PH lost bid to challenge for right to pay Home Office for his security

[Mumsnut]

I've probably garbled that, but that's the gist of it.

Wasn't that before he became king and well know for his opinions on everything? June 2022, according to the Guardian.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain so when he was the heir to the throne? But that's somehow okay but Prince Harry commenting is not?

If there was consistency in reporting and consistency in the mock shock on these royal threads I wouldn't comment. It's the pretending to be impartial but not actually being impartial that bothers me.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/06/06/news-articles-prince-harry-claims-unlawful-mirror-court/

Skimming the responses to the 33 articles, evidence that any of these stories were 'unlawfully obtained' seems pretty thin on the ground.

Most of them seem to be pretty banal stories - often published by other sources before the Mirror?

I'm reading the Guardian live feed, it's very early in the process of course but it does seem as if Harry is seeking redress for the constant articles throughout his life. This is completely understandable I would hate to be in the public eye but I don't think it is the focus of the trial. His distress is already apparent but I don't see how he is going to get closure this way.

@kirinm Was there any need for the sarky nasty response? I wasn’t rude or aggressive in my post to you. Totally unnecessary. I replied to you in good faith to explain my earlier posts. I won’t be responding to you again.

It's the pretending to be impartial but not actually being impartial that bothers me.

Few people are 'impartial' about Harry these days. He has shown himself to be someone with little credibility - much like Boris Johnson.

If I'm being challenged on my posts and then being patronised, I'm entitled to comment.

No, it was posted on Twitter.

I think he only agreed not to use HRH for commercial ventures, so this wouldn’t count

‘No Eton trifles for Harry, 18’ (Sept 16 2002)A story about the details of how and when Prince Harry celebrated his 18th birthday with his family.
MGN says the information came from an interview given by Prince Harry to the Press Association that was arranged by his PR advisors to mark his birthday and to “rehabilitate his image after his earlier involvement with drug taking”. They added that the story - which had been published in all of the Sunday papers the day before - had simply “repeated” the details that Harry had given, including that he would be having no party, that he would be spending the day with his brother and father and that his uncle gave him golf clubs.

‘Matured Harry is a godfather’ (April 20 2003)An article in The People which Prince Harry alleges shared private details of his being invited to be a godfather to the son of his former nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke.
The Mirror publishers claim it was a rewrite of a Sunday Telegraph Mandrake column that was sold to The People by a freelance journalist, which included a quotation from Ms Legge-Bourke. They said the article reported that he had actually been invited to be godfather to the nephew of Ms Legge-Bourke rather than her son, as pleaded. The publishers claim that Harry taking on that role was, “by its nature, public”.

Two examples of the 33 stories under consideration

Friendly reminder folks - let’s all stay on topic and have a good discussion

there is plenty to discuss!!!

What's ROF?

I agree - what he’s saying is very general, and I wouldn’t argue with it on a general basis - but that’s not what the case is about, and they’ve chosen specific articles as their evidence - he really needs to stick to that if he hopes to win.

The more he generalises the weaker to e case appears.

I now they are bringing in his mother, because some of the articles chosen relate to her or reference her - I worry for the impact off this on him. He seems so mentally fragile, and has always seemed to confident in his view of his mother, but he was so young, how much did he really know or understand. We have a tendency to look back through rose tinted glasses when we have lost someone we loved - better to have left that image of her private and untarnished than to have it exposed and pulled apart in public.

YOur post said that 'KING Charles' complained about the Rwanda policy, implying that he'd breached his constitutional duty to remain impartial. I was pointing out that when he commented he was the heir to the throne, and as entitled to comment as PH is. I found your post misleading.

Roll on Friday? Legal website

I thought it was BP who said he couldn’t use HRH when stopped being a working royal?

I could have got that completelywrong though!

KC also commented off the record I believe

I think they “agreed” (in the sense anyone “agreed” anything with HMTQ 🤣) not to use HRH for commercial enterprises

@oaktreeswing Flimsy!

KC also commented off the record I believe

Have had a swift google and can't see anything but can believe it. Anyway, back to the point of the thread.

kirinm · Today 10:49
Is everyone going to pretend everything the KC says to Harry is somehow damaging 'ouch' 'cringe' etc because if so, this thread is not aiming to be anything but a thread to attack Harry. No real desire to view the case objectively.

Urm what’s with the patronising hyperbole ? And why are you trying to forcefully apply a false narrative in regard to the nature of this thread and to the intentions of the other posters? Weird to make such baseless accusations esp with your legal background

Anyway, enjoying the shared coverage and commentary so far from many others, insightful!

A clip from the Guardian feed

"Green turns to another article about which Harry has complained relating to the ill health of a gardener who worked for then Prince Charles.

Green again argues, using examples of a number of other articles published before the Mirror article in question, that it contained nothing that was not already in the public domain.

“There is nothing on the face of the article that phone hacking took place,” Green says.

Harry says “you would have to ask the journalist themselves”."

The above clip is a good reflection of the generality of his replies, asreported in the live feed. I haven't read his witness statement, is it more specific because surely his evidence needs more facts and fewer opinions?

The trial is a bit of a nothingburger so far… unless Harry is going to produce a lot more evidence for his claims than he has so far it won’t go well for him. It’s just supposition.

I’m thinking Harry must have something up his sleeve, he can’t have bought the case based on suspicions - I’m waiting for a more concrete example

Agreed - it’s all too vague.

From Sky:

Harry's timeline in dispute - as lawyer says he did not have mobile phone in 1996Andrew Green KC is now arguing that Prince Harry's phone could not have been hacked when one of the articles was published as he did not have a mobile phone at the time.
He says Harry was first given a mobile phone when he went to Eton in 1998 - but the article, titled "Diana so sad", was written in 1996.
Asked whether he had a mobile at the time the article was written, Harry indicates he can't remember for sure as it was "years ago".
Mr Green says if Harry didn't have a mobile at the time, it could not have been hacked by an MGN journalist.
But Harry says his mother, Princess Diana, would call him while he was at Eton using a landline phone.
The barrister says this still meant a journalist had not hacked his mobile.
"I can't be sure," Harry says.
Mr Green says Harry did not identify in his witness statement anyone else's phone who could have been hacked to gain information for the article.
Harry has it could have been his mother's - but Mr Green dismisses this as "speculation".