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

Fair point, guys.

I haven't seen this anywhere but on the basis of what I know of royal ducking and diving it's not implausible.

Would also like to see links...

We would know about it because the defendant makes an application for security for costs that is on the court file and heard in open court. In the same way we know about the applications for summary judgement and to strike out parts of either sides’ cases in Harry’s various ongoing applications.

Crossed post

My sources are the fact that the court files are open, boxedandberibboned!

People don’t I think generally know this, but the newspapers/Sky news/the BBC etc all employ journalists whose job it is to daily search the main court registries for new claims of interest, and then check the listings daily make sure that they know about all upcoming hearings of interest. So Harry’s claims are highly scrutinised. And there have been no security for costs applications.

Would that be because his trust funds provide security?

Or because he is treated differently?

*Would that be because his trust funds provide security?

Or because he is treated differently?*

This is very pertinent.

If it's yet another case of the royals (even ex-royals) being indulged just because it's another affront to those who pay for them.

If it's yet another case of the royals (even ex-royals) being indulged just because it's another affront to those who pay for them.

I have no doubt, then, that the journalists who monitor the courts will have this in their pockets to report on come the new year once the court cases come to the fore once again (there’s way too much other content going on now for them to use at the moment). I, for one, look forward to it. I think knowing the rules, exceptions and obfuscations by which the RF (even non working ones) live off the public purse are extremely important and as many say - light is the best disinfectant. Watching with interest.

@AliceOlive
I’m not sure why you think you’re above getting called out - you can’t expect a smart ass, snarky remark to go unchecked.
This is the second time I’ve called somebody out for being unnecessarily disrespectful.

Either be decent or leave the discussion.
It’s as simple as that - it shouldn’t have to be said.

Thank you, @ALittleTeawithmilk very much. ❤️
I didn’t make my point very well. I despise the Meghan & Harry bullies, therefore I care very much for the Sussexes and their children and their safety and well-being.

But I hate hate hate bullies.
Make no mistake.

I graduated from the University of California.

You couldn’t have much to “judge” the Sussexesfor, “based only on what (you) see of their public behaviour,” because they were only in public for a short while.*
Netflix? That’s by subscription - you have to pay and search for that. Doesn’t count.*

Your prejudices are showing. Again. Still.

I’m finished with this conversation. By all means, have the last word.
I’m still laughing.

M&H never stood a chance. Some journalists and potentially members of their own family were against them from the outset. It’s clear to most people…..the more obnoxious stories they peddle about M&H the more obvious it becomes.

They did the right thing in leaving the country, it became a hostile, toxic environment for them sadly.

I think the silent majority see that. It’s only really the older generation who seem to have it in for M&H.

@Elfnsafetyhat I'm half asleep (late night!) and read your post and thought to myself... I'm glad I wrote that late last night and not some nonsense. Then realised it wasn't me, but it's exactly what I would write!
I just have to challenge the older generation bit... I'm old and feel like you!

My knowledge of the workings of the law is negligible, so your contributions are often enlightening!

my own knowledge is negligible, thats why I have no idea if other contributors here are saying things that are true and factual or not. If I am going to try and find out things about the legal system or a particular case, I would rather read or listen to someone who is a known lawyer and discussing it publicly- and also not a Harry hater.
Edited to add; we can say hater now since some similarly derogatory terms were used on the board for those that support Harry and Megan, and MNHQ have let those stand.

This article was published in the print version of Byline Times a couple of weeks ago, but has only just dropped online.
Really quite gobsmacking, and confirms everything I thought

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/12/09/the-truth-about-megxit-how-dan-wootton-and-a-cash-for-leaks-scandal-split-the-royal-family/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1702169237

So much of the reasoning in that article makes no sense.

“Senior members of the family wanted them back after the transition period and were ready to continue playing dirty to make this happen. They never thought the trial period would work and tried everything to make it fail, starting with the removal of security and then signing off on a 12-month assault by the UK press on Harry and Meghan and everyone in their orbit."

Wwhy would senior members of the family have wanted them back? They've given every indication since they left of being very relieved indeed that they are gone.

“As far as the institution of the monarchy went, the Sussexes had either to be safely in the tent in Britain or cast away and castigated as comprehensively as possible in order to reduce the threat of them eclipsing the rest of the family.
“It’s no surprise they have endured such a degrading time from such a willing British media, when the same just isn’t true elsewhere in the world.”

Again, these silly conspiracy theories, reinventing history. The Sussexes were castigated as a result of their own strange behaviour, starting long before they even left. But it was the Oprah interview that put them beyond the pale. Again, all their own doing.

They wanted them back within the Royal fold where they could control them. I think the article spells that out and explains it very well.

The second para you picked out makes perfect sense to me.

They aren't eclipsing the rest of the family, though. They are creating headlines through gossip and inunendo, but even that is showing diminishing returns.

If you read the article fully, you will understand about the eclipsing. It's talking about back then. Not now.

@Roussette
yes this is great article

Byline times and Endgame both cover the incident re the removal of Harry’s security when he refused to back down re wanting the leaks investigated,. And people question why he left !
Harry was expendable to the Windsors

The Windsors are not capable of addressing any of pertinent questions re racism and the ‘royals’ / the media and the ‘royals’ . William throwing ‘ we are not racist ‘ over his shoulder is totally inadequate. They clearly have a racism problem .
Scobie asks why the MSM ( with one or two exceptions) is not speaking truth to power .

And that is why the Windsors are at 52% support and that number will keep falling because addressing the corruption will knock over the whole house of cards

To be clear : when H went to the top of the institution with his proof of leaks the Lord Chamberlain sent Harry a strongly worded letter .
Charles threatened the removal of £700,000 funding previously agreed . The funding was removed once H and M left the country - in the hope that removing their funding for security would force them back
Nice .
Very Christian .

Exited for typos

Even before their wedding, the main headlines around them were about the drama, the OTT lavish engagement frock, the weird situation with her family, the plethora of celeb wedding guests they'd never actually met before.

Then there was the announcement of the pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding, followed by a public announcement of the pregnancy on International Pregnancy And Infant Loss Remembrance Day, no less, and then the reports of Meghan's diva-ish behavior and demands on the Aus trip and so it continued....

At no point did they 'eclipse' the other royals with anything other than regrettable dramas

Presumably they were eclipsing the RF and the subject of a relentless and racist press attack at the same time!

Again, these silly conspiracy theories

thats so funny, the tabloids ae full of them and so is this board! SO many conspiracy stories and outright lies, including that Meghan's mother went to prison and didn't raise her- stated on the recent book threads. I mean all this board is is people guessing at what happened inside this ridiculous royal soap opera invented by gossipers.