To be a bit gleeful about Harry's court case

[Viviennemary]

Serves him right. He's made millions from Netflix, book deals and accusing them of being racist. Bit odd he's now coming back.

Will the King pay his debts.I hope not. Now the long suffering public will be fleeced for his security costs which will be around £5m a yea r. And they wonder why they are unpopular.

Becky from HQ recently explained that disagreement isn’t indicative of a lack of tolerance for someone’s opinion.

There are posters repeatedly asking why anyone is talking about H&M instead of some other topic. Also posting the regular laundry list of problematic insults both outright and thinly disguised at anyone who expresses a non-positive opinion. That’s a lack of tolerance.

By insulting a post you avoid having to answer it.

Scintillating.

Thank you for this reminder. But I do understand the difference between respectful disagreement and saying a post is boring and not addressing the contents of it.

OK so AMW doesn’t attract as much on-line opprobrium as H and M because everyone agrees he is vile and there is nothing more to discuss about him apparently. I profoundly disagree with that as I think there is plenty to discuss but thank you for the direct answer.

I would still genuinely like to know, why certain people still back up the RF and trust them to be honest, and are so sure that the institution is right, and M and H are wrong, given that the RF have obviously known about AMW’s behaviour for a while and covered it up.

Why doesn’t that change people’s opinion of them in other words?

This is not another question about AMW; it’s about the trustworthiness of the institution of the monarchy. If they lied about one thing, isn’t it possible that they have lied about other things too?

Why don’t they consider that it’s a possibility that fault may lay on both sides? Why is it always RF correct and honest in all things v H & M problematic and liars in all things?

Is it because people who support monarchy excuse certain behaviours because they believe the institution is good for the country and so some dishonesty is excusable? If so, how does that work?

Why does paying off a law suit and covering up potential criminality and alleged fraud not lead you to think, hang on, they are perhaps not as upright and respectable as they pretend to be?

It’s been answered numerous times, you just don’t like the replies.

Regarding the Stephen Lawrence case none of his murderers would have faced justice if the Daily Mail had been dogged in their pursuit of the murderers. The journalist faced imprisonment for names those who killed Stephen and Mrs Lawrence repaid the mail and the journalist by calling them racist. It’s worth noting that the journalist was married to a biracial woman. Think about that.

Reply Post 1/2
You have created a false dichotomy here. Harry is part of the royal family. Criticizing his behavior is not solely the domain of people who support the monarchy or the royal family.

Isn’t that obvious? Harry is nattering on about lipgloss and sausages but not one word about Andrew. Does that give you pause?

No one from the rest of the Royal Family has said a word about Harry or Meghan after the Queen described them as much loved. So they haven’t been caught lying about them because they have not done so.

Harry on the other hand has been caught lying as recently as this summer when Charlotte Griffiths said he leaked then blamed the palace. Thats a whopper and not just one that paints his rich, powerful family in an unflattering light. More evidence that he is prone to punching down on staff and those with no platform or power to defend themselves.

Reply Post 2/2

Your desire for the public to hold the individual members of the Royal family responsible for AMW feels misguided to me for two reasons.

Firstly because it’s impossible to believe there was any discussion or consensus among Charles, William and their spouses about how to handle the VG accusations. Unlikely they had any say. Why should we blame them then?

Secondly because we also have family members. I don’t control mine nor do I know what they get up to most of the time. I do not personally believe any of the RF knew that Andrew was engaging in criminal or abusive behavior. Today, I think it’s impossible for me to say what they should do with a man that hasn’t been charged. They could walk him into the police themselves and nothing would happen.

But again, why separate Harry from the others? This all happened before he left for the US so he would likely have known as much as the others. Yet no one seems to hold him to the same standard.

In summary, Harry continues to openly behave and speak out in a way that seems erratic and unreliable. The others have kept heads down and mouths shut about Harry. So we have only Harry’s own words to go on and he’s admittedly not a reliable narrator of his own life. He indicated they were racist and then even pulled that back saying he never said any such thing. Why would we then believe anything he says, particularly about these people who appear to be quite lovely and loving?

Saying other people's posts are boring isnt tolerance which is what I was referring to.

Either address the posters points, or ignore it or report it id tou feel it breaks guidelines. Its rude to go round posting boring to what other people post.

At the risk of being reductive, it’s really boring to keep reading posts telling others how and what to post.

The case of Andrew Mountbatton Windsor would not cause me to be gleeful. There is far too much tragedy involved. So there is no comparison.

Harry is always on the make, is always moaning about something in spite of being one of the most priviledged people on the planet. Has brought several law suits. But this time over reached his hand and got too greedy.

And he didn't care if he brought down a newspaper, lost hundreds of people their jobs and ruined the careers of many blameless journalists. All for the sake of raking over bits of tittle-tattle no one even remembers or cares about. He says the press ruined his relationship with Chelsy but that's far from the truth. Their relationship had other problems, and she realised she wasn't cut out for royal life with all its restrictive freedoms. And she already came from a wealthy family so money wasn't an attraction.

It wasn't just tittle tattle. The press getting hold of Elton's baby's birth certificate before he did, isn't tittle tattle, it's a breach of privacy and had David Furnish not already had his name put on it the surrogate could have had her identity exposed. Sadie's ectopic pregnancy was not tittle tattle, it was bang out of order to even consider it as an exclusive.

Birth certificates are public records. Anyone is entitled to a copy. I also think the child’s mother should be listed on the birth certificate.

Sharing something you have been told might be distasteful but it is not unlawful unless you have been told it in specific confidential environments. If a ‘friend’ told a journalist about an ectopic pregnancy then the journalist is entitled to print it.

That's a very fair and knowledgeable post. Thank you. You don't get many of those on Harry and Meg threads!

There are always people willing to talk, especially when they’ve had a few drinks. Some of the stories Harry complained about had actually come from press offices - and even from him. It was always obvious that the big winners from the hacking scandal were going to be lawyers and already rich celebrities and it has been the biggest gravy train ever, with settlements to avoid these hugely expensive court battles. The unreliable witnesses admitted that they and others were courted with big bucks to admit things they hadn’t done. And as for more regulation, that would have the consequence of protecting powerful people from even more scrutiny. And I remember at the time that more minor celebs who made their living out of secretly selling their lives to gossip mags were suddenly scared that they wouldn’t be able to any more. Harry’s team had expected the Mail to settle, they approached the paper shortly before the court date to talk tough about a mutually agreeable figure. They were knocked back. Harry might have wanted his day in court but the others sure didn’t.

As for Harry and Meg and the constant refrain about the so-cruel British media, I find this rather puzzling as they have had some of the cruellest press of their lives as a couple in The Hollywood Reporter and Vanity Fair, huge takedown articles calling them the year’s biggest losers, employees trashing how they were treated plus the South Park episode and SNL re-enacting the dog bowl incident. All in America that supposedly was saving them from the horrible Brits. And we know what the boss of Spotify called them.

Not to mention their utter hypocrisy - Harry acting worse that salacious tabloid journalists by selling his families secrets with his own spin in Spare. Plus including various private individuals in that.

BECAUSE HE IS QUIET

That's about it really he shut his mouth for the most part we can go months without a tale of entitlement from him

The squeaky wheel gets the grease or in this case the press release seriously if they said and did nothing nothing wouod bevsaid there might be the old media rehash slow news day but people move on fast

What has AMW done in the last week? Month? Six months? to talk about?

When there was something to report about AMW, for example the Epstein files release, the papers gave it plenty of column inches. This was always the whataboutery argument: "what about Andrew?" It is a pretty hollow argument now. He's been stripped of all his honours and titles, been arrested, is under investigation. Everything has been widely reported. At the moment there is nothing else to report.