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

“when we say Black baby, how dark are we talking about here?”

Who is this quoting? Or is it an imaginary quote?

I know a former Governor General of one of the current realms. They saw it as an extraordinarily high honour, actually. So I’ll take their informed view over your assertion, thanks.

Gosh and why did you bold that awful statement as if it was from Serenster like the rest of your bolding?

Anyway - a Byline Times subscription is on my Xmas wishlist now.

Unfortunately inspite of their excellent work - it looks like Dan is on his way to rehabilitation if social media is anything to go by.

@Iwantcakeeveryday I think Nels Abbey is a great writer - thanks for sharing.

Oh no! Really? I thought he'd buggered off to NZ?

How do you know I don't have an informed view? or that Nels Abbey doesn't? Your opinions are not superior, Serenster, and on this subject they're no more informed either. Black and brown people don't have to be grateful for meaningless roles or acting as representatives for a whole supremacist institution. We are actually capable of achieving and gaining powerful roles ourselves and if given the opportunity, governing ourselves.

So did I. How on earth has he still got a job in the Uk!

I can't find anything that says he is here in UK...
Wotton is as leaky as a sieve. I still have the footage of him saying all the negative stories about H&M came from the Royal Family. Bet he wishes that wasn't on camera. But it is.

I've noticed an uptick in calls for him to come back/be reinstated to GB News when most of the usual suspects have been very quiet after Byline Times. It’s more than likely a fluke - but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Of course black and brown people don't have to be grateful.

OTOH, black and brown people are allowed to have different views from you about the roles they accept, and whether the roles are meaningless or representing white supremacy.

How do you know I don't have an informed view? or that Nels Abbey doesn't? Your opinions are not superior, Serenster, and on this subject they're no more informed either.

Neither the extracts of Nels Abbey that you’ve quoted (I looked online but it’s behind a paywall) nor you yourself mention the roles of Governors General. This is how the ceremonial position of Head of State of these 14 countries actually “serves” in practice. It therefore seems relevant to a discussion of how the institution of the Crown in each separate realm is or is not diverse and inclusive. You are very welcome to point me to his views on this, or set out your own. Since you didn’t mention them at all, however, readers like me are at liberty to draw our own inferences from the omission.

And I don’t think anyone’s views are superior (interesting choice of word, that). Just different. That applies to you and yours, of course too.

however, readers like me are at liberty to draw our own inferences from the omission.

of course you can create any story you want including assuming two black people don't know anything about what a governor general is or what their role is. The omission is because it is meaningless and doesn't change the point he was making about the British monarch.

You are welcome to decide what 'black and brown people' should decide about e.g. being Governor General.

The 'black and brown' people accepting the role are entitled to their own view of the rols

Sorry - 'role' not 'rols', of course!

A poster wrote: “You are welcome to decide what 'black and brown people' should decide about e.g. being Governor General.
**
The 'black and brown' people accepting the role are entitled to their own view of the rols”

In Australia - a former British colony, all Members of Parliament swear allegiance to the King of Australia (Charles). I watched a particularly sad and unsettling swearing in of a senator last year. An Aboriginal Australia woman elected democratically to the senate had to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. She was noticeably uncomfortable - she actually could not bring herself to do it on her first attempt. Some of fellow senators, watching, felt compelled to scream and yell at her repeatedly that she ‘has to do it’ (if she was to take her seat in the Senate). Looking to the speaker of senate, he affirmed she had to swear allegiance to the British/Australian Queen. Eventually she did manage to say all she had to say in order to take her rightful seat in the Senate - she said the words required - but her body language spoke differently.

I don’t agree with this MP’s politics much of the time, but I felt absolutely ashamed that my country requires this as a constitutional monarchy - Traditional owners of Australia having to swear allegiance to a King that sits as a symbol of all the bad things suffered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders under British colonisation - dispossession, massacre, slavery, stolen children, poverty and all that brings, an average life span shorter than that of their fellow Australians and so on and so forth. If First Nation Politicians want to make a difference for the First Nations People and Australians as a whole, they have to first swear allegiance to a symbol of a thing that came close to exterminating them. A colonial holocaust. Over decades and generations. Continued under Australian government. Symbols can mean a lot.

It’s not hard to see the institutional racism that Abbey addressed in that paragraph.

"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."

To argue she didn’t have to do it, that she didn’t have to be a Senator is, imo, a specious argument.

I should have written ‘Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples.’ I accidentally left the word ‘People’s’ off.

The Australian situation is troubling, especially after the referendum result.

But I feel that's down to the population at large, not the crown.

weird response.

um I didn’t make any mention of the last Australian referendum in my post…..

For the referendum result we can thank a murdoch media/oppsition govt misinformation campaign and also, racists. I certainly didn’t say that the referendum result was because of a problem connected to the crown.

However swearing allegiance to the British crown is a big problem for many First Australians. Obviously and reasonably so.

The referendum result was shocking.

But it is difficult to know what to suggest - a) because I am not Australian, and the suggestions of someone from the former colonial power are irrelevant if not offensive, and b) because democracy is the rule of the majority

The same goes for whatever oath office holders take - it's not set by the Crown, it's set by the institutions in that country. As is their choice of HoS. I fully support every country's right to decide that for themselves, and ditch the Crown if that is their democratic choice (and I expect many will over the next decade or so).

Or, of course, change the oath that office holders swear.

I was responding to the Nils Abbey article on racism.

Did you read it?

The paywall pops up before I can read it all.

I agree with much of what I did read about the power of fairy tales, and that the British monarchy is part of a set of national myths (standing alone in 1940, anyone?) that distort truths and continue to maintain a deeply unjust system of power imbalances.

Australia has its own national myths that do the same. But those can only be dismantled by people in Australia.

Not to mention the American national myths around the Founding Fathers - liberty for all! End the oppression of the Crown and social hierarchy of the corrupt old country!

When actually some settlers (not all) wanted freedom to to a) not pay for their defence against the indigenous people (who were rightly trying to protect their lands from aggressive invasion and occupation) and the French who supported them (not for ethical reasons, but to further their interests), b) continue to expand their territory at the expense of the indigenous people when the corrupt old country was trying to prevent it, and c) continue to own slaves at a time when the corrupt old country was beginning to question the morality of slavery.

National myths are very powerful, and tend to support the status quo - and need to be challenged. By people saying 'not in my name' - not by people from the outside

Thank you, I know what you're talking about here and I totally agree.