(More) Princes and the Press

[Aspiringmatriarch]

Starting a new thread as the last one filled up with the usual Meghan debates!

I'm very interested in the relationship between the RF and the press so hope this can be a thread for observations and analysis of what's going on with the media. What they're choosing to report on, and how.

Harry has just released this statement distancing himself from Charles' cash for honours scandal. What was the original article in The Sunday Times, does anyone know?

It's the usual tabloids bollocks.
A "source" from Clarence House said they don't remember if Harry warned Charles about Mahfouz.

I find it interesting that Harry and Meghan make direct statements to the press, yet the RF continue to have these "sources" that say stuff on thier behalf.

There seem to be a lot of faulty memories among the royals and their staff!!

@AnnunciataZ

There seem to be a lot of faulty memories among the royals and their staff!!

Yep.

Amazing how court surroundings seem to bring it all back with crystal clarity and surround sound though.

@LookslovelyinSpringtime

Charles has stated that Harry did not warn him about the dodgy man who was giving money for favours.

@LookslovelyinSpringtime Do you have a link to Charles' statement?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10283385/amp/Prince-Harrys-concerns-Saudi-billionaire-did-NOT-reach-Charles.html

I skimmed through this quickly and yes it is the dreaded Mail. I hat the Mail generally but caught this headline . Sources I presume means Clarence House wants to get the message out.

The only people that will suffer from that are the Sentebale and war vets

Well if we're to believe the claims that royal patronages turbo charge charitable donations, making it up shouldn't have been too much of a problem and as a bonus Harry would have kept his conscience clear.

Anyway. He didn't seem too troubled about Invictus losing many multiples of £60K when he cancelled a major fundraising concert which entirely coincidentally appeared to conflict with his Netflix deal.

Clear his conscience of what? Harry is not the one trading cash for honours and has nothing to do with that.

Told you the Times report like the rags.

www.newsweek.com/why-prince-harry-called-lawyers-over-canceled-invictus-games-fundraiser-1530196

He didn't seem too troubled about Invictus losing many multiples of £60K when he cancelled a major fundraising concert which entirely coincidentally appeared to conflict with his Netflix deal.

What are you talking about? Is there a source for this? I find it doubtful this is a fair or accurate representation of the facts but happy to be corrected.

Is there a source for this?

Various sources but just one here:

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/12595643/invictus-games-bash-netflix-meghan-harry/

It says quite clearly that it was cancelled because of Covid. If he'd gone ahead with it then he'd have been accused of hosting a super-spreader event!

@AnnunciataZ

It says quite clearly that it was cancelled because of Covid. If he'd gone ahead with it then he'd have been accused of hosting a super-spreader event!

And yet the planning for the games themselves, another potential super spreader event due to take place at a similar time continued for another few months.

How does the Netflix deal impact Invictus exactly?

When were the games, because they were cancelled for 2020 and 2021 for next year.
invictusgamesfoundation.org/the-invictus-games-the-hague-postponed/

I found something from The Times (sorry but not keen to click on a Sun link) and it says the is subject to a legal complaint by the Duke of Sussex. So I would guess this has been misrepresented in some way?

metro.co.uk/2020/09/06/harry-and-meghan-cancel-star-studded-invictus-games-event-due-to-coronavirus-13230970/amp/

This article states it was due to coronavirus making a live concert impossible, tickets for which would have been the main source of revenue. It also says this was independent of the Netflix deal.

@Aspiringmatriarch

I found something from The Times (sorry but not keen to click on a Sun link) and it says the is subject to a legal complaint by the Duke of Sussex. So I would guess this has been misrepresented in some way?

Yes. I saw this too but there's no further detail on whether this is ongoing or whether there's been an outcome that I can find.

Of course it's possible it's just a bit of mischief-making on the back of unfortunate timing but there appears to be no explanation as to why two linked mass events due to take place at a similar time were cancelled months apart for the same reason.

Perhaps it took longer because they were looking at ways Invictus might happen, much like how the IOC did before ultimately deciding to postpone the Olympics. There are options you can explore with sporting events - distancing, not having spectators etc - but you can't really do the same for a concert.

@AnnunciataZ

Perhaps it took longer because they were looking at ways Invictus might happen, much like how the IOC did before ultimately deciding to postpone the Olympics. There are options you can explore with sporting events - distancing, not having spectators etc - but you can't really do the same for a concert.

The Olympics were postponed last year. They managed to stage them successfully this year. Likewise many festivals.

Without an audience, it's very different. As Olympics.

I just read an article in The Guardian about Sienna Miller (and Paul Gascogne) settling out of court with NGN because she couldn’t afford the multi million legal bill to take them to trial. The article speculates whether Harry will be one of those who takes the risk of a major legal bill to take them to trial, just like the Princes and the Press documentary alludes he wants to.

Interesting how every time Simon Case does one of his dodgy jobs, he is referred to as a 'civil servant', when all along he was 'Prince William's press 'former private secretary'.

I wonder if William's team asked them to remove his name from being associated with Case, or if the media decided to report this way as part of the invisible contract.

I knew Meghan's wardrobe was always inflated when reported on, but I have to say, I did not realise they went through the trouble of including her ring price with the 'wardrobe' price.

As this blogger says, most times then Meghan's wardrobe costs hundreds of thousands each time, which is why people were complaining about how expensive it is.

Very sneaky
twitter.com/Tanisha_Ev/status/1472012286088912898

Also : Isn't it rich for the DM to withhold No10 party names when they demanded transparency from MM regarding the names of the five friends. Then again with the court case.
Glad they are gone from scapegoating and people can concentrate on everyone else shenanigans.

@rubicscubicle

Totally agree on Simon Case. I read that he was only seconded to Johnson in 2020 and will be going back to work for William as his Private Secretary at some point. No idea how true that is. Maybe that was the plan but as he is yet another partygoer during lockdown, perhaps that plan is scuppered!

Interesting how every time Simon Case does one of his dodgy jobs, he is referred to as a 'civil servant', when all along he was 'Prince William's press 'former private secretary'.

I don’t think describing him as a civil servant is misleading. He worked in the civil service for over a decade before working for PW, he worked in the cabinet office and as private secretary to the prime minister (Cameron and May I think). Then a couple of years for PW, then back to government. So he wasn’t PW’s private secretary “all along”. If you’re summing up his role for a headline, “top civil servant” seems reasonable for the person holding the most senior job in the civil service. That headline would be odd if it said “PW’s former private secretary quits No10 party probe” because he wasn’t given the role of investigating the parties because he worked for PW, he was given it, ostensibly, because he is a senior civil servant (of course he was probably actually given it because they thought he’d come up with the right findings).

No, I am saying, before any dodgy scandals he was referred to as 'Prince William's former private secretary' - I am not saying that was his role all along, I am saying that he was linked. But as soon as he does anything untoward, he sheds thee title linking him to William.

A bit like the time most rags initially referred to Jason Knauf as 'H&M's former employee" during the court case, when in this case all along he is actually William's employee - still is and always has been.

As for him given the role of investigator for the parties, well I'm sure he would have come out with the 'right findings' alright. I believe he had the 'right answers' (ie. he could not remember anything) when he was called in front of the committee in parliament last year.