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

@skullbabe - yes thank you for your summary of the distortion - I agree with all you say.
From the MSM you’d think it was about H and M
They are there but only in part - and they should be there when Sobie discusses the media manipulation- how could they not be ?

Also Scobie points out that mildest of criticism is seen as an attack, esp as regards Kate .

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

@DreamTheMoors I am sorry this was done to your sister.

I agree about the Sussexes and bullies. Harry and Meghan are being bullied, and it is relentless.

DreamTheMoors · Yesterday 17:20
I majored in history and English at university, @BadgerB.
We studiedHitler.Weknowhe was a bad man. Putin is famously an evil person because of his evil deeds.

I too have a History degree from a British University - and one in Medieval Languages too. I would never use the expression "majored in" - an American expression. Are you quite sure where you took your degree?

Hahaha who are youto judgeanybody???
You’re just some random hater on the internet who believes what the Sun and & the Mirror & the Telegraph tell her to believe.

1. I also judge people who write "Ha Ha"; they are semi-literate at best.
2. I read none of those newspapers you know so well. I hate no one. And whatever opinion I have of H&M they will never know it and therefore it cannot affect them.
3. Lastly, I reserve my right to have an opinion on public figures, based only on what I see of their public behaviour

Good grief... how judgemental
I write haha. Lots.
So I'm semi literate at best?

And my DD (probably the age of Dream) uses 'majored' and 'gotten' and other what could be called American terms.
How nitpicking.

I think we have seen more than enough of all the prominent royals to form our own basic judgements of them. In the case of Meghan and Harry, they have put themselves out there so much in interviews etc that there's no shortage of material to influence a considered judgement.

It's just plain silly to suggest that anyone with a skeptical view has been hoodwinked by a hostile, dishonest media, and only those with an uncritical are seeing things as they really are.

It's just plain silly to suggest that anyone with a skeptical view has been hoodwinked by a hostile, dishonest media, and only those with an uncritical are seeing things as they really are.

I have now actually read several chapters in this book and am outright saying that this book is not an attack on the Royal Family. If anything, it’s unoriginal. It covers the same ground as other books and documentaries about the RF that have out in the British psyche for several years but the writing style and the launch make it obvious that it is primarily targeted at the American market who may not have known some of the things many of us know about how the RF works. Now, tbh, when I read the premise of the book, I did wonder how the author would actually make a dent in an already saturated market talking about the very same issues he has. Having read parts of it - I believe my concerns for lack of a better turn of phrase were well placed. It’s a shame though for the author that the very targeted negative campaign against him and the book have for the most part succeeded.

I do think @skullbabe that he knew he would get this reaction. He said in an interview that he didn't expect some people to actually read the very many chapters on the RF and the media web.

There have been many books written like this, and there will be many more in the future.

This is an interesting article. It's not pro the book, it just talks about the relationship between the Monarchy and the media and how it evolved, and why we are where we are... Blame King George V who gave the first Christmas broadcast on radio in 1932!

It really is worth a read and no, it isn't pro Scobie at all. It's just very interesting

https://howtobe247.com/endgame-book-omid-scobie-and-the-problem-of-hearsay-review/

Roussette · Today 06:51
Good grief... how judgemental
I write haha. Lots.
So I'm semi literate at best?

And my DD (probably the age of Dream) uses 'majored' and 'gotten' and other what could be called American terms.
How nitpicking.

I have 3 grandchildren at University at the moment. Never heard anyone of them use the expression "majored" - and if they said "gotten" I might have to slap them.... (joke - thought I'd better say that. Some on MN are not very subtle))

I'll accept "nit-picking". Another way of saying "being precise"

Haha
(sorry couldn't resist!)

And therein lies the rub. The nonfiction work is another reminder that when it comes to the royal family, the media should not be relying on salacious rumours and tittle-tattle. If the monarchy is genuinely meant to have a celestial mandate to govern, it is imperative that we elevate ourselves beyond sensational tabloid content and their malicious methods of operation. This elevation is essential to maintain a clear distinction between the affairs of the state and the principles of a free press. Then, we can see if it truly is the “endgame” for the royal family.

Interesting article. The conclusion sums it up for me. The Royals dont have a celestial right to govern. They don't even govern or have any power at all to change anything for our good ( yes they can change legislation to suit themselves). Their power only comes from people thinking they are useful. The press rely on gossip and ' inside information' to drum up content and advertising revenue and in return blow smoke upbtheir asses for any minor activity they perform. The only question for me is what Harry wants out of this? He certainly wants the Monarchy to continue, and he certainly wants a piece of the money they have. But he doesn't want them to leak to the press. Well, then they lose their bargaining chip with the press, and they will dig further for stories, not have any puff pieces to cover up misdeeds or to demonstrate how indispensable they are. They would have to really live or die by their own actions, and they dont want to do that. We would as a result have a genuinely free press who actually did its job holding truth to power. But that would probably mean Harry's children not having titles, as Charles wanted to do and a much stripped down Scandi style Monarchy that pledged allegiance to the people. He can't have one without the other and he should know that having been born into the system. They are certainly being bullied for the most heinous crime of criticising the press and the Royal Family, out of all proportion, but that is because his family know that without the current system of briefings, leaks and puff pieces their existence in their current form is at risk.

Roussette · Today 08:38
Haha
(sorry couldn't resist!)

O.K Rousette - I did rather ask for that.....

Great article, Roussette.

Cuts to the heart of both sides of the rotten relationship.

Thankfully at least some of the press is committed to investigating and exposing royal smoke and mirrors rather than sitting in their pockets waiting to be fed.

I agree - a fantastic article Rousette - thanks for sharing. I think there was is an opportunity to talk about many things like stripping down the monarchy and the relationship between the palace and the media - but that moment has passed because so many are entrenched.

Thankfully at least some of the press is committed to investigating and exposing royal smoke and mirrors rather than sitting in their pockets waiting to be fed.

On that point, I see Harry has today lost his attempt to strike out ANL’s defence to his libel claim against them. ANL had pointed out that Harry had made public statements claiming that he had offered to pay for Met Police security himself, and that he was challenging the Home office for refusing to let him do this. But that offer had in fact only been made after he’d already started his litigation against the Home office to try and force them to reconsider their decision that he wouldn’t recover taxpayer funded security as of right.

The court’s decision of today holds that ANL has a real prospect of demonstrating that Prince Harry had issued a misleading description of the issues in his claim against the Home Office, arguably because it hoped to show his claim in a positive light (the court said a true description of his claim risked showing him in a negative light).

Royal smoke and mirrors indeed…

Interesting stuff, Serenster.

Presumably he's now running up some pretty substantial legal costs and will have to pay both sides even if he drops out at this point?

Not that I think he will.

Presumably he's now running up some pretty substantial legal costs and will have to pay both sides even if he drops out at this point?

Yes, there will be a costs award against Harry as a result of this outcome because he lost his application. If he goes ahead to trial on this libel claim, and loses there, he’ll face another order for costs.

If he loses his ongoing judicial review claim against the Home Office, again, he’ll face a costs award in that too.

Interestingly, a individual who lives in another country and has no assets owned in the UK would usually have to pay a large sum to money to the court as security for the defendant’s costs, should their claim ultimately fail.

It seems Harry has not been subject to this however - presumably because there is a general feeling that it would not be appropriate to require this of a senior Royal Family member? Just another example of how Harry is taking advantage of his position to launch many many claims in the UK courts without having to deal with the usual consequences for someone resident in California doing so.

I suppose he has shares / investments etc here that would count as assets? Rather than property. Perhaps that’s what they’re thinking.

Yes. And this is where we are. Entrenched indeed.

So much so, that on here people will just not read that article. It is definitely not a pro Scobie piece for any waverers out there!

Interestingly, a individual who lives in another country and has no assets owned in the UK would usually have to pay a large sum to money to the court as security for the defendant’s costs, should their claim ultimately fail

It seems Harry has not been subject to this however - presumably because there is a general feeling that it would not be appropriate to require this of a senior Royal Family member?

Interesting indeed, Serenster; I didn't know about the "security payment" usually required from those living elsewhere, but another interesting thing will be seeing what happens about payment of the costs

Or is that perhaps not in the public domain?

Would the beneficiary of a UK-based trust fund have that seen as an asset? It isn't legally their property, but if they were the sole beneficiary presumably the point at which the trust fund paid out the money could be accessed if there is a claim for legal costs?

It seems Harry has not been subject to this however - presumably because there is a general feeling that it would not be appropriate to require this of a senior Royal Family member? Just another example of how Harry is taking advantage of his position to launch many many claims in the UK courts without having to deal with the usual consequences for someone resident in California doing so.

That's actually infuriating to read but I suppose it goes some way to explaining why he launches legal action on a regular basis.

Risky strategy though. It's not going to be a good look if he loses and fails to cough on any one of the many.

how do we know any of this though? is this actually true?

I would be interested to know if Harry is not subject to these rules. Grateful for a link if available. Would be certainly interesting.

how do we know any of this though? is this actually true?

I’m sure someone will be able to let us know how we can establish this.