The royals and Dan Wootton: Byline Times part 1 of 3-year investigation into how Wootton got information about the royal family

[queentim]

Following their series about the Crisis in British Journalism and MediaToo movement, Byline Times reporters have recently released the first report of the 3 year investigation into the link between the royals and (disgraced) TV presenter Dan Wootton.

The first report reveals how Charles and William were angered that Harry refused to remove the name of an aide (William's aide in Kensington) who was paid cash to leak stories about his wife Meghan, and son Archie. This included investigations by the Met.

As a result, Charles removed the $700,000 granted to support them, which would have seen Harry and Meghan living in Canada and representing the Queen, in an effort to bring them back to the UK by exposing their location in Canada and removing their security. This was the collapse of the 'Sandringham Agreement', which resulted in the signing of the Sussexes media deals.

Some highlights, but can be bought for £3.6:

▪ It followed news that a partner of a key aide to Prince William received £4,000 from The Sun allegedly for stories about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when Wootton was executive editor.

▪ The Metropolitan Police looked into the alleged leaking but could not go to a judge for a warrant to search royal staff property without knowing the identity of the whistle-blowers.

▪ Two internal royal investigations followed – one involving Simon Case, who is today the embattled head of the civil service facing questions over the Government’s response to the pandemic.

▪ Byline Times has uncovered new photographic evidence of Wootton, the aide and the aide’s partner at a lavish private birthday party Wootton threw for his close friends in a £1,675-a-night hotel suite.

▪ Prince Harry sent formal ‘letters before action’ detailing the claims about Wootton and the palace to News UK.

▪ When the aide’s name was not removed from the legal letters, the Sussexes were cut adrift financially and left unable to protect themselves despite having a security threat level equal to the monarch.

▪ The royal household had thought the threat of exposure would force Harry and Meghan to return to the UK, where their profile could be controlled preventing them from eclipsing the future King

Exploding ‘Megxit’: How Dan Wootton and a Cash-for-Leaks Scandal Split the Monarchy

Please remain on topic. If posters are derailing/breaking guidelines please report to MNHQ instead of engaging

Short clip from ITV's coverage of the report:

Prince Harry 'cut off' after refusing to remove name of palace aid from legal papers

Thank you @queentim There is a nice easy highlighted precis in the middle of that article. So whilst we can't read it all, we can get the gist.

Yes will keep on topic.

Thanks @queentim for the new thread.

⬛⬛ Sir Clive Alderton – today King Charles and Queen Camilla’s right-hand man – and the former Lord Chamberlain Lord Peel put pressure on Harry to alter the legal papers.

This bit intrigued me. It’s probably addressed in more detail in the full article. I’ve been wondering why it would have been thought acceptable to put pressure on someone to alter legal papers?

Yes thanks @queentim for the new thread.
Yes why would you do that? Unless you were protecting someone who was doing something you authorised and were afraid they would blab either in court or to avoid being in court? A bit like the odious perma Diana obsessive Paul Burrell and his trial. If a member of staff had been accused of selling stories to the tabloids about your Don, surely you'd wsnt then to be sued, and you would suspend them at the very least?

Actually I think it’s quite possible that it’s because Harry was putting forward allegations without evidence or proper foundation and it might bring the person who wants to file the court papers into disrepute. That’s a pretty good one good reason for this. It’s generally frowned on by the courts to make serious allegations without evidence.

Lest you think this is unlikely, remember that left to their own devices, Meghan has had to apologise for misleading the court in her court filings, and Harry has had to admit in cross examination that he had no evidence that his phone was hacked by the Mirror and that his claim was a fishing expedition. The Palace was probably quite keen to avoid that kind of situation.

Also it’s possible that the Palace were concerned that the employee in question might want to take action themselves if they were named in court papers that could lead to all sorts of consequences out of the Palace’s control. Or they might have also felt it was unfair to publicly villify an employee without the employee having an opportunity to defend themselves.

Lots of possible explanations, if the allegation is even true.

Right.

So the person in question was Christian Jones, who worked for Will and Kate, (and for a short time Meghan, there's a picture of them coming from somewhere), and that his partner was paid money.

It would be easy enough to Wagatha Christie your aids.

So how did Dan Wootton, of all people, get the information about Harry and Meghan leaving?

"One well-placed source with knowledge of the matter told Byline Times: “They threatened the removal of the funding to try and protect the royal household from a potential courtroom scandal with Jones and Wootton very publicly at the centre. The actual removal of the funding weeks later was about control, and designed to force Harry and Meghan to come back to the senior royal family in the UK where their security would be assured.”"

So to protect the royals from revealing their true relationships with the tabloid media, and trading stories about one another for good press.

I have a feeling that sometime in the new future, Wootton will be on a court room stand anyway and the truth will come out

"“Senior members of the family wanted them back after the transition period and were ready to continue playing dirty to make this happen. They never thought the trial period would work and tried everything to make it fail, starting with the removal of security and then signing off on a 12-month assault by the UK press on Harry and Meghan and everyone in their orbit.

“As far as the institution of the monarchy went, the Sussexes had either to be safely in the tent in Britain or cast away and castigated as comprehensively as possible in order to reduce the threat of them eclipsing the rest of the family. “It’s no surprise they have endured such a degrading time from such a willing British media, when the same just isn’t true elsewhere in the world.”

As part of a three-year special investigation into the professional and personal conduct of Dan Wootton, Byline Times has spoken to several sources with connections to the royal households about how the partner of Christian Jones, a publicist, came to be paid £4,000 by Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun in August 2019 – allegedly for articles relating to the Sussexes.

It is understood that the professional publicist admits to receiving the payments, but has claimed they were for other stories about a reality television star with a similar name to the Duchess of Sussex."

(the last paragraph is just ridiculous)

Thanks Roussette! I'm currently reading the full version when I get the chance, so will try and post as much without infringing.

But the whole paper is actually really good, with coverage on lots of things -so encouraging people if they can to support this independent journalism

So how did Dan Wootton, of all people, get the information about Harry and Meghan leaving?

It’s quite possible it came from the Sussexes’ own people. Before you scoff, remember that there was a story in late 2019 in US “People” magazine, often used by the Sussexes to plant stories, several weeks before the Sussexes announced they were leaving (well before Harry emailed his Dad with their thoughts and before Wootton contacted them about his story). It was credited to “insiders” saying the couple were eager to escape the intense tabloid scrutiny in the U.K. — maybe even by establishing a second “base” in the U.S or Canada. They reported that the family would undoubtedly go to Meghan’s hometown of Los Angeles, and that the couple could spend some time in Canada. Right on the money, as it happened.

...........a security threat level equal to the monarch.

............profile could be controlled preventing them from eclipsing the future King

😂😂Those delusions of grandeur sound familiar.

I'd be amazed if they were the genuine conclusions reached by an independent journalist or paper.

I have a feeling that sometime in the new future, Wootton will be on a court room stand anyway and the truth will come out

It would be nice to see I agree (hopefully a criminal court…) but journalists routinely decline to reveal their sources even in court, so it may not provide the answers people are looking for.

That may be the case as the report in Byline times says:

‘The financial sanction came after the
Duke of Sussex defied the demands of
the then Prince of Wales and palace
staff by declining to remove the name
of former Kensington Palace press sec-
retary Christian Jones from a ‘letter
before action’ to Wootton’s former
employer The Sun in May 2020.
Jones denies any suggestion of
­ wrongdoing or leaking confidential
information about the royal household.
The matters alleged in the letter
before action about him appear to have
been dropped’

You do realise it isn't Harry or Meghan saying this? I know you like to besmirch them whenever possible but these aren't their words. I don't think Byline Times have 'delusions of grandeur'

Thank you for the new thread. I haven't been able to find a paper version of the BT anywhere so I've just bought the online version. Will start reading tonight.

Who would know their security threat, though, really? I mean that genuinely. It would be highly classified information, and I can’t see any of the people who are security cleared to know that speaking to Byline Times.

Also, given the way protection is managed int he UK, if Harry and Meghan did have a security threat that high, they would have been given protection by the Met regardless of their status, Because (in Harry’s case) it is supplied in response to actual threats, not simply position. But they haven’t been given it. So the threat to them is presumably not as high as others who do get it automatically (i.e. the King).

Also, a nit picky point, but we didn’t have a King when all this happened. Do they mean their security threat was a high as the Queen? Who at this time had someone breaking into Windsor Castle with a crossbow to attack her, remember. Or do they mean Charles when Prince of Wales?

It’s more PR guff. They are running out of cash and need to stay relevant.

They haven't written this. It is from Byline Times and I think their Mission statement is well worth repeating.

Byline Times does not report the daily news cycle. That’s for others. Our aim is to concentrate on ‘what the papers don’t say’. We will follow the story wherever it goes, without fear or favour. No PR company, advertiser or press baron can influence the stories we choose to cover. Our integrity comes from our editorial independence.
While the newspaper is not politically partisan, it is not neutral and stands against corruption, injustice and the erosion of truth and the rule of law. Accurate information is the lifeblood of a democracy and, although everyone is welcome to their own opinions, facts cannot be debated.
Accuracy* also requires us to report our country more fairly. Byline Times believes many communities and regions are misrepresented *in the media because they are under-represented. We hope to give a voice to those not provided a platform elsewhere.

Who would know their security threat, though, really? I mean that genuinely. It would be highly classified information, and I can’t see any of the people who are security cleared to know that speaking to Byline Times.

This man had security cleared, so a possible person who would speak to a journalist. Plus many who speak under the condition of anonymity. 'Neil Basu, the outgoing assistant commissioner of specialist operations at Scotland Yard, told the U.K.'s Channel 4 that he had investigated a number of "disgusting and very real" threats against the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
He said at least some of the threats emanated from the far right."

Also, given the way protection is managed int he UK, if Harry and Meghan did have a security threat that high, they would have been given protection by the Met regardless of their status, Because (in Harry’s case) it is supplied in response to actual threats, not simply position. But they haven’t been given it. So the threat to them is presumably not as high as others who do get it automatically (i.e. the King).

Harry's case(s) is make its way through the courts, so we'd have to speculate then. Though there are numerous threads on this already.

Also, a nit picky point, but we didn’t have a King when all this happened. Do they mean their security threat was a high as the Queen? Who at this time had someone breaking into Windsor Castle with a crossbow to attack her, remember. Or do they mean Charles when Prince of Wales?

The article refers to Charles and King (currently) and his activities during his time as Prince of Wales (when this was happening).

You seem intent on trying to discredit this investigation @Serenster - which I note as interesting. I haven't read all 11 pages of this yet. But there will be 2 more parts I believe.

You do realise it isn't Harry or Meghan saying this? I know you like to besmirch them whenever possible but these aren't their words. I don't think Byline Times have 'delusions of grandeur'

@Roussette can you, without hesitation, assure me that H&M have had no part or input into this article?

Of course I flipping can't. Can you assure me they have? It's easy to assume that if you buy into the narrative that what they always do is wrong and they need to be pulled down.

This is a years long investigation.

Hi Stormzy, this post seems like its goady towards Roussette and an attempt at derailing. Please remember that this thread is about this investigation in particular - the relationship between the royals and Dan wootton and how he and royal aides got these stories. If you want to talk about Harry and Meghan using the media in that way then please start your own thread on that topic.
Thanks.

You seem intent on trying to discredit this investigation @Serenster - which I note as interesting. I haven't read all 11 pages of this yet. But there will be 2 more parts I believe

This seems quite toady towards me queentim.

If you question is geunine - I said on the deleted thread that I have followed Peter Jukes on twitter for years now. Long enough to have read several of his campaigns with both interest and the same critical mindset I adopt to all published media. I read newspapers as part of my job, and have plenty of first hand experience of seeing things I know a great deal about covered in the national press, which has given me a healthy scepticism about their activities. I can’t think of a single journalist whose accounts I would accept unconditionally. I tend more towards those who have actual evidence and allegations that are consistent with other established material rather than just unsubstantiated accounts. This is true of all coverage though, not just this one.

I'm responding to Rousette and it's regarding my opinion on the bullet points that you yourself have posted. Dan Evans who co authored the piece in the Byline Times that you posted is a convicted phone hacker, turned whistleblower and now key witness in PH legal case against Dan Wootton/the media. I think it's ok to question this connection or are we brushing this aspect under the carpet? I don't think I'm being goady or derailing at all.