当我在周三晚上，在纪念日，美国退伍军人节之前，在纽约的自由空气和太空博物馆向纽约自由盛会的无畏空气博物馆向自由盛会的这些镜头敬礼时，我想知道她是否正在从她身上拿起一页1zplaymother-in-law Princess Diana’s playbook. The black revenge dress, we all remember it. It’s not exactly…but the red Carolina Herrera is definitely a distraction. Harry and Meghan rarely step out in public, and even more rarely at black tie events. This was their first red carpet in over a year and on an occasion that has special significance for Harry, given he, too, is a veteran, and military service and honouring those who have served and are serving is a major priority for him.

But over and above that, they would have known that their appearance would have brought the heat, and worldwide attention – exactly as the Mail on Sunday is appealing the summary judgement in Meghan’s favour that was decided earlier this year and the sensational details coming out of the hearings. So it was a little “no, we’re not bothered”, and also a lot of “if you want sensational, look at me in this dress”.

Wearing red is how she countered the other headlines about her yesterday, most of which were about her having to “apologise” to the court for not mentioning emails she exchanged with Jason Knauf, the Sussexes’ former communications secretary, who also worked in a similar capacity, ahem, for Prince William and Kate, and who is now the chief executive of The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. What happened to NDAs? Never mind. Nobody wants to talk about that – but we should, later on in this post.

不足为奇的是,英国媒体,disappointingly other media outlets around the world have seized upon this one line in Meghan’s witness statement provided in response to the appeal without context. The witness statement is 21 pages long and this “apology” is preceded by a lot of other pertinent information about the sequence of events leading up to the emails provided by Jason Knauf in support of the Mail on Sunday’s claims (which in and of itself is weird… that he’s assisting a f-cking tabloid in a lawsuit against members of the royal family).

Remember, this lawsuit is about whether or not the Mail violated Meghan’s privacy by publishing parts of a letter she sent to her father, Thomas Markle. For a comprehensive breakdown of what this trial is actually about,here’s an explainer from Byline Investigates那’s worth reading. Months ago, a judge already decided that the case shouldn’t go to trial because he found that the Mail couldn’t prove that Meghan always intended for her private letter to be shared. The Mail is trying to throw everything they can at the wall to go to trial – and you can imagine one of the reasons they would want to go to trial. Because then they can get more stories out of the situation, which is also what’s happening with this appeal and the selective lifting of one passage from the 21-page witness statement about an apology, ignoring all the other information that Meghan provided to the court.

The issue here with these emails and this apology is that the Mail is contending that Harry and Meghan collaborated with the authors of寻找自由，，，，which mentions the letter she wrote to her father. In the emails that Jason Knauf shares, Harry and Meghan apparently signed off on him briefing the authors on background, for accuracy. What’s not been reported widely is that the reason Meghan did not previously acknowledge these emails is that when the lawsuit was originally filed, the book hadn’t come out yet. The Mail only introduced this argument about the book last fall, after its release, so she wasn’t looking for that information during initial disclosure.

最重要的是，鉴于Jason发布了他的文字和电子邮件，她向法院提供了更多自己的文字和电子邮件，以及她的法律团队的更多完整文本和电子邮件，这证明了她从未打算为此打算的更多内容。公开的信。同样，这些都没有报道，因为已经爆炸了已经脱离上下文的“道歉”。But it’s important to remember that the judges presiding over the appeal have a lot more information to analyse than what’s been dramatised in the media – including all the details in Meghan’s 21-page witness statement which, again, directly refutes point-by-point, with receipts, the Mail’s assertion that Jason Knauf’s correspondence makes their case.

While we wait for the legitimate legal experts to decide on whether or not the case will go trial though (and remember, the Mail is appealing the summary judgement in favour of Meghan, bypassing the need for a full trial) let’s focus on Jason Knauf and how he appears to be helping the Mail on Sunday and all of its foolery in a case about whether or not they should have published a private letter written by a member of the royal family. Does that seem above board for a royal aide, ffs?!

And the fact that he’s still working for Prince William and Kate – while assisting a tabloid in their takedown of his brother’s wife…

Like no matter what your feelings on Meghan, this is f-cked up, non?

Jason Knauf has become a witness for the Mail on Sunday, which implies that he thinks they were justified in publishing Meghan’s letter to her father? And the Mail and Jason are basing this on emails and texts from Harry and Meghan authorising him to speak to the authors of寻找自由on background for accuracy – which is actually part of the day-to-day job of a royal communications secretary. Their actual jobs are to work with the media to confirm or deny sh-t. Like any celebrity publicist. Per Jason, Harry apparently told him via email re:the authors of寻找自由那，，，，"I totally agree that we have to be able to say we didn't have anything to do with it. Equally, you giving the right context and background to them would help get some truths out there."

我不确定这是鉴于皇家通讯官员应该在媒体成员（无论他们写书）来验证信息时，这是一支吸烟枪。而且，即使哈利和梅根（Harry and Meghan）希望杰森（Jason）确保寻找自由在本书中正确获取细节，它肯定不会延伸到“是的，这意味着我放弃了我对父亲信的隐私声称”。

But … let’s say we play out that scenario. Multiple books are published about the British royal family every year. We’ll take Robert Jobson’s book about Prince Charles,查尔斯七十，2018年11月发布，在与未来的国王进行正式旅行时进行了18个月的研究。该书的一部分包括有关查尔斯的儿子的不那么讨人喜欢的细节，包括细节“members of staff, even operators on the Palace switchboard, are aware that William can be ‘difficult’ or ‘a little grand’”.首先，大声笑，仍然。It was funny then and it’s still funny now – not just the quote but that Robert Jobson was able to go ahead and write that, considering that while he obviously won’t reveal his sources, he obviously had *some* access to Charles via the palace, given that he was allowed to travel with the Prince of Wales while doing his reporting. Which implies that, well, the book was endorsed.

And if it was endorsed, with the cooperation presumably of palace insiders, the equivalent of Jason Knauf at Clarence House, does that mean that the Daily Mail, should they be able to get their dirty hands on some of Charles’s private correspondence and publish it? If so…um, are you sure? Are we ready for another Tampongate?!

杰森·诺夫斯（Jason Knaufs）在宫殿中的工作是避免坦率，而不是积极鼓励这种损害英国王室声誉的这种入侵。然而，在这里，我们有一个前皇家助手和现任威廉王子和凯特与小报合作的非常亲密的合伙人 - 更不用说查尔斯和卡米拉不断以独家专栏和论文的形式提供邮件内容。是否有人想知道邮件可能会在英国王室的非苏斯州成员身上有什么？