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.

Sorry, are you suggesting that William married Kate only because she was suitable? despite being a commoner.

Harry suggested he was marrying for love, in his heart, to someone he was destined to be with unlike other royals who marry people who fit the mould.

His own words, in the Netflix docudrama.

I think that interveiw shows just how far reaching the media are - not just with the RF - but in the halls of our political class. Campbell was with the Mirror - Coulson with News International, Brooks was friends with the Blairs and the Browns - a choice quote from an article about this

"By the time Brooks instituted her infamous naming and shaming campaign against sex offenders in the News of the World in July 2000, she was friends with the Blairs. Tony Blair hated her populist attempt to open up the sex offenders’ register to the public, but Brooks didn’t back down. According to one of her colleagues at the time, when the Blairs’ son Leo was born in May 2000, she sent Cherie a present of baby furniture wrapped in pages from the News of the World’s paedophile campaign.

“No one else would have had the courage to go for that the way that she did,” a senior editor who worked with Brooks says. “It was very aggressive, and it was also well targeted.”"

https://newrepublic.com/article/118750/rebekah-brooks-trial-demonstrates-how-power-works

@Whaeanui

Harrys use of plurals suggest more than his dad

He also said William and Charles were trapped in the institution.

What a petulant spiteful manchild he is

The quote was about plural royals, he said men not man.

@Iwasafool

snap 😀

I don’t know if QE2 had to do this with journalists but good excuse not to as head of state that you’re too busy meeting other horrible people the FO or the Prime Minister says you need to make nice to like Mugabe et Al.

If you’re not head of state I suppose you have to smile at a photographer during a Help for Heroes do and not look sulky no matter how much you want to thump them. It’s the job.

Diana used to invite Piers Morgan to tea at Kensington Palace and feed him little tidbits of gossip, to see if he’d leak them. H and W have known him since they were children. Morgan would know exactly what she was up to, not leak the gossip then she would give him the bigger stuff as she trusted him more. It’s all quite messy really

What a petulant spiteful manchild he is

Yup, he is the type of man I’d tell my DD to run a mile from tbh.

Hey so you wrote this to me:

*Howsimplywonderful · Today 10:24
@Whaeanui

We clearly disagree about William and Harry, so happy to leave it there ?*

I didn’t tag you to discuss it again, why have you written two quite angry posts to me since then? Please do as you said you would.

Can we put the william v harry arguments aside for now. I know it's easy to go off topic and doing so is what often makes threads more interesting. But this topic is very interesting on it's own, and OP started it at a good time given what's happened over the past few days (it feels like a year).

We can resume normal programming later.

Yes I agree with you- and thanks for trying to keep this on-topic. It is truly appalling how that woman behaves.

@DuchessOfPort yes it is, messy and toxic and not how any of them should be expected to live.

Judge says Harry's testimony contains troubling factual inaccuracies. Is that legalspeak for lies. Sounds like it could be thrown out.

Hugh Grant is there today:
Hugh Grant: “The fact… that these Unlawful Acts included targeted burglaries is truly appalling. The Defendant clearly considers itself above the law and is using the law now in a way I believe it was never intended, that is to further cover-up and conceal what it has done.”

Hacked Off also have something on this case of course:

https://hackinginquiry.org/sun-publisher-ngn-allegedly-tapped-landlines-spied-on-prince-harry-as-a-child-and-princess-diana-and-settled-secret-claim-with-prince-william/

Their summary:
*In litigation brought by Hugh Grant and Prince Harry, the Court today heard allegations that The Sun & News of the World publisher NGN:

• Tapped Hugh Grant’s landline, burgled his properties, used listening devices on his house and car
• Intruded into the lives of the late Princess Diana and Prince Harry, aged just ten
• Intruded into the lives of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as recently as 2016
• Reveals that News UK sought to avoid these claims progressing by making a deal with the Royal Family
• Reveals NGN recently secretly settled a claim by the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William*

*On the consequences of this hearing:
Every new allegation of unlawful press behaviour heaps further embarrassment on the Government, which argued in 2018 that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry into press illegality should be cancelled, largely on the basis that – they argued – the facts of the hacking scandal were now known.

In fact, what we knew in 2018 was just the tip of the iceberg. The determination and courage of Prince Harry, Hugh Grant, other claimants and their legal teams is the only reason that we have learned so much more over the last five years.

But we will never get to the bottom of the hacking scandal without the judicial inquiry which the victims of press abuse, and the public, were promised. In the interests of justice and public trust in the press, the Government must give up on its five year campaign to suppress Leveson Part Two and re-establish it without further delay.*

Agree with their conclusion, we need a Leveson 2!

Really wish people would stop referring to Prince William's settlement as a 'secret deal'. There's been some really nasty, totally unwarranted commentary on social media (from Sussex fans). Most, in fact pretty much all, settlements are subject to non disclosure arrangements unless both parties agree otherwise. Legal representatives on both sides will recommend non disclosure.

@Coxspurplepippin

i think Harry knew there was a very good chance his case wouldn’t go to court, so he’s score settling at this stage.

@Coxspurplepippin
"Really wish people would stop referring to Prince William's settlement as a 'secret deal"

I bet you do

Secret deal it was .
The question is why?

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/prince-william-murdoch-phone-hacking-claims-court-filings-prince-harry

I thought this from Hacked off deserves separate mention:

• Intruded into the lives of the late Princess Diana and Prince Harry, aged just ten

Imagine having them do this to you as a child and then for 30 more years or so. It’s hideous. Unlike others, I’m not on the side of NGN here and want all the cases currently pushing to go to trial to do just that, and win. Hopefully we’d get another Leveson 2 as well at some point.

Yes you beat me to it. True though.

Harry spoke out against his brother and Kate several times in interviews and his book. Not surprised William wants little to do with him. Why should he be complicit in giving Harry more fodder for his next three books.

It's no more secret than every other settlement with a non disclosure clause - hint, pretty much every single settlement arrived at.

Just because you think the RF are the devil incarnate doesn't mean there was anything wrong with William settling his case.

Lots of other people settled, we’re they all doing ‘secret deals’ too?

I think confidential settlement is slightly different to ‘secret deal’ but doesn’t sound as salacious.

In March, midway through her set-piece cross-examination at the phone-hacking trial, as she explained her campaigning style of journalism, Rebekah Brooks said: “When we did those campaigns we had to be above the law ... I mean within the law.”
It was an uncharacteristic slip, perhaps the only one in three weeks in the witness box at the Old Bailey in London.

Quite the slip!

I really do wonder why there are a bunch of posters here determined to stop us discussing press behaviour. Go to another thread.