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

I’m just reading what DW has to say on his own website (am trying to find the ref to Prince Harry sending burner phones) but have been entirely distracted and entertained by this photo! Or “photo”.

That’s a scary photo - where did that come from?

That's not a real photo! It's horrible though, I hate all these mock up photos people use in their thumbnails, a lot of them are terrifying!

I very sid several times that I was not happy that Harry called the First Amendment of the U S Constitution "bonkers" and is working with the Aspen Institute. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

I don't know how Harry's work with Aspen can be sustained if the activities of Bouzy and the Sussex Squad (sounds like a band) can be traced back to him and MM, never mind if it can be proven that he was an active participant.

If it can be proved that Harry was an active participant, he is going to have bigger problems. I

Katie Couric is an integral part of the Aspen Institute too; let's not forget she and Meghan appeared together at SXSW the other week, with M talking about the distress of online bullying while Catherine was being slaughtered online. How can she ever show her face at any of these types of events on online bullying and the like if Wooten's claims are true? TBH, I thought her best bet for future endeavours was to ditch the commercial ventures that seem to keep failing and go fully into politics, in which she seems (for reasons I can't fathom) to hold a decent amount of credibility and in which she seems to be terribly well connected. That's potentially fucked up now too (although mud doesn't seem to stick to any of the narcs in US politics, so maybe she would be no different).

Not an auspicious bunch. A Murdoch, a drug-abusing Prince that quit Princing, a woman who admits to having held back every woman she ever met so that she could keep herself on top.

Not the team anyone would want to see steering the online landscape.

It's been strongly rumoured that the infamous "GuestSpeaker" who posts frequently on NY Post (& maybe NYT) stories about H&M and always defends them strongly is actually Meghan 😂😂😂😂

Or that's what Reddit says anyway 🤔 🤣🤣

I'm not entirely convinced about Wooton's argument that Harry has several anonymous accounts, using burner phones and spread online conspiracies.

The only thing that does give me pause, is that Harry admitted he did have an anonymous IG account and used it for years. They discussed it on their documentary. He saw Meghan on his friends IG story, and got in touch that way. Meghan then said she looked through his IG to see what he was like.

So, I'm pretty sure he will have anonymous SM accounts (they both will). I'd like to think he didn't get involved in the online bullying of his SIL.

I think it leaves Charles and William in a terrible bind. They could not possibly want it exposed to the world if Harry and Meghan have been conspiring to troll them online.

But even worse if Meghan is behind it and Harry is not equally involved.

With the caveat that, if this is true (I've looked at Wootton's site and it's rather 'Infamy! infamy! they'vre all got it infamy!' in heated tabloidese) RF's best bet is to do what they are doing; which is say nuffin'.

M has no political future in the US. No one takes that seriously. H is viewed as a liability - no one want to have to address an American political spouse by a title. My local representatives work very hard.

I don't know Dan Wootton but if he is planning to sue he isn't going to put out all his info. His commenters all seem to back his story.

When MM was mooted as running for office in the US I thought that for an American citizen she seems to have very little idea of how the system works - did she think that with no background in politics she can just turn up and be a candidate? Now it just looks like it was another one of those grandiose announcements with no substance behind them that the Sussexes seem so fond of.

Omid Scobie said in Finding Freedom that Harry used to be on instagram as spikeymau5!

Because he was 5th in line - Charles, William, George, Charlotte ( no Louis yet), Harry?

Apparently named after the DJ Deadmau5 …. or so people said! I am far too elderly to have any independent knowledge of this 🤣🤣

I’m not nifty enough to navigate Twitter, Tattle and the DW stuff. I have seen a photo of what is purported to be Meghan with “Sarah Data”. I mean, that’s not ideal is it?

there have definitely been one or two dedicated posters here, whose tireless defence of Meghan (more than Harry) on ALL counts seemed to be so devoted and passionate that I thought they could only sustain that level of commitment with either a middle man spurring them on (Harry?!) or payment. They defended her the way I probably couldn’t be bothered to defend anyone. I simply couldn’t be arsed to have so many montages up or saved or daily Mail articles cropped to hide the Mail as a source or a totally rubbish website as a source.

By and large people accept there is some nuance and they have done some foolish things, but may defend some stuff.
As an example; - agreeing the Oprah interview was a truly silly thing to do, but MM didn’t mean they were legally married when she said they “got married” beforehand with just the ArchB of C - she meant it was meaningful to them.

The few that were prolific, maniacal supporters, who put their head down and charged on her behalf, have to have had an above average incentive to be so crazed in her defence.

I think I need to reverse search it to be sure!

People are already talking about the DW post in today's NY Post.