The Prince and the Press: Continuing the Discussion on Prince Harry and the UK Media

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

A few weeks ago, there were three really great long running threads about Prince Harry and his battles against the UK "popular press."

I thought I would do one that looks at Harry's current court action.

For those interested in the kind of balanced view you won't get from the tabloids, all of whom face conflicts of interest, here is the Guardian take, which is the springboard for this discussion.

It is not possible to take any of the tabloids seriously when they report on Harry's legal cases. Former editor Alan Rusbridger, now of Prospect, has observed that all tabloids covering this story are acting unethically as they have not declared their conflicts of interest: Harry is suing all of their media houses.

The only papers with no conflict of interest are the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Financial Times.

So I will be following this from the Guardian live page.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/04/diana-meghan-and-the-tabloid-press-harry-finally-gets-his-day-in-court

yesterdays smoking gun was the lfight details, journalists knew flight details of harry's and that is impossible for security reasons, they never ever disclose it to anyone

It will be interesting to see what the judge says about this, but obviously lots of people knew when he was travelling, even if the flight number wasn't publicly available information.

I don’t think he should have brought the case, no. I think it’s very inappropriate given his position. Only if he had concrete evidence that the law had been broken and in what specific circumstances (not just general vibes) so far we’ve only heard his suspicions and it seems like his strategy is rather to cast the net wide and hope MGN can be nailed for something. He is still 5th in line I believe, and should he ever be called upon his impartiality has been blown to smithereens - he really should have removed himself from the line of succession first. At the very least he should have tried to settle privately rather than pushing for a public court appearance, like William did. There is a very good reason royals do not go to court unless they have to. To put it bluntly - this is a democracy, he is a member of the royal family and in the line of succession, two of our most recent 4 Kings were “spares”, so while he has an equal right to not be a victim of crime it is NOT his job to reform the media to his liking. In fact I’d go further and say those with power and wealth SHOULD dislike the media. People have commented, repeatedly, on the media’s conflicts of interest - which are undoubtedly true - but what about Harry’s conflicts of interest? Illegal substances, dressing as a Nazi, treatment of women - the public DO have a right to know these things about a potential King that he might want to keep secret.

I’d go further and say those with power and wealth SHOULD dislike the media. People have commented, repeatedly, on the media’s conflicts of interest - which are undoubtedly true - but what about Harry’s conflicts of interest? Illegal substances, dressing as a Nazi, treatment of women - the public DO have a right to know these things about a potential King that he might want to keep secret.

Very true

As far as I understand it, not only will it be separate for each person, but for each individual article.

So Harry has 33 (?) articles, he could win on, say, 5, and lose the rest.

I think the important part of having so many people on one case though is that it can affect the balance of probabilities.

So 1 claimant on their own, it might not be enough, but if the other 99 prove it, then it may sway the judge to think well if the other times were all true, it’s more than likely this one was too.

This is just from what I’ve been reading though, so happy to be corrected.

But we know he isn't going to be called upon to be Monarch.

I am glad he's brought the case. Your prerogative to think otherwise.

And I just think it is inflammatory language to call him 'a potential King' to be honest. In the line of succession, yes I suppose, but in reality... really really not! Interesting though, because no one in the media or on MN has touched upon this as being a great problem to bringing a case to court.

I would also add... that the RF will be hating this big time. The last time a member of the RF testified was over 100 years ago for someone accusing someone of cheating in a card game!

But the Monarchy manage to sue the media copious times. It just never ends up in court. Harry is a different kettle of fish, he's a non working member of the royal and doesn't have to avoid the court scenario

The Queen and Charles have sued very many times... more of a warning shot across the bows, but they do sue.

At the time he took illegal substances and dressed as a Nazi, he was 3rd in line to the throne. It is completely appropriate and accurate to call him a potential King as it only took one tragedy to make him heir. There is plenty of royal precedent: George VI, George V, Mary I and Elizabeth I, Charles I, even the infamous Henry VIII, and many others were also “spares”.

Some of his intrusion complaints do seem very trivial. Who the hell cares if he has a broken toe?! And, as has been pointed out extensively, that info could come from multiple, multiple sources.

To really demonstrate hacking I think you need conversations like Squidgygate or Tampongate, which are egregious invasions of privacy.

If the aim is gagging the Press full stop (and what about social media, pray?) I agree with others that that would be a gift to any ne’er do well in a powerful position, be they a politician or dodgy celebrity.

It was happening in the late 90s and was prevalent enough in the early 00s to put Andy Coulson in prison and have NOTW shut down.

Yes what makes him “not a normal witness” and not have to turn up to court on time is the same thing that means everything he does makes the news… so it’s swings and roundabouts

The Millie Dowler situation was horrible, but “gathering information” on, say, politicians - is that a no- no too? You just never investigate anyone or anything?

There's nothing wrong with gathering information - they're meant to investigate! There's illegal methods of gathering that information which, of course, is a no-no.

And outright lying which obviously happens constantly shouldn't be allowed either.

Milly Dowler is not part of this case I think (3 people went to prison and NOTW was shut down over that)… I do think it’s a mistake though to bundle ordinary & innocent members of the public who were somehow linked to high profile crimes with celebrity gossip and public figure accountability

Good point, @tigger2022 - he is the ultimate have your cake and eat it exponent.

So are some people suggesting, therefore, that the Nazi uniform incident is none of the public’s business? You are going to have some very, very happy celebrities in your camp!

And how do you gag social media? You can shut down every single print newspaper, but there is this modern thing called the Internet….

I also think there’s a tendency (and don’t forget this is in Harry’s interest) to treat everything as one and the same, and then say another member of the family took action so why shouldn’t he. But having a case where there is concrete evidence that a phone was illegally hacked or that topless photos of someone in a private location were taken on a long-lens camera by a trespasser hidden in a bush… this is in a whole other league to broken toe which may have been hacked or leaked or printed somewhere else or disclosed and then forgotten…

*But the Monarchy manage to sue the media copious times. It just never ends up in court. Harry is a different kettle of fish, he's a non working member of the royal and doesn't have to avoid the court scenario

The Queen and Charles have sued very many times... more of a warning shot across the bows, but they do sue.*

I guess that the RF sue in order to discourage the papers from printing things that aren't true. They have nothing to gain from going to court. Harry's aims are much broader and he seems to want to make more general points about the role of the press. Whether or not a story was in the public interest, for example, is not what this case is supposed to be about. Nor is it about the relationship between the government and the press. Going to court is a way for Harry to introduce these issues I guess. He does seem quite unprepared, so maybe bringing up the irrelevant (to this case) wider issues is more important to him than whether he wins or not.

I guess that the RF sue in order to discourage the papers from printing things that aren't true. They have nothing to gain from going to court

Yes. And they have deep pockets.

Harry's aims are much broader and he seems to want to make more general points about the role of the press

Yes that's what I think. He's not necessarily there to win but he's there to show he's on to them, and good for him to stick his neck out and make his contribution.

Yes. And they have deep pockets.

Yes, as does Harry of course. It's difficult to get anywhere in a civil suit without money, unfortunately.

He does seem quite unprepared, so maybe bringing up the irrelevant (to this case) wider issues is more important to him than whether he wins or not
Yes.

It will be interesting to see what the judge says - I don't think they generally like people using the courts as a way of furthering a personal agenda, however well intentioned.

@tigger2022 those with power and wealth SHOULD dislike the media. People have commented, repeatedly, on the media’s conflicts of interest - which are undoubtedly true - but what about Harry’s conflicts of interest? Illegal substances, dressing as a Nazi, treatment of women - the public DO have a right to know these things about a potential King that he might want to keep secret.

You’ve certainly raised interesting points! Hadn’t thought of it along those lines. Plus other posters raising the dangers of muzzling the press have revised my opinion about this. On a side note, As a public figure and therefore a role model, the normalisation of drug taking etc is abhorrent. He makes a valid point, that the media should take responsibility and behave responsibly. But perhaps he should also apply that to his position and the implications of the platform he occupies.

the public DO have a right to know these things about a potential King that he might want to keep secret.

Talking of Harry as a 'potential' King is so odd to me. Look... you know, I know, everyone knows he is never ever going to be King. Nor is Andrew. Nor is Peter Phillips.
To me.. it is just a way to suggest he shouldn't be bringing this case to court.

I think the point the PP is making is that at the time of those stories he was 3rd in line, so definitely a potential king. So it was in the public interest to know if he was up to illegal activities.

Nobody makes this argument about his drug taking now, because he is no longer a potential king.