Part 2: The Press & The Royals a discussion

[Whaeanui]

Following on from this thread: Part 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4786923-the-press-the-royals-a-discussion?page=1

As we know, the press often manufacture stories to create divisions between the women in the family, more often than the men. They have also hacked private communications, with cases ongoing. The public seem to feed off this and none of the family get treated very well except the monarch-although not always.

For discussion: 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, and how can they achieve that? How will previous and current legal proceedings alter the relationship?
Please do not intentionally derail this thread by discussing your personal dislike of particular family members or if they deserve it. I would really like to continue this discussion on how the royal family and the press interact, as above.

Sorry I meant to add this to an earlier post, this is the itv correspondent who is tweeting some of it
https://twitter.com/BeccaBarry

I believe the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case. So their bar is higher, but the judge looks at the balance of probabilities on whether the evidence is compelling.

A third story, published on November 11, 2000, revealed that the Duke had broken his thumb.
MGN said that information had been placed in the public domain by the Palace and had been reported by several newspapers the previous day.
The story also appeared on BBC Online the previous day, and included quotes from a spokeswoman from St James’s Palace, the publisher added.

Here’s the BBC story about the broken thumb, which records that he has his arm in a sling (which would absolutely prompt journalists to ring the Palace asking what’s happened) plus it quotes the statements made by the Palace as well.

The dates are as said above too - the BBC story was dated 10 November, whereas it seems the story he is complaining about was published the day after that. (So the BBC story wasn’t copying an earlier story in the Mirror based on illegally obtained information - it appears to be the other way around)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1016959.stm#:~:text=BBC%20News%20%7C%20UK%20%7C%20Prince%20Harry%20recovers%20after%20thumb%20op&text=Prince%20Harry%20has%20undergone%20a,Thursday%2C%20said%20St%20James%27s%20Palace.

This is a civil case, so the claimant has to prove their case. They therefore go first and present all their evidence, and then the defendant gets the chance to present their defence. But you are right, the test is the balance of probabilities. The judge will look at each of the samples of stories and decide if it’s more likely than not that each was written on the basis of illegally obtained evidence.

I guess this all highlights the difficulty of bringing historic cases to trial. Maybe thats why there is a time out rule?

Piers Morgan, former editor of the Mirror, is named repeatedly in court papers - as being among those who authorised the “systemic and widespread” use of Private Investigators to unlawfully obtain people’s private information

Yes she says this.

Yes, sorry claimant, not prosecution in civil, but it is the claimant bringing the case against the defence. Just had an inheritance claim and I'm sure the other lot were the defence lol!

I recently read a court judgement called CNZ v Bath hospital trust, all 147 pages of it, and I'm staggered at how the judge unravelled the evidence and used precedents to reach his judgement. So I think the judgement will be fair.

nasty things Harry said about the school matron

Did you read the book by any chance @Iwasafool ? He was discussing how, as a very young and very devasted child he was packed him off to boarding school. He needed/hoped for a mother figure but instead has a rather austere house matron.

He's a grown man, I can't remember the exact wording but what relevance did her lank hair have, or that she was mousy and frazzled? Do mother's all have to have a beautiful head of hair? You might focus on him but I can focus on a woman just doing her job without getting slated on her appearance. If he didn't like her or thought she was harsh he could have said that without picking her appearance apart.

I read in the book about how all the boys mocked her, but he mocked the most, and wanted to do so to gain popularity.

It was ghandi I think said, why do some men need to treat others badly, to make themselves feel better? Completely the wrong wording, but the sentiment is clear.

He was a child then but unfortunately at 38 he carried on the bullying.

Gandhi was a racist.
-In 1893, Gandhi wrote to the Natal parliament saying that a "general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are a little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34265882.amp

People of colour cannot be racist. I've seen that here many times. Racism is seen only in white communities towards POC.

@Iwasafool I think if you bully as a child, you don't outgrow it. It just morphs into arrogance and privilege.

Clearly that’s not true. He’s being racist towards Africans. Africans are people of colour. Don’t go down this road.

Whatever the outcome of this courtcase I just like how everything is coming out in the open. Everything is being pulled out. That in itself is a justice of sorts. The underhand corrupt way papers operate to do a story AND the role of palace press office AND actual royal family leaking stories. Not very nice or very kind. All out there to see.

@Inkanta agreed

Doesn't that just illustrate what @polkadotdalmation was quoting from him? The powerful white people in the west look down on the brown people but hey we aren't as brown as them.

Apart from that I think his views did change and Nelson Mandela acknowledged his influence. He is quoted, there are several sources, as saying, “Gandhi is most revered for his commitment to non-violence and the Congress Movement was strongly influenced by this Gandhian philosophy, it was a philosophy that achieved the mobilisation of millions of South Africans during the 1952 defiance campaign, which established the ANC as a mass-based organization”.

If Mandela could move on I think maybe we could as well and neither of them have anything to do with illegal phone tapping as far as I know.

@Iwasafool I’m not sure why you’re directing this at me. Polka used him as example to criticise Harry. I was pointing out Ghandi himself has said problematic racist things. So direct your comments to Polka.

It was a response to you bringing up him being racist.

Well he was. He was raised by another poster. Direct your complaints this has nothing to do with hacking to them.

You were the one who said he was racist, I was giving a bigger picture i.e. that his views changed and even someone like Mandela recognised that.

I don't know why you want to keep on with this, you are normally so keen to keep on topic.

By the way I didn't complain about anything, it is a discussion and people add to it or it is very one sided. As I said above I was expanding on his early racist views which did change.