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

Yes, Susurrations. Interestingly, Prince William, assuming he succeeds his father, will be the first monarch descended from Charles II, and the first descended from Charles I since the early 1700s. Interestingly, because of his mother’s lineage rather than his fathers!

That is interesting, Serenster. I was really keen on Restoration literature at one time! It is a fascinating bit of history. I also love Charles II as the King of Bling from Horrible Histories.

I read somewhere that Princess Diana’s choice of name for William was Oliver but it was vetoed by the Palace 😁

‘No other country wants them’. What does this mean? Charles had a great reception in recent visits to France and Germany.

A big hoo-rah in France and Germany is irrelevant when they're not paying for one rather indifferent family to live high on the hog for life.

Two things to pick up from previous posts.
Firstly Canada has a Governor General. It is her constitutional role to represent the monarch. How would that have worked with Harry also based there doing the same thing?.
Secondly there is considerable interest in European tabloids in the European royals. They do not live quiet lives under the radar. There is a whole crop of future monarchs just turning 18 and heading for huge media interest in their personal lives.

A very interesting article @queentim thank you for the link

And a pertinent read for those posters who come along and ask why people are so interested in the RF ‘fluff’ and tell people on here that they ‘need to get on with their lives’ lol.

“The relationship of the institution to the tabloid media,” he said “is of public interest”.
It’s more than that. It’s at the very core of Britain.

Bingo!

In his 1983 book ‘Imagined Communities’, Ben Anderson outlined his theory of how modern nations emerged as a result of the invention of the printing press and what he called ‘print capitalism’. As publishers started producing materials in vernacular languages, he argued, people from different places started to be able to understand each other – convening publics capable of having opinions and shared identities.

Where in the middle ages, territories and their residents were traded and conquered between dukes and princes and monarchs, with modernity came the birth of national ‘us’es, with a sense that they belonged to communities much bigger than those immediately around them. In parallel, demands for democracy – that these publics have a say – advanced.

Hence the media becoming an integral part of the power wielded by the ‘ruling class’, and the position held by Monarchy

The article also discusses how at the beginning of Q. Elizabeth’s reign there was a post WW2 resurgence in Faith, and increased military & military families (Elizabeth being head of both). As well as the introduction of the welfare state eg NHS. And Q. Elizabeth both benefited from, and was symbolic of, growing affluence and security - eg growing middle class.

However, as things break down - middle class getting smaller, repeated costs of living crises, NHS falling apart, Britain’s Empiric presence fading, we see Elizabeth and her family’s popularity being threatened (their relevance threatened) and consequently royalty turns to the media further, in an effort to maintain past standard of relevance.

So you have a growing relationship between media and RF. Of course this is going to lead to deals being done with the media. The most benign of which is probably things like royal children being photographed on the first day of school so their privacy is not invaded at other times. We have official leaks from the palace etc.. of course, things grew grubbier.

It’s problematic when you have QE2 and now KC3 having dinners in their castles with press barons.

Yes.

A thing about whistler blowers in my country There are currently two whistleblowers (that I know of) who could go to gaol for exposing crimes and wrong doing.

The first exposed war crimes in Afghanistan. He was not the perpetrator.

The second exposed misconduct at the tax office - unfair debt recovery processes that targeted vulnerable people.

Both spoke up internally first - crickets.

Both went to the relevant oversight bodies - crickets

Both went to the media - as a result both are now facing possible gaol time.

It seems whistle blowers generally try to follow the rules - at least until, in good conscience, they can do so no longer.

Last year the attorney- general intervened in a whistleblowing case that would have seen a man go to gaol for helping to expose that our country spied on the PM of a neighbouring country. It was madness that it took the Attorney General to intervene. After it dragged on for years.

Meanwhile these whistleblowers can experience having their homes raided, undergoing investigations, court and all costs involved, and then possible gaol time. The stress and disruption and financial cost to the whistle blowers and their families is madness.

The system is set up to absolutely deter whistleblowing, that’s for sure.

I don’t deny that some whistleblowers could just be trouble makers but it’s a pretty costly, stressful process they will face, with possible gaol time at the end.

No apology for forwarding two long posts here but both excellent and far reaching . Everyone should read these no matter where you stand re the Windsors
Thank you

Of course any product, brand, institution, corporation, government etc needs to build and maintain a presence with the general public / consumer via the media to ensure their reputation is secured so that their revenue stream is enhanced and their public’s continue to purchase, value, vote or pay tax etc.

This is GCSE media / business studies - why is this eternal way to communicate through influence such a revelation to you?

Of course any product, brand, institution, corporation, government etc needs to build and maintain a presence with the general public / consumer via the media to ensure their reputation is secured so that their revenue stream is enhanced and their public’s continue to purchase, value, vote or pay tax etc.

So the Monarchy is a brand, a product...

I don't see local Councils promoting themselves via the media, they've just got to get to on and do the job of providing services to the public. Why can't the RF just do the same? All this schmoozing the media to say.."look were working hard, I went to a food bank and I've got a charity gig in two days time". 😮

My local council has posters all over the place telling us all the great work they are doing! We get a quarterly magazine delivered to us too and actually I like to read it. I am now a volunteer litter picker thanks to an article in the spring edition. Royal visits to charities surely perform the same function, awareness raising , encouraging others etc
that’s a good thing , no?
you clearly also don’t use london transport as tfl are all over the place advertising how great they are ( and they are generally great )
sadiq also pops up smiling in posters telling us how great he is too!

I don't see local Councils promoting themselves via the media, they've just got to get to on and do the job of providing services to the public. Why can't the RF just do the same? All this schmoozing the media to say.."look were working hard, I went to a food bank and I've got a charity gig in two days time".

I assume that will be because you’re not looking for it, though Roussette? It definitely happens. A quick google for South London just now shows a junior position being advertised within the Communications Team at Lewisham Council:

The award-winning Communications team at Lewisham Council are looking for their new Media and Campaigns Officer, working closely with our Public Health Directorate to deliver their priorities.…. The role is all encompassing, one day you could be writing a comms strategy, the next, filming local residents and live posting on our digital channels, the day after, pitching to media and managing the media inbox.

And the National Audit Office (NAO) is also recruiting for a Senior Press Officer currently. What will they be doing?

Responsibilities:

Promote NAO reports and work to external audiences via traditional and social media
• Write press notices, pitches to journalists, op-eds and blog posts to explain our work
• Draft social media posts to promote our work via X, LinkedIn, and Threads - working with the design team to develop content for multimedia posts
• Brief journalists and producers on NAO reports to help secure in-depth accurate and positive media coverage
• Organise and manage press briefings and media interviews
• Engage with stakeholders, including Parliament, government departments and audited bodies’ press offices
• Support audit teams and NAO spokespeople to communicate our work externally

So this is all, as have said, completely normal activity that the Palace Press team is undertaking.

It is weird to be always trying to portray royals having a relationship with media as sinister or unusual or something to be suspicious of. It’s absolutely just a completely normal and expected thing in todays world.
I would argue actually they get very little press for their good works. Anne et al get almost none but she is the most active.
charles visit this week to Kenya has been basically bumped off the media websites by multiple other things ( fair enough)
if they had this amazing absolute power over the U.K. media they’d be positive stories about how great Charles is dominating almost daily and there just aren’t. You often have to go looking for royal stories if you want to read them.
kate gets good press and she headlines often but not always.

@Roussette

Yes of course it is.

Any entity - all the way from an individual to a nation state is either a product, brand, corporation, institution, government body etc that needs to establish, build and actively maintain a positive reputation by demonstrating and communicating their work, intentions, values etc if they want or need to influence others, raise awareness, attract attention....either directly (advertising, own SM) or indirectly (via media, third party endorsement).

Reputation management is really a very basic concept.

H&M and Archwell - work their brand hard with skilled teams from PR agencies running their communication campaigns via the media.

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-archewell-ashley-momtaheni-1235269192/amp/

This gives a good overview of H&Ms proactive reputation management activities.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghan-hollywood-advising-team-b74829.html

This article also outlines the roles of H&M’s numerous advisors at Archewell - the majority of whom are focused directly on media communications and reputation management.

The role of the press in a democracy is not just to publicise good works or as a promotional vehicle. They have a role in holding the powerful to account. It is the reason they can resist regulation for their more salacious activities and are not subject to an OFCOM type body. ( they apparently 'self regulate') They should be holding truth to power on behalf of the people (us). This is why they should not be doing grubby deals with the ultimate power of the Royal Family. They should be holding them to account, yet they don't on the whole. They cover things up and obfuscate in return for puffery. It is up to people like Andrew Lownie who are then accused of being 'Republicans' as if that is a crime rather than an age old valid position to take to reveal the deals done for the Royals to keep documents secret, and 'requests' to amend legislation before Royal Assent to give themselves exemptions. ( of course, Parliament should also be working for us and hold the unelected parts of Parliamentary system to account, but the lure of a Knighthood is greater than their duty to us in many cases) Whoever provides Meghan and Harry with their publicity cannot go to Parliament and request favourable treatment. Charles can, and William, as future King, also can.

@Gloriously I don’t know what a GCSE is? And if it’s a high school thing I certainly didn’t get to study media and business studies.

I was a recipient of a pretty lousy high school education - obviously.

So media and business studies cover the history of the media and how it was an element in bringing many separate communities into some sort of whole that is recognisable as Britain. And you study how the RF and media interact to benefit both? Over several centuries? I’m impressed.

Thanks for the 2 srticles to read on H&M’s use of the media to help promote their brand. But I feel I know how that works. But can you provide me with some on the British family and how they interact with the media and have done over many years. TIA

Lol at the disingenuous defences of the monarchy selling their brand !

So Charlie is at once head of the COE anointed by god to protect we mere subjects and simultaneously a cut throat brand raking in millions off the back
of the tax payer

The Saxe Coburg Gotha rellies will be spinning in their graves !
Of course they are are a brand - it’s the smells and bells but that is the theatre to attempt to disguise the mercantile reality

And now we see these dull not very bright individuals try to be celebrities - except they are celebrities with no personality or talent . Hence the need for the tabloids
Yes, both aging , failing institutions at a loss as to how to remain relevant

The role of the press in a democracy is not just to publicise good works or as a promotional vehicle. They have a role in holding the powerful to account.

I completely agree with this. However, investigative journalist (a) costs money and (b) isn’t really amendable to having a new revelation every day. So that can’t be the only thing the media platform does. Unless it is for example Panorama, which is funded by the licence fee and only has an episode when it has a story to tell. But that is very much the exception.

Against this, the media platforms have a model whereby they rely on people consuming their content on a regular basis. This used to be buying and reading a newspaper daily, or watching the 9 o’clock news etc. Now days this has transformed more to visiting the website and clicking onto their twitter posts.

All these models need to find a way to monetise this traffic, as that is how they fund their journalists to do their jobs. So they use subscription models, some still sell physical newspapers, they sell advertising, and, if they are the BBC, they use the license fee revenue.

They also have created an overwhelming need for content so that their consumers feel they are getting something of value each time they access the platform. Some of that is reactive (eg this is happening in politics/in the courts/the economy/the world/there’s been a storm etc)and some of that is long term investigative work that you have spoken about (here’s our expose on this which you otherwise would not have heard about). And some of it it based on content that they get given by media and press teams - press releases in other words, which land on the laps of the journalists and say “Here’s a story - write about this!”. And they do, because they need content.

It’s a symbiotic relationship, absolutely, but every press office knows very well that while you may be able to give the media the information you absolutely cannot control the message, and the press will present your press release as they see fit. I’ve worked for two big organisations in my time who have known full well that no matter what they have done, no matter how much of a good news story it may be, a particular paper (and sometimes, a particular individual journalist!) will spin it negatively. That’s the nature of the press. But as others have said, every product, brand, corporation, institution, government body etc that needs to establish, build and actively maintain a positive reputation by demonstrating and communicating their work, intentions, values etc if they want or need to influence others, raise awareness, attract attention has to work with the press and take the rough with the smooth.

Are you ‘very’ bright?

And btw , this Windsor brand is capitalist and Tory- naked capitalism red in tooth and claw .
Except of course the model with the monarchy is take take take - but that must not be be pointed out - so lots of PR fluff is about ‘charity work’ must be churned out .

And if royalists are so happy to have the Windsors reduced to brand - could this brand please pay its taxes to the people they’ve already royally ripped off

Oh yes - it’s not that ‘sort ‘ of brand is it .
Its a special brand that only applies to Windsors and they must not
have the law or tax law applied ….

Thank god the young see through it all

The Saxe Coburg Gotha rellies will be spinning in their graves !
Of course they are are a brand - it’s the smells and bells but that is the theatre to attempt to disguise the mercantile reality

Would they? I rather think Queen Victoria absolutely recognised the strength of her and Prince Albert’s brand showing a happy and stable family life and interest in historical traditions ands technological advances. She was very self aware that she was presenting a contrast to the scandals that had surrounded all of George III’s sons. I doubt she would have used those terms though!

Religious organisations are the kings of PR - they need it the most as they are selling fairytales.....

Oh yes - the happy stable family life brand

Thats been blown up in a million pieces
Now what ?
Hence the attempt at celebrity
They darent push the religious angle any more
Not much left