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

I'm just making a note based on your posts on here so far including Harry's possible involvement and Meghan's unrelated court case, but I will take your word for it.

But I hope that may response to your previous post about their security and why Charles is referred to as King were helpful to you.

I look forward to your critical eye on this investigation when you've had a chance to read it, if I'm correct in remembering from last thread you hadn't had the chance.

Adding: Byline Time began reporting on this in 2020 - forgot about that!

ROYAL EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry’s legal move over ‘cash-for-briefings’ claims at The Sun – The story Murdoch tried to bury – Byline Investigates

We have been into Dan Evans endlessly when he first brought out the story (along with Tom Latchem) about Dan Wootton, and they weren't wrong there were they? How much more do we have to discuss it?

I'm just making a note based on your posts on here so far

I beg your pardon?

None of this context is included at all in your post - just about Harry and Meghan, so it does come off derailing and goady. (also, if I recall correctly, I don't think that's Harry's case alone but with 100 other claimaints)

Anyway, I won't go back and forth more. Just pointing it out for MN

I'm correct in remembering from last thread you hadn't had the chance.

No, you’re not correct (at least, it wasn’t me who said that)

I'm not going back and forth with you Serenster. Please stop attemping to derail. If you have a problem with what's been said, report it to MumsNetHQ.

From the 2020 Byline Times story. It was so long ago I forgot about it, so this is something that has been trying to be kept out of the press for the long time

"BYLINE Investigates is defying threats of legal action from Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun today to report explosive whistle-blower claims that the tabloid paid the partner of a Royal official £4,000 for stories about Prince Harry last year.

The billionaire-owned newspaper company and its Executive Editor Dan Wootton have both said they will sue us if we report the allegations, which are detailed in a formal ‘Letter Before Action’ issued by lawyers acting for the Duke of Sussex.
It follows months of public speculation about the sources of Mr Wootton’s palace stories, which he often credits to ‘palace insiders’. "

I'm just making a note based on your posts on here so far

I beg your pardon?

Were they really going to live in Canada and represent the Queen there? Had anyone told Canada? Why the commercialisation of the Sussex Royal brand if they were going to be Canada based royals?
Dan Evans has worked with Harry on his legal cases which is why the narrative that the couple was just too amazing to stay in the UK as they would overshadow everyone is straight from the Sussex script.

Well, I'm quite interested in the ex New of the World journalists that are connected to Byline Times. Some posters who maybe were not present at the time it was discussed 'endlessly' may be interested to know the background of these journalists too. No harm in digging under the surface of any article to see the whys and wherefores. No one is making anyone discuss it if they don't want to. I'm happy to be a lone voice 😊

Some posters who maybe were not present at the time it was discussed 'endlessly' may be interested to know the background of these journalists too.

Anyone who has read anything about Dan Wootton will have seen the discussion about Dan Evans. It has been covered again and again. But you carry on if it suits you.

I think anyone interested in the media, Dan Wootton, the RF and their relationship with the media will have read all about Dan Evans on these threads I'm sure. Saying the same thing again and again is really rather boring. It was covered in great detail on the deleted thread.
Shoot the messenger, ignore the message.

Well, I, for one, never heard of Dan Evans before the Byline times article, I only know of the Byline Times from the RF forum, had never heard of it outside of this forum. Dan Wootton is not someone I am interested in, but know of him from mainstream media.

“BYLINE Investigates is defying threats of legal action from Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun today to report explosive whistle-blower claims that the tabloid paid the partner of a Royal official £4,000 for stories about Prince Harry last year.

The billionaire-owned newspaper company and its Executive Editor Dan Wootton have both said they will sue us if we report the allegations, which are detailed in a formal ‘Letter Before Action’ issued by lawyers acting for the Duke of Sussex.
It follows months of public speculation about the sources of Mr Wootton’s palace stories, which he often credits to ‘palace insiders’. "

This is interesting. Earlier this year a small independent Australian Newspaper called Crikey published an article in which it called Murdoch’s Fox News an uninsured co-conspirator in the January 6th insurrection.

Murdoch threatened to sue if Crikey didn’t retract the accusation.

Crikey responded by taking out a very very large ad space in the NY Times which virtually challenged Murdoch to come and get them - Crikey wasn’t backing down.

Murdoch sued.

Crikey didn’t flinch, and Murdoch backed down from suing.

So, Byline Times would be aware of that, and if their investigation is solid, chances maybe they aren’t overly worried about being sued:

I do think what may have helped Crikey, was that Murdoch had just agreed to pay Dominion US$1billion. Dominion owned some of the voting machines used in the 2000 election and Fox Commentators had referred to them as fixed/rigged in support of Trump’s ridiculous, but also massively destructive assertion, that the election was stolen.

Currently Murdoch’s Fox Media is again being sued. This time for well over US$2billion by Starmatic - makers of the other voter machines used in the election, and about which Fox commentators said the same.

We could well see a replay but with a different small independent newspaper. Fun times.

Well, I, for one, never heard of Dan Evans before the Byline times article, I only know of the Byline Times from the RF forum

There's been 5+ threads about him and BT on MN.

‘Unindicted conspirators’ not ‘uninsured’. Sorry, I didn’t check it straight away, and missed the opportunity to edit.

No wonder it feels like we repeatedly go over the same old ground re Dan Evans.

Had anyone told Canada. Love it. That was never, ever going to happen. And Canada was never ever going to pay for security. They thought this IPP thing was for life, it is for a small group of people. One of those things they would have learnt if they actually sat down and discussed this before shooting the gun prematurely.

But hey ho fantasy is always better than reality.

Well, I clearly missed 4+ of those 5 threads.

Can you assure me without hesitation that did have an input?
BTW, there’s a tv interview with Neil Basu stating that they received information of serious concern about the threat to both Harry and Meghan.
But don’t let facts get in the way of your agenda.

I’m sure there was but doesn’t mean the security risk was high when they left. People being crack pots doesn’t usually necessitate government funded security.

Go on to 'search' and look at thread titles not posts.. Put in 'Dan Wootton' and they will come up
Do you want me to list them?

People being crack pots doesn’t usually necessitate government funded security

Do you honestly mean that? Why do we pay a hugely massive undisclosed amount to protect the royal family then?

What a load of drivel. Who cares

The five we do…personally. The others have it at work and/or as a fact of where they live. Because they are in danger from enemies of the state.

Very unfortunately many well known people put up with keyboard warriors attacking them and/or actually have people come to their homes as the actress Claire Foy did. And her small child answered the caller doorbell. She isn’t an IPP. IPP’s are protected because because they represent their state essentially and therefore at risk of crackpots against said state. However, Rushdie was definitely one for a while so maybe certain other people are considered at being at considerable risk.