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

On YouTube James o Brien has an interview with Omid Scobie - put up yesterday .About 30 mins in they start discussing Harry and recent events

I've listened to most of this... as you say, 30 minutes on is very interesting and puts so much into context.

As Scobie says

"there is so much of this book that I knew would just not be covered, or talked about, because it does challenge the relationship between the Press and the Palace. Any relationship between a Company or a celebrity and the press is the norm, but we're talking about questionable and unethical practices that come into that. And because they are a publicly funded Institution I think it's important to talk about it. "

Not sure anyone can disagree with that....

Yes exactly .

I also ask why - if the Windsors are truly loved (as their supporters claim ) - they need a compliant section of the press to distract from or pull negative stories and write puff pieces.

Does he cover his own relationship with them? The admission by Meghan that she provided Scobie with information despite their denials and his own. Because doing so would really help him build credibility and this exact kind of relationship is the heart of his professed topic. Otherwise it’s all Pot meets Kettle.

You need to listen to the interview... he covers all of that. Yes.

Do have a listen, it's worth it.

I’m already listening, but haven’t gotten to that part yet because I started at the beginning.

How many threads are there on Scobie? We don't need another.

I listened to all of it and didn’t hear him discuss having claimed that he did not have collaboration from Harry and Meghan, not Meghan claiming she did not provide information and the revelation that this was untrue.

He discusses aspects of covering royals, but not this fact.

If I missed it I’m happy to be pointed to where on the podcast this was discussed.

So the fact he didn't say something means it must be true? There's lots he didn't say, and lots he did say.

What? We know it’s true - Meghan told the court and apologized.

Rousette and Novella brought up Scobie, or at least the James O’Brien interview with Scobie. How is that hate?

It was brought up Alice in the context of the Monarchy and the Media which Scobie does talk about in detail.

Yes, exactly! I didn’t think there was anything hateful happening on this thread.

The Monarchy is a dangerous British fairytale.

"In Britain, we enjoy and perpetuate a plethora of obvious national fairy tales. “We single-handedly defeated the Nazis”, “we are the most tolerant, kindest and most welcoming nation on Earth” (an unmeasurable fairy tale usually uttered by the most ardent of bigots).
“We were the first nation to end slavery”, in reality, <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/PisIF/www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Haiti was. Britain was the largest profiteer from slavery. And post-slavery Britain then went on to colonise – meaning we-enslave-you-from-home-and-we-own-your-home – the very people it had enslaved.
Perhaps our biggest fairy tale lies within the “divine right” and, therefore, divine nature of the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/PisIF/inews.co.uk/topic/royal-family?ico=in-line_link" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Royal Family. Despite the fact that our churches lay empty on Sundays and “no religion” is our second largest religion, the idea that the Royal Family are holy, saintly, bound by covenant with God and beyond reproach remains a key part of our national folklore. The defining national fairy tale of the United Kingdom (it’s in the name).
The most vocal defenders of this fairy tale can be worryingly aggressive. Piers Morgan is a classic example: as I type he has just angrily asked Professor Kehinde Andrews why he doesn’t leave the country and labelled Meghan Markle a racist, all as part of a discussion about racism and the Royals.But Morgan is far from alone. Practically any questioning of the Royal fairy tale breeds immense national anger and can lead to serious consequences for the questioner.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2023.12.03-131841/inews.co.uk/opinion/the-monarchy-dangerous-british-fairytale-2783831" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.is/2023.12.03-131841/inews.co.uk/opinion/the-monarchy-dangerous-british-fairytale-2783831

Until the link can be viewed:

In Britain, we enjoy and perpetuate a plethora of obvious national fairy tales. “We single-handedly defeated the Nazis”, “we are the most tolerant, kindest and most welcoming nation on Earth” (an unmeasurable fairy tale usually uttered by the most ardent of bigots).
“We were the first nation to end slavery”, in reality, <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/PisIF/www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Haiti was. Britain was the largest profiteer from slavery. And post-slavery Britain then went on to colonise – meaning we-enslave-you-from-home-and-we-own-your-home – the very people it had enslaved.
Perhaps our biggest fairy tale lies within the “divine right” and, therefore, divine nature of the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/PisIF/inews.co.uk/topic/royal-family?ico=in-line_link" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Royal Family. Despite the fact that our churches lay empty on Sundays and “no religion” is our second largest religion, the idea that the Royal Family are holy, saintly, bound by covenant with God and beyond reproach remains a key part of our national folklore. The defining national fairy tale of the United Kingdom (it’s in the name).
The most vocal defenders of this fairy tale can be worryingly aggressive. Piers Morgan is a classic example: as I type he has just angrily asked Professor Kehinde Andrews why he doesn’t leave the country and labelled Meghan Markle a racist, all as part of a discussion about racism and the Royals.
But Morgan is far from alone. Practically any questioning of the Royal fairy tale breeds immense national anger and can lead to serious consequences for the questioner.

"Dread the thought, but what if they are just our equals? What if they are just as human as the rest of us? Part angelic and part animalistic, flawed, funny, prone to embarrassing habits, anxious about status, confused about their role and living on borrowed time. One catastrophic error away from the risk of redundancy.
In the morality minefield that is race, they may not actually be our equals, but our inferiors. And how could they not be? The institution is the pinnacle, the embodiment and reaffirmation of the concept of white supremacy. Both in substance and, especially, in symbolism.
To be clear: white supremacy is not some deranged skinhead with a swastika tattoo, it is the conscious or subconscious belief in and application of the fallacy of the inherent superiority of white people.
From slavery to colonisation to immigration policy to foreign policy right down to “when we say Black baby, how dark are we talking about here?”, white supremacy is the driving force behind much of Western society. And, yes, it is the belief and practice underpinning the concept of the Royal Family.
Case in point, you would struggle to name any institution on Earth which has historically benefited more from the debasement, enslavement and subjugation (ie colonisation and neo-colonisation) of Africans, in particular, than the Royal Family. And no major or transformative measures have been made to repair the damage done (most would not consider ‘expressions of regret’ to be much of a transformative measure).

Opinion piece by Nels Abbey in inews. Well worth a read. Nice to see a few different media willing to question and criticise.

Trying again, an opinion piece from Nels Abbey in inews, worth a read:

"In Britain, we enjoy and perpetuate a plethora of obvious national fairy tales. “We single-handedly defeated the Nazis”, “we are the most tolerant, kindest and most welcoming nation on Earth” (an unmeasurable fairy tale usually uttered by the most ardent of bigots).
“We were the first nation to end slavery”, in reality, Haiti was. Britain was the largest profiteer from slavery. And post-slavery Britain then went on to colonise – meaning we-enslave-you-from-home-and-we-own-your-home – the very people it had enslaved.
Perhaps our biggest fairy tale lies within the “divine right” and, therefore, divine nature of the Royal Family. Despite the fact that our churches lay empty on Sundays and “no religion” is our second largest religion, the idea that the Royal Family are holy, saintly, bound by covenant with God and beyond reproach remains a key part of our national folklore. The defining national fairy tale of the United Kingdom (it’s in the name).
The most vocal defenders of this fairy tale can be worryingly aggressive. Piers Morgan is a classic example: as I type he has just angrily asked Professor Kehinde Andrews why he doesn’t leave the country and labelled Meghan Markle a racist, all as part of a discussion about racism and the Royals.
But Morgan is far from alone. Practically any questioning of the Royal fairy tale breeds immense national anger and can lead to serious consequences for the questioner.

To be clear: white supremacy is not some deranged skinhead with a swastika tattoo, it is the conscious or subconscious belief in and application of the fallacy of the inherent superiority of white people.
From slavery to colonisation to immigration policy to foreign policy right down to “when we say Black baby, how dark are we talking about here?”, white supremacy is the driving force behind much of Western society. And, yes, it is the belief and practice underpinning the concept of the Royal Family.
Case in point, you would struggle to name any institution on Earth which has historically benefited more from the debasement, enslavement and subjugation (ie colonisation and neo-colonisation) of Africans, in particular, than the Royal Family. And no major or transformative measures have been made to repair the damage done (most would not consider ‘expressions of regret’ to be much of a transformative measure).

You all think you singlehandedly defeated the nazis? 🤣🤣🤣

WE don't think that.. but there is a myth out there that the country did. There's a lot of articles out there talking of this myth. Historians push back on this.

More from that article...

"Until this very day, the institution continues to “serve” as the ceremonial head of state of many predominantly Black and brown nations (I’ll leave you to figure out why this doesn’t happen in reverse). The idea that this same institution would be some form of anti-racist, or racism-free, diverse and inclusive collective is demonstrably absurd."

"Demonstrable as it may be, to suggest any of this is to breed immense national anger, especially from people who normally applaud the concept of facts not caring about feelings, diversity of thought and free speech.
The symbols of royal progressiveness on race issues often demonstrate the contrary. The Commonwealth, for example, is, in part, supposed to be proof that British royalty is beyond racism, but in reality, it proves anything but.
The concept of the divine white leader of a predominantly Black and brown international organisation of people who were previously subjugated by said kingdom, speaks volumes. The plight and flight of Meghan Markle, Prince Harry and their children speak even louder.
A camel will waltz through the eye of a needle before a historically imperialist entity predicated upon social superiority will be above racism, a concept which is itself predicated upon social (racial) superiority. Yet the fairy tale suggests otherwise.
And for that reason we have to love and protect this national myth, for without it, the man without a penny to his name would not angrily rise against another person without a penny to theirs, in defence of the man with a £50m hat on his head. "

I thought this was an interesting opinion piece given all that has come out if the Byline Times, and the Guardian's series on the cost of the crown, and on the lies around the Duchy of Lancaster giving to charity. That all should be major headlines across every paper, but instead they print gossip about personal relationships. I think the article gives a good explanation as to why that is.

That all should be major headlines across every paper, but instead they print gossip about personal relationships. I think the article gives a good explanation as to why that is.

Its a very good article @Iwantcakeeveryday

In every paragraph it’s author makes a very valid point.

It’s late at night where I am, and I’m off to bed, but look forward to lots of discussion about this article.

That article is sooo interesting. Of course it's one man's opinion but if it doesn't resonate with anyone who reads it, they are very out of touch with the past, the present and what will be, the future, which, for now, is inevitable

"Until this very day, the institution continues to “serve” as the ceremonial head of state of many predominantly Black and brown nations (I’ll leave you to figure out why this doesn’t happen in reverse). The idea that this same institution would be some form of anti-racist, or racism-free, diverse and inclusive collective is demonstrably absurd."

The author of that doesn’t appear to have considered that in the “predominantly black and brown nations”(I think it’s the population that is meant there - sounds a bit old fashioned, as written) there is a local representative appointed to stand in for the monarch for all functions where the Head of State would be represented. Those started out as white aristocrats of course, but in the last 60 years or so have become much more representative.

in the Bahamas for example, the Governors General there who act as the Head of State have been “Black and Brown” since 1973. In New Zealand, which is more racially diverse, the Governors General in the last 50 years have included Māori, and also men and women of Indian and Polynesian descent, as well as Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent).

In both countries, Governors General have been appointed on the basis of their careers in the public sector, rather than being drawn from politicians, and so may have otherwise not have been considered for such a nationally visible role. It also not a given that such diversity would have been likely in an elected role.

So the point isn’t as much as a gotcha as the author believes as, ironically, having the UK Monarch as the Figurehead of state has enabled local representation and diversity in a role seen as a high honour. And I might add, without the high cost that a constitutional change to a republic would necessarily involve.

The author of that doesn’t appear to have considered

What an assumption. I am sure he has, just come to quite a different conclusion.

So the point isn’t as much as a gotcha as the author believes as, ironically, having the UK Monarch as the Figurehead of state has enabled local representation and diversity in a role seen as a high honour. And I might add, without the high cost that a constitutional change to a republic would necessarily involve.

It's not considered a high honour at all- maybe to Brits. There's no power in it. It takes nothing away from the authors overall points, you'll not see things the same if you're an ardent supporter of the royal family.

From slavery to colonisation to immigration policy to foreign policy right down to “when we say Black baby, how dark are we talking about here?”, white supremacy is the driving force behind much of Western society. And, yes, it is the belief and practice underpinning the concept of the Royal Family.