letters) and their trashy media outlets to publish these letters. Did you even consider who the main audience is for this type of news in these types of outlets? It’s fools, bigots, racists and Meghan anti-stans who are chomping at the bit for any news about the Sussexes. Who the fuk cares what these types of idiots read or believe about press release timing. They believe everything negative written about the Sussexes anyway.

  28. Lola says:

    It baffles me how people could think that their statement, which was not made for the public was inappropriate or that the timing was bad. Their letter is saying stop calling, stop asking for statements or confirmation, stop harassing our friends we are not going to deal with you anymore. And in case your forgot why, here is a reminder. The fact that it was sent before the hearing is not a coincidence.

    I don’t know all the facts, but what I know is that if you have been/are bullied the way Meghan Markle is, and the tabloids used your own father to hurt you, you are not playing around anymore. What we are aware of is only the tip of the iceberg. People forget that during all that time She/they remained quiet. She NEVER got the opportunity to defend herself. Look how they put her down, and spat on her, her behaviour was always appropriate. She has earned the right to scream, be inappropriate, and say whatever the f**** she wants even in this pandemic. I can’t believe that people expect her/them to ALWAYS take the high road, when they let rats like those tabloids call her a nuisance, a pest, when paedophile Andrew is sipping his tea in his castle.

    Harry is a soldier, he knows what a war is, it’s messy, it’s complicated, and choices have to be made. He knows how to prepare a war, by knowing exactly how to handle defeat or victory. Same here. Look at the lawyers they hired, look at the fact that they stated that no one from the palace was going to talk FOR them (including BP, KP and CH). No one is wondering where Thomas Markle/Daily fail mouthpiece is? NO ONE has heard Meghan’s voice yet, and they will, she is a mother, and one of the things in her mind is what I’m going to tell my children about those bullies, what did I do? Did I stand for myself and our family? It’s not about the tabloids, it’s about Harry and Meghan’s state of mind, they have enough and they don’t give a shit anymore. The tabloids will want to settle, now the real question is do Harry and Meghan would want to, or are they going to keep things in court to let the world know what those rats do?

  29. Louise says:

    I wonder WHY Harry would want to stay in the public eye if he does not like the cameras and the sound of the shutters cause him trauma, doesn’t like the press, etc. Why not truly be a private citizen.

    Harry and Meghan obviously have a problem with the media but also at the heart of this is a split in the family. As Harry said, they are virtually separate to most of the family. Its not “just” the media.

    • Nyro says:

      They’re going to be in the public eye, doing great things and remaining beloved around the world and bigger, for the next 50 years. And William and Kate won’t ever be able to compete. Get over it.

      • GuestWho says:

        @Nyro – exactly this. If Harry didn’t want to contribute something bigger to society, he could have a very different life – he could avoid the cameras and press that make him uncomfortable, do nothing but play with their millions, and contribute nothing to society. He has chosen to live with the discomfort and do bigger things.

        Why the trolls find it necessary to mock him for hating the cameras and the press is beyond me. Either they believe he just said that for effect, which is unlikely given his history, or they are just dicks.

    • Lowrider says:

      Harry will NEVER truly be a private citizen when his father and brother will be kings. He will always be written about in some way or another.

  30. Nyro says:

    I just read one of the most monstrous takes on this tabloid thing in The Spectator, which is being gleefully passed around in the creepy anti-Meghan online spaces. It’s written by some Meghan-obsessed incel by the name of Dominic Green and in the last few paragraphs, he basically encourages the British media to threaten Meghan with nude photos and ultimately a car crash death like her mother-in-law. This is beyond sick. If I were Meghan, I’d never step foot in that shithole of a country ever again. I wouldn”t allow a single photo of Archie to be released by the BRF. They want this woman, and her child by extension, humiliated and murdered. And ni, I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Nyro i saw a reference in the Guardian of all places about Harry knowing what happened to the last royal woman (Diana) who wouldn’t be silent about her feelings. Was disgusted. Saw another journalist mention tragic too. Again I think they are getting huge warnings not to press ahead with the lawsuits.

      Harry said the media is a powerful force. I hope they have the best protection

      • Nyro says:

        @abritguest Yes, there have been several threats in articles over the last few days. The establishment wants her dead. I truly believe that. Harry knows first hand how powerful these people are. As he said, “If you knew what I know…” I didn’t pay much attention to the BRF before Meghan. So I thought all the theories and conspiracies about the BRF having Diana killed because they couldn’t control her and/or because she’d seriously dated and wanted to marry a man of color were crazy. It no longer seems all that crazy to me. If Meghan being half-black and married to the sixth in line is enough for them to want her dead and Harry ruined, no way would they have been ok with their precious future king having a dark skinned Pakistani stepdad and possibly a half-Asian sibling. No way in hell. I’m not saying the queen gave the order, but I can see her sitting back while the real power behind the throne decided what to do with Diana and the making it happen. HM are up against a monster like no other. I support them 100 percent.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      and that’s why charles will continue to pay through his teeth for their security.

    • panda says:

      The Spectator article was highly critical of Harry and Meghan’s choice to sue the tabloids (and a lot of other things), but this is a mischaracterization of what the author said. He wasn’t encouraging the tabloids to go after Harry and Meghan. What he said it that it is unwise “to pick fights with people who can double their circulation by running photos of celebrities in distress or, ideally, the nude.” His thinks the tabs will now go after them with a greater vengeance, which is undoubtedly true.

  31. RoyalBlue says:

    they are criticizing the letter they received because the sussexes are taking away all their nice playthings. they know they will have to stop printing lies or they will get sued for libel. there is no nameless, faceless palace source confirming meghan made kate cry, or she texts her employees at 5 am, or she installed a yoga room in her house using tax payer money, or her outfit costs £10,000, or she wants to move to a commonwealth country, or her doula is jane doe, and she is rude and bossy to the courtiers etc

    they are creating their own rota, so to speak, of friendly/fair media. the royal rota will have to go to those media sources if they want to report on the Sussexes. they will be prevented from printing stories that can’t be confirmed. it’s brilliant actually. meghan is playing chess whilst the rest are playing checkers.

    • Nyro says:

      It is brilliant. They are all really going to feel it when the only photos of Harry, Meghan, and Archie that they’ll have access to see pap photos. And if I were the Sussexes, I wouldn’t allow the royals to release any pics of Archie until they too stop colluding with the tabloids. No Archie in PR pics with “great gran” and the rest of the royal little ones. Starve all of those bastards.

  32. Harper says:

    Is there a PDF of the actual letter floating around so we can see its entire contents, its letterhead and all its signees? You know, like Meghan’s entire letter to her dad was reprinted by the MOS? I’d expect these tabloids to print the whole letter, since it is so newsworthy, like they printed Kate’s personal letter to her charity yesterday. In the articles referencing the anti-tabloid letter I’ve seen the contents attributed to H&M and to “their representatives” so it’s unclear who exactly sent it.

    Can someone post a link? Thanks.

  33. Awkward symphony says:

    @HARPER Omid has a post with the full letter. It didnt have a header or official seal as they are no longer working royals. Also you are mistaken about her letter to thomas. We NEVER got the full letter. DM only posted 4 paragraphs (even though it had numbered pages=clearly obvious that they skipped parts).

    • Harper says:

      Thanks @ awkward symphony. I popped over to Omid’s Twitter to take a look at the full letter. I was hoping to see a To:/From: line to see which “representatives” sent it but that seemed to be cut off on Omid’s feed.

      Thanks for clarifying re: Tom’s letter as well … I assumed MOS published everything but obviously that paper has a narrative they are going for as well so left out what didn’t fit their story.

      • Yoyo says:

        You would have to get one of the tabloids the letter was sent to, to show you the full letter since they publish it.
        Meghan sent a five page letter to toxic Tom, Only two pages were published. TT claimed the other pages were too painful to show.
        Knowing TT penchant for lying, the other three pages must have been along the likes of the texts they sent.

  34. Shoshone says:

    Perhaps because I was trained this way through 37 years in my former job, but my first thought was that this statement had more to do with legal positioning than it did with media strategy. The timing of the statement was very interesting coming as it dropped just prior to the lawsuit entering a new phase in the litigation process. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the laws governing the media in the U.K. so I cannot even begin to credibly speculate as to why issuing the statement would be sound legal strategy. I guess I would call it a “gut” feeling.
    It certainly seemed to get the attention of the named tabloids.

  35. Marivic says:

    I, too, was appalled when I read The Guardian article and mentioned about PHarry “must also have known what happened to the last royal woman who would not be silent about her feelings: his mother.” Gives me the creeps. Is this a warning from the BM that they want Meghan to go just like Diana ? And that they will pursue her to the ends of the earth nonstop until they see her gone for good. Wow! Such brutality and savagery . They deserve to be crushed like cockroaches in the court of law. And more.

  36. Marie says:

    Well, Dan Wooten said he isn’t covering them anymore. His source has dried up and he doesn’t want to get sued, I bet.

  37. Trace says:

    Tabbloids do this to many people of different races. Meghan just not cut out for ít, thus attempt to sensor them.