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.

That’s true. One only has to see it when both harry and Meghan agreed with Jason Knauf that they shouldn’t look like they were involved with the finding freedom book, even though they actually were passing stories to Omid to share their story to the world. They are both willing to play the media game, even at the expense of their own family members, as long as it benefits them. The utter hypocrisy.

Yes, the exchanges with Jason Knauf were a bit of a smoking gun in that respect.

Sadly Harry is exposing so much more of himself by his own actions, than the media could ever invent or report on. It's clear the palace PR machine did an excellent job of paying off people he assaulted, or covered up stories of his extensive drug taking and bad behaviour, as opposed to leaking stories about him to 'benefit' other members of the RF. I mean, how in gods name does that work? The simplest logic tells you if one looks bad, they all look bad (see Andrew et al).

You mean like when his team was implying that there was something nefarious about William settling his claim privately when he was hacked by news of the world?

Did you bother to read what his barrister actually said about it? That wasn’t what he said.

I think the words used were 'secret agreement' and that does imply something nefarious. The agreement was confidential and had a defined purpose. Nothing 'secretive' about it, simply confidential which most agreement are.

@Whaeanui

I am reading a lot about the phenomenon of "shared hatred" of a common object. I am seeing it this on thread, with people more angry at Harry taking on an unscrupulous press than they are about the unscrupulous press.

If he cured cancer tomorrow he would be blamed for all the previous cancer deaths because why didn't he do it sooner.😆

From the actual court papers:

"It is important to bear in mind that in responding to this bid by NGN to prevent his claims going to trial, [Prince Harry] has had to make public the details of this secret agreement, as well as the fact that his brother, His Royal Highness, Prince William, has recently settled his claim against NGN behind the scenes. NGN settled with Prince William for a very large sum of money in 2020”

Exactly 'secret agreement', 'behind the scenes'...all imply something nefarious.

Barrister are supreme at manipulating language to the benefit of their client. It's their job to persuade the court to take the side of their client.

I think both "sides" are pretty extreme. If the Harry supporters had clear evidence that he has lied, e.g. if there was proof William or the RF had never briefed against him (obviously hard to prove a negative) they would refuse to believe it.

I think lots of people can't understand why there isn't more balance, so yes Harry has got something wrong and some things right, same for his brother/his father and actually all of us.

Yes absolutely. I believe it is Murdoch and others who have contributed the most to this phenomenon. It’s how they make their money, causing division and creating hate figures.

If the Harry supporters had clear evidence that he has lied, e.g. if there was proof William or the RF had never briefed against him (obviously hard to prove a negative) they would refuse to believe it.

Please don’t speak for me or my morals.

Yes, and don't forget "for a very large sum of money".

If the arrangement was so private, how do they know the amount of money involved?

Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, told the court that the prince understood why the royal family had agreed to a deal: “If it needs to be said – and apparently it does – this is no criticism of the Queen or his family, and he accepted it, because he had to.”

No he's not! You just sound angry.

@MrsMaxDeWinter No.

No one here has any support whatsoever for phone hacking or any unscrupulous behaviour by the press. No one has said anything remotely supporting it.

By the same token many people dislike Harry's behaviour. His hypocrisy, his lack of concern for other people, his utter disregard for other people's privacy and so on.

Do not conflate the two.

That post doesn’t sound angry in the slightest.

@polkadotdalmation - you’re post reads perfectly fine

Oh are we tagging each other now? Must have missed that memo!

@Inkanta Do you not think 'you sound angry' is rather a childish retort to someone's valid points in an argument.

If your boss was giving you feedback on a job you didn't do particularly well, would you put your side or would you say 'you sound angry'?

I’m aware that there will be a lot of spin outside the court so I’m focussed on what happens within it

Did I say you? Why have you put yourself in the group who will see no wrong in Harry even if it is proven?

The ‘secret agreement’ wasn’t referring to Williams settlement, which was raised because the defence was that it was brought too late, and yet they settled Williams brought around the same time. The ‘secret agreement’ was the deal the Queen thought she had struck, which was they would not sue while NGN settled other ongoing cases.

I think the ‘you sound angry’ comment is ‘playing the man rather than the hall’

@MrsMaxDeWinter Maybe read my reply to Inkanta as it also applies to your response?

You said ‘Harry supporters’, which I clearly am regarding the press, which is what we are discussing. Perhaps you should be more specific if you aren’t talking about people here.