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.

Reality is that Harry & Meghan court the press, spread rumours, leak gossip, and call Backgrid paps to photograph them on a regular basis - that is the flip side. It’s a symbiotic relationship

Taking your point at face value and not commenting on its veracity - if they have a symbiotic relationship does that excuse the illegal actions of one party? Because that is what we are talking about here. If they called Backgrid to take their pictures does that mean that its ok for other members of the press to tap their and their friends phones or rifle though their bins?

I understand you don’t like them but seriously what these cases are about are very important aspects about potential illegal activities by the press.

I think some people just cannot get their heads rounds the conversations we’ve mostly had across these threads and need to shoehorn their antipathy against whatever side they’re against into every conversation.

I understand you don’t like them but seriously what these cases are about are very important aspects about potential illegal activities by the press.

Yes exactly. There are people I don’t particularly like caught up in hacking, including other royals, and I still want any illegal activity to be punished. It’s wrong no matter who they do it to. I just find it more shocking they’re able to do this to any of the royal family.

@skullbabe yes agree with your last comment and it’s hard to ignore and keep it focused across 40 pages but I think we all did well, including posters who may think differently re M & H, they discussed the topic regardless and it was a really good discussion for the most part. Hopefully we can continue it here.

The hearing is fonahed now, isn’t it?

maybe we could move onto thinking what the decision will be and why, and where that leaves the press/palace problem?

Finished, duh

I think it will go to trial.

There are too many question marks I think, over both the claim and the defence.

Presumably if it did go to trial, the place staff member sending those emails would be called in?

@Mumsnut yes I’m not sure what will change the relationship between the two. I think other posters who have said Leveson 2 and a proper independent press regulator were required to change press behaviour, are probably right. Perhaps the current cases, not just Harry’s, will help raise public interest in Leveson 2. Everyone including politicians seem scared of the current tabloid press and I guess who could blame them?

"I saw what that meant in 2009. A weak Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was at the Labour Party Conference, working desperately to shore up support and inject confidence into a Party facing defeat at the General Election to come. I was in the room when the Brown team heard the news that Labour had dreaded since the 1997 endorsement – The Sun was shifting its support to David Cameron’s Conservatives and was doing so at a time to inflict maximum damage to the Prime Minister. A chill went round the room as I saw in action the political power News International had at that time.

This is the power that scares me. I just don’t know why people aren’t more concerned the influence one corporation has."

Interesting fact - I have heard the Sun’s political editor at the time (who now works as a consultant helping companies with their media strategy, ironically) describe this firsthand. Gordon Brown had their support until one day he didn’t, and that change of editorial direction, coming from the very top, had the power to change the government. It’s absolutely appalling. Also remember that the Sun had outed that Gordon Brown’s young son had a life-shortening medical condition too.

There are people I don’t particularly like caught up in hacking, including other royals, and I still want any illegal activity to be punished. It’s wrong no matter who they do it to

I couldn't agree more, Whaeanui, but unfortunately the more rich and powerful an individual/institution is - whether the RF or anyone else - the more influence they can bring to bear in covering up their activities via grubby deals

Even revelations of those deals can then be unwelcome, which doubtless also plays a part in the preference to settle out of court and avoid even more coming out

On the current case it seems pretty clear that we'd all like greater transparency, but sadly I very much doubt we'll get it considering the potential harm to some very high profile people

unfortunately the more rich and powerful an individual/institution is - whether the RF or anyone else - the more influence they can bring to bear in covering up their activities via grubby deals

Are you saying that the claimants (Harry, Hugh Grant) are using grubby deals to cover their activities?

Agree, thanks again

Don't know how Harry's court case got turned into a Meghan bash.

The summary :
MM won her case. JK went to the paper and offered to help them after the case was done and dusted. Claimed that the paper and MM asked him to come on - which is impossible because MM had already won, and her lawyers claimed, no one subpoenaed him. He knew he was the one who convinced H&M to talk to a random biographer (OS) as he is honest. MM did not even know what OS looked like and JK knew this. It was JK who spoke to OS. He then took part of the emails to court (unfortunately for him, MM had the other emails. He was not counting on this because MM's emails automatically got deleted when she was at the palace. But, I suspect her friends asked her to forward everything to them and saved it on their end).
Perhaps JK is a lesson for H&M not to be too trusting, they would have to take that on the chin.

By the same technicality that H&M were JK's seniors, they were then his bosses, if H&M lawyers wanted to waste court time, they could have counter-entered that K&M are the ultimate bosses, and therefore they also spoke to OS via their employee JS. As they did not themselves go take the stand, they were let off. Wonder how long William intends on hiding behind others to hurt his brother. Ultimately, JS cannot breach palace privacy emails without K&W's permission, if he did he would be fired. He was not. So that was okayed.

What I mostly do not understand in this particular story. William calls his mother paranoid while he knows she was infact hacked.

When Wills and Pa meet Harry after PP funeral they convince him not to pursue the case, saying it's suicide, you cannot win darling boy. When William did win.

What its that all about.

Quite the opposite, surely.

If they want to go to court, where things will be publicly aired, then they don't have anything to hide, surely. All their dirty linen has already been hung out for everyone to see.

As @Whaeanui has stated previously, and linked on another thread, almost everything that Harry says in Spare regarding his family is not new information. It's really in the books and articles already written, including the circumcision story which was discussing Diana in it, as well as the cottage fight.

He was merely correcting years of spin and lies on existing stories that were leaked since he was a child.

At some point, he does refer to a reported as "she always seemed to get it wrong". It could be RBrooks/CTominey, can't remember.

The same people who were angry about H&M 'wanting privacy' - which they never said. Are the ones upset about H 'breaching privacy' on stories he did not break (and mostly involving him too).

Well actually - we don't really know how the rest of them behave do we?

Because most likely there is a press blackout.

And most likely, in order to achieve that black out, they have to give something.

Which is part of what this is about. On the one hand family shenanigans yes but on the other - threatening and bullying behaviour by the press.

The royal family is just a high profile example of their (the press - ie Murdoch) behaviour. They do it our political system as well. And private citzens caught up in horror shows.

Strikes me that what you are interested in is a isn’t the press awful/ isn’t Harry a victim echo chamber.

Strikes me that you are wrong...

*Which is part of what this is about. On the one hand family shenanigans yes but on the other - threatening and bullying behaviour by the press.

The royal family is just a high profile example of their (the press - ie Murdoch) behaviour. They do it our political system as well. And private citzens caught up in horror shows.*

Yes exactly this.

Didn't the hacking make her paranoid? I think you can be both hacked and paranoid and being hacked could easily make you paranoid.

The royal family is just a high profile example of their (the press - ie Murdoch) behaviour. They do it our political system as well.

To be fair there isn’t much evidence of bullying behaviour amongst the royals or the political system. Meghan has been accused of bullying, and also Dominic Raab, and even Gordon Brown, but the behaviour is hardly widespread, IMO.

The press, however, is another matter. They aren’t just bullies, they break the law

There’s two different types of media activity which seem to be getting confused by some posters:

the illegal stuff, which is what the current litigation is about and is historical;

the current and recent behaviour, including the treatment of Meghan, which, whilst unpleasant, is not illegal (yet).

I think they meant bullying by the press of the royals

Yes @HeddaGarbled

Ups sorry I misunderstood! It makes sense