British Court Rules Against The Press In Lawsuit By Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex

There is a saturation of coverage of the upcoming interview of Oprah and Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. The increasingly public spat between the Crown and the couple is turning nasty with an investigation into alleged bullying and abuse of household staff by Meghan.  All of that sensational coverage has distracted from a far more substantive and costly matter.  Meghan just won a case against Associated Newspapers and the ruling by London High Court Judge Mark Warby should be a concern for anyone who values the freedom of the press.

The case involved the publication of details from a letter that Meghan wrote to her estranged father after she married Prince Harry in 2018. She sued Associated Newspapers, which publishes U.K. tabloids like the Daily Mail, MailOnline and the Mail on Sunday for disclosing her private affairs and for violating copyright protections over her letter.

In the United States, such a letter leaked to the media would be deemed protected by the freedom of the press.  Moreover, our tort for the public disclosure of embarrassing private facts has an exclusion for “newsworthy” stories.  The exception is so broad that many have complained that it has “swallowed the tort.”  For example, in Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp., 113 F.2d 806, 807 (2d Cir. 1940), rejected the privacy claim of a former child prodigy. The New Yorker magazine article was a vicious and mocking account of his failure to reach the expectations of many. The court described the article as a “a ruthless exposure of a once public character, who has since sought and has now been deprived of the seclusion of private life.” However, it held that it did not invade his privacy under the tort because “Regrettably or not, the misfortunes and frailties of neighbors and “public figures” are subjects of considerable interest and discussion to the rest of the population. And when such are the mores of the community, it would be unwise for a court to bar their expression in the newspapers, books, and magazines of the day.”

In this case, the letter was given or leaked to the media. While Meghan could accuse her father or others of a privacy violation, she pursued the media and Judge Warby not only ruled in her favor but ruled against an appeal. He ordered the defendants to publish an account on the front page of their newspapers.

In the ruling, Warby simply declared that “It was, in short, a personal and private letter. The majority of what was published was about the claimant’s own behaviour, her feelings of anguish about her father’s behaviour—as she saw it—and the resulting rift between them.”  The issue however is not whether the material was private but whether such privacy overcomes the right of the media to cover such newsworthy content.  

Meghan has demanded that the publication be kept posted online for weeks and called this a great victory:

“The world needs reliable, fact-checked, high-quality news. What The Mail on Sunday and its partner publications do is the opposite. We all lose when misinformation sells more than truth, when moral exploitation sells more than decency, and when companies create their business model to profit from people’s pain,” Meghan said in a statement following the ruling, adding, “I share this victory with each of you—because we all deserve justice and truth, and we all deserve better.”

I see nothing to celebrate.  I have no love for tabloid newspapers but I fail to see any line protecting the free press in such a ruling.  There is also the matter of the copyright claim that Warby accepted: “The claimant says, further, that the Letter is an original literary work in which copyright subsists; she is the author of that work, and of a draft she created on her phone (“the Electronic Draft”); and the Mail Articles infringed her copyright by reproducing in a material form, and issuing and communicating to the public, copies of a substantial part of the Electronic Draft and/or the Letter.”

The defendant stipulated that such a claim is valid in England:

36. The defendant admits that the relevant qualifying conditions were met, so that “any literary work that was original and the claimant’s own intellectual creation would qualify for copyright protection in the United Kingdom and (if she were the sole author) she would be the first owner of such copyright.” There is no dispute that the Electronic Draft and the Letter were both literary works, which were recorded in writing in or before August 2018. Given that the Letter is entirely derivative of the Electronic Draft, there is an issue as to whether the requirement of originality is met. For the purposes of this application, however, the claimant limits her claim to infringement of copyright in the Electronic Draft.

The closer question for the court was the question of infringement, but it again ruled against the media.  What is fascinating is the letter was given to a US reporter where this would be protected but Warby dismisses the argument:

Here, the work was not (on the claimant’s case at least) intended for commercial exploitation. But the defendant was dealing with what it knew to be an unpublished work. If the provision of the Letter to the defendant’s US reporter was not unlawful there, its onward transmission to the defendant’s representatives here may have been unlawful. The defendant copied a large and important proportion of the work’s original literary content. The use involved an infringement of the claimant’s privacy rights and was, with the modest exception I have identified, irrelevant to any legitimate reporting purpose and disproportionate to any such purpose. There is no real prospect that the court would reach any different conclusion after a trial.

The result is a blow to the media to be able to report on newsworthy material that it acquired from sources, even if legal or protected in the United States.

I personally have no interest at all in the Royal family or Meghan’s relationship with her father or anyone else. However, this would clearly be deemed newsworthy in the United States.  It highlights the extreme differences between the two countries on both free speech and the free press. I had the honor of working for the BBC as its legal analyst and it remains a legendary journalistic organization. Yet, it operates under a hazy set of laws that often treats journalism as a privilege. As with free speech, there are fewer express or “bright-line rules” in Great Britain protecting there rights. In the meantime, the civil legal system presents tremendous pressures against the media in publishing stories.  This includes defamation, privacy, and copyright laws that threaten high penalties for reporting that would be protected in the United States.

It is ironic and tragic that this “victory” was brought about by an American member of the Royal family. However, it is victory that no supporter of the free press should celebrate. For a couple that emphasizes its good works, the free press does not appear to be one of those worthy causes.

 

86 thoughts on “British Court Rules Against The Press In Lawsuit By Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex”

      1. Sallow……complexion, unhealthy yellow, or pale brown.

        Mine is neither…..nor am I shallow

          1. Well, except you, your pal mesblow, and the other usual suspects on this blog, perhaps.

  1. no one cares….royals…monarchy…racism in the blue blood castles.

    bloody manky business

    1. A private and very personal letter written from a daughter to her father is newsworthy only in the sense that a tabloid publication could exploit it for money because of her connection to the “Royal Family.”

    1. We agree JF. Here is what we should care a great deal about:

      President Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal government to tilt voting in Democrats’ favor. He’s enacting H.R. 1 by fiat because it won’t pass the Senate. Unless this is stopped in the courts we will never have another free and fair election.

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/03/07/joe-bidens-executive-order-on-voting-promotes-vote-by-mail-combat-misinformation/

      “President Joe Biden issued an executive order on “access to voting” on Sunday that instructs federal government agencies to promote voter registration, help Americans apply to vote by mail, and “combat misinformation,” among other measures.

      The “Executive Order on Promoting Access to Voting” reads like a Democratic Party wish-list of “reforms” that enshrines many of the practices that were adopted on a temporary basis during the pandemic-affected 2020 election. Its provisions include:

      using federal agencies to promote voter registration;
      using federal agencies to inform Americans about voting;
      linking federal agency websites to state voter registration websites;
      providing voter registration and vote-by-mail applications;
      using “approved, nonpartisan third-party organizations” to register voters at federal agencies;
      using identification documents issued by the agency to help people register to vote;
      providing more multilingual services to potential voters;
      giving public employees “time off to vote in Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial elections”; and
      promoting voter registration for federal prisoners.
      One provision states: “It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to expand access to, and education about, voter registration and election information, and to combat misinformation, in order to enable all eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.”

      Legitimate (and accurate) news stories on the business dealings of Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, were suppressed by social media companies and mainstream media outlets during the 2020 election under the guise of fighting such “misinformation.”

      The list of measures in the Executive Order parallels those included in Democrats’ legislation, H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which intends to override state measures that bolster ballot integrity. H.R. 1 recently passed the Democrat-run House.

      The list also appears aimed at providing opportunities for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to pursue legal action against states that have photo identification requirements for voting, or that remove ineligible voters from the rolls.”

      1. You are finally beginning to grasp that America has been stolen and cannot be recovered.

        You are finally beginning to grasp that the Constitution lived 72 years until “Crazy Abe” Lincoln commenced its death-by-a-thousand-cuts through his wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” (slavery should

        have been eliminated using the powers of freedom and free enterprise such as advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.).

        You are finally beginning to grasp that the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.

        You are finally beginning to grasp that the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have incrementally nullified 90% of the Constitution over the past century and a half as they have

        incrementally imposed the principles of communism.

        You are finally beginning to grasp the words of the American Founders.
        ________________________________________________________

        “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such

        Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

        – Declaration of Independence, 1776

        1. Do you believe that a constitutional amendment was the wrong procedure for abolishing slavery?
          Are you aware that before Lincoln was president, that importing of slaves from Africa was against the law? Lincoln himself refused to pardon the captain of a slave ship and that captain was executed.

        1. If they were interested in having more people vote legally, they’d have done something simple like move the election times to Friday evening, Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon. In states like Georgia, they’d have expanded the number of voting locations. (Georgia precincts have populations about 6x larger than New York precincts). They’d have allowed a given county resident to serve as a poll inspector at any place in said county. They’d have set up online bidding sites to determine poll-inspector compensation and staffing to ensure that every shift at every precinct had a Republican and a Democratic inspector on site. They could have, at this most recent election, limited poll inspector positions to people under 50, given the vulnerability of those older to COVID. They’d schedule primaries and printing contracts so that all postal ballots ordered could be in the mail to recipients by the 15th of September. Emphasizing the ‘legally’ component of ‘vote legally’, they could have made use of hand tabulation or electromechanical tabulators to improve public confidence in the probity of the ballot. Emphasizing the ‘legally’ component, they’d have limited postal balloting to those who had placed a standing order for a ballot consequent to meeting criteria stated in statutory law. They’d have had daily public sessions wherein Democratic and Republican election commissioners ruled on signature matches for the previous day’s haul of posted ballots, so that the bulk of postal ballots would be ready for unsealing and tabulation the day of the election. They’d have rules excluding from tabulation postal ballots which arrive after election day, locking them up and mailing them back to their sources once the final tallies were certified.

          1. “If they were interested in having more people vote legally, they’d have done something simple like move the election times to Friday evening, Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon.”

            How is that better than a two week early voting period? Why did you choose timing to overlap exactly with the Jewish sabbath?

            “In states like Georgia, they’d have expanded the number of voting locations”

            Isn’t that a state matter rather than a federal one? Or are you suggesting that they pass a federal law requiring a certain number of voting locations per capita?

            You haven’t made an argument for why what they did is illegal.

            1. How is that better than a two week early voting period?

              No use of postal ballots.

              Why did you choose timing to overlap exactly with the Jewish sabbath?

              Because 88% of the adult population will be off work during that period of time and the number of people of strict observance who will object to filling out a ballot do not exceed 0.3% of the population.

              1. I would have thought it obvious, but I was asking how your proposal is better for having more people vote legally.

                Nice to know that you’re OK with unconstitutional acts if they only affect 0.3% of the population.

        2. Turnout was 11.6% by design in the 1788 election of George Washington as President. Citizens were required to be “…free white person(s)…” and generally, state vote criteria were: Male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. Never were the “poor” intended to vote. Women used to make Americans by having babies – the American fertility rate is in a “death spiral” and the population is imported of foreign hyphenates (there’s no future in extinction?) Ben Franklin’s was a restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one man, one vote democrazy. Crime does not pay. It does not bear that you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have stolen the country. The Founders admonished:

          “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

          – Declaration of Independence, 1776
          _____________________________

          “the people are nothing but a great beast…

          I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

          – Alexander Hamilton
          _________________

          “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

          “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

          – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

  2. Europe has much stricter privacy laws than the US. I think that’s really the heart of this matter. In my opinion, they’re right and we’re wrong. Anyway, Professor, you’re all in with suppressing information about the stolen election and hydroxychloroquine but you somehow manage to be outraged by a two-bit actress defending her personal mail. For the record, I, too, am uninterested in the affairs of Meghan et al, and I am not defending her because I like her. I think America should revise its privacy laws. An entirely personal letter, “interesting” or not, is not the business of the press.

    1. The election wasn’t stolen, and no one is suppressing info about hydroxychloroquine.

      1. And I suppose the press knew nothing about Cuomo and Hunter before the election and Dorsey didn’t hack free speech.

        Given the above, it’s smarter to assume the election was stolen.

        1. Whether you meant that as a joke or seriously, I don’t understand what you were trying to say.

      2. Of course, the election was stolen. The theft began with the illegal immigration for 50+ years of foreigners to vote democrat. It proceeded to corrupt vote-by-mail and clear violations of state election laws in swing states. It concluded with blocking election observers, stopping counting at 10 PM and resuming at 3 AM, criminal ballot harvesting, election fraud and vote count corruption. Those pesky thumb drives are really useful for introducing vote-adjusting algorithms. But the most important act of election theft was the release by the American communists’ ally, China, of “China Flu, 2020,” a biological weapon which China released at the request of American communists 9 months before the 2020 presidential election to counter the impending inexorable and massive landslide victory by the extremely successful and popular President Trump.

        We may find out more about how the election was stolen from the results of a pending election audit in Arizona by the State Senate.
        _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Judge rules Arizona Senate can access 2020 election ballots

        PHOENIX — A judge has ruled that the Arizona Senate can get access to 2.1 million ballots from Arizona’s most populous county so it can audit results of the 2020 election that saw Democrat Joe Biden win in the state. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason’s decision on Friday comes after a protracted battle between the Republican-controlled state Senate and the GOP-dominated Maricopa County board over subpoenas issued by the Senate. The board contended that the ballots were secret and the Legislature had no right to access them. The Senate said the constitution gives it oversight of election.

        – AP, February 26, 2021

  3. “Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Have Lost Their Patronages and Honorary Titles”

    – Emily Dixon
    __________

    It’s not perfect, but it would seem that these two counter-culture losers do not actually hold royal titles. The blatant gold digger, political activist/extremist and soiled “bride” appears distinctly not to be the Duchess of Sussex and would be more aptly referenced a cretin from and the Duchess of Compton. The Prince, who had his choice of millions, clearly wanted to be used as a political pawn in the futile effort against the clandestine forces who terminated his mother’s racial transgressions and is obviously deranged. One ponders the allowable duration of an assault on the authority and dominion of the Crown.

    1. Your source is confused. They haven’t lost any titles. They had to re-imburse the Crown Estate for work done on the property they were living in and they’ll not be receiving any subsidy from the Sovereign Grant. Again, of the Queen’s six adult grandchildren, only William and Harry weer receiving any income from the Sovereign Grant. It was their explicit object to dispense with this income.

      The blatant gold digger, political activist/extremist and soiled “bride” appears distinctly not to be the Duchess of Sussex and would be more aptly referenced a cretin from and the Duchess of Compton. The Prince, who had his choice of millions, clearly wanted to be used as a political pawn in the futile effort against the clandestine forces who terminated his mother’s racial transgressions and is obviously deranged. One ponders the allowable duration of an assault on the authority and dominion of the Crown.

      Very little of this has a demonstrable reality outside your imagination.

      1. And yet, you were compelled to attempt to impeach.

        I like that.

        At a minimum, they have effectively lost their titles and all connections to British Royalty which means they are no longer of the “culture” and they clearly attempt to contradict and counter the

        “culture” or Royal Family and, as an immutable corollary, are, by definition, the counter-culture.

        Do you follow, Einstein?

        Thanks so much for reading.

  4. Who cares about Markle .. or “her prince” or Winfrey. Just those who spend all their time watching “reality” TV.

      1. Your reasoning is faulty. People are not compelled to remain silent when they think a topic is a waste of time.

        1. No, but if they actually do think it a waste of time, they’re not motivated to say much.

  5. Princess Meghans got no reason.
    That Meg dogs got no reason…
    That Meg heads got no reason to live!
    She’s got little bitty eyes…
    And ugly little voice going beep beep beep.
    Don’t want no frigging Meghan…
    Don’t want no frigging Meghan round here!

      1. Same kind of scum remark you get from the regressive socialists of the USA Communist part. British Law is British Law but in the former USA there is very little that follows the description of The Constitution in the guarantee of a free press and absolutely nothing that protects Citizens from the false remarks of the far left from either party. Time to get rid of the failed party system and protect the fire in the theater shouters. With certainty we aren’t protected by the still present socialist fascist of the court and not at all fro the executive or legislative branch. branch.

  6. Free press is from days of old when knights grew old and babies were invented. Press refers to a machine which prints words on paper. Newspapers are no longer all that matter. A “free press” means a poor gal can start her own newspaper and yak to her town.

  7. Meghan doesn’t care about freedom of the press. Her goal is global celebrity and unlimited wealth. The facts show she uses people, then “ghosts” them. Lovers, husbands, family…..
    She’s apparently succeeding in alienating Harry from his own family. It looks as if Meghan convinced Harry they should be usurpers: toss out the BRF’s established hierarchy and its order of
    succession so that they are considered next in line for the throne–ahead of Charles and Camilla or at least ahead of William and Kate. Any palace opposition to her plan was racism.

    This article is rather damning:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/05/wanted-drama-inside-story-rift-harry-meghan-firm/

  8. Meghan doesn’t care about freedom of the press. Her goal is global celebrity and unlimited wealth. The facts show she uses people, then “ghosts” them. Lovers, husbands, family…..
    She’s apparently succeeding in alienating Harry from his own family. It looks as if Meghan convinced Harry they should be usurpers: toss out the BRF’s established hierarchy and its order of
    succession so that they are considered next in line for the throne–ahead of Charles and Camilla or at least ahead of William and Kate. Any palace opposition to her plan was racism.

    This article is rather damning:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/05/wanted-drama-inside-story-rift-harry-meghan-firm/

    1. The facts show she uses people, then “ghosts” them. Lovers, husbands, family…..She’s apparently succeeding in alienating Harry from his own family. It looks as if Meghan convinced Harry they should be usurpers: toss out the BRF’s established hierarchy and its order of

      It’s a matter of public record that a mess of her paternal-side relatives made clowns of themselves. That would include her sister, her brother, her father, and (in a more attenuated way) her nephews and quondam sister-in-law. She and her 1st husband divorced after just two years, which is a bad sign, but one is wise to reserve judgment to a degree. We haven’t a clue what’s up with Harry and his family, just what the media print to sell papers. He did indicate he wanted out of the charity promotions circuit. Four of his close cousins have ordinary lives and are patrons of just a few carefully selected charities. Ditto the Queen’s nephew and niece. Prince Edward and his wife managed to avoid the circuit until 2002. Prince Andrew was in the Navy for 20 years. I suspect the problem is that Meghan wants eyes on her (a character problem common in actresses), which complicates matters if his object is to live a quiet life.

  9. You would think having a member of the Royal Family who had ties with a pedophile would somehow be more scandalous

    1. Yes, it is more scandalous, but it doesn’t have free speech implications. This does because of this ruling. What is your point today?

    2. No one has accused Epstein of having an interest in prepubescent children. The problem has been sexual exploitation of adolescent females who were around the age of consent, some just north of it, some just below it. And the problem isn’t that Andrew was acquainted with him. Epstein cut a wide swath. It was that Andrew faces a credible accusation of having bedded down Virginia Giuffre and Andrew continued to associate with Epstein after the man was busted; he offered counterpoints and explanations to both complaints which were silly.

        1. He’s not that either. An ephebophile (or pederast) would be after young men. There’s been no indication that Epstein’s kinky in any way, just on the wrong side of the law with some of these youths.

          1. No, an ephebophile can be interested in young women or young men. Absolutely nothing requires it to be a same-sex attraction.

            “Epstein’s … just on the wrong side of the law with some of these youths.”

            You sound like you’re excusing his abuse.

              1. To Art Decox4 @ 7 Mar 2021, 7:06 PM:
                I checked several authoritative online lexicons, and “Anonymous” is correct–there is no limitation to young boys in the present-day meaning, regardless of the meaning of the ancient root used in the term “ephebophile”.
                If you insist on using only the most ancient meanings for every root from Greek, Latin etc. to define the usage of present-day English vocabulary, good luck trying to be understood by anyone else.

                1. “Anonymous” is correct–there is no limitation to young boys in the present-day meaning,

                  Insisted on by people who are illiterates.

                  1. The people who compose dictionaries aren’t illiterate. Definitions reflect use. They may change over time.

                    You’re awfully arrogant.

                    And no, I’m not playing asinine games. You admit that he’s “on the wrong side of the law.” He was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution and was in jail pending trial for the sex trafficking of minors. Maybe you think abusing teen girls is hunky dory. I think it’s sick.

                    “They get very shirty when you point out they’ve misused it”

                    LMAO that you consider “If you want to insist on ephebophile rather than pedophile, okay” getting “shirty.”

                    1. No, Art, you’re arrogant to claim that dictionary writers are illiterate simply because they disagree with you.

            1. You sound like you’re excusing his abuse.

              And you’re playing asinine games. ‘Pedophile’ is a term consistently misused by clowns. They get very shirty when you point out they’ve misused it and accused someone of something they didn’t do.

    3. Well….Randy Andy is a Helicopter Pilot you know….kinda comes with the occupation and a Sailor to boot! Considering his being of Royalty that would make it a triple whammy on him!

  10. “However, this would clearly be deemed newsworthy in the United States. ” Bull Feathers.

    This isn’t newsworthy under any stretch of the definition. If this is newsworthy, then the color of your poop is also newsworthy. No, stop it,

  11. By law we should not punish or “interfere” with how the press does its job, but something is lost in this argument. The press relies on what it decides is “newsworthy”, but the standard is limited and self-serving. My private words or communications are my own property, and I will treat them that way. When any source invades that relationship, and gives it to the press, that’s newsworthy too. The public, even public figures, will continue to treat their private communications as something they will retain control of. The law should recognize that a “source” has secretly violated my rights to keep my communications private. The public should know how vulnerable they are to such invasions. That’s enough “public interest” to find out who that source was. While the courts cannot order the press to divulge it, mechanisms should be found to make the identity of the source known.That protective action should apply for “public figures” too.

  12. The increasingly public spat between the Crown and the couple is turning nasty with an investigation into alleged bullying and abuse of household staff by Meghan.

    You realize there is flat nothing in that report which is not attributed to anonymous sources?

    1. We realize she’s a narcissist and a fraud and so are you. You’re not Art Deco x 4. You best skedaddle before he finds out.

      1. No, that is me.

        I haven’t a clue whether she’s a fraud or a narcissist. She’s done some ill-advised things that are a matter of public record, she was in a line of work that attracts decadent and difficult people, and her 1st marriage lasted two years. I certainly hope the pair of them aren’t careering downhill, but the future ain’t here yet.

        1. Get you own username, PLEASE.

          Folks, this guy is a false flag operation, and not a very convincing one.

          1. They can check their bloody server logs and discover I’m the same place I always am.

            1. The odd behavior began several days ago. I saw him getting snarky with somebody that normally he would agree with. The Art Deco x 4 I’m familiar with has been around a lot longer. This guy is not him.

  13. In the United States, such a letter leaked to the media would be deemed protected by the freedom of the press.

    I think the notion of ‘freedom of the press’ is cheapened when it is exploited to remove tort liability for matters such as the one discussed.

  14. Reverend Farrakhan and Lady Meghan Farrakhan on the same day. Are we still celebrating black-racist month?

    1. She’s a lapsed actress married to the Queen’s grandson. She doesn’t have squat to do with Farrakhan outside the static infested space between your ears.

  15. Meghan’s ” intrusian ” into the affairs of the Royal Family have born and continue to cause considerable consternation. It’s an unquestionable fact that The Queen ( and her ‘ Consort ‘ ) are fundamentally racist . .  but being British royalty are determined to not reveal or display their disdain for ‘ lesser ‘ folk. Beyond all that, I wonder how much and the timing of this kerfuffle have been calculated to boost viewership of the Opra Winfree interview special ?

    1. Markle is one of those who are at least one-half European heritage, but elect to identify as “black” for whatever reason. As do obama and k.harris – for poliical reasons. Markle probably found that being “black” (probably much less than one-half) was a real plus in landing auditions and jobs. As for RWCrampton’s assertion that “British royalty” are racists … he/she probably subscribes to the USA as systemically racist and that says it all about fact-based opinions (or lack thereof)..

      1. Where did she say how she ‘identifies’?

        It’s a reasonable wager she’s closer to her maternal-side relatives than her paternal-side relatives. Among other things, none of her maternal-side relatives made use of her marriage as an occasion to make spectacles of themselves and none of them were issuing animadversions online.

  16. Uh Jon, the last I heard, Great Britain was an entirely different country and was not bound by the US Constitution. Have I missed something? Did Trump annex Great Britain or has Biden put out an executive order making Britain part of the United States?

Leave a Reply