Meg Blames King Charles for Harry’s Case Loss at Royal Courts of Justice

In a surprising turn of events, Meg, the wife of Prince Harry, is blaming King Charles III for her husband's loss in a recent court case against a tabloid newspaper publisher.

The King had made an unexpected visit to the Royal Courts of Justice in London, just a day before the ruling on Prince Harry's hacking claims.

Sources reveal that the monarch's visit was meant to acknowledge and honor the relationship between the judiciary and the crown during his coronation year.

During his visit, King Charles III expressed his gratitude to the judges for their dedication in upholding the system of justice in the country.

This gesture holds a deeper meaning as it follows in the footsteps of his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who frequently visited the Royal Courts of Justice throughout her reign.

The King's jovial demeanor was evident as he interacted with students participating in a mock trial, apologizing for interrupting their session before engaging in conversation with them.

Moving on from the students, King Charles III met with voluntary magistrates in the painted room.

These magistrates generously give their time to support the justice system by presiding over criminal and family cases across England and Wales.

The royal family's official social media accounts shared a stunning photo of the monarch during his visit, captioning it as a celebration of the judiciary's work and commitment to the rule of law.

In his address to the judges and magistrates, King Charles III expressed his immense gratitude for their efforts in maintaining the system of justice, which has garnered envy from others around the world.

He acknowledged their significant contribution and concluded with heartfelt thanks.

Little did he know that his visit coincided with a crucial moment for his youngest son, Prince Harry, who awaited the outcome of his unlawful information gathering claim against Mirror Group Newspapers.

While the royal family's schedule is planned months in advance, some have speculated that the timing of the King's visit was intentional, aimed at influencing the court's ruling on Prince Harry's case.

Meg's supporters argue that this visit was a manipulation tactic to ensure her husband's loss.

However, it seems unlikely that King Charles III would go to such lengths, appearing in person the day before the verdict is made public.

In fact, the judgment in Prince Harry's case had already been decided at least a week prior.

Both the claimants and defendants receive an embargoed written judgment a week in advance, allowing them to prepare for the oral judgment during the court session.

Therefore, it can be assumed that Prince Harry and Mirror Group Newspapers were already aware of the outcome.

To provide context, Prince Harry filed a lawsuit against the publisher for damages, alleging that journalists from their titles, The Daily and Sunday Mirror, as well as the Sunday People, were involved in unethical practices such as phone hacking, deception, and the use of private investigators for unlawful activities.

It is worth noting that the claim regarding phone hacking during Prince Harry's time at Eton is questionable, considering he did not own a mobile phone at the time.

The evidence presented in the trial included an interview he gave to the Press Association on his 18th birthday, which contained three lines from an official briefing about his cadet march.

The frequency of lawsuits involving Prince Harry and Meghan has raised questions about their primary source of income.

It seems that every few days there is news of them suing someone.

One cannot help but wonder if this has become their main means of financial support.

How long can they sustain themselves by pursuing legal action?

In conclusion, while Meg blames King Charles III for her husband's case loss, the timing of the King's visit to the Royal Courts of Justice seems coincidental rather than manipulative.

The outcome of Prince Harry's case had already been determined prior to the public verdict.