Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

The Press & The Royals: a discussion

1000 replies

Whaeanui · 17/04/2023 12:25

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
45
PicturesOfDogs · 26/04/2023 16:11

Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 15:52

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?

That’s what I’m reading from it now, but reports seem to differ/have disappeared.

So from what I can see atm:

Following NOTW hacking scandal, a ‘secret agreement’ was made. Around 2010-2012.

Seems to involve royals not taking action until a later date, and an apology to be issued. (Among presumably other ‘terms’)

Apology not forthcoming, so Harry decided to go to court. (Possibly joint claim with William, or separate).

Queen supported this, Charles against it.

William supported it. (Or may/may not have been a part of it)

Also unclear: whether if there was ever a joint action with the brothers, this what what Harry is referencing needing permission for. Or whether there were legal ‘talks’ going on beforehand (the secret agreement ‘later date’) which Harry was not satisfied with, (due to no apology?) and he broke away after that to start independent proceedings (and that’s what he required permission for?)

I’m guessing the latter, as that’s the only option that makes sense. But wouldn’t that also go against him in the ‘out of time’ argument, if he was seemingly participating in the ‘secret agreement’ and changed his mind?

It’s all clear as mud.

Original poster
Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 16:14

@PicturesOfDogs 😂 thank you, yes still not clear on some details. We’ll see!

OP posts:
4plusthehound · 26/04/2023 16:37

MrsMaxDeWinter · 26/04/2023 14:33

Isn't it clear that Harry is only talking about this to address the argument that he is out of time? In other words, he is showing just what it was that prevented him from bringing the legal action before? In that context, of course the William settlement is relevant because it shows that he was under undue influence to dissuade him from continuing.

This has nothing to do with William's privacy.

The next unelected head of state of the UK entered into an agreement with the proprietor of newspapers that were effectively involved in criminal activities, and that settlement was not disclosed. Not only does it raise issues, if, for instance, William and his court have been leaking about other embers of the family to the Sun, it also suggests that William may not be a completely independent actor when it comes to his brother's press complaints. Same with the allegation that Charles did not want action to go ahead because he was more concerned about the reputation building of Camilla.

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

I keep saying that these people operate opaquely, with no transparency at all. I guess they really can't afford to be transparent.

Thank goodness for Harry. He is shining a light on the murky dealings between an unaccountable press and an unaccountable royal family.

Also, pay attention to what has been happening with Murdoch over in the US, where Fox has had to pay a settlement ion hundreds of millions in heat case against Dominion for dishonest and defamatory reporting.

Can't really believe that people here have no problem with Murdoch who has poisoned public discourse in three major western countries. Jacinda Arden once said the reason New Zealand is relatively free of the kind of divisive right wing politics of the US, UK and Australia is that Murdoch has not been allowed to spread his malign influence there.

Would be interested @Whaeanui to hear your assessment of that as a NewZealandress :)

excellent

4plusthehound · 26/04/2023 16:39

MrsMaxDeWinter · 26/04/2023 14:44

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.

I never want to argue with you!

😁

LivelyBlake · 26/04/2023 17:26

How can Harry claim that he only became aware of the full extent of the phone hacking in 2019 when the trial was extensively covered in 2013?

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/19/prince-william-messages-kate-middleton-phone-hacking-trial

PicturesOfDogs · 26/04/2023 17:29

LivelyBlake · 26/04/2023 17:26

How can Harry claim that he only became aware of the full extent of the phone hacking in 2019 when the trial was extensively covered in 2013?

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/19/prince-william-messages-kate-middleton-phone-hacking-trial

Because he was in Afghan, according to his legal team.
I also read elsewhere he put in his statement he never knew as no one made him aware, and the RF (and/or men in grey suits) his things from him.

I don’t really get it, it doesn’t sound particularly credible, does it.

The Press & The Royals: a discussion
PicturesOfDogs · 26/04/2023 17:30

*hid things

poppysockies · 26/04/2023 17:36

He had 6 years to catch up on the news if it was of any interest to him. Definitely not a credible excuse

LivelyBlake · 26/04/2023 17:36

Well, he returned from Afghanistan in January 2013 and the trial was ongoing in December 2013.

Original poster
Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 17:38

What did Prince William receive a settlement for? Which year did the hacking he made a claim for take place? He apparently did that in 2019, settled 2020. Harry also filed in 2019? So why is Harry too late but William wasn’t?

OP posts:
Original poster
Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 17:40

Why should Harry be responsible for knowing he was being hacked? Is their defence really that he should always have suspected them? Even though the Sun has always denied it?

OP posts:
PicturesOfDogs · 26/04/2023 17:47

Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 17:38

What did Prince William receive a settlement for? Which year did the hacking he made a claim for take place? He apparently did that in 2019, settled 2020. Harry also filed in 2019? So why is Harry too late but William wasn’t?

I don’t think anyone knows the details of William settlement.

I’m not sure if he started it in 2019, or whether it was started previously and was ongoing, and 2019 was when Harry ‘went it alone’

I’m also getting confused with the different court cases against the different newspaper groups, and what the defences are for each case.

Its all getting amalgamated into one in my mind.

Coxspurplepippin · 26/04/2023 17:48

Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 17:40

Why should Harry be responsible for knowing he was being hacked? Is their defence really that he should always have suspected them? Even though the Sun has always denied it?

So, even if he's claiming his brother, father, the men in suits etc told him nothing, you don't think any of his mates, his army buddies, his cousins, his own staff, wouldn't have dropped a word in his shell-like and suggested Harry mate, there seems to be some issues with people's phones being hacked - may be worth investigating son.

PicturesOfDogs · 26/04/2023 17:56

So the news about Williams settlement is from the NGN case, who argue that he’s out of time, and should have ‘known’ earlier/brought the case earlier.

While his argument about secret deals/he couldn’t have known don’t seem particularly credible, neither does the defence.

You should have known we did it/you’re out of time/we also didn’t do it doesn’t seem great.

Seems like the defence also is one paper (NOTW) might have done it, but the Sun didn’t?

Confused about that!

And the one where Gavin Burrows denied being instructed was the Associated Newspapers case, where GB says he did hack people, but not on the instruction of AN/ Daily Mail.
Seems like a weaker case than the one above. (In my non-expert opinion)

And then there’s a third case? Against the daily mirror? Not sure about the details of that one, don’t think anything’s happened there yet?

Original poster
Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 17:57

But it wasn’t The Sun then, it was NOTW in 2013. Are the claims about specific publications or just ‘NGN’? Surely that matters?

OP posts:
Original poster
Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 17:59

Seems like the defence also is one paper (NOTW) might have done it, but the Sun didn’t? Yes, Harry is saying The Sun did do it and they’ve settled claims over the years without admitting guilt. Mirror one is still to come, yes.

OP posts:
BelleHathor · 26/04/2023 18:25

Whaeanui · 26/04/2023 17:40

Why should Harry be responsible for knowing he was being hacked? Is their defence really that he should always have suspected them? Even though the Sun has always denied it?

In fact when this was happening originally in 2006 to 2011, great emphasis was made to state that it was just the News of the World. Hence the huge song and dance made about it shutting down.

OP posts:
DuchessOfPort · 26/04/2023 18:58

Hmm. That Guardian link is interesting. Piers Morgan’s denial is very specific - too specific and doesn’t cover all bases. Like he just wants to shout “but I didn’t TELL them to!” as some sort of gotcha based on pedantry.

Diana was paranoid but some of that was down to Bashir and his lies to her.

It all comes across as slightly scattergun - has anyone else other than Harry submitted anything extra? I hope they all win if it’s all proven and I don’t mind admitting that I assume all tabloids hacked everyone hard even if there’s no evidence yet - but I confess to not being too much clearer than I was this morning on the general detail.

KrasiTime · 26/04/2023 19:00

Having seen the way a friend was harassed at uni I hope the papers get reigned in.

LBFseBrom · 26/04/2023 19:13

Too right, KrasiTime!

Howsimplywonderful · 26/04/2023 19:27

@DuchessOfPort

It comes across as an airing of grievances and score settling rather than a legal strategy, we will have to see what the judge thinks though.

HeddaGarbled · 26/04/2023 19:31

I don’t understand how all these accusations about Diana etc being hacked are being permitted to be read out in court. Why isn’t the statement confined to what’s been done to Harry?

poppysockies · 26/04/2023 19:38

When the hacking revelations came out, I seem to recall that Harry was only hacked a small number of times - especially in comparison to William and Kate, who were hacked systematically? Is that right?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.