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

Apparently @Novella4 H&M aren't even mentioned until page 184 (or similar) of the book.
As normal, it's just cherry picking the clickbait bits of the book. Apparently (and I haven't read it), the book is actually an interesting take on the Monarchy and its future. I am just glad that there is alternative viewpoints out there because - after all - we aren't all union jack waving Royalists.

I was trying to edit my ow post as I wasn’t clear but now I can’t ?

The time window is quite short....

How do you think they could have stopped the names being released in The Netherlands ? To the best of my knowledge, they weren’t given advance notice .,

Wait now I’m derailing this thread lol !

I think basically Morgan is a newspaper man to his core. Any faux concern about the RF comes second to his need for a story. This name reveals will and has engineered thousands of column inches for him and his mates. Even his deranged obsession with Meghan Markle created publicity for him and his writing.

I suppose I’ll get deleted, but MN, posters are reviving a thread with a lot of posts to get it to the top, when the original thread was about Dan Wooton, not the wonders that are M&H and the Omid Scobie accusations.

in case anyone is wondering, I have reported my own posts above as they might be off topic
I do get carried away in the argument !

I don’t know what you are on about @MaturingCheeseball - top of what ?
And Omid Scobies book is v relevant to this topic - it’s about the monarchy and the media !

What? Who gives a fig about getting threads to the top ( if I knew what it was the top of! )

That is really funny to hear to be honest!

No one is going to report you for a deletion !

I have subbed to Byline Times and bought Endgame, and am looking forward to diving in over the holidays.

Despite the pro-royalist establishment (the tabloid/Murdoch/Telegraph press, the BP and KP 'men in grey suits', and the usual attack dogs Piers Morgan et al) ignoring Byline Times and attempting to make Scobie's book seem like it's just about M&H, the much bigger scandal of the RF and their collusion (Faustian pact?) with the British media is increasingly becoming embedded in rational minds.

Harry made this the focus of Spare. Byline Times are reporting on it with excellent journalism. Now Scobie's Endgame is saying pretty much the same thing. It is beginning to stick.

Before Harry explained how it worked in Spare, and is now being confirmed by Byline Times, Scobie and others, I hadn't appreciated the extent to which the RF have built an entire ecosystem of palace aides, the royal rota, most of the British media and even parts of the civil service and gov't to essentially keep the public hypnotized and manipulated into accepting the incredibly egregious and un-demographic privileges the RF enjoy.

But sensible people are listening, and hearing, and making up their own minds despite the hysterical anti-M&H screeching. Particularly among the younger demographics, which are, shall we say, somewhat less represented on these boards...

I can't wait to see what Byline Times come up with next. And next year's court cases against the tabloids are going to come up with further revelations which will continue taking chunks out of the whole "royal family protection at the expense of the taxpayer" ecosystem.

That's a great post @TallerSally

The thing is, much like Spare, a very small bit of it was leaked and then amplified all over our Murdoch media and elsewhere. So many people didn't actually read it... sometimes certain things need to be put into context. All that was screamed about on here was just the bits used as clickbait.

It appears the same for this book too. I have read that it is an interesting take on the Monarchy, (M&H aren't even mentioned until page 148 or later) the RF's relationship with the media, etc and I look forward to hearing your view on it.

5 mentions of the Byline Times in one post! Impressive.

What do you mean?

If you are writing a long post about a publication, what is wrong with mentioning it ?
Or are you insinuating something else.

It reads like an advertisement.

Thank you @TallerSally , you have expressed exactly what I was thinking

There is a larger narrative here and Byline Times and now this book Endgame develop that narrative.

Yes the H and M bashing is distraction from a much larger picture

And I suspect they will let Charles take some hits because he’s ensconced (literally)
But William and his aides are repeatedly linked to tabloid newspapers and the question is, why?
And how does Willaim link to Dan Wooton ?
The Byline Times produced a detailed report based on years of good old fashioned investigative journalism ( as opposed to the daily hate that the tabloids produce )

Now I’ve heard that Endgame also reports a similar story to Byline Times .

The real story will not be in the tabloid headlines
And ‘royals’ being racist is hardly news .

I would leave it there if I were you. Dissecting an MNers long post for how many times they mention a publication is not on.

Do you have anything relevant to contribute to the actual thread? The Monarchy, Byline Times, the media, how it all fits together? The Monarchy and the media. They have a huge number of media savvy consultants and aides whose whole aim is to preserve the Institution.

Is it right that th Monarchy can dictate how much of the Queen's funeral is available to watch again?
The Monarchy's existence depends on the media's survival.

Is the Monarchy trapped in a dependent relationship... dependent on each other... is that right?

Without Rothermere and Murdoch splashing pretty pictures of the RF, would they survive, or would they turn from a national obsession to a peculiar curiousity?

Plenty to talk about

Any feedback on my post apart from that? Anything to contribute?

I have introduced some really interesting talking points.

No, I’m not going to engage with you at the moment. I don’t enjoy your attempts at controlling me as if you were my mother or teacher.

That's fine! Have a good Friday.

Do come back at some point if you like, there's plenty to discuss 👍

Well I bought Endgame on Audible .
There is a chapter called ‘dangerous game royals and the media ‘.
It starts with William waiting to meet an newspaper editor or sub editor a day before the ‘summit’ at Sandringham . William had been advised to wait for the meeting but an aide who later left the ‘royals’ employ said William wanted to ‘get ahead ‘ of anything Harry might say. . It also details how a subsequent first edition headline was changed to something more acceptable to William.
The part I’ve listened to is thoroughly researched- he puts things is a historical context ( oh and it was Disraeli who coined ‘never explain never complain ‘)
This chapter looks very interesting and relevant to this thread .

What is very revealing is the review section .
One star reviews calling the author ‘scabies’ ( I don’t think you can give no stars on audible ) and no attempt at reasoned argument - sound familiar ?
And others giving 5 star reviews and saying the book is needed and insightful etc

Omid Scobie is narrating his own book and he has a clear and pleasant speaking voice . I’m fussy about how the narration sounds and I listen to a lot of audio books

For the sake of clarity, I’ve just re listened to the first few minutes of chapter 13 and this is what is said :
William met with a journalist , the article described what ‘friends of William ‘ said ,when published KP didn’t like the tone , the article was changed .
William isn’t mentioned by name as wanting changed made , just KP .
Ive only heard less than 10 minutes of the chapter but the detail !

That's interesting Novella.

As far as reviews, there is a mixture on Amazon, some sound like I would know of that person because they are soooo incensed! But there are a fair few 5⭐ reviews too. Often saying insightful.