Harry to sue BBC

[Viviennemary]

I just read Harry is going to sue the BBC for announcing the Queen wasn't consulted over the name Lilibet. They said she was told of their plans . Maybe told isnt quite the same as consulted. When is this all going to end. Seems to be getting worse instead of improving.

Some of them might quite welcome it to be honest, as a court order overrides any non-disclosure agreements they have had to sign as part of their roles.

I highly doubt they would welcome it. What if they get pointed questions about previous leaks. Come to think of it, yes they can be called in, I suspect that is why Knauf pulled out of being a DM witness.

@Mummy194

How did the media get ahold of tampon gate? Can't remember.

Hacked phones. Shockingly unethical.

@Mummy194 Lili will still be connected to the Royal Family. But my point was in America in the future, Queen Elizabeth is not going to be meaningful to a lot of people. By the time Lili is an adult, the Queen will probably have been dead for at least a decade. The name Lilibet is not going to carry the same meaning then, as it does now.

@Mummy194

How did the media get ahold of tampon gate? Can't remember.

Hacking. Mobile phones were vulnerable to that then.

There was some attempt to blame the security services, but it’s fairly obvious it was the red tops (because of the way it was rebroadcast on different for hams to pick up). There was no benefit to the security services in the whole debacle. For the tabloids though it was a big pay day. Several big pay days and a premium rate phone number, in fact.

Slightly off topic but I was just reading about the rose that the Queen has been given to commemorate PP and it was presented to her by the president of the RHS, Mr Keith Weed 😲🤣

@Mummy194

Some of them might quite welcome it to be honest, as a court order overrides any non-disclosure agreements they have had to sign as part of their roles.

I highly doubt they would welcome it. What if they get pointed questions about previous leaks. Come to think of it, yes they can be called in, I suspect that is why Knauf pulled out of being a DM witness.

Are you re-writing history here or do you just not understand how the court process works?

No-one “pulled out” of being a witness in the Sussexes case against Associated Newspapers (not the DM). Four palace staff members, including Sam Cohen and Jason Kauff, who had previously worked for the Sussexes approached the AN legal team to let them know that they had relevant evidence and documents which would shed light on certain key factors in the case. At the hearing of Meghan’s application for summary judgment, AN referred to this as a reason why the matter should go to a trial (as the 4 wanted to be compelled to give evidence in order to avoid breaching their confidentiality obligations - something that can’t be done at the preliminary stages). The judge decided however that a trial was not needed, so they never got their opportunity to give their evidence. I don’t know how they felt about it, but since they came forward voluntarily they may actually have been a bit disappointed.

@JaniieJones

'You'd have thought the media and ' royal sources' would have laid off a woman who's just given birth'

You'd think the Sussexes and their cheerleaders would lay off a 95 yr old women whose dh was dying during the cringeworthy Oprah pity party and all the family who were fabulous a short time ago, but nope. They are out to cause maximum damage because they didn't get their own way.

agreee.

The judge decided however that a trial was not needed, so (the "four friends") never got their opportunity to give their evidence

It also neatly sidestepped any chance of H or M being put on the stand

Considering there's previous for this (with Burrell), I'd love to know what if any influences were brought to bear in the judge's decision

@Serenster

AN (Mail on Sunday) were depending on Knauf to win the case. They named him as co-author, he emphatically denied that he was and sunk the case as he was never going on the stand to say that.
The bottom line is that the RF staff may not be so willing to lie under oath for anyone.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/meghan-wins-copyright-claim-against-mail-on-sunday-over-letter

Anyway that is another story, nothing to do with baby Lili.

@smilesy

Slightly off topic but I was just reading about the rose that the Queen has been given to commemorate PP and it was presented to her by the president of the RHS, Mr Keith Weed 😲🤣

Oh that is too funny

@PreparationPreparationPrep

Now this, I don't know what HMTQ thinks about the name but I doubt that the BBC have made it up. They clearly think their source is reliable. then why the anonymous sources which was unnecessary and childish. Why did HM not just issue a statement. They often issue statements from BP which have come from the Queen. What was different about this case. If she didn't give permission and wants it known then issue a statement not hide behind anonymous sources. It is very easy to blame H for speaking out against what he believes is right - when the other side is being vague and using anonymity. All they have to do is say BP confirm that HM did / did not give permission for her name to be used. and if the queen is happy with it add - however HM is delighted and if she isn't then leave that part.

By the same token H&M seem to have the writer fellow speaking on their behalf also. It was all just speculation until H&M stated that they had asked permission to use the name. To which the palace has responded stating permission wasn't sought. To which H&M state that HMTQ was the first person they called and wouldn't have used the name has she not been happy.

It's all about symantics in this case. H&M obviously felt they didn't need to seek official permission (not a criticism), but then when people were criticising them for using such a personal name they IMPLIED that they had permission. The Palace has stated no official permission was sought.

They could have just said HM was fine with it when we told her baby's name. But instead of just being honest they twist words to try to minimise criticism and all it does is make them look untrustworthy.

To which the palace has responded stating permission wasn't sought.

Responding is sending out a statement. They sneakily sent an no face, no name 'source'.

That is insidious.

That article you linked to is crystal clear that Jason Knauf did not “emphatically deny” that he was the co-author of the letter, as you claim. It says an unnamed source, “Source U” told them that the royal household had helped draft the letter, they asked Jason Knauf if this was true and he did not confirm or deny it, so they added it to their case:

“ANL’s lawyers had given Knauf the opportunity to say he did not help draft the letter before the publisher submitted its amended defence containing the allegations, but “answer came there none”,”

Responding is sending out a statement. They sneakily sent an no face, no name 'source'.

It’s not at all unusual for comments to be issued from press offices and such like without a publishable name attached. It is really odd to assert that a response has to mean a written statement.

That is insidious

Or simply discreet and low key?

That is insidious.

It's a completely standard way of doing it.

@Mummy194

Quite laughable to say they named their baby for clout chasing. No matter what they named Lili, she would always be known as HMNQ great granddaughter and PC granddaughter, no matter how much you wish she was not.

Bizarre thing to say. I haven't seen anyone saying they wish she wasn't the Queen's great granddaughter or Prince Charles' granddaughter. Why would they?

@MobyDicksTinyCanoe

Breaking you're right. It is a sad start....... You'd have thought the media and ' royal sources' would have laid off a woman who's just given birth and is getting over that and grieving for the child she lost previously. Along with Harry of course.

And yet here we are.

This has to be a joke right? The Queen just lost her husband of 60+ years FFS and all H&M have done during this is criticise her and the rest of the family. And we're supposed to feel sorry for M because she just gave birth and there's all this controversy??

Her HUSBAND is the person causing the controversy.

Sorry @Serenster

I read something else, and linked another regarding 'emphatically denied'. But I think that article is along the same lines that AN had expected the palace to back them all the way.

bylineinvestigates.com/2021/05/05/meghan-markle-delivers-second-humiliating-blow-to-the-mail-on-sunday-as-she-wins-copyright-claim/

Anyway, apologies for derailing the thread.

This hinges on official permission? So a stamped letter example from Buckingham Palace, rather than anything agreed verbally?

I would not lie for anyone on oath. Palace courtiers and staff of H and M may feel exactly the same. But I do not think this will actually come to court.

Exactly, the palace should have kept their mouth shut. What happened to never explain, never complain.

But, if they were asked a purely factual question, why should they have refused to answer, @Mummy194? Saying that they should have refused clearly implies that you think Harry actually did something that he wanted the Palace to keep quiet about. If he did everything properly, what has he got to lose?

Again by the same token H&M could be making direct statements instead of using their mouthpiece but they aren't either.

And given they're track record of "inaccuracies" I no longer feel able to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Their track record

@Zzelda

If the BBC phoned the palace a simple the Queen is happy with the birth of the baby. If BBC pushes on the question of did they get permission - don't know why they would actually, then a it was personal talks between HMQ and Harry not really to do with the firm, along those lines would have sufficed. No one was caught of guard, the palace PR knows the score. This was deliberate on their part.

I am annoyed a publically funded organisation is wasting my money on such a non-newsworthy story. This is basically silly tittle-tattle about a family squabble - fine for the red top rags and people who choose to wallow in that garbage, not a news worth event for the BBC to report on.

Lili will still be connected to her father who is Prince Harry. Her grandfather who will likely be a King when she is older. Later on, her uncle will be King too. If PC does not change the rules, then she will be a princess herself. It does not matter what her first name is

As time goes on, and as she gets further away from the throne, who she's related to will become increasingly irrelevant. If she has any sense, she will realise that the more distant members of the RF get much more respect and credibility out of just carrying on with their lives and achieving in their own fields rather than by trading off their relatives - witness people like Peter and Zara Phillips, for example. In fact I wonder whether she will actually use the "Princess" title at all; she may well find that if anything it gets in the way.