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.

(Scobie) was cross examined already.....

You're right of course, skullbabe; I can't access the Telegraph so found it on this: https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-phone-hacking-trial-royal-biographer-denies-having-vested-interest-in-helping-duke-12881637

Such a shame it isn't televised

@ancientgran This is very interesting

I suppose if you're a tabloid journalist, and spend your days encouraging paparazzi to stalk women, threatening to out gay MPS, and publishing exclusives about the PM's sick child, then phone hacking isn't wildly out of kilt with your general moral compass. From that perspective, legality becomes a technicality.

^^ yup, bang on

On a separate note, who's going to fund all these lawsuits?
Presumably if Harry wins various cases he can claim his costs (?) but what if he doesn't?
I don't imagine reputable lawyers would work for him for free, so it would be interesting to know where the (potential) money's coming from

You have summed it up, I'm befuddled with pain killers and antibiotics and couldn't think how to put it but you have got it spot on.

Long covid is killing me slowly I think and it is hard to concentrate. I have some painful symptoms and I'm not sure if my brain fog is due to long covid or painkillers. I'm a bit worried about becoming an addict. I'm going to have a rest.

I'm not trying to trivialize Harry's legal actions but I remember when Rebecca Vardy and Colleen Rooney went to court and their legal fees were 7 figures each. One of them used the same barrister as Harry iirc
I'm guessing that some costs might be shareable but I can't imagine that all of the people suing can pay equally.

Wouldn't Harry and the other litigants be paying the legal costs? Unless the legal team are working pro bono, they will have to pay unless they win, in which case the defence pays normally. If they lose they will be liable for the costs of the defendants, which will be a huge bill. I doubt that Harry's team are working for free, but you never know. Civil cases can cost £80,000 upwards for a short trial. This is looking like a marathon!

I'm guessing that some costs might be shareable but I can't imagine that all of the people suing can pay equally

Ah - I hadn't thought about the claimants pooling the costs, and it's beyond my knowledge as to whether it's even possible

If so, it's certainly true that some will have deeper pockets than others, so goodness knows how it would work out

I'm guessing that some costs might be shareable but I can't imagine that all of the people suing can pay equally

It depends, basically - lots of different variations are possible. Everyone may have their own solicitors and instruct their own barristers (this is perhaps most likely as people like Prince Harry and Elton John will have a close relationship with a particular firm/lawyer they want to use) . They may all have their own solicitors but jointly instruct one team of barristers to conduct the advocacy for everyone. Either way they are entitled to jointly work on their approach, as they have what’s known as a common interest privilege.

As for the costs, some of the claimants might be funded, so will not be paying the lawyers’ fees out of their own pockets. They borrow the money to pay their lawyers’ bills as the case progresses, then pay back the finance out of their winnings if successful, or from the proceeds of an insurance policy they will have taken out to cover the costs if they lose. The costs will be very high though for each claimant - easily a few hundred thousand pounds each and likely more.

Once again thanks for the clarification, Serenster

I am not an expert but I can't see the relevance of today's witnesses. All they are doing is claim that hacking was widespread and one of them has already been convicted for doing so. But this is already in the public domain, in fact the Mirror has admitted that phone hacking took place.

Shouldn't they be focusing on Piers Morgan and the other senior executives involvement in Harry's sample cases?

Iwasafool - you need more cake

@Iwasafool sympathies with the painkiller issues. I have painful autoimmune disease and I've been prescribed everything going short of morphine. Bummer.

I could see that happen.

A young(ish) intern given Big Brother types phone numbers and presented as new gathering.
On the other hand asking an intern to listen to the King would raise their awareness of what they were doing.

Biling water and frogs come to mind.

*boiling

Reports of H&M being chased by paparazzi (is that how you spell it?) in New York and a break in at their house.

Yes, there’s a not very nice thread going on about that now.

I hadn't seen that. I hate aggressive driving, I'd just stop and let them take photos. I've been in a police car when they've spotted someone and given chase, scared the life out of me.

They’d literally just posed for photos. They chase so they can see where they’re staying.

Yeah it's not worth the risk to life speeding away from cameras. The worst that can happen then is the paps get the photos.

Like I say I'm a coward, been in a high speed chase and I'd never do it again if I can help it. I'd rather just sit in a stationary car until the police can deal with the rabble. The other thing I always think is if I was frightened about another car following me, but not in a chase, I'd drive to a police station, I know lots of people don't feel safe with the police but I'd rather risk them than a random.

Now if the paparazzi had any cunning they'd agree on one car following at a safe distance and then share the information. They'd get the info without any risks.

I do think I am a cautious person so lots probably wouldn't agree with me, including my husband who drives too aggressively for my liking and it causes many rows. One of the very few things we do row about.

I wonder who the driver was.

Actually I've just read the statement from his spokesman and it seems it was about photos as he said this, "Dissemination of these images, given the ways in which they were obtained, encourages a highly intrusive practice that is dangerous to all in involved."

@ancientgran that doesn’t mean ‘it was about photos’, they’ll take them for sure but they ultimately want to know where they are staying which is why they keep driving trying to shake them off.

I mean it's just so horrible that people are actually think like this - there is actually someone wanting to find the footage and not understanding that they are the ones driving this while industry. (It also speaks to how I honestly now think that they don't belive that these people are real people - the callousness of it all. Anyway - will stop otherwise this will become a TAAT)