The Press & The Royals: a discussion

[Whaeanui]

As we were just having a great discussion on this topic I’m going to try again to continue it on a thread of its own. A previous thread highlighted two particularly prolific ‘royal reporters’, but the same is true for all. They often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch. So do we think it is possible for the royal family to stay relevant and in the publics mind without their unhealthy relationship with the media? Can social media replace this? What do you think they can do to make positive changes that would reflect an understanding of the mental health challenges the media intrusion results in? Also their role in charities that deal with mental health and misogyny, mistreatment of women etc could be impacted by this too. Thoughts?
Please do not derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular members or if they deserve it. I would like a discussion on how the royal family could change the relationship with the press.

Or, William also sued, as Harry has done, and settled rather than going through court.

Legal documents are public record.

Do you mind showing a link with any report of a law suit involving William?

Thanks so much.

Not always. Plenty of A. v B. claim forms are filed if the parties consent to a non disclosure order prior to the issue of proceedings. Or ask the court to issue such an order, if they can’t agree it.

The claimant would have to set out full particulars of the alleged invasions of their privacy in order to fully plead their case, and then substantiate those by disclosing the evidence of them. So, yes.

You’re misunderstanding.

I’m saying that it doesn’t prove anything, as there are other logical explanations for what happened than what Harry is saying.

As far as I’m aware, it’s not unusual for claims to be settled without disclosure.

The point is, I’m not the one stating in court documents what should be inferred from this. I’m merely stating that there are other explanations.

Harry is the one who’s brought this into his court case, and Harry is the one who will need to substantiate his claims, with proof.

Let’s hope he has it, because if not, this could all go horribly wrong for him.

I really don't know - I take onboard other posters syaing that police involvement with the last case was the key to Leveson. I think it would be interesting to hear the Lawrence's case and see if there is something the govenement could do as a consequence - this is now so far out of my knowledge base I may be talkign absolute nonsense but would hope others could help with suggestions.

The conflicts of interest are so glaring I am astonished those castigating Harry cannot see them.

People on twitter are pointing out that the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (i.e. William & Kate’s charity) transferred £1.11m to the Invictus charity in 2020.

Maybe Harry might now like to clarify why that donation was made? I mean if he’s saying it was a dodgy secret payment, surely he’d want to make it clear that none of the secret payment was donated to a charity he was patron of?

Harrys needs to prove what he’s saying is true, not just suppose it, because this is a court of law, and if he can’t prove it the whole thing will thrown out

That's why, for the sake of everyone who wants to see the media's filthy practices stopped, it worries me that Harry's involved in this at all
Not being a lawyer I've no idea if the whole thing really could be thrown out if one of the claimants is shown to be unreliable, but either way I'd expect the defence to make the very most of his self-described attitude to the truth, which could surely only be a negative for the case

Overall though, the whole mess just shows once again that the whole lot are only too ready to cut murky deals to prop themselves up - and on the subject of keeping things out of the witness box that includes the late Queen, when it's considered what she did to close down Paul Burrell's evidence

As far as I’m aware, it’s not unusual for claims to be settled without disclosure.

Yes - I should clarify that my comment above that details of alleged invasions of privacy would have to be disclosed assumes we are talking about a scenario where the case isn’t settled before you get to that stage.

Claims can be settled at any stage - even before you actually issue litigation, if your claim is strong enough. People sometimes send the potential defendant a draft of their claim saying :“This will be filed next week unless you pay”…and they often do!

@MrsMaxDeWinter NZ don’t have Murdoch but what we have is not much better. I don’t think that the left or right wing angle makes a difference, it’s just media. NZ govt fund a lot of the smaller media outlets which obviously is not ideal. The two main ones are awful, but have pulled articles I complained on the grounds of racism before, with apologies. One recently apologised for their biased reporting of Maori issues over decades, in particular over land rights and protests, I remember them covering ones I went to and they were just beyond dishonest. Most countries have problems with media at the moment but the British tabloid press are different and not something NZ has the equivalent of- we’re too small and don’t have many celebrities nor do we tend to care 😂 my 76 year old mum goes to the gym with some of the all blacks 🤷🏽‍♀️ it’s just not the same environment I guess.

As far as I’m aware, each claim is made on its own merit?
When I said ‘the whole thing’ I meant all of Harrys claims, ie the whole thing, for him.

Im sure there will be a number of claims, with some individuals making more than one claim.
So some could be upheld, whilst others are dismissed?

Saying AN received a letter of demand from William's lawyers and then settled the matter is very different from saying William sued.

A law suit is a public record.

And even in the A v B scenario someone mentioned above, there would still need to be a trial.

It is that possibility that the Royal Family obviously did not want the matter to go to trial.

Look how quickly the Queen suddenly recollected that she had given Diana's posessions to Paul Burrell when it became clear that uncomfortable questions might be asked in the witness box in his case.

The Evening Standard earlier had a long excerpt from Harry’s witness statement , including a cryptic comment on how easily and swiftly William’s claim was settled. Now can’t find the article at all

Is this just the general cycle of news, with stories being knocked off the top spot by new scoops, or is something going on behind the scenes? As I said earlier, much of the Telegraph’s coverage has disappeared

I mean, it’s all a bit tomaytoes, tomatoes isn’t it.

I’m not a lawyer, and the reporting on this, and the timeline, is confusing.
The point I was making is that we know William made some sort of legal representation, that resulted in a settlement. That’s literally all we know.

It’s not proof of anything else, and if Harrys claiming it is, he will need to substantiate that, with evidence.

When I said ‘the whole thing’ I meant all of Harrys claims, ie the whole thing, for him

Apologies, PicturesofDogs; I read it as a chance of all the claims being dismissed, which as said didn't seem likely in my limited knowledge

In fairness this next bit applies to all the claimants, but after Serenster's explanation of what would have to be disclosed in court, I have to wonder if the possibly grubby details coming out would suit any of them. Maybe any or all would do better to settle before it came to that ... it might not result in the media getting quite the public hiding many would wish, but it could easily avoid some very red faces

I’m trying to find a good summary and keep up with the thread… so I’m reading H said he was told to drop his case or not bring it by the palace, but William was awarded a settlement- not necessarily that he filed anything just they had agreed compensation in exchange for him dropping it? from yesterday >
However, NGN still settled his claim for a huge sum of money in 2020 without subjecting him to a similar strike-out application, without any of the public being told, and seemingly with some favourable deal in return for him going ‘quietly’ so to speak.

And even in the A v B scenario someone mentioned above, there would still need to be a trial.

As has been said several times on this thread, the vast majority of claims filed at court are settled long before they get to a trial. The court procedural rules even expressly state that the courts have a duty to help the parties settle their cases.

However, NGN still settled his claim for a huge sum of money in 2020 without subjecting him to a similar strike-out application

Just FYI - a strike-out application presupposes that a claim has been filed. Otherwise there is nothing for the court to strike out.

The point I was making is that we know William made some sort of legal representation, that resulted in a settlement. That’s literally all we know.
It’s not proof of anything else, and if Harrys claiming it is, he will need to substantiate that, with evidence

No doubt, but isn't that the sort of thing where bits of a claim can be struck out as "this is irrelevant so let's get on with hearing what the case is really about" or whatever the legal phrase is?

I know that Serenester.

It is the possibility of a trial that would have been among the considerations compelling William to settle.

@Serenster , I very briefly studied law before dropping out to various reasons ( only got as far as the law of tort!) .
I have to say I'm finding your posts fascinating and interesting, it's good to have someone to explain all the legal aspects and rules. Thank you

Yes, MrsMaxDeWinter, you are right - but they are not remotely alone in that. Most sensible people don’t want to go through a trial if they can help it. Draining, if you have to give evidence exhausting, with an added side of unpredictability and a process you can’t control! And no guarantee you’ll win, even if you think you have a great case.

'It is the possibility of a trial that would have been among the considerations compelling William to settle.'

Pretty sure that would have been amongst most people's considerations. I don't think many really 'want their day in court', when push comes to shove. I don't know if you've ever been involved in a cross examination but it can be an incredibly distressing experience.

to bring it back to the royals, I can’t see any public interest justification for the speculative reporting on whether Kate and Meghan get on. None. Yet this has been a theme at the heart of so much of the nonsense currently in the media. Why?

Mysogny. Pure and simple. Translates as -
Cat fight
Women never get along
Only room for one good woman
Our pure home grown English Rose vs American Harlot divorce ACTRESS and so on

Very little is written about the competition between the brothers (Andrew, Edward and Charles). A lot is written about the competition between W&H always in favour of PoW.

There is a narrative.

So both brothers filed against them, at different times? Some reports as started out together and then around 2019 separately? One settled and kept it private. One is seeking a trial. Was this apology from NGN meant to be public, admitting to hacking and apologising for it? Potentially this is why H has decided to do this?

thats awful. so the victims life is made worse.