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

That's a bit rude.

My point was simply that Australia has issues in terms of the treatment of its indigenous population that go way beyond its constitution or parliament.

@ALittleTeawithmilk

”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. “

This hits HARD

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.

To do either in Australia requires changes to the constitution by referendum. It’s notoriously hard to get a yes vote in a referendum in Australia because of how it is structured and because, historically, there has to be bipartisan agreement as well as a majority of votes in the majority of states. It’s especially hard when very conservative news media are against it and are in agreement with a conservative opposition determined on winning and will use divisive and destructive methods in order to do so. What Australia and the UK both seem to have in common here is a heavily conservative news media. (I’m thinking ‘Brexit’ here).

I offered the example of the oath of political office in Australia as an example of institutional racism - that it is a thing here also.
To believe in any way that racism is not inherent in the governing institutions in the UK, and present it as an ‘Australia only’ problem is just wrong imo - and the article by Nils Abbey which prompted this part of the conversation points to that. You can read the article that prompted my earlier post because Iwantcake has posted the article above - in two parts.

I meant the Nils Abby article ‘points to’ racism that is institutional, not that it points to an ‘Australia only’ problem. - which is how what I wrote reads back to me now .(I could do with an editor.)

Re the issue of the media and the ‘royals’ someone mentioned Meredith Constant ( maybe here maybe Reddit I’m not sure ) as someone to watch .
She has a comms background and journalist training.
She’s on all the usual platforms
She was credited as part of the research for a chapter in Endgame

Btw , the response to Endgame reminds me of the response to Spare ( in the usual quarters) Fuss and distort to distract from the legitimate points made.

Since you brought up Endgame, @Novella4 , do you care to expand? What do you think has been distorted? Have you read it? (I have not.)

I’ve been following her for about 2 years since she started doing deep dives into media coverage of the Royals. It was so interesting to see some of the articles from the National Archives that she found in the lead up to Diana’s death and her link to how similar they are in tone and polemic as the ones for the newer royals.

This thread isn;t about endgame, we don't need to expand on it at all here thanks. Theres enough threads about it.

@skullbabe That's so interesting! If you are happy , do share any other people you follow . There is so much good stuff out there and it’s not alwys easy to find

You are happy for Novella to comment on the book, but not me, right?

@AliceOlive - are you planning to comment on the book without reading it ? Of what value is that?!

It is v dense with detail and I couldn’t summarise here . He was part of the ‘royal’ rota - he wrote for an American magazine and he suspects they allowed him access for that reason .

He openly admits he was sympathetic to M as a person of colour joining the institution he had observed for years .
To pick one point from many - he introduces the William affair rumours . He states that he has no evidence one way or the other . Dan Wooton had the story . Scobie was asked if he would provide a few details from Finding freedom in order to distract from the William story . Scobie declined. Negative stories re H and M appeared anyway
So he said we have no evidence of an affair but we do have evidence that negative H and M stories appeared then .

The first few chapters are about the end of Elizabeth’s reign and how the monarchy is on shaky ground now .
His focus in the book is on the monarchy as a whole and the difficulty it faces in 2023

It is different from Spare ( I thought Spare was well written and read) in that spare was a personal account and this more detached and factual.

I await Meredith’s summary !

I haven’t finished it btw- only chapter 13 and chapters 1-4

I haven’t learnt anything new so far ( apart from Charles using 16
year old Harry to try to push his image as caring father )

Thanks Novella. No, I am not going to comment on a book I haven’t read. I was specifically asking what you think has been distorted because I’m curious.

I’ve answered above .
The book has been distorted as was Spare

I majored in history and English at university, @BadgerB.
We studied Hitler. We know he was a bad man. Putin is famously an evil person because of his evil deeds.

”I judge H to be thick and M to be grasping.”

Hahaha who are you to judge anybody???
You’re just some random hater on the internet who believes what the Sun and & the Mirror & the Telegraph tell her to believe. You click on every lurid headline as fast as Pavlov’s dogs hit those levers. They tell you what to believe and think so you believe and and think it, like every other average-minded thinker.

It’s not the Sussexes I care about so much — it’s the bullies I despise. Bullies killed my sister. And a power far greater than I will be the judge of them.
I’d think about that if I were you.

Honestly reading the numbered threads its very apparent that people are basing their ideas of what they think is in the books not what is actually in the books. I have read "The Men in Gray", "Kate" and "A Dangerous Game". He writes well - his history with the US press is really obvious by the turns of phrase he uses and now confirmed with his interveiw with James O'Brian. It's a really well balanced read so far - I was especially interested by the Kate chapter just because of how so many were describing it as an attack. It is well considered and fair - there is no more criticism of her than has been anywhere else in the press - he in fact states that what the press called her was cruel and that Willam was fiercely protective of her. He speaks favourably of her sense of humour and how she is with her guard down.

It's very evident from this book that he is reviewing the decline of the RF and the need for the RF to adapt and change to stay afloat. You wouldn't know from how this book has been reported in the press that the most critical and damaging attacks are on the press and fellow journalists and the royal courtiers "The Men in Gray".

Back to the thread - it is interesting at the time of the stupid affair rumours, many noted that Dan, who was very critical of Will and was very much on this story, suddenly switched tack and started in on Harry and Meghan. Meredith noted this in one of her long form deep dives - she was able to go into the archives to find the articles which had been removed from the normal internet searches to look at the initial reporting of the Rural Rivals and notice the shift to absolute silence and removal of posts. The author confirms that stories from Finding Freedom were asked to be used as a carrot as a scoop for Dan who could talk about it on things like Lorraine. Dan himself confirmed that most of the negative stories coming out about H&M were from the palace (before he became firmly ensconced in the William camp). It's a full circle moment.

It’s not the Sussexes I care about so much — it’s the bullies I despise. Bullies killed my sister. And a power far greater than I will be the judge of them.
I’d think about that if I were you

That is my whole reason for sticking up for them @DreamTheMoors

Dan himself confirmed that most of the negative stories coming out about H&M were from the palace

Yep. And I have footage of him saying this.

It’s my whole reason too, @Roussette - thank you.

Mine three

Is Dan still suspended from GB News? Anything from them about that?

Three’s a lucky number. Thanks, @skullbabe

No, not really but that’s your choice.

The distortion is that this book is an attack on the Royal Family - it an analysis of how they have been doing in the past decades and how they need to change, a discussion of the internal politics, the dysfunctional relationship of the press and how they will need to adapt and change to maintain relevance.

I bought the book and I went to Kate's Chapter (Kate: Suddenly Front and Center). I am surprised (though I really shouldn't be) at how the author actually discusses Kate fairly and reports on what the press actually said about her (he even says they were cruel) - which funnily has now been attributed to him - how fiercely protective William has been of her; how things which would have been criticised if done by any other royal have not been; how she has a great sense of humour; her projects and her flagship Christmas service. He described how Kate did not take to her sister in law and jokingly shivered when her name came up. which he felt was at odds with how he perceived her to be and he described how the British media in their zeal to be positive is sometimes so much so it can be infantilising - he gives examples of enthusiastic reporting of her flipping pancakes. He discusses how she has fit into her role and is inscrutable. He discussed the difference between Kate and her mother-in-law in being more willing to fully give herself to the monarchy.

This book is no more or less critical of Kate than any other press but again the
narrative is out there that this was an attack book and the phrases taken out
of the book are only used to serve this narrative and not actually in the context. I have seen more critical and mean spiritied things written about Kate from those in the press who seem to be falling over themselves to declare themselves her champion - people like Carole Malone, Jan Moir, Amanda Platell, Richard Kay and how even people like Camilla Tominey acknowledged the horrible things said about Kate, and yet somehow, the author repeating that these things had been said, is somehow him attacking Kate.

Thank you @skullbabe

Everything I have read about this book, and the excerpts I have seen has led me to believe that it is more of a book about the RF and their future than H&M. Someone told me H&M didn't even feature until page 147 or 174 !

But ... because there's not been much to criticise H&M for... this is a convenient piece to re-ignite the fury about the couple.

Books like this about the RF are written all the time. It's nothing to get worked up about.