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.

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?

Harry & Meghan seem to like the scattergun approach

But I’d be expecting the judge to put a stop to it. Witnesses wouldn’t be permitted to throw in things that didn’t happen to them in normal court proceedings.

Is Harry not sailing a bit close to the wind with the content of his statement?

I agree it does also come across as airing his grievances but I'm assuming he can back it up.

Here is the BBC’s latest take on the matter court case raises awkward questions www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65403247 See here

That was a good article.

I do wonder what Harry is trying to achieve with all this. It does seem very scattergun.

Unfortunately this approach doesn't always give the results hoped for, and information can be released that is hurtful.

Many of the Royals have had a complex relationship with the Press over the years.

It doesn’t sound credible. The phone hacking thing was massive at the time. H and William were right in the middle of it. They sussed out they were being hacked when something they had discussed over the phone with Tom Bradby was in the newspaper IIRC. Previously they thought friends were leaking and they were becoming increasingly paranoid about who to trust. H wasn’t in Afghanistan that long ffs.

How can this be true? What’s a way they can make this assertion and then be proved wrong later?

"There was no such secret agreement," said the lawyers for News Group Newspapers, rejecting such claims as being "without merit in fact or in law".

The phone hacking back then was about need of the world, not The Sun.

The publisher of the Sun newspaper has set aside £127m to cover the costs of phone hacking court cases, according to recent company filings.
News Group Newspapers said it hoped the sum would resolve the "tail end of litigation" sparked by years-old revelations that staff had intercepted voicemails of celebrities and others.
A case brought by Prince Harry is among those covered, the BBC understands.
News Group said the sum was not a sign it accepted liability.
Hundreds of celebrities have brought cases for voicemail interception against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of the Sun and the defunct News of the World, over more than a decade.
The volume of phone hacking allegations against the News of the World led to the paper’s closure in 2011.
There has been a rush of new cases filed since a judge imposed a cut-off date for new claims to join the current wave going through the courts.
A spokesperson for News Group Newspapers said: “In 2012, an unreserved apology was made to all of those who had brought cases against the News of the World for voicemail interception. Since then, NGN has been paying financial damages to claimants."
The News Group spokesperson added: “There are a number of disputed claims still going through the civil courts including some which seek to involve The Sun. The Sun does not accept liability or make any admissions to the allegations. It is of course common litigation practice for parties to reach a settlement before trial to bring a resolution to the matter for commercial reasons.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65207881

Okay now this is interesting. From yesterdays guardian

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/prince-harry-key-phone-hacking-claims-charles-queen-murdoch

Seems to confirm that he and William were ‘in it together’ until he went it alone due to ‘impatience’ which ties in with the report I read earlier. I’ve bolded bits I thought relevant.

I remember speaking to my brother and saying something along the lines of ‘enough of this, I want to get permission to push for a resolution to our phone-hacking claims and a formal apology from Murdoch before any of his people are allowed anywhere near the wedding [to Meghan in 2018]’ or words to that effect.

“I felt very angry about his newspapers’ appalling treatment of my wife and frustrated that nothing had been resolved on the phone-hacking front during the previous 12 months and I thought (naively perhaps) that this might prove the perfect opportunity to air our grievances and force a resolution to our phone-hacking claims that had, up to that point, been denied to us on account of the secret agreement that had been reached between the institution and senior executives at NGN [News Group Newspapers] … and, of course, to force an apology from Murdoch.
“William was very understanding and supportive and agreed that we needed to do it He therefore suggested that I seek permission from ‘granny’.

So seems they were in it together at that point. Then later in the article/Harrys statement is:

This goes to prove the existence of this secret agreement between the institution and senior executives at NGN – if it wasn’t in place then why on earth did William wait until 2019 to bring his claim in circumstances where our two private secretaries brought and settled claims back in 2012, and where he knew far more about the matter back then than I did, and also why didn’t NGN test its limitation argument against him

which seems to completely contradict the first part I’ve quoted? Very odd

A spokesperson for News Group Newspapers said: “In 2012, an unreserved apology was made to all of those who had brought cases against the News of the World for voicemail interception. Since then, NGN has been paying financial damages to claimants."
Isn't this more or less what Harry says the Queen had agreed with Murdoch? and apology and compensation?

For NOTW, not the Sun?

Thank you to everyone for the links and explanations :)

So there were two “secret agreements” or one? One between the institution and NGN and a second with PW separately?

and the terminology; is it relevant or deliberately vague? Or just used in place of the word settlement despite being what it is? or isn’t?

I can’t work out what he’s trying to get at. Is it “William’s got ££ off them and we’ve all been trying to make them pay for ages but it wasn’t right for me timing wise then and it is now - look how they’ve already forked out, it’s practically admitting guilt.”

The Times and The Telegraph have something about the judge being concerned about inaccuracies in Harry's statement. I can't read it because both are behind pay walls. I wonder what that is about.

@Iwasafool someone has included it previously on the thread if you go back a bit

There’s one agreement with NGN. William decided to settle his claims based on that, but without the apology and Harry as we know is proceeding with this. It sounds like he wanted them to publicly apologise and they won’t accept/admit/apologise for anything to do with The Sun.

Oh sorry I must have skipped a bit, my computer sometimes decides I don't need to read every page, I think it is possessed.

I’ve clicked through the links to another guardian article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/was-there-a-secret-deal-between-royal-family-and-murdochs-media-empire

This article states the following:

The objective, he claims, was to ensure members of the royal family were kept out of the witness box and ensure there was no need for a public falling out with a powerful newspaper group that could write negative stories about the royal family.
Harry says the existence of this deal is one of the reasons he waited until 2019 to file legal proceedings against News Group Newspapers, the parent company of the Sun and the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.fo/o/HfFWp/www.theguardian.com/media/newsoftheworld" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">News of the World.

which directly contradicts the second part I quoted from the first article.

‘if it wasn’t in place then why on earth did William wait until 2019 to bring his claim in circumstances where our two private secretaries brought and settled claims back in 2012’

It seems he’s saying William must have known more than him about it, otherwise why would he wait until 2019, when Harry also waited until 2019, even though he apparently had asked permission from the Queen to start proceedings before his wedding, which was 2018, as he didn’t want anyone involved at his wedding.

Hmm, I’ve pasted another link to the guardian, but it’s been auto hidden for some reason?

It was a link to a guardian article, stating in it:

Harry says the existence of this deal is one of the reasons he waited until 2019 to file legal proceedings against News Group Newspapers

which goes against this from the first article I posted:

if it wasn’t in place then why on earth did William wait until 2019 to bring his claim in circumstances where our two private secretaries brought and settled claims back in 2012

Seems like he’s criticising William for waiting until 2019, although he also waited until 2019 according to the second article, even though he asked permission pre wedding in 2018?

the article I tried to link is entitled ‘Was there a secret deal between royal family and Murdoch’s media empire?’ If anyone wants to search it

Why would the Royals need a special agreement with the Murdoch group when their policy (Murdoch's) was to apologise and pay damages? which is exactly what the Royal household wanted?

Oh, now my post is back!

Ok - so the deal was reached in whichever year (but before the H&M wedding), but W was waiting for an apology after this agreement and didn’t get one for at least 2 years so eventually said that was fine and he’d have a large cheque instead. Ish. And after he got the large cheque, H was ready to pounce.

it all seems a bit odd. And Elton John has more patience than I would have given him credit for if this was all part of the timeline.

Elton John? Isn’t that the ANL case? This is for The Sun.
I think the policy is to apologise for harm but deny hacking. The Sun has never admitted hacking. Only NOTW, which had to be shut down. That’s why they don’t admit it for The Sun.

Yes! You’re right! Ok. That’s better.

I felt very angry about his newspapers’ appalling treatment of my wife and frustrated that nothing had been resolved on the phone-hacking front during the previous 12 months and I thought (naively perhaps) that this might prove the perfect opportunity to air our grievances and force a resolution to our phone-hacking claims that had, up to that point, been denied to us on account of the secret agreement that had been reached

So if nothing was allowed to happen because of the secret agreement, what had he spent ‘the previous 12 months’ trying to resolve, before he asked permission from the Queen? This would have been pre wedding in 2018, so something had been occurring for 12 months prior to that so potentially going back to 2016/2017?