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

I don’t think it’s right he was subjected to emotional anguish.

But I also can’t ignore he exposed others to it, when it suits him, such as his first gf. I think she had to come forward as she could feel the media closing in as they tried to track her down. And writing about private texts between his wife and sister in law.

Jane Kerr now on the stand:

The court heard that Kerr attempted to get out of giving evidence last week, only to be forced to attend the trial by the judge.
She has now started giving evidence to the trial and is being cross-examined by David Sherborne, Harry’s barrister.
Sherborne said the reporter commissioned private investigators on 900 different occasions while working on the Mirror’s newsdesk. She insists this was a regular part of her duties on the national newspaper.
Sherborne said: “Ms Kerr, you didn’t want to come today, did you?”
She replied: “No I didn’t.”

We're all relying on media summaries so I think it's fair to say we don't know exactly what has been presented. His KC seems to be saying that they presented an email about the Carolyn Flack/PH/dating story from an MGN editor that included instructions on how to hack a phone.
PH has also said they found a tracking device on Chelsea's car and on another friend's car. And they allege it was placed there by an investigator who worked for MGN.
The judge also seemed interested in disappearing message notifications on PH's phone because that happened when hacking occurred (presumably that's the phone evidence they referenced).

I imagine Harry's eyes are drilling through her like a laser, given a lot of the articles came from her.
Don't blame him. 900 PI's??

The Times is also reporting that PH said that his legal team had evidence that MGN destroyed evidence related to hacking.

It's all very piece meal. None of the coverage is detailed enough imo. That might be why it's difficult to get a sense of the evidence and the case.

I don't think the use of PIs is illegal though? I can imagine that being standard practice rather than getting journalists to do all the donkey work. Lawyers also use them.

Hiring them is not illegal. It depends what they do though of course. One of them allegedly placed a tracking device on Chelsy Davy's car. That's definitely illegal.

PH has also said they found a tracking device on Chelsea's car and on another friend's car. And they allege it was placed there by an investigator who worked for MGN.

But what Harry 'says' he found many years ago is hardly going to stand up in a court of law, is it?

I imagine there is more to it than that. He named the PI.

Nearly all the major news organisations are running live blogs on this. Do you really think that if serious evidence had been presented, none of them would have reported on it?

Hiring them is not illegal. It depends what they do though of course. One of them allegedly placed a tracking device on Chelsy Davy's car. That's definitely illegal.

Yes, absolutely, just pointing out that the hiring of PIs, even if a lot of them, is not nefarious in itself.

PH has also said they found a tracking device on Chelsea's car and on another friend's car. And they allege it was placed there by an investigator who worked for MGN.

I wonder if they did anything with this at the time, like take it to the police. If so, and if there was eg fingerprint evidence, that would be pretty smoking as guns go.

Is it not the case that his then private secretary, Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton was hacked (admitted by Mulcaire in 2013, and out-of-court settlement reached)

So it does not show that Harry was hacked, or that anything that has not already been settled had occurred.

I thought the information about the break up with Chelsea Davy might have been better evidence, but the barrister also referred to two of her friends selling stories at that time, so again it doesn't show hacking. Unless CD can - and is willing - to testify that the information in question was not shared with the leaking friends, and could only have come from illegal access to voicemails. It may well have been her phone that was hacked (if the messages were those Harry left)

Probably because although the interest in her arose from her connection to him, that illegal method was used against Chelsy Davy. Not Harry. It's a useful point, though, provided that evidence of the device and its discovery exists

I agree. If evidence of this device exists it would be a point in Harry's favour. But I don't think the court would put much stock in what he simply 'says' happened many years ago.

Presumably, as he had 24 protection at that time, there would be corroborating evidence? His protection officers must have known?

Even assuming there is corroboration, it's not a strong point in his favour.

Because the illegal intrusion was against a third party (Chelsy). But it's still useful, because of course the interest in her was because of her connection to him. But he also needs to show, does he not, what they learned from this intrusion and what was published as a result of it (eg: this article is about a trip to XYZ, which is well off the beaten track for tip offs, and which was arranged only 3 hours before we left. They could only have known our whereabouts because they knew the position of the vehicle)

Regarding the flights I suppose at some point whomever wrote the article will be asked where did they get the information

Sherborne said the reporter commissioned private investigators on 900 different occasions while working on the Mirror’s newsdesk. She insists this was a regular part of her duties on the national newspaper.

^^The Guardian says she was the royal reporter 1997-2005, so eight years. Just over 100 occasions per year, or 2-3 per week on average. I suppose if your job is to find and write about royal stories, following up 2 or 3 leads per week is reasonable as a number.

Whether the methods used were reasonable is a different question.

I wonder how Chelsy feels about all this being dredged up again? She's a trained lawyer, isn't she?

This is what grates me most about Harry.

I don't doubt that media intrusion from a young age was not fun. I don't doubt he hated it and wanted to get away from it. I don't doubt he was annoyed about the papers printing personal info on him.

But in the last 3 years Harry has himself told his deepest secrets, revealed all about relationships and private parts, given you intimate details about private conversations with his brother and father, and thrown a great many former friends and family members under the bus - using the media as a means to do it.

Yes, I imagine Chelsea is feeling pretty crap right now (so probably.is Megahn as it's clear Harry deeply loved Chelsea and can't be nice for megahn to hear all about them). The government are also probably a bit pissed off at Harry's recent blabbings, Paul B is furious, Charles and William furious etc...

Harry has NO care in the world about destroying and trampling on the privacy of others in pursuit of his own mission. That is what drives me potty about this man

How do you know he hasn't spoken to his ex-girlfriend who he remains on very good terms with, and asked her permission to go ahead with referring to her and what happened?

How do you know 'he has thrown her under the bus'? How do you know she isn't cheering him on from the sidelines?

Yes, I imagine Chelsea is feeling pretty crap right now (so probably.is Megahn as it's clear Harry deeply loved Chelsea and can't be nice for megahn to hear all about them).

Harry has NO care in the world about destroying and trampling on the privacy of others in pursuit of his own mission.

Rather unfair - we don't know how Chelsy feels about it. How do you know she isn't privately supporting him? I expect they may have talked about this. After all the press treated her badly too, she might want him to bring them to court.

As for Meghan, we've all had exes and "ones that got away". They're married, I expect she knows how he really feels. After all, he left the country for her.

🤣🤣🤣