Harry & Meghan 17: St Meghan's Hagiography

[Jackie3]

Harry's book was the bestselling book of the year on Amazon. The Sussexes must have made a fortune

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/12/12/prince-harrys-spare-most-sold-book-duke-of-sussex/

[Father Son Holy Goat]

Way back machine doesn’t work either. But the title is pretty damning. 
 

So is this one, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-archewell-foundation-loses-donations/

Their foundation is experiencing an $11 million dollars shortfall in donations and is $674,000 in the hole. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Father Son Holy Goat

[viii]

1 hour ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Their foundation is experiencing an $11 million dollars shortfall in donations and is $674,000 in the hole. 

Unsurprising. 

[tabitha2]

Harry was not raised to even think about buying groceries, apparently doesn’t care to learn or adjust to his chosen circumstances either and it becomes more and more apparent Meghan has dreams of grandeur and A list money on a C List budget and D list sense of reality

[Jackie3]

A reputable paper tells a different story. H&M have had a surge in popularity.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-surge-popularity-polling-1851917

[rosamundi]

* The High Court rules Prince Harry was the victim of phone hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) and awards him £140,600 in damages

* Justice Fancourt says the prince's personal phone was targeted between 2003 and 2009

* He says 15 of 33 sample articles were “the product of phone hacking… or the product of other unlawful information gathering"

* There was "extensive" phone hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers from 2006 to 2011, he rules

* Separately, the judge rules Piers Morgan knew about phone hacking - and was involved - when he was editor of the Daily Mirror

* MGN issues a statement saying the group "apologises unreservedly" for where "historical wrongdoing took place"

* Prince Harry, via his lawyer says: "Today is a great day for truth as well as accountability"

Live reporting so I'm not sure how this link will resolve afterwards.

[viii]

Glad he won. 

[TN-peach]

15 minutes ago, viii said:

Glad he won. 

I don't know if it is a complete win though.  Harry said 33 examples but the court only found 15.  Also, apparently the pre-hearing settlement offer was reportedly $200,000 so with an award of less than that plus lawyer fees for the trial itself.  Plus Harry became the first senior royal family member to testify in court in how many years?!

If I am not mistaken, this same time period that Harry sued over - William was also hacked and the newsgroups already 'fessed up and settled for $1 million.  But it might have been a different a new group.  I'm not British and don't understand and can't keep straight their newsgroups. 

 

In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Fancourt outlined his findings over Prince Harry's case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

The judge said: "I have found the duke's case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only.

"I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering.

"I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper.

"However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined).

"There was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time.

Quote Message: But, phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis." from Mr Justice Fancourt

But, phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis."

Mr Justice Fancourt

Article share tools

Share this post

Copy this link

Read more about these links.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, TN-peach said:

I don't know if it is a complete win though.  Harry said 33 examples but the court only found 15.  Also, apparently the pre-hearing settlement offer was reportedly $200,000 so with an award of less than that plus lawyer fees for the trial itself.  Plus Harry became the first senior royal family member to testify in court in how many years?!

If I am not mistaken, this same time period that Harry sued over - William was also hacked and the newsgroups already 'fessed up and settled for $1 million.  But it might have been a different a new group.  I'm not British and don't understand and can't keep straight their newsgroups. 

 

In a summary of his ruling, Mr Justice Fancourt outlined his findings over Prince Harry's case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

The judge said: "I have found the duke's case of voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering proved in part only.

"I found that 15 out of the 33 articles that were tried were the product of phone hacking of his mobile phone or the mobile phones of his associates, or the product of other unlawful information-gathering.

"I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper.

"However, it did happen on occasions from about the end of 2003 to April 2009 (which was the date of the last article that I examined).

"There was a tendency for the duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time.

Quote Message: But, phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis." from Mr Justice Fancourt

But, phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis."

Mr Justice Fancourt

Article share tools

Share this post

Copy this link

Read more about these links.

You are glad Murdoch didn't have to pay more?  I don't understand rooting for Murdoch. 

He cost Murdoch way more than $144,000. Murdoch has to pay his attorneys, too.

In any event, the lawsuit brought a huge amount of attention to this issue. Maybe in the future, Murdoch won't hack the phone of the parents of murdered children. William's silent settlement did not accomplish that.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Jackie3

[AmazonGrace]

I am sure he will be happy that he was able to prove some of it, even if he was not able to prove it all.

If you suspect something is off you might wish to dig up as many dubious articles as possible and some of that could prove legit or at least hard to prove.

Ugh but what a despicable practice, wonder how common it is. (Hacking for headlines)

[tabitha2]

I am pretty sure he will be encouraged and start suing more for grievances real, imagined and in between And those extremely high priced lawyers on retainer are lovin it. 

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, TN-peach said:

I don't know if it is a complete win though.  Harry said 33 examples but the court only found 15.  Also, apparently the pre-hearing settlement offer was reportedly $200,000 so with an award of less than that plus lawyer fees for the trial itself.  Plus Harry became the first senior royal family member to testify in court in how many years?!

If I am not mistaken, this same time period that Harry sued over - William was also hacked and the newsgroups already 'fessed up and settled for $1 million.  But it might have been a different a new group.  I'm not British and don't understand and can't keep straight their newsgroups. 

 

 

INAL but I work in a legal field. This is a win for Harry. In a civil lawsuit, the person who files (plaintiff) has the burden of proof and it is often very difficult to gather the evidence (as compared to a criminal charge where the prosecution has the authority and power and tools of law enforcement). It is very very common for only a percentage of the original allegations to be found true---in fact, this the norm. Harry wants public acknowledgement of the wrong and he got it.

9 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

I am pretty sure he will be encouraged and start suing more for grievances real, imagined and in between And those extremely high priced lawyers on retainer are lovin it. 

Meh. Invasion of privacy is serious concern and, given the unwillingness of many legislative bodies to take it seriously, lawsuits really are the only recourse to change the legal landscape. In the US, we have lots and lots of issues around consumer protection. Basically the laws favor and shield big business against the consumers. Pretty much the only way to shift that balance of power is through lawsuits. Sure, there are some money hungry attorneys out there. But there are many more who are simply doing their job in a complex and unbalanced legal landscape.

[TN-peach]

41 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

INAL but I work in a legal field. This is a win for Harry. In a civil lawsuit, the person who files (plaintiff) has the burden of proof and it is often very difficult to gather the evidence (as compared to a criminal charge where the prosecution has the authority and power and tools of law enforcement). It is very very common for only a percentage of the original allegations to be found true---in fact, this the norm. Harry wants public acknowledgement of the wrong and he got it.

 

I am not a British lawyer but in American civil cases discovery is very broad and more expansive than in criminal law.  The prosecution can withhold some information from the defense in criminal law.  In civil law, that is not the case. If you do not give the materials to other party timely pre-trial, then it cannot be used as evidence in the trial  (there were some examples of this in the Heard-Depp trial).  Pre-trial discovery can last for months/ years with interrogatories, depositions, subpoenas.  Yes, the burden is on the plaintiff but I don't know what the burden of proof was for this type of case.  Was it preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) or was it  clear and convincing evidence?  Which in the US is between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

I still think that if the court awards you less than the pre-trial settlement offer than it is a loss because of the legal fees that have to be paid.  PR-wise it is being counted as a win by some of the media reports.  If he were to keep fighting these battles with the media and he wins less than half of them and still has to pay legal fees, is it really a victory for him (it is for his lawyers because they still get paid)? 

 

He was recently ordered to pay in a different a case for legal fees:

The Duke of Sussex has been ordered to pay the Mail on Sunday more than £48,000 in legal costs after he lost an attempt to strike out part of the paper’s defence in a libel case.

Prince Harry is suing the newspaper’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), over an article about his legal battle with the Home Office concerning his security arrangements in the UK.

Now, a judge has ordered the prince to pay £48,447 after his failed challenge. His case to have part of ANL’s defence removed was heard in March.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/news/prince-harry-daily-mail-sunday-court-payout-b2462432.html

 

Overall, I don't think he think he is winning. 

[noseybutt]

51 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

I am not a British lawyer but in American civil cases discovery is very broad and more expansive than in criminal law.  The prosecution can withhold some information from the defense in criminal law.  In civil law, that is not the case. If you do not give the materials to other party timely pre-trial, then it cannot be used as evidence in the trial  (there were some examples of this in the Heard-Depp trial).  Pre-trial discovery can last for months/ years with interrogatories, depositions, subpoenas.  Yes, the burden is on the plaintiff but I don't know what the burden of proof was for this type of case.  Was it preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) or was it  clear and convincing evidence?  Which in the US is between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

I still think that if the court awards you less than the pre-trial settlement offer than it is a loss because of the legal fees that have to be paid.  PR-wise it is being counted as a win by some of the media reports.  If he were to keep fighting these battles with the media and he wins less than half of them and still has to pay legal fees, is it really a victory for him (it is for his lawyers because they still get paid)? 

 

He was recently ordered to pay in a different a case for legal fees:

The Duke of Sussex has been ordered to pay the Mail on Sunday more than £48,000 in legal costs after he lost an attempt to strike out part of the paper’s defence in a libel case.

Prince Harry is suing the newspaper’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), over an article about his legal battle with the Home Office concerning his security arrangements in the UK.

Now, a judge has ordered the prince to pay £48,447 after his failed challenge. His case to have part of ANL’s defence removed was heard in March.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/news/prince-harry-daily-mail-sunday-court-payout-b2462432.html

 

Overall, I don't think he think he is winning. 

I agree that the financial piece is a head scratcher.

It's like that old joke about people who lose money in the stock market:  Buy high, sell low, and make up the difference in volume.

Harry seems to function with a slightly different version:  Spend more, save less, and make up the difference with number of lawsuits.

But I take all that to mean that money is not the end goal for him. What he is wanting is the public acknowledgement.

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

I am pretty sure he will be encouraged and start suing more for grievances real, imagined and in between And those extremely high priced lawyers on retainer are lovin it. 

Frankly, I hope he does continue to go after the British press. His case was entirely legit. I'm not sure why he'd pursue fake grievances--do you feel this one was fake? The judge disagrees.

He helped a lot of people by pursuing this case. Like him or not, that's indisputable.

 

On 12/14/2023 at 11:26 AM, viii said:

Unsurprising. 

With the money he's made on his book, he can fund that foundation himself. Easily.

 

[tabitha2]

He may win battles and call it victory but he won’t win the war against the media. 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

He may win battles and call it victory but he won’t win the war against the media. 

Why do you support Murdoch?

[Father Son Holy Goat]

7 hours ago, noseybutt said:

But I take all that to mean that money is not the end goal for him. What he is wanting is the public acknowledgement.

Per Forbes in 2022, Harry and Meghan are worth about $10,000,000. If that is still the case, he may not be sweating the decrease in lawsuit winnings.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-meghan-net-worth-netflix-documentary-media-empire/

[Jackie3]

On 12/15/2023 at 9:54 PM, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Per Forbes in 2022, Harry and Meghan are worth about $10,000,000. If that is still the case, he may not be sweating the decrease in lawsuit winnings.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-meghan-net-worth-netflix-documentary-media-empire/

Didn't they get $100 million for something (the book, netflix?)

If so, it's probably way more than that.

It's also being reported that the Mirror will have to pay Harry's attorneys fees. So it's an even bigger win than initially reported, if that's true.

 

Harry is getting a lot of great press for his win. A lot of people was harmed by the phone hacking, not just celebs.

Millie Dowler was a 13 year old girl who was kidnapped, r*ped and murdered. While she was missing, and her fate unknown, the media was desperate for stories about her. Her parents, of course, were desperately hoping she was alive.

A tabloid hacked into Millie's phone and found her voicemail to be full. They wanted to hear to any new messages that came in, so they deleted some of the existing messages. Millie's parents, of course, were checking her VM constantly. When they saw that some messages had been deleted, they were filled with hope. They thought she must be alive, somewhere. After all who else would have had the password to her voicemail?

It was unbelievably cruel and heartbreaking for them, when they learned she was dead the entire time.

[LilaMae]

18 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Per Forbes in 2022, Harry and Meghan are worth about $10,000,000. If that is still the case, he may not be sweating the decrease in lawsuit winnings.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-meghan-net-worth-netflix-documentary-media-empire/

I'm not sure whether that's a huge amount for a couple with a 9 bedroom mansion in an expensive part of California. It must cost a bomb to run.

[tabitha2]

54 minutes ago, LilaMae said:

I'm not sure whether that's a huge amount for a couple with a 9 bedroom mansion in an expensive part of California. It must cost a bomb to run.

Plus the Staff, the kids no doubt expensive schooling, their pricey wardrobes, security, lawyers,  publicity people, all the traveling they do various taxes and all the Sundries. 
 

[louisa05]

NY Post is reporting Harry didn't make back the advance for the book. It's likely that they are right. He reportedly was getting $20 million, but that was for a four book deal. So he was probably only paid $5 million on delivery of Waahhh! . It sold 1.2 million hardcover copies. The royalty share of that would not be over $5 million. Publisher made bank; Harry probably spent his long ago. 

[Coconut Flan]

27 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

NY Post is reporting Harry didn't make back the advance for the book. It's likely that they are right.

I've been hearing that for a few months so sales must have dropped rapidly and it's probably firm now.  $5M was quite generous for that book.

[Loveday]

I've seen that book at thrift stores several times in the past few weeks. Couldn't be bothered to even pay $1.98 for it.

[Jackie3]

6 hours ago, Loveday said:

I've seen that book at thrift stores several times in the past few weeks. Couldn't be bothered to even pay $1.98 for it.

This is more useful than the actual financial figures. Who needs them, when Loveday saw it in a thrift shop, lol.

 

7 hours ago, louisa05 said:

NY Post is reporting Harry didn't make back the advance for the book. It's likely that they are right. He reportedly was getting $20 million, but that was for a four book deal. So he was probably only paid $5 million on delivery of Waahhh! . It sold 1.2 million hardcover copies. The royalty share of that would not be over $5 million. Publisher made bank; Harry probably spent his long ago. 

Louisa, the Post is a Murdoch-owned publication. Murdoch, who just lost a lawsuit by Harry.

I'd ask Harry or his publisher, if you want accurate information. And since Spare was the bestselling book of 2023 on Amazon, I wouldn't worry too much about Harry or his publisher. They both made a fortune.