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

Following with interest.

It's interesting to see posters' view of the witness statement. Legally I don't think it says much of substance at all and includes an awful lot of speculation, which is not evidence.

The idea of your lie as fodder for the tabloids to make a killing over stories they feed to a ravenous public that is certain it knows who the villains and the good people are. No wonder they are still hopping mad that he left!

But it always seemed to me that Harry was portrayed as a good person. He was very popular with the general public and, as we don't really know anything about them, we can only judge by what is written in the newspaper because that's the only info we have about them. So if Harry had a good rep, that must have come from the papers.

Anyway, thank you for starting this thread. There's another one going but it feels like it might lack impartiality. And although anyone who calls the Guardian ethical also lacks neutrality, between both threads, we should be able to piece together a more realistic view of what is happening overall.

Okay this made me laugh 😝

The MGN barrister Andrew Green KC has pointed Harry to 3am column in the Mirror and a “callout” at the end of the column asking members of the public to ring in if they see famous people.

The column reveals details of Harry’s birthday celebration – at a gastropub in Fulham

Green suggests Harry would have walked along the street to the pub which is off the Fulham Road.

“I don’t walk on streets,” Harry says, explaining he has to travel by car for security reasons as he is spotted wherever he goes.

And although anyone who calls the Guardian ethical also lacks neutrality, between both threads, we should be able to piece together a more realistic view of what is happening overall.

Just to be clear, I said the Guardian aspires to ethical standards. I did not say it always meets them.

And I believe I said balanced, not neutral. The two mean different things. I would prefer not to comment on the other thread other than to say that one of the last comments I read there was: "How can Meghan let Harry do this?"

Enough said.

But it always seemed to me that Harry was portrayed as a good person. He was very popular with the general public and, as we don't really know anything about them, we can only judge by what is written in the newspaper because that's the only info we have about them. So if Harry had a good rep, that must have come from the papers

Yes and no I feel. He was liked by the public because he just came across as more human and as he said in his witness statement, he was labelled in a certain way and we all know if you are continually portrayed as such, you just think what the hell, I may as well live up to this.

The media humanised him as the 'fun prince' but they needed more. Falling out of nightclubs, drugs, and all of that. So what I am trying to say is... I don't feel that it was just 'popular Harry'... it was 'bad Harry' too.

Just to be clear, I said the Guardian aspires to ethical standards. I did not say it always meets them.

I aspire to be a millionaire but no one mentions the word millionaire when they talk about me. Lol. I guess if you share its political leanings, you might want to think its,tryingvto be ethical, though. But that argument is,maybe fir a different thread.

Actually, I think the word 'balanced' is a much better word than me using 'neutral'. Neutral is not at all right and I don't know why I used it. Thanks. I'm happy to be corrected.

And yes, why bring Meghan into this? It's clear Harry has his own mind and his own ideas of what agenda he wants to follow. That's why I find posters that are always for or against a person annoying.

@Roussette Yes, I think you're right. He was relatable Harry so people were happy to overlook missteps because we all have those. I can't think that drove him to drink and drugs, though. He always said that was because he lost his mother. He does seem to want it every which way.
But I guess that's relatable, too, because don't we all? 😁

Thanks for this thread OP

Regarding the 100 claimants, Hugh Grant once said that its ordinary people caught up in new events that suffer the most from press intrusion. Prime examples of this of course are Christopher Jeffries and the families of Millie Dowler and Diane Watson, which is especially upsetting (link for those who may not know the Watsons' story. I think what happened to Millie's phone is well known).

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12625861.mother-defends-daughter-diane/

Thank you for starting this thread, @MrsMaxDeWinter.

@StarbucksSmarterSister

Wow, that link. This is why, win or lose, I think Harry is really brave to take this on.

He is using his name and his platform to shine a light on practices that have harmed ordinary people who do not have the money or stamina to challenge the press as systematically as he is doing.

I cried when I saw Mrs Watson testify at Leveson. Her statement and others are here. I think it's important we remember this isn't just about the rich and famous.

https://www.discoverleveson.com/#brBrowseWitnesses

This is getting really messy for the Palace, and for Charles.

Harry has been pushed under cross-examination to testify that a story about drug taking about him in the News of the World was planted by Charles's spin doctor, Mark Bolland.

He has conceded that that story may not have come from phone hacking.

The concession is not good for his case, but the sworn testimony that his own father's courtiers at the Palace were briefing against him when he was a child vindicates what he has been saying about the Palace planting stories about him.

Just not sure. There is a fine line between being 'relateable' and the 'fun prince' and being the black sheep or the one who pushes the boundaries. And because that is what you are thought of as, anyway, you live up to it.

I lived that in my family so I sort of get it (not that you don't, but you know what I mean)

@Haywirecity

I found this really moving from his statement, especially after he has accomplished so much in his life, and still you find lots of posters on Mumsnet who have bought into the thicko narrative and just won't let it go.

You start off as a blank canvas while they work out what kind of person you are and what kind of problems and temptations you might have. They then start to edge you towards playing the role or roles that suit them best and which sells as many newspapers as possible, especially if you are the ‘spare’ to the ‘heir’. You’re then either the ‘playboy prince’, the ‘failure’, the ‘dropout’ or, in my case, the ‘thicko’, the ‘cheat’, the ‘underage drinker’, the ‘irresponsible drug taker’, the list goes on.
As a teenager and in my early twenties, I ended up feeling as though I was playing up to a lot of the headlines and stereotypes that they wanted to pin on me mainly because I thought that, if they are printing this rubbish about me and people were believing it, I may as well ‘do the crime’, so to speak. It was a downward spiral, whereby the tabloids would constantly try and coax me, a ‘damaged’ young man, into doing something stupid that would make a good story and sell lots of newspapers. Looking back on it now, such behaviour on their part is utterly vile.
I always felt as if the tabloids wanted me to be single, as I was much more interesting to them and sold more newspapers

I do know what you mean, yes. 👍

@StarbucksSmarterSister I cannot believe I don't know about the Watsons and the tragedies that befell them. What hell they have lived through, not only to lose a daughter but to then be attacked in the media resulting in the loss of a son too. I will read the Leveson enquiry statements, if I can bear it. Poor poor people
Thank you for bringing this onto the thread and highlighting what these ordinary people have been through. It isn't just Harry ... it is one hundred other cases all with harrowing stories no doubt.

Harry should be applauded for standing up and doing what he is doing. I want him to win, I have no idea if he will win, but his presence there ensures this isn't swept under a media carpet, which it quite obviously would be if he wasn't there.

I think that how the newspapers can casually ruin an ordinary persons life and then just say "oops, sorry", at best, is absolutely disgusting. And people are powerless to defend themselves. Even wealthy people, who can afford to fight and win, find themselves facing the accusation of, well there's no smoke without fire.

So I get what Hugh Grant is saying. I just despise HG using that argument to win his fight though. Because he's not fighting the newspapers to bring justice to the British people. Sean Bean isn't, neither is Liz Hurley. They want retribution for the violation of their privacy. Which is very understandable and which they deserve. But let's not make this into HG doing something altruistic.

I think that how the newspapers can casually ruin an ordinary persons life and then just say "oops, sorry", at best, is absolutely disgusting

Yes yes yes. Just reading the statements and to see that Mrs Watson had to sit outside the Glasgow Herald offices with a placard for days on end, to even get a meeting with the Editor is just heartbreaking.
After articles and lies were written about her deceased daughter which resulted in her son taking his life.

Why do you think Hugh Grant doesn't want both? Justice and retribution.. and something altruistic? I'm curious on that, because I follow him and he is all for the underdog in very many different ways.

This was already in his book, though, wasn't it? It's old news. Apologies if I've got that wrong but I'm sure I read Harry's saying that Bolland was brought in to rehabilitate Camilla's image and sacrificed Harry to do so. So it's not like Harry is being pushed to say anything - he's already willingly and freely said it. I'm thinking that's where Greene has got this line of defence from.

And, of course, him saying it doesn't make it necessarily true. However, Bolland denies it happened quite as Harry stated it but he does concede there might be some truth to that allegation.

I can't thank enough everyone who is contributing so constructively to this thread.

And a special thank you to the many that had been hounded out and are now back.

Until the Republic Board is a reality, we have inadvertently created what I have always wanted to see on these threads: a thread for those who want to bash Harry, and one for those who are happy to discuss the wider issues he raises without bashing him or his wife.

I am so pleased to see that there are two current threads on this topic at the moment and I hope that MNHQ takes inspiration from this and understands that the Royal Threads have two distinct constituencies.

@Haywirecity I see your point about Hugh Grant. He is doing it for himself. And as you say, it is his right to do so. But if it shines a light that allows these practices to be exposed, I have no problem with him doing it for himself. Just because he is a public person, because he has made a bunch of films etc that entertain the public, does not mean his private life is public property. Being talented, or being famous, is not something the tabloids should punish people for by invading their private lives.

I am absolutely heartbroken reading Margaret Watson's statement - dear god! I'm so glad Harry is pushing forward with this - the media seem to get away with all of this because of the prohibitively expensive process that taking matters to court can be.

@Haywirecity

Missed your last point. It matters that he is repeating it under oath because it is one of the things that journalists, Royal Rota correpondents and other critics disparaged when SPARE came out. And many refused to believe that his own father's staff would "plant" stories to make Charles look like a doting father.

Green got Bolland's name out under cross examination. Harry had not actually named him in the book. Green read out the relevant section and questioned Harry on it.

For Harry to be cross examined about Palace activity, under oath, is a big win, in my view.

And thank you @MrsMaxDeWinter I have always wanted to discuss the wider issues without the never ending boring insults flying about H&M. Of course, he's not doing it all right but the fact he is doing it at all, is good enough for me.

I doubt very much whether we would know anything about this without his presence.

Interesting to read that the last Royal to be cross examined in court was 130 years ago. Over someone calling someone a cheat in a card game. How times have changed, he was probably called a cad 😂