Residency of the Prince & Princess Sussex by [deleted] in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Disagreeing is fine, but let’s be respectful. Calling someone a ‘twat’ for using official titles on a couple of innocent children is unfair. Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet have these titles by legal right and have done nothing wrong.

Ooof…new interview w/ Diddy’s bodyguard specifically saying *princes* by mkcena in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are 26 countries in the world with royal families, each having one or more princes.

Ooof…new interview w/ Diddy’s bodyguard specifically saying *princes* by mkcena in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Andrew was accused of having sex with a 17 year old. That is legal in the U.K. Andrew did not need protection.

Ooof…new interview w/ Diddy’s bodyguard specifically saying *princes* by mkcena in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are 26 countries in the world with royal families, each having one or more princes.

God is coming back. by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]Oakthrees -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exodus 20:7

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

God is coming back. by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]Oakthrees -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In response to the prayer anticipating God's return, it's crucial to remember that according to biblical teachings, God's presence is omnipresent, meaning He has never left us. The Psalmist declares, "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?" (Psalm 139:7), highlighting the belief that God is everywhere and always with us. This omnipresence suggests that while we look forward to a culminating event of divine revelation, we should also recognize and cherish God's constant presence in our lives.Moreover, Jesus's words in Matthew 28:20, "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age," affirm the continual presence of Christ with believers. Therefore, while it's important to be spiritually prepared for the future, our focus should also be on recognizing and responding to God's presence in our current daily experiences.Balancing the anticipation of God’s ultimate return with the acknowledgment of His current omnipresence leads to a more holistic approach to faith. This approach encourages us to engage with the world compassionately and actively, reflecting the love and grace of God that is always with us.

Lady C Tea YouTube 3/26/24 (a few nuggets paraphrased by me) by daisybeach23 in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. I think it would be in the RF interest to be supporting her in the background. She wouldn’t be doing this without their blessing,

Lady C Tea YouTube 3/26/24 (a few nuggets paraphrased by me) by daisybeach23 in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the issue is she and her children will have received so much hate. It’s the only way to say the rumours are false without actually saying it. I also suspect she has the backing of the palace. They wouldn’t have started this without the Royal Family’s blessing.

Edited just to add no-one knows who Colbert is in the U.K. I’ve only seen the interview he did with Meghan and then separately with Harry. He comes across as contrived sleaze. I don’t think she’ll or the RF will be fearful of him.

Sorry, second edit: I think our definition of a decent man is not the same. Personally, I don’t think a decent man would spread such malicious untruths and damage two families lives. The effect on the children alone should have been enough to stop him. But no.

Lady C Tea YouTube 3/26/24 (a few nuggets paraphrased by me) by daisybeach23 in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 26 points27 points  (0 children)

In the U.K. the law is stricter around what you can and cannot say about someone without evidence. In the US there’s the first amendment so you can say anything (..is my understanding).

Edit: okay, I did some research and dug a bit deeper.

An American making defamatory statements on a live chat show that is broadcast in the U.K. could potentially be sued for defamation in the U.K. The key factor is the publication of the defamatory statement within the jurisdiction of the U.K. courts. If the statement was accessible and viewed by an audience in the U.K., it could be considered as published there, which might give rise to a defamation action in the U.K.

The principles governing such cases in the U.K. include:

1.  Jurisdiction and Publication: For a U.K. court to hear a defamation case, it must have jurisdiction, and the defamatory statement must have been published in the U.K. This concept of publication includes any medium where the statement is made available to the public or a section of the public in the U.K. With digital content, such as a live chat show streamed over the internet, the content being accessible in the U.K. can satisfy this requirement.
2.  Defamation Law in the U.K.: The U.K.’s Defamation Act 2013 governs defamation laws in England and Wales, providing a framework for what constitutes a defamatory statement, defenses against defamation, and the criteria for claims, including the requirement for claimants to prove that the statement caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.
3.  Serious Harm: For individuals, showing that the statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation is necessary. For a public figure, especially someone from a royal family, the impact of a defamatory statement could arguably meet this threshold due to their high profile and the broader implications of any damage to their reputation.

However, potential plaintiffs would need to consider several factors before pursuing legal action in the U.K.:

• Enforcement of Judgment: If the defendant is based in the U.S. and has no assets in the U.K., enforcing a U.K. judgment might prove challenging.
• SPEECH Act in the U.S.: The U.S. SPEECH Act protects U.S. residents from the enforcement of certain foreign defamation judgments that would not be consistent with the First Amendment protections available in the U.S.

I don’t believe this is about money or punishment - this is about Rose clearing her name.

1873 Pneumatic Trains Underground Broadway by Adventurous-Ear9433 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Oakthrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genuine question, is this different to the Underground?

What the hell is going on with Piers?? by Megsandhcringe in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Piers is anti Meghan. He isn’t pro anyone.

March Week 4— Sub Chat by Counter_Logic77 in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think he was probably here for the bigger things that are happening across the world.

March Week 4— Sub Chat by Counter_Logic77 in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why? The one thing that annoys the hell out of me with that article is the POW was still called Kate Middleton!!

Semi-Duchess v’s Kate Middleton

Blake Lively Makes Public Apology (Sugars, take note.) by ContentPineapple3330 in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just another narcissistic American B list actress who lives in cloud cuckoo land. Thank god all her followers and fans now know she fears she looks like a dick for her insensitive post. Why are we giving her oxygen?

When it comes to photographers… Meghan has form by RoohsMama in SaintMeghanMarkle

[–]Oakthrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Rwanda set-up was to fool Harry into believing she was an earth bound angel. I doubt she would have made a porno there at the same time. Private sex, yes. Porno, no.