The Duke and Duchess of Sussex Interviews, TV and other media events Part 4

[TLLK]

Serious speculation by The Spectator as the Sussexes have not released a public statement on the South Park Episode.

Meghan Markle ?upset? at her depiction in South Park - The Spectator World

[Curryong]

That?s not serious speculation, just the usual stuff printed by journalists in British newspapers for at least the last three years, casting the Sussexes in a negative light as usual. What?s more, carrying on about the Samantha case and how worried Meghan supposedly is about the depositions when the judge stated categorically that she could see no value in much of Samantha?s case. Of course that wasn?t mentioned in the article, just the depositions.

Do these journalists expect the couple to be ecstatic about the South Park episode? Seriously! It?s a pity some independent journalists doesn?t write an article naming names among the usual suspects from their profession and speculating about the minutiae of THEIR private lives and foibles of THEIR characters (starting with Dan Wootton, Angela Levin and Piers Morgan, plenty of material there for at least two of them) and how much they would enjoy an animated version of that appearing on streaming services all over the world. Would they all react well? Like heck they would! But of course that wouldn?t produce any clickbait for newspapers and that?s all that matters isn?t it!

[Princess Cassandra]

I've never seen "South Park". Is that their usual style? When I saw the media shots of the episode I thought it was pretty rude, but to be honest, Harry and Meghan have put themselves out there. They have said and done some very controversial things themselves, as we have read on this site and others. If there are rude programs like "South Park", it isn't surprising they'd be highlighted on one.

[changemhysoul]

South Park trashes all celebs, they weren't the first royals to be mocked.

It's just South Park, nothing the serious. The only people kicking up a fuss are the British Media because they "win" against the Sussex's and they need to prove that America hates them when really, most of America doesn't care. They gone from talking about the episode to writing fanfiction about them suing over the episode.

And yes, that's South Parks usual style, no famous person is safe from them. The show is made to be offensively, offensive. Anything that someone could or would be offended by, South Park as done. It's their brand and why people like it. (if one is into that type of humor). The episode isn't making waves in America because....we've already seen it all before.

And South Park got it wrong by falling into the British Press lies about them stepping back because they never said they wanted privacy or they'd stop being public figures. They said, they don't want to interact with the RR and didn't want to take tax-payer money so the British media could stop using that as a stick to beat them with.

I honestly didn't realize the show was still airing....but overall, South Park did what it does best and the british media are so desperate for something to talk about when it comes to the Sussex's (esp, Meghan because she hasn't been seen since Dec. 6). They want this South Park epsiode to be bigger than it is. Good luck to them.

[changemhysoul]

I guess we have to wonder no more, they were contacted by people and their spokesperson responded,

"On whether Harry and Meghan are pursuing legal action against the show, a spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex tells PEOPLE: "It's all frankly nonsense. Totally baseless, boring reports."

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Not Suing Over South Park Episode

The article is a good read as it once again, highlights the privacy thing that people have taken and run with, in regards, to putting words in their mouths about privacy.

[PrincessOfPeace]

The difference between America and the UK, is America has the first amendment, the right to free speech. Which Harry called 'bonkers'.

It's one thing to take legal action in Britain, in America free speech, especially satire and parody, is protected

[changemhysoul]

Harry didn't call free speech 'bonkers'

He said the way in which the media could get around free speech was bonkers. He said the ways in which laws could can be loop-holed and the entire conversation. At no point, was he saying that the first amendment itself was bonkers.

I can confirm because I just listened to that part of the podcast before I replied to you. That part, came as part of a larger conversation about laws, how the media gets around loopholes and etc. Of course the media, in bad faith, decided to say that he straight up called the 1st amendment bonkers without mentioning the larger context that was being discussed and people have run with it.

I didn't bring up the right to free speech, satire or parody or what is protected or not. I just wanted to say that their spokesperson said that they have plans for it because it's boring reporting because there has been an undercurrent of saying they're going to sue for South Park and more lies being talked about their reaction too it. They were never going to sue South Park because this is South Parks bread and butter and most don't care. The most annoying thing about the episode was South Park going along with the lie that they asked for privacy but it's not something they would've sued over and their spokesperson confirmed it.

[PrincessOfPeace]

Thanks for the correction on Harry's quote. My larger point on why they're not taking action is because of the first amendment.  At least imo.

[wannable]

^ Their pattern of suing has diminished to 0 in the states, the Cut lady was actually off for holiday and is back at her job, which to date was the only person royal watchers were on the look out for her, if she had been unemployed. IF they did weigh the options, I'm sure their lawyer told them especially the disadvantages of suing a USA company (Paramount Pictures, the parent company of Comedy Central), the cons are too much vs the pros. 

Matter of fact, the largest networks in the states have been very harsh with the couple, nothing has happened.  In the UK it WAS another story. I'm saying was, because the trashing hard has moved stateside.

I'd say People Magazine is friendly to the Sussexes, so the information is solid.

[HistoryGirl2]

Thanks for the correction on Harry's quote. My larger point on why they're not taking action is because of the first amendment.  At least imo.

I?d agree that this is at least partially the reason. There?s a higher burden of proof in the US when it comes to slander or libel.

[Curryong]

Neither Meghan nor Harry is or was in the habit of suing all media willy nilly. That is one lie the media has perpetuated, keeps getting repeated and so people believe it. In fact is has been less than a handful of times with fingers left over. What was it Goebbels  said during the war? I believe it was ?Repeat a lie often enough?.?

The other lie endlessly repeated is that the Sussexes asked for privacy and that was why they left the UK for the USA. As Changemhysoul has posted, they did not. It was the endless, unfair stream of lies and negativity directed towards them by the British media, especially against Meghan, that they found objectionable.

And I never believed they would sue South Park. Unfortunately, though they certainly wouldn?t have liked seeing themselves portrayed in that way, with all the needless lies and careless half truths that the show perpetrated that was objectionable, they have had to wear it and ignore it.

[wannable]

The media doesn't have to do anything, nor be blamed or pointed the finger for everything, the couple themselves make the news.  The US has had harsher press in the past 5 months, 0 suing. Two very prominent anchors from CNN and Fox decided to use the same wording as Piers, nothing.  Someone in the know decided to help the script at Comedy Central, they wouldn't have gotten it so precise, with just one little tiny mistake (I'm travelling very early tomorrow and will be basically in the jungle, back this coming Monday, will say if no one has captured it) and of course the suggestion of the ending, which meh, I think Harry is worse than her.

In a 3 year period, starting from the South African Tour where the couple decided to go unprofessional,  the combined is 10 lawsuits, 3.2 per year or 3 per 2 years, 4 in 1 year.

[Curryong]

This article has a timeline of legal actions against the British media in the past three years. According to the article it amounts to five. However, one was a legal letter sent, not a law suit, and another was a letter of complaint to the BBC not a law suit. Two out of five leaves three.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/law/955885/timeline-harry-and-meghan-legal-action-against-uk-press

As far as the US goes there was the suit against the US photo agency for the taking of photos of Archie, which the Sussexes won. The other is Samantha?s suit against Meghan, which Meghan had no part in beginning.

[HistoryGirl2]

The media doesn't have to do anything, nor be blamed or pointed the finger for everything, the couple themselves make the news.  The US has had harsher press in the past 5 months, 0 suing. Two very prominent anchors from CNN and Fox decided to use the same wording as Piers, nothing.  Someone in the know decided to help the script at Comedy Central, they wouldn't have gotten it so precise, with just one little tiny mistake (I'm travelling very early tomorrow and will be basically in the jungle, back this coming Monday, will say if no one has captured it) and of course the suggestion of the ending, which meh, I think Harry is worse than her.

In a 3 year period, starting from the South African Tour where the couple decided to go unprofessional,  the combined is 10 lawsuits, 3.2 per year or 3 per 2 years, 4 in 1 year.

Interesting stat, especially for two people that have, let?s say an ?expansive,? view on facts and truth.

[Curryong]

Interesting stat, especially for two people that have, let?s say an ?expansive,? view on facts and truth.

Except those stats are not true. See the timeline I linked in the post below, and the fact that two of the five ?law suits? they listed weren?t law suits at all!

[wannable]

Newsweek = American

The couple are double trouble = Harry and Meghan's 10 Lawsuits in 3 Years and What They Say About Couple

^ Who gets headlines like this in the USA?! No one famous gets/does 10 combined lawsuits in 3 years except criminals on the loose 'wanted' in different states OR professional victims.

[HistoryGirl2]

Except those stats are not true. See the timeline I linked in the post below, and the fact that two of the five ?law suits? they listed weren?t law suits at all!

I?d say my comment still stands whether it be a lawsuit or a letter to cease and desist. The point is they?re quite keen to let everyone know when someone is ?lying about them,? but not so keen to own up to their untruthful or misleading statements.

[PrincessOfPeace]

Freelance writer R.S. Locke, claimed on Twitter Harry will make a new, pre-recorded, appearance on Mr Colbert's show on February 28 -

Prince Harry set to appear in new interview on Tuesday as Coronation question rumbles on | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

[changemhysoul]

These are the questions from Colbert's segment. I agree with the guess that it was most likely recorded while Harry was in NYC

[TLLK]

Answer to Question #2...Harry has a well loved grey shirt that needs to be updated IMO.

[changemhysoul]

Answer to Question #2...Harry has a well loved grey shirt that needs to be updated IMO.

Some other people on the twt have said that his brown shoes need to go.

[changemhysoul]

The clip from the Colbert Q&A

https://twitter.com/colbertlateshow/status/1630798769796308992

[PrincessOfPeace]

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in New York, told the Jewish Chronicle: 'Whoever made the arrangements to have this individual appear with Prince Harry, did him no favours. If Prince Harry knew this man's record and still chose him for the interview, our Centre would criticise the prince for such an inappropriate choice'. -

Fury over Prince Harry's 'intimate' public chat with Dr Gabor Mat? who defended Hamas rockets | Daily Mail Online

[Curryong]

Dr Mat?, a Hungarian-Canadian physician, has his own harrowing story. Born in Nazi-occupied Budapest in 1944, when he was five months old his maternal grandparents were among the Jews murdered in Auschwitz. He was taken from his mother and hidden with an aunt until the war ended. 

From the article you linked.


And for the record, I am no anti-Semite. I read Anne Frank?s diary at 14 and wept. However, I agree with Dr Mate over the Gaza Bank and some actions by the Israeli Govt, and  have considerable sympathy for Palestinians.

[Curryong]

And another piece from the article about Harry?s appearance tomorrow with Dr Mate. The Sussexes may well be owed money by Charles.

?However, it has now prompted questions as to whether the Crown Estate, which leases out Frogmore to the Sussexes, might actually end up owing the couple money.

The Sussexes were given use of Frogmore Cottage in 2018 by Queen Elizabeth amid their explosive fall-out with William and Katherine.

It was originally five, run-down, staff residences but was knocked back into one large home with a private garden initially using ?2.4million in taxpayers' money.

The couple themselves paid for anything over and above basic fixtures and fittings.

At the time, the couple were said to be 'relieved and pleased' to refund taxpayers for the renovations.? 

'