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

Yep. I'll leave them to it. I will return if this thread reverts to the informative discussion it was previously.

Such a shame.

Or any other poster on this thread - please show where these accusations apply.

The case is not about him.

He is not on trial.

There are 100 people/victims invloved in this case.

The case is about the media and their reporting on him and the 99 others.

We are forming opinions on this case by reading the media and their reporting on him (not the so much the 99 others!).

The media have a massive conflict of interest in the reporting here.

We should keep it in mind.

But @Roussette , you've just lent to the hijacking by posting a number of posts about it.
I see this all the time, peoole start talking about one poster and then the thread gets deleted. It's sort of frustrating and sad. Just ignore and keep to the topic. People will get back on board.

The media have a massive conflict of interest in the reporting here.

Of course that is possible. I am getting my info from the Guardian, which has no involvement in this as far as I know? In general they are mildly republican and pro-H&M from what I have read?

@Haywirecity yes, you are right of course...

I think PH wins either way. He gets to put on public record his suspicions about Palace involvement and it suits the MNG to vaguely say that might have been the case. PH's story is supported. MNG is off the hook. Both get to blame the 'Palace'. That's not to say that the Palace didn't leak stories but it actually suits both sides in the courtroom to 'hint' that they did.

The issue of press freedom and press controls is very important. I wish they covered all the claimants in as much detail because undoubtedly some will think PH's case flimsy and assume that MNG has no case to answer ... but it does. And actually with 'ordinary' people there is less chance that waiting staff called in a sighting, or a schoolmate sold a story, etc. It's more clear cut with people where there is no claim of public interest and no obvious financial reward for selling stories.

Just to get back to topic, I find this very sad that Harry didn't know that James Hewitt apparently hadn't met Diana till after he was born till 2014?! It's very sad that he was afraid that he might be ousted from the family. To think he lived with that fear as a child. 😦

From Guardian:
Harry’s witness statement makes reference to the long-standing speculation that his real father was army officer James Hewitt, which culminated in a series of stories about attempts to steal Harry’s DNA for testing:

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. This timeline is something I only learnt of in around 2014, although I now understand this was common knowledge amongst the Defendant’s journalists. At the time, when I was 18 years old and had lost my mother just six years earlier, stories such as this felt very damaging and very real to me. They were hurtful, mean and cruel. I was always left questioning the motives behind the stories. Were the newspapers keen to put doubt into the minds of the public so I might be ousted from the Royal Family?

Best to ignore if we can and try and get it back on track.

So, back to the court case. Does anyone know if there is a list of who all the witnesses are?

He was absolutely fantastic in Paddington 2! He absolutely deserved an Oscar for it!

Muddled my sentence there: I find it very sad that Harry hadn't known till 2014 that James Hewitt apparently hadn't met Diana till after he was born.

He alleges that apparently journalists knew. Yet they continued to goad a child with that fear?

The case is not about him.
He is not on trial.

That's the problem with suing. It often can become as much about the person suing as the one being sued.

Whatever the result of Harry's case, and I don't think it's lost by any measure, it won't affect the other 99. They're all separate cases as far as I know. It's for each of them to bring their own case.

I agree with your point that it's the media reporting on the media. I remember William Roache being prosecuted. It read like the evidence against him was pretty solid. I was amazed when he won. Up to that point, as it was a criminal case, they'd been cautious about broadcasting the full facts. Then the reporters reported what had really been said. I was surprised it ever got to court. So we are definitely influenced by what we read and hear in the media.

Does anyone know how long this case is meant to last?

7 weeks total I think for the trial

Yet they continued to goad a child with that fear?

Of course. Many of them have no morals at all.

@4plusthehound - it's not just his case no, but he is part of it, and yes he's not the defence but he does need to defend d his accusations, which WILL be actually examined properly, not just glossy highlights he wants to glisten, the murky depths that are possibly there ... his or the press ... or both

As I've said in a previous post, I find it hard to believe he didn't know about the timeline until 2014.
A book was written with the cooperation of James Hewitt in 1994, outlining the timeline.
James Hewitt wrote a book in 1999, saying the affair happened,after Harry's birth.
His own mother wrote a book in 1992 saying that the, affair started after Harry's birth.
Hewitt did an interview with the Sunday Mirror saying the affair started after Harry was born.
It's been recounted in articles and tv programmes numerous times.
How could he not have known til he was 30?