The Fight of Meghan Markle’s Life: Her Battle W/Tabloids &

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

The Fight of Meghan Markle’s Life: Her Battle W/Tabloids &

Postby admin » Fri May 12, 2023 8:12 am

The Fight of Meghan Markle’s Life: The duchess’s battle with tabloids and trolls is about more than just her right to privacy.
By Safiya Umoja Noble
POWER NOV. 12, 2021 ... -life.html ... 8-2022.pdf ... 6-2021.pdf ... 9-2021.pdf


Photo-Illustration: by The Cut; Photo Getty Images

On October 26, a new report was released that detailed the way in which attacks made by Twitter accounts had fueled harassment and hate aimed at Meghan, the duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, the duke of Sussex. According to analytics service Bot Sentinel, these troll accounts were not bots, just highly coordinated: 83 accounts, with a potential reach of 17 million users, were responsible for 70 percent of the negative and hateful content generated about the couple. The company’s CEO told BuzzFeed News that this anti-Meghan Twitter campaign is unlike anything he and his team have ever seen before:

“There’s no motive,” he said, comparing the anti-Meghan campaign to other disinformation and harassment campaigns on Twitter such as the #StopTheSteal movement to overturn the results of the 2020 US presidential election or the campaign to remove actor Amber Heard from the upcoming Aquaman sequel as a result of abuse allegations made against her by ex-husband Johnny Depp. “Are these people who hate her? Is it racism? Are they trying to hurt [Harry and Meghan’s] credibility? Your guess is as good as ours.”

This coordinated and likely well-funded campaign against Meghan is but one of many examples of the long-standing tradition of taking down Black women for sport. For Meghan, whose legal case against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday continues this week, winning in court is important not only symbolically but practically, as it could expand protections for the rest of us. It’s for that reason we should all brace ourselves for further attacks against not only her character but her very existence.

This battle was already won by Meghan in the U.K.’s courts: In February, a High Court judge ruled that The Mail on Sunday had invaded her privacy when it published correspondence she had written to her father. Now the paper has sought to appeal her victory and paint her as calculating, manipulative, and even diabolical because she dared to try to save herself from becoming fodder for their tabloid-media machine. This is an attempt by The Mail on Sunday to undo the right to privacy she has already won, all because they published a private letter she wrote to her father in August 2018 in which she begged him to stop speaking to the press, a letter she worried would be leaked anyway.

Imagine knowing that your every move, even the most intimate communications with your family members, could be weaponized against you. How do we rationalize every difficult, private conversation being turned into content for digital media platforms to exploit as a matter of routine practice? For an industry fueled by hate and vitriol, the audacity of a Black woman’s suing for her privacy, and winning, is too much for the tabloids to bear. In this case, her very worry about and anticipation of being exploited is now being framed by the tabloids as grounds for the revocation of her rights.

By this reasoning, any expression of concern by a woman about being harmed means she cedes her protection from said harm. Such is the distorted logic of sexism — and racism
— that governs this case. It’s one we should watch closely to see if the courts will uphold her victory or go to trial. On Thursday, at the conclusion of a three-day hearing, London’s Court of Appeal said it would take its time in considering the case. “I would urge you not to read tabloids,” Meghan told an interviewer earlier this week. “I don’t think that’s healthy for anyone. Hopefully, one day they come with a warning label like cigarettes do. Like, ‘This is toxic for your mental health.’”

These activities are not new and not novel. While some might believe that the harassment and exploitation of a famous Black woman is somehow less consequential by virtue of her fame, they create harmful consequences for all Black women. In the case of social media, not only has trolling been emotionally and psychologically destructive for countless Black women, it is financially lucrative for the abusers who demonize and dehumanize us, and it has no regard for the toll on our mental health. Internet and media companies that traffic in stereotyping and whipping up negative sentiment toward women — especially women of color — drive massive amounts of engagement, which translates to big profits for the platforms.

I’ve spent the past decade researching and writing about the harms that come to Black women and girls from Big Tech companies that have been negligent in the design and management of their platforms. Both traditional media conglomerates and internet media companies draw users into their web of vile disregard for Black women through the casual and constant use of dog whistles and entrenched stereotypes. Hateful speech and behavior toward Black women is a heinous and enduring practice that has grave consequences not just for the rich and famous but for everyday Black women, who have to live, work, and try to thrive in racist and misogynistic workplaces and communities, whose hostility to our very existence is persistently and routinely normalized.

The better Black women are than the small, racist imaginaries constructed for us, the more backlash we experience for breaking those molds with our greatness.

In 2018, Amnesty International reported that while all women are targets of online abuse and violence, women of color were 34 percent more likely to be mentioned in “abusive or problematic” tweets than white women. Further, Black women were 84 percent more likely than white women to be mentioned in such tweets. We see how internet platforms can be powerfully mobilized to these ends: Just last month, Newsweek reported the existence of an anti–Meghan Markle YouTube channel: more than 300 videos that are wholly devoted to monetizing hate against her through content and merchandise.

Many well-known Black women have been relentlessly targeted online
, in what writer Trudy aka @thetrudz and Black, queer, feminist scholar Moya Bailey, back in 2008, termed “misogynoir”: “the ways anti-Black and misogynistic representation shape broader ideas about Black women, particularly in visual culture and digital spaces.” We see examples of misogynoir everywhere, often symbolically in the case of well-known Black women, whose fame cannot insulate them from harm, and whose experiences remind us of our own vulnerabilities. Under these inverted racist logics, being excellent at our jobs, like Serena Williams, becomes a source of derision. Taking care of our health invites a backlash of hostility and rage, such as Simone Biles faced. Being funny and great in a movie whips up racist, sexist trolls to attack you; just ask Leslie Jones. Simply declaring that Black lives matter engenders hatred and criticism, such as Naomi Osaka faced.

The very being of Black womanhood never escapes the relentless microscope of critique, or the mocking, or the lack of empathy. The better Black women are than the small, racist imaginaries constructed for us, the more backlash we experience for breaking those molds with our greatness. There is often no other choice but to significantly withdraw from public life, or retreat from full participation, just when the world could use more, not fewer, examples of Black women’s excellence and success. Who loses out from their absence most of all? Everyday Black girls and women, of course. Claims of too little representation of Black women’s excellence are then free to proliferate. They never probe beneath the surface to ask why so many withdraw, are sidelined, or are forced out of all kinds of experiences, jobs, and possibilities in the first place. Instead, those who abuse us are rarely held accountable, and we are expected to withstand the unrelenting barrage.

Social networks frequently frame their connections as neutral, without addressing the harms that come from connections we don’t want, need, or deserve. Even as evidence accumulates of how social and tabloid media are actively implicated in trolling, harm, violence, and civil- and human-rights abuses, these companies double down and continue to make enormous profits. Facebook alone generated $16.34 billion dollars in just the third quarter of 2019 alone. The business of sexist and racist propaganda — from tabloids to social media — tears down all of us, creating a race to the bottom.
Some repair work is done in the courts by individuals like Meghan. Some work is done by organizations like the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which has effectively advocated and helped pass the most comprehensive non-consensual pornography (i.e., revenge porn) laws in the United States — laws that extend the notion of privacy protections to women who would otherwise be exploited for profit through web sites that monetize private photos, videos, and material without their consent. Repair work is done by scholars and activists in making the trolling and violence against Black cis- and transgender women visible so we can resist it. It’s done in the research into digital Black feminism by scholars like Catherine Knight-Steel, and it’s done by the many people who bring attention to these harms and try to fix them. Yet we still need much more support in establishing legal precedents protecting our lives from being made commodities without consequence or redress.

Most Black women cannot afford the legal fees and expenses associated with fighting publishers who seek to degrade them through salacious headlines that sell newspapers and magazines, and get boosted by online sharing. In the case of Meghan, the effort to resist invasions of privacy and defamation of her character comes at a very high cost — a cost most women cannot pay. The dehumanization and barrage of racist and sexist hate have devastating mental, emotional, and physical consequences — including the stress that led to her devastating miscarriage last summer. (And in court this week, she revealed that the stress of her suit against The Mail on Sunday had made her fear another miscarriage.) These are familiar kinds of pain, the kinds many of us face in hostile or unsupportive workplaces and institutions, where to stand up for ourselves is to be painted as angry, uncooperative, or ungrateful. The kinds of conditions — stress, low wages, blocked opportunities — that take years off our lives.

The culture of abuse cultivated against Black women has to be resoundingly rejected.
It’s time we reimagine the world through the eyes of those harmed, and bring about an end to the relentless commodification and exploitation of Black women’s lives for sport and for profit. To me, Meghan’s suit represents what so many of us wish we could do: fight back and win.

Safiya Umoja Noble, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Gender Studies and African American Studies and director of the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry. C2i2 is a partner to the Archewell Foundation on internet policy reform. Her latest book, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, explores the harms of the technology on vulnerable people. She is a 2021 MacArthur Fellow and the founder of, an organization that supports racial and economic justice for Black women and women of color.


Meghan wins ruling in Mail on Sunday privacy fight
Published 2 December 2021

Duchess of Sussex. IMAGE SOURCE, REUTERS

The Duchess of Sussex has won the latest stage in her legal fight against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday over a letter she sent to her father.

The Court of Appeal rejected Associated Newspapers' attempt to have a trial in the privacy and copyright case.

Meghan said it was a win "not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what's right".

Associated Newspapers said it was disappointed, and was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

A judge had previously ruled in favour of Meghan after extracts from the letter appeared in the paper.

In a statement issued after the ruling, the duchess urged people to be "brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that... profits from the lies and pain that they create".

Meghan, who started the civil action against newspaper group in 2019, said: "In the nearly three years since this began, I have been patient in the face of deception, intimidation and calculated attacks."

She added: "The courts have held the defendant to account and my hope is that we all begin to do the same. Because as far removed as it may seem from your personal life, it's not. Tomorrow it could be you.

"These harmful practices don't happen once in a blue moon - they are a daily fail that divide us and we all deserve better."

A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said: "It is our strong view that judgment should be given only on the basis of evidence tested at trial, and not on a summary basis in a heavily contested case."

The Court of Appeal accepted Meghan's argument that the letter to Thomas Markle in August 2018 - three months after her wedding to Prince Harry - was "deeply personal".

It had been given to the Mail on Sunday by Mr Markle, who wanted to address what he thought were unfair media accounts.

The judges were told that 585 out of the 1,250 words in the letter to her estranged father had been republished in five articles.

In their decision, the three judges said the letter's contents were "personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest".

The letter from Meghan to her father - picture together in 2003 - was written shortly after her marriage to Prince Harry

In February, the High Court had ruled against the newspaper group on the issue of privacy and copyright - saying the issues in the case were so clear cut that there was no need for a full hearing.

Associated Newspapers was refused permission to appeal against the decision but went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get the original ruling overturned.

But on Thursday, judges at the appeal said it was hard to see what evidence at a trial would have altered the situation.

They added: "The judge had correctly decided that, whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter for that purpose, it was not necessary to publish half the contents of the letter."

At the three-day appeal hearing last month, lawyers for Associated Newspapers presented evidence to support its contention that Meghan's privacy and copyright claims against the publisher should be heard at a full trial.

During the case, it was revealed that Meghan had authorised her former communications secretary, Jason Knauf, to co-operate with the authors of a book about her and Prince Harry, something she had previously denied.

They also produced a witness statement from Mr Knauf, which indicated that the duchess had written the letter knowing it might be leaked.

Mr Knauf said Meghan sent him an early draft of the letter and had written: "Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been meticulous in my word choice, but please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability."

But in written evidence, Meghan denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, saying she "merely recognised that this was a possibility".

A statement issued by Associated Newspapers after the latest ruling said "Mr Knauf's evidence raises issues as to the duchess's credibility".

Explaining why it was considering a Supreme Court challenge, Associated said its article raised "issues of public interest including the reasons for the breakdown in the relationship between the duchess and her father".

Meghan has won a significant victory in this courtroom battle to protect her privacy.

She's drawn a line in the sand. Even if her life is of public interest, she's shown that it doesn't make her public property.

It was a high-risk strategy, which could have put her in court facing awkward questions, but the appeal court ruling has seen her winning without that.

But it's already come with some bruising headlines - such as having to apologise for having forgotten how information was given to authors writing a book about her and Prince Harry.

This might have been an "unfortunate lapse of memory", said the appeal court ruling, but it didn't bear on the fundamental issues of whether such a private letter to her father should have been published.

Meghan divides public opinion - with vocal supporters and critics both seeing bias and prejudice on the other side - and this court case is unlikely to change that.

But she has succeeded in a legal battle that previous generations of royals would probably have avoided.
Site Admin
Posts: 35327
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Fight of Meghan Markle’s Life: Her Battle W/Tabloids

Postby admin » Fri May 12, 2023 8:37 am

Racist Podcast Hosts Called for Prince Harry’s 3-Year-Old to Be ‘Put Down’
by Tom Sykes
June 8, 2022 ... 20394.html


Two white-supremacist podcasters said Prince Harry should be “judicially killed for treason” for marrying Meghan Markle and called their son, 3-year-old Archie, “an abomination that should be put down,” a British court has heard.

The court proceedings, reported by the British newspaper the Sun, show the shocking and extreme level of racist invective targeted at the couple.

Prince Harry said earlier this year it was “not safe” for him or his family to visit the U.K. without dedicated police protection, and is suing the British government over modifications to his and his family’s security rules since they quit as working royal family members.

Meghan, 41, has previously called her experience of being abused online “almost unsurvivable,” and in 2020 she told a podcast entitled Teenager Therapy: “I’m told that in 2019, I was the most trolled person in the entire world, male or female.”

While much of the abuse the Sussex family has received has been anonymous, British prosecutors alleged that Christopher Gibbons, 38, and his fellow podcast host Tyrone Patten-Walsh, 34, openly made the threatening and abusive comments on their podcast, entitled Black Wolf Radio, claiming freedom of speech.

The pair, who deny encouraging acts of extreme right-wing terrorism, allegedly used a series of 23 podcasts to praise the 2019 New Zealand mass shooting that left 51 people dead at two mosques during Friday prayers. They also referred to the victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena suicide bomb attack, in which 22 people attending an Ariana Grande concert were killed, as “sluts.” Patten-Walsh allegedly said, “They start screaming and that’s the bit that really pleases me because I hate those people.”

Prosecutor Anne Whyte QC told Kingston Crown Court, “They thought that if they used the format of a radio show, as good as in plain sight, they could pass off their venture as the legitimate exercise of their freedom of speech. In fact what they were doing was using language designed to encourage others to commit acts of extreme right-wing terrorism against the sections of society that these defendants hated.”

Meghan and Harry alleged in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that racism within the royal family was part of what drove them to quit their jobs as working royals. Meghan said that her husband was questioned about the likely skin color of her then-unborn son when she was pregnant and that “concerns” were raised about the issue.

The couple also complained of racist abuse when they first revealed they were dating, with Harry writing a letter decrying “the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”

One British writer, Rachel Johnson, sister of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, wrote in the Mail on Sunday when the relationship was first reported that if the couple had children, “the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.”

Johnson subsequently apologized for making the remark.
Site Admin
Posts: 35327
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Fight of Meghan Markle’s Life: Her Battle W/Tabloids

Postby admin » Fri May 12, 2023 10:07 pm

Prince Harry Wins First Stage of Case Against The Mail on Sunday Over ‘Defamatory’ Story
by K.J. Yossman
Jul 8, 2022 2:19am PT ... 235311667/


Prince Harry has followed in his wife Meghan Markle’s footsteps by winning the first stage of his legal claim against British tabloid the Mail on Sunday.

The prince, who is also known by his title the Duke of Sussex, filed a claim against the newspaper’s publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a series of articles which he claimed caused “serious damage to his reputation and substantial hurt, embarrassment and distress which is continuing.”

A judge has today ruled the Mail on Sunday’s articles about Harry were defamatory. The newspaper can still try and defend the articles, for example by claiming they were true.

“This is very much the first phase in a libel claim,” Judge Nicklin said, according to the BBC. “The next step will be for the defendant to file a defence to the claim. It will be a matter for determination later in the proceedings whether the claim succeeds or fails, and if so on what basis.”

Harry launched the lawsuit in February of this year after the Mail on Sunday reported on another legal claim he is pursuing against the British government.

In his case against the U.K.’s Home Office, Harry is seeking a judicial review in order to force the government to provide police protection for himself and his family, including Archie and Lilibet, his two young children with Markle. The family lost their full protection after Harry and Meghan “stepped back” from official duties in 2020, moving first to Canada and then to California.

The Sussexes have indicated they are willing to pay for the security themselves but want official police protection via the Home Office rather than private security. However there are fears this could result in a precedent in which the U.K. government is expected to provide police protection for any celebrity visiting the U.K, potentially straining police resources.

Harry claims that when the Mail on Sunday reported on his case against the Home Office, they implied his offer to pay for the security himself wasn’t true.

The story ran in print and online under the headline: “Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight over bodyguards a secret… then minutes after MoS broke the story his PR machine tried to put positive spin on the dispute.”

The articles “manipulate[d] and confuse[d] public opinion” against Harry, his lawsuit claims, especially in their reference to “spin doctors” (a British slang term for publicists, particularly in the political sphere). The articles suggested that Harry had authorized the “spin doctors” to “put out false and misleading statements about his willingness to pay for police protection,” he said in his lawsuit.

The suggestions in the articles were “self-evidently exceptionally serious and damaging,” the lawsuit continued, constituting “an attack on his honesty and integrity and undermine his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work in general, and in efforts to tackle online misinformation in particular (through the Archewell Foundation).”

He has requested aggravated damages for libel, an injunction barring the Mail on Sunday from re-publishing the claims and an order to compel the Mail on Sunday to publish its judgment.

It’s been a busy week for Harry and his lawyers as his case against the Home Office is also progressing. A hearing was held yesterday (July 7) in which Harry’s legal team told the court they felt the decision to withdraw the prince’s police protection was “unsound” due to “procedural unfairness,” according to the BBC.

This is because the committee that made the decision included members of the Royal Household – with whom there were “significant tensions” following Harry and Meghan’s decision to step back from official duties and move abroad.

The prince’s lawyer also reportedly told the court that Harry’s offer to pay for police protection himself “was not conveyed” to the committee. The case continues.

Last December Harry’s wife Meghan won her own case – for invasion of privacy and copyright infringement – against the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a newspaper she wrote to her father Thomas Markle.
Site Admin
Posts: 35327
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Fight of Meghan Markle’s Life: Her Battle W/Tabloids

Postby admin » Sat May 13, 2023 12:21 am

Part 1 of 3

Twitter Hate Accounts Targeting Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Report
by Bot Sentinel, Inc.



1. Overview
2. Introduction
3. Primary Hate Accounts
4. Secondary Hate Accounts
5. Network Activity
6. Tweet Examples
7. Tweet Examples - Cont.
8. Tweet Examples - Cont. 2
9. Tweet Examples - Cont. 3
10. Recruitment Efforts
11. Who to Follow Algorithm


Since Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced their departure from royal life in January 2020, there has been an increase in disinformation and targeted harassment directed at the couple on social media platforms, particularly towards the duchess. In October 2021, Bot Sentinel Inc. launched an investigation into the negative Twitter activity concentrated on Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

We set out to determine:

• If the activity was primarily organic or if automated accounts, accounts pretending to be someone else, or toxic trolls were fueling some or most of the hatred.
• How much of this activity originated from single-purpose anti-Meghan and Harry.
• If these accounts were coordinating their activities.

Our research found that a relatively small number of single-purpose anti-Meghan and Harry accounts created and disseminated most of the hateful content on Twitter. However, the primary accounts had assistance that allowed their content to be repackaged and shared by accounts with a considerable following. We observed the primary accounts coordinating their activities and using various techniques to avoid detection. In short, the majority of the anti-Meghan and Harry activity wasn't organic.


Our research began by analyzing 114,000 tweets using hashtags and keywords related to Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex. We used internal tools to categorize tweets based on sentiment and repetitiveness. We manually examined tweets for altered photos, deceptively edited videos, and other content our internal tools couldn’t automatically or accurately analyze.

Our analysis allowed us to isolate 55 single-purpose accounts we identified as the primary hate accounts and 28 secondary hate accounts that mainly amplified the primary accounts. Combined with the help of their 187,631 followers, these accounts were responsible for approximately 70% of the original and derivative hate content targeting Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex on Twitter. Using internal and 3rd party analytic tools, we estimate a combined unique potential reach of 17,000,000 users.

We used friend/follower connections, retweets, and mentions to identify accounts that were part of the same hate network. Our research revealed these accounts were brazenly coordinating on the platform, and at least one account was openly recruiting people to join their hate initiative on Twitter.

We determined Twitter had previously suspended 40% of the primary accounts, and these accounts were employing tactics to avoid suspension. Some put “parody” in their profiles, although it wasn’t a parody account. Others would use racist coded language about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to avoid detection. We also observed several accounts either lock or completely deactivate their profiles to preserve their accounts.

The accounts we were monitoring did not confine their hatred to Twitter. They would often tweet links to private blogs, Instagram accounts, and YouTube channels predominately focused on Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

We used Twitter accounts without friends or followers during our research, and after viewing two hate accounts, Twitter’s algorithm began suggesting numerous hate accounts. On multiple occasions, Twitter recommended we follow these hate accounts.

It is our opinion the accounts included in this report are violating Twitter’s rules on platform manipulation and spam, abuse/harassment, and publishing private information.


ID / Handle / Tweets / Following / Followers

544246555 / _MsPrint / 9174 / 315 . 1043
1368605169382998031 / Angel61313690 / 22121 / 126 / 171
1264900290718740480 / artemisgoog / 5090 / 915 / 3567
1243715126949220352 / BaronessBruck / 31157 / 420 / 7804
403210196 / boxmontessori / 12330 / 315 / 1951
1244698352538791937 / CeeBee64495886 / 17943 / 716 / 5767
1279927015773220865 / ChangaDuchess / 40923 / 1198 / 814
12406012404227528192 / ChangaDuchessof / 3070 / 455 / 3297
1347168355275468802 / Cici86280666 / 6721 / 147 / 164
289858726 / clemesso / 250 / 192 / 13
1413917796858273804 / CoopeVivienne / 12958 / 1431 / 1063
24052493 / CorgiQueen_ / 4285 / 202 / 298
1417453432449949696 / duchesskamanda / 3541 / 1660 / 1686
1408870780201472000 / duchofnarsussex / 9813 / 881 / 2201
1059294159100669954 / Fawn1026 / 7673 / 851 / 6449
1382863529133297666 / gage49687532 / 205 / 22 / 7
1114159544110915586 / gossipgirl9283 / 4929 / 65 / 2298
1151724218666504192 / hrrysgreysuit / 17089 / 4131 / 21935
1172561767165300739 / HumptyD49831913 / 12828 / 706 / 3295
1219692555224387587 / Jacquel26877237 / 5000 / 1283 / 1068
1116670884184494080 / KitKat2cats / 13233 / 2502 / 2244
1248672428835962880 / Kooht3 / 3629 / 1229 / 951
35731352 / kylieer / 21028 / 3622 / 5410
1115962504918781952 / Lottie2000000 / 8360 / 526 / 1528
13677723352138932228 / LovetheMonarchy / 413 / 1543 / 650
1290918253301248001 / Madison48260187 / 4218 / 212 / 503
1390008227459444741 / margengelchen / 467 / 496 / 503
1424497640268615685 / Markled321 / 1592 / 179 / 124
1439123206418403331 / Meghanarciss / 94 / 85 / 122
1226826772735504384 / Meghanshusband / 4795 / 559 / 9055
1359872108193402884 / MeghansMole / 9894 / 990 / 2934
1148942096331497472 / messymegsy / 5182 / 73 / 9836
1134447476415565825 / MontecitoHouse / 1144 / 299 / 471
845878091301830657 / musgravemum / 18969 / 1571 / 985
1289273210270359554 / NikkiDPR1 / 4103 / 139 / 290
1434253949830316032 / NikolaiAnastasR / 313 / 291 / 159
144764294927003718 / OSS_SOE_21 / 36 / 3 / 38
29380874 / pilothardy / 4909 / 152 / 2175
1439173846532243461 / Pinnoc3Princess / 613 / 100 / 112
1438411828049195015 / PrincessPinocc1 / 59 / 60 / 65
1410935058605785094 / QGurtrude / 1362 / 1001 / 980
1418026205165522948 / Queen_Leinster / 981 / 304 / 166
1383498394128183296 / RNN_RoyalNews / 152 / 42 / 17
1209077958926852096 / shereen89001527 / 9050 / 346 / 229
1235881274264477696 / Sparkle11820746 / 155 / 547 / 801
1097245415550922753 / SparkleMeghan / 6456 / 176 / 21844
2909444830 / Sukiweeks / 42549 / 1361 / 6299
1329562419946020867 / Tellitl66077922 / 2052 / 52 / 105
799184458830249984 / TheToadours / 28066 / 1305 / 9795
1085161132493553666 / things_royal / 18441 / 1365 / 25117
1405296048659210241 / TLW96127789 / 274 / 21 / 25
1377961400077709315 / TPitstain / 520 / 121 / 63
1366912175789457410 / Emily07435268 / 4905 / 199 / 153
1193006937161510913 / scammingduchess / 9439 / 1833 / 1622
1441616751096053767 / sussexpodcast / 381 / 28 / 67


ID / Handle / Tweets / Following / Followers

12665737529816494080 / AgnesMarieWats2 / 15964 / 45 / 171
1215268591295033345 / Belhypotheque / 14498 / 210 / 162
1305672341540700166 / Cary57982484 / 14205 / 69 / 26
1223710835790557189 / DunceDuchess / 12051 / 4038 / 1082
1350575307368132609 / Galpin44246332 / 5787 / 169 / 88
1267322979140108288 / GaynorBenson / 68173 / 116 / 257
24394949 / jasmine2sable / 73354 / 5002 / 1791
1365022234180546562 / Kaz70949137 / 4915 / 3588 / 1568
1363917809277788160 / Luca31404488 / 38953 / 305 / 5839
1343959115782098945 / m_mollykins / 16182 / 629 / 477
51770903 / momloves3 / 30430 / 785 / 223
1240077849006129152 / Moonchi89720342 / 1741 / 891 / 524
1349218513714495491 / Mumma4babes / 447 / 718 / 355
1409165152688160772 / Poppy31101260 / 8959 / 72 / 158
1401934934139445252 / QueenMadMeg1 / 2355 / 372 / 270
37854830 / Realitybits101 / 111031 / 324 / 599
239891108 / ritaplez / 834 / 93 / 17
1341812782958669824 / SandySouth9 / 12152 / 771 / 412
1209077958926852096 / shereen89001527 / 9123 / 346 / 229
710925599326511104 / SueTHEmackGIRL / 89600 / 2371 / 665
1215056322233679873 / uzbekistan7053 / 11130 / 672 / 188
1448772336237170693 / Victori83047289 / 397 / 87 / 25
2802302143 / wishingmum / 12482 / 139 / 132
967420383329624064 / Ziggy4441 / 12020 / 100 / 144


The red section demonstrates the activity of the primary and secondary hate accounts.



Cruiser@Emily07435268 . Oct 22
It's about time! This broad won't stop until someone with higher power stops her. This lunatic broad won't acknowledge dimwit's 95 yr old grandmother being in the hospital with health issues. Can you imagine the stress she carries every time this lunatic makes a move like this.


Cruiser@Emily07435268 . Oct 14
Replying to Emily07435268
This broad was not famous nor was she known in the U.S. why do you keep repeating that lie. Meghan Markle had found fame as an actress in popular US TV series Suits.???????? The broad found fame in The yacht escort service.
Not well-known in Hollywood (not for the lack of trying)but very well known in the yaching circuit.

She was the chosen one to ruin the BRF and help REMAIN--she failed. She's now using body doubles and pretending to tote around a 4 foot rubber baby badly in a front pack. She posted a Harry Santa xmas video l=on her IG only problem is Harry has blue eyes and Santa had brown...heck in some photos you can see the silicone moonbump busted and the shit was running down her legs...and the bump was hanging between her's literally hysterical. THe media has an embargo on the baby because there is a surrogate baby being kept safe away from the whore.


Yep, I have seen this. She said that she didn't fit in the black community because of her lighter skin & yet here she is lying through her teeth about supporting the black community and playing victim of racial discrimination. She is nothing but an opportunist.


BaronessBruck@BaronessBruck . Jun 6, 2020
Replying to @tips_talk and @IsArchieOK
Oh Meghan ...

too light in the black community'


3:56 AM . Jun 7, 2020 . Twitter for iPhone

Replying to @Trigger46ace @SpringBrad1 and 34 others

I can understand you want to be careful. I have opened this account this month so that I can openly call out the #CharlatanDuchess But I have been on Twitter since 2012.


4:01 PM . Jan 23, 2019 . Twitter for iPad

The Duchess of Narsussex (Narcissism) @ duch... . Oct 18
#NewProfilePic = #MeghanMarkle
Gross -


The Duchess of Narsussex (Narcissism) @ duch... . Oct 17
Real Life Footage of Haz's wife on every Directors' couch that she rode in Hollywood... and there are a lot of Directors and couches in Hollywood.
#Meghan #MeghanMarkle


Straight noses @badkarma4liars - Oct 17
Replying to @duchofnarsussex
When your iconic role model makes you feel ...


Once upon a time there were two brothers. The older brother chose a wife for her beauty, kindness, intelligence, respect for his family. The other foolish brother chose a wife because he loved that despite a luxuriously appointed ensuite while glamping, she voided in the 'woods'.

Courtship in the wild
'Harry was delightfully surprises ... while camping she ... happily wandered into the wood lords if she needed a bathroom break



The Duchess of Narsussex (Narcissism)

Wouldn't Everyone Like to Know Exposing #MeghanMarkle and #PrinceHarry for the no good, scandalous, skeezing #Narcissist grifters they truly are.
Liechtenstein Joined June 2021



Central Command CENTCOM for #DN-OSS-SOE-21
Return of the Jedis
Unlocking MORE mysteries THAN Science, Literature & Art...
Kappa Kappa Gamma House - NWU Joined October 2021


#DN-OSS-SOE-21 @OSS_SOE_21 . Oct 11
Bonsoir, Jedis. We had a significant hack attempt 30 mins after we launches our initial page. Lucky for us, we are smart and nothing bad happened.

If interested please DM:
Area of Expertise.
Strengths & Weaknesses.
What you'd like to do.
Time Zone.
Camp X
Central Command CENTCOM for #DN-OSS-SOE-21
Return of the Jedis

wanted to be a spy and you all wanted to be spies (you know you did) I thought... why not create and organized "intelligence" agency of our own? I love WWII stuff, so this is the direction we are going... This is us!!!

We need to get with our respective teams, pick leaders, and then figure out where some communications overlap is between them and find those critical conduits for smooth information sharing.



Who to follow

love our RF even more thanks to #6 & wife. Don't call it racism when you're the race baiter. Victim VS Bully? hmm

maria montessori
when you have to compare Meghan to Prince Andrew to make her look good, you have failed!!!!

Pilot Hardy
American Anglophile. Sugar-free diet. Non-extremist. Good vibes only. Follow me on Instagram: pilot.hardy


Who to follow

Tourre Bakahai
The law and life. My loves are Africa and Arsenal. Cote d'Ivoire is where it started. Justice for Palestine is where it's leading. Soon.

Baroness Bruck
Old World relic, eelgance nostalgic, romantic Historian.

Keeping up with the DUMBartons

Site Admin
Posts: 35327
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Fight of Meghan Markle’s Life: Her Battle W/Tabloids

Postby admin » Thu May 18, 2023 11:30 pm

Prince Harry and Meghan allege 'near catastrophic' paparazzi car chase in NY
by Max Foster, John Miller and Lauren Said-Moorhouse
Updated 4:16 AM EDT, Thu May 18, 2023

NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - MAY 16: Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle and Duke of Sussex Prince Harry attend the ceremony, which benefits the Ms. Foundation for Women and feminist movements, in New York, United States on May 16, 2023. Meghan Markle who wears a gold dress for Women of Vision Gala receives 2023 Women of Vision award from Gloria Steinem at Ziegfeld Ballroom on Tuesday night in New York City. (Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

'Insatiable': Royal commentator on what Harry and Meghan chase reveals

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan were involved in a chaotic car chase with paparazzi in New York on Tuesday night that could have resulted in a “catastrophic” outcome, their spokesperson has alleged.

The Sussexes were pursued by photographers after leaving the Women of Vision Awards at the city’s Ziegfeld Ballroom in a convoy that also included Doria Ragland, Meghan’s mother. The couple were left shaken by the incident, although ultimately no-one was hurt, their security detail told CNN.

Police said “numerous” photographers made the Sussexes’ transport “challenging,” but that there were no reported collisions, injuries or arrests.

According to couple’s account, the altercation with photographers was prolonged and risky. “Last night, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Ms. Ragland were involved in a near catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi,” the couple’s spokesperson said.

“This relentless pursuit, lasting over two hours, resulted in multiple near collisions involving other drivers on the road, pedestrians and two NYPD officers.”

Two people involved with the couple’s security also described the incident as chaotic, with the paparazzi in numerous vehicles, including cars, scooters, mopeds and electrical bikes. The Sussexes had to switch cars during the chase, they say.

Thomas Buda, who runs a private security business contracted to help the couple, said the chase began the moment Harry and Meghan left the Ziegfeld Ballroom and lasted 90 minutes.

Paparazzi wanted to find out where the couple was staying while they were in New York City, he said, and their vehicles ran red lights while pedestrians were in the crosswalks and drove into oncoming traffic on 34th Street in Manhattan, driving the wrong way down one-way streets, Buda said.

Chris Sanchez, a member of the couple’s security team who spoke exclusively to CNN, said the incident was alarming. “I have never seen, experienced anything like this,” he said. “What we were dealing with was very chaotic.”

The Sussexes were scared – but were relieved when they returned to the apartment where they were staying, he said. “The public were in jeopardy at several points. It could have been fatal,” Sanchez said.

After what Buda described as an increasingly hazardous game of cat and mouse, security moved the Duke and Duchess to the 19th police precinct on East 67th street.

From that location, a yellow taxi simply brought them around the block, back to the police station.

Buda said the pair finally made their escape when the midnight shift of patrol officers turned out in their police cars to go out on patrol and effectively caused a chokepoint on the block that allowed security teams to get Harry and Meghan into traffic and away.

The driver of that taxi, Sukhcharn Singh, spoke to CNN late Wednesday about the surreal experience he encountered.

“I’ve been driving now since 2018, this was the first time I saw this. Other celebrities never got that much attention from the paparazzis,” he said,

Singh recalled that after the the Duke and Duchess got in his cab – and before they could even tell him where to go – “all of a sudden the paparazzi just stormed the taxi. There’s flashes coming from every direction. They’re up against the car, taking pictures.”

At one point, Singh said, a security guard in the cab with them got out to tell the paparazzi to move.

Singh said that he didn’t personally feel in danger but the Duke and the Duchess appeared “very nervous.”

“The look on their faces, you could tell that they were nervous and scared,” Singh recalled.

Prince Harry and Meghan say they were chased by photographers for two hours after leaving an event in New York. Selcuk Acar/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

After a ten minute ride, Singh dropped Harry and Meghan at the 19th precinct in Manhattan. He told CNN that they gave him $50.00 for the ride, though the fare was just $17.50.

Reckless driving

In a statement, the New York Police Department (NYPD) confirmed the outline of the Sussexes’ account but described it in less colorful language. The NYPD “assisted the private security team protecting the Duke and Duchess of Sussex” on Tuesday evening and “there were numerous photographers that made their transport challenging,” said Julian Phillips, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner for public information.

“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrived at their destination and there were no reported collisions, summonses, injuries, or arrests in regard,” he said.

The couple’s spokesperson said that while “being a public figure comes with a level of interest from the public, it should never come at the cost of anyone’s safety” and urged the media not to publish photographs from the incident. “Dissemination of these images, given the ways in which they were obtained, encourages a highly intrusive practice that is dangerous to all in involved.”

According to the account provided by the couple’s team, the incident involved around half a dozen blacked-out vehicles with unidentified people driving recklessly and endangering the convoy and everyone around them.

Doria Ragland, the Duke of Sussex and the Duchess of Susseex at the Women of Vision Awards in New York City. Kevin Mazur/Getty Images

A local law enforcement source corroborated some of the couple’s account, telling CNN that the couple were followed by a “swarm” of paparazzi in cars, motorcycles, scooters after they left the event on Tuesday. A protective team from the New York Police Department (NYPD) followed Harry and Meghan in another car, and was forced to make some avoiding maneuvers to get away from the paparazzi, the source said.

Paparazzi on scooters and bikes zoomed down the sidewalk to keep up, the source said. There were many close calls, including short stops between front and backs of cars, but none resulted in a crash, the source added.

The couple’s convoy was escorted to a police precinct, where they were able to regroup, the source added.

Both King Charles’ Buckingham Palace and Prince William’s Kensington Palace told CNN they would not be commenting on the incident.

Mayor condemns ‘reckless’ paparazzi

The mayor of New York City, Eric Adams said the incident was “reckless” and “irresponsible.”

“You shouldn’t be speeding anywhere, but this is a densely populated city, and I think all of us, I don’t think there’s many of us who don’t recall how his mom died,” Adams told reporters when asked about the incident at an unrelated briefing.

“It’s clear that the paparazzi want to get the right shot, they want to get the right story, but public safety must always be at the forefront,” Adams said.

The Duke of Sussex has been vocal about the security of his family, often highlighting parallels between his wife’s treatment to that faced by his mother, Diana. The late Princess of Wales died in 1997 after suffering internal injuries resulting from a high-speed car crash in Paris.

In the couple’s Netflix six-part docuseries Harry pushed back against critics who have said the couple has a problem with paparazzi.

“Back in my mum’s day, it was physical harassment – cameras in your face, following you, chasing you,” he said.

“Paparazzi still harass people,” he added. “But the harassment really exists more online now. Once the photographs are out and the stories then put next to it, then comes the social media harassment. To see another woman in my life, who I love, go through this feeding frenzy – that’s hard. It is basically the hunter versus the prey.”
Site Admin
Posts: 35327
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest