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

Harry is 100% on the nose with this. You can see it happening with the Wales children already - shy and serious George, bossy Charlotte, cheeky Louis. And heaven forbid they stray from these narratives later in life!

I hadn't heard about Diane Watson. It really is outrageous that papers can just lie and there's very little coke back.

I remember posters on the other thread always proclaiming that papers check everything with lawyers before publishing for fear of being sued. This was always bullshit but instances like this demonstrate that is very far from the case - even the editor didn't read the story!

No @Roussette

He was called a "damn cad"!

!!!

*that should be 'come back'

I remember when stories of that guy who helped search for Madeleine McCann was suddenly accused by the newspapers, and thinking but there's no evidence. This guy is being accused of being a paedophile racist and there's no evidence if anything. Thank goodness he,wasn't in this country because I don't know how people withstand that sort of pressure. And then I couldn't believe it when the same happened with Christopher Jeffries. And the papers, and now, internet sites,and social media can all get away with saying lies or making unfounded accusations. It's a scary world.

As for High Grant... He wasn't standing up for people wrongly maligned in the press before he discovered he'd been hacked. He only uses their heartbreaking stories to tie his much more mundane ones to. By feeling sympathy for them, it rubs off on him. I totally agree with him that he shouldn't have his privacy violated and those that dud, should be punished. But it puzzles me how willingly people will buy into his white knight act when people who know him will say he's the antithesis of that.

Harry wrote: "Numerous newspapers had reported a rumour that my biological father was James Hewitt, a man my mother had a relationship with after I was born.
"At the time of this article and others similar to it, I wasn't actually aware that my mother hadn't met Major Hewitt until after I was born."

Further on, Harry writes that he feared being ‘ousted from the RF because of the rumours.

So, we can see again the impact of an invasive and conscienceless tabloid press. Not illegal apparently, to write such damaging tripe, but very very painful for a child. No doubt Harry would have been reassured by his family none of that was the case. But thinking this a was a possibility, as he said he did, for any amount of time, would be a hard thing for a child to bear.

I’m not in the UK (I’m on the other side of the world) so it’s bedtime for me. I’ll catch up on the rest of today’s court session in the morning.

@MrsMaxDeWinter

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 agree. He is totally entitled to a private life. The people who illegally invade his privacy should be punished. Like Harry has said, it must really play with your head to feel worried that you're being bugged or hacked or spied on all the time. I totally support him in wanting the papers to pay for that.
What I can't get my head around is people buying into the idea,that hes being altruistic for doing thid, that he's doing it for the good of the rest of the country. If the the country benefits, I'm sure he'll think that's a positive. But to think he's fighting the paper with that solely in mind strains all credibility. Well, actually it makes me laugh a bit so I guess there is a positive to it, after all.

I applaud Harry's court battle but I would also suggest that he doesn't give a damn about the Wales children.
As for the Guardian's neutrality, I beg to differ. Years of funded anti-farming bilge.

just a point on Hugh grant, not particularly a fan of his btw, think he is a horrendous actor.... but he was, maybe still is, a director for 'hacked off' and has given one of his settlements to their fund to help ordinary people with court costs. Yes some of these celebrities have only come to it because of what happened to them, but they have given time and sometimes money to help others and I do think that's worthy of mentioning. I do not expect them to necessarily know about this illegality or do anything about it if it doesn't affect them, no more than I expect anyone here to either for that matter. I know I have done nothing about any of this myself! I'm hoping it sheds a light on not just th press, but our really really unfair justice system. I think the hacking cases have highlighted just how heavily in favour of the defendants the system is, because having to pay costs if you win but do not get awarded more than a previous settlement offer, is wrong to me.

As for High Grant... He wasn't standing up for people wrongly maligned in the press before he discovered he'd been hacked. He only uses their heartbreaking stories to tie his much more mundane ones to. By feeling sympathy for them, it rubs off on him. I totally agree with him that he shouldn't have his privacy violated and those that dud, should be punished. But it puzzles me how willingly people will buy into his white knight act when people who know him will say he's the antithesis of that.

I am surprised at that. He plays golf from time to time near me and I have only heard good reports. I know I know, it's hearsay, but that's what landed with me.

His house was broken into and bugs planted together with bugs in/under his car so to my mind, he can bring as much publicity to this as he wants. A total violation of privacy. I don't know that he can jump onto the bandwagin of those wrongly maligned in the press unless he has experienced it himself? He would just be criticised for that I think. Who knows.

What I can't get my head around is people buying into the idea,that hes being altruistic for doing thid, that he's doing it for the good of the rest of the country. If the the country benefits, I'm sure he'll think that's a positive. But to think he's fighting the paper with that solely in mind strains all credibility

I did say back upthread to you... couldn't it be a bit of both? I said... Justice and retribution.. and something altruistic? No reason why not that?

just a point on Hugh grant, not particularly a fan of his btw, think he is a horrendous actor..

I have to stand up for Hugh Grant here. I think he infortunately got typecast early on. But in my opinion he should have got an oscar for Paddington 2, or at the very least a nomination. I found his,early roles a bit boring but I'm a bit of a convert now.

I like Hugh but he is the stereotypical golden child. As I keep saying on here, I worked with Hugh's mother at a west London school. She was a wonderful person. She mentioned Hugh a lot but not the other brother. This was at the time he was in Maurice. Isn't it a mistake to lionise people who are on our side

Hugh brings valuable publicity to Hacked Off (hacking inquiry).

Will admit to being a total fan, because my DD when she was a teen just loved him, we used to sit and watch Three Weddings and About a Boy on a loop, such happy memories!

And he liked and retweeted one of my tweets once!

I'm as shallow as a puddle me 😂

A quote from The Guardian feed:

"Green finds the interview that Harry gave to a Press Association journalist in 2002 around his 18th birthday.

It was in turn published in various Sunday newspapers, Green says, for example the Sunday Times.

Green points out the similarities between the Sunday Times article and Daily Mirror article, about which Harry complains.

“The private information about which you complain in the Mirror article had been revealed by you in an interview and then published in Sunday newspapers before appearing in the Mirror article,” Green says.

Do you still maintain that the Mirror article was based on unlawfully gathered information, Green asks.

“I believe the article was connected to an invoice,” Harry says.

“And so what?” Green asks.

“The timing was suspicious,” Harry replies.

“And so what?” Green asks again.

Harry says the appearance of the interview in the Sunday newspapers was enough to incentivise other journalists to unlawfully gather additional information."

I am posting on both threads, hope that is ok and I don't get confused. Anyway, it is obvious Harry's life has been deeply affected by his press coverage and I agree with what other posters have said upthread about the same pattern starting with the Wales children. What I don't understand is why he isn't producing actual evidence of hacking. From the extract above it is clear he thinks he has been hacked but he doesn't seem to be offering concrete proof, just assumptions and things like call logs whose timing he thinks are related to printed stories.

Have I missed something? I don't think he is offering enough in his testimony so far to prove hacking. Does he just want a day in court to say what he is saying publicly and getting it reported?

I suppose I'm wondering about the effectiveness of his testimony to actually change the media culture (which needs it).

@Haywirecity oh, I haven't seen that!

Not sure if that's directed at me derxa?

I admit to being a fan lol

in case its not shared already, the (long ) witness statement
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23835120-bl-2019-001787-hrh-the-duke-of-sussex-v-mgn-witness-statement-of-prince-harry-the-duke-of-sussex

Whilst I can totally see why Harry is doing this, and cannot fathom what it must have been like being him (which he describes quite well in the excerpts of the witness statement I have seen) I think he’s on a hiding to nothing because he just can’t prove the source of the various stories being relied on. As long as The Mirror can hint that they had sources at Eton, KP, BP etc (which no doubt they did) plus a bit of lucky speculating plus a bit of nicking things from other papers then Harry is bound to lose.

But the main thrust has been that the prince can't prove journalists acted illegally.
A few times Harry's response to how journalists got a story has been: "My lord, you would have to ask the journalist how they obtained this information."
No doubt his lawyers suggested this answer knowing that a number of the Mirror journalists have chosen not to come forward to give evidence.
Harry is taking a battering - but the point being made is that at least he had the courage to come to the witness box.

sky news reporting there.... I am interested in this part, why can't the journalists be asked to come to court, surely since in the past owners of the papers (NOTW ) say they had no idea about the hacking we do know about, it was the PI's and journalists on the hook for it, right? So where are the journalists that wrote all these stories in question today? can they not be forced to come to court? how does it work?

When these rumours started before, long before Diana died, I'd have thought she'd have taken Harry aside and spoken to him about it. Although maybe she planned to when he was older and of course that never happened. Maybe the family just assumed he knew it was rubbish so they never explained either. Certainly Harry says,Charles never believed the rumours. Still, it must have been awful for him to have people doubt his parentage.

However, I don't know that his version of this hangs together, though. The story he refers to is in 2002 and that's when he feared he'd be ousted from the family, not discovering until 2014 he'd been born before Diana had started the affair. But in 2002 James Hewitt gave an in interview confirming that Harry had been born before the affair started. An interview with the Sunday Mirror of all papers. You'd think friends would have pointed it out.
And there were books written in 1994 and 1999 one with Hewitts involved and one by him that confirm the affair didn't start til 1986. And Diana wrote about how she was faithful until after Harry's birth in her book. So this information was around. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know about these denials before he was 30. If true, he seems to have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life.

A republican section shouldn't be about the RF. This section is for the RF. If posters think being a republican is just about criticising the RF, they have entirely missed the point and the politics.

f posters think being a republican is just about criticising the RF, nobody has said that, have they....

You must watch it. I didn't like Paddington 1 but I LOVED Paddington 2. Hugh Grant was genius in it.
Coincidentally, it's on this Sunday afternoon on BBC1. (I'm not being paid for this by the way! Although if either the BBC or Mr Grant would like to bung me a few bob.... 😄)

@Haywirecity oh thank you for the heads up! I am always looking for things to watch as we feel like we have watched everything in my house! I can't cope with any more reality tv!