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 think a lot of this stems from a misunderstanding by Harry ( and his American advisers who were basing their advice on Harry’s misunderstandings)
Harry thought he would have IPP his whole life regardless of where he was living and he was as important as the Queen.
from this basic misunderstanding everything else he did flowed.
I think the royal family tried to tell him it didn’t work like that and it needed careful consideration but he was so paranoid by this point he saw that as them trying to get him to stay and trick him and so he pulled the pin on 9th January to force the issue.
he must have been genuinely shocked when security was pulled and he did not expect that to happen as he believed he had IPP status and I think the royal family were trying to explain this to him once he left but he wouldn’t listen.
Just my opinion of course

@Roussette you are always the voice of reason and common sense.

will admit I’m not completely au fait with all the detail about everything Dan Wootton/Dan Evans related. But I don’t really understand this story. Why would the removal of £700k make H&M come back to the UK? Why would Prince Charles be more worried about being overshadowed in some way if H&M were in Canada but not if they were in the UK?

This is the bit that doesn't really make sense to me either.

Your son is a multimillionaire with, at the time, a net worth of £13 million. You need him to come back for your own supposed nefarious reasons (control, manipulation and not to steal your thunder) so you remove his one-off £700k allowance which would barely make a dent in the son's bank balance. If you really want someone back for those reasons the dangled carrot needs to have considerably more value (not necessarily monetary) I would have thought.

I'm really not at all convinced by this version, there are plenty of missing pieces. I'd be interested in hearing the other side although likely that won't happen any time soon.

I certainly won't hold my breath that this will come from either Bylines part two or Scobie's book.

The whole point about this investigation by Byline Times is the juxtaposition of Harry having security suddenly withdrawn ( there is no suggestion that H expected security for life ) AND the tabloid onslaught
H has offered to pay for his own security when I the UK . Has Andrew done that ?

It is the timing and combination of events that builds a picture .

The most damaging fact is that it has really shone a light on ‘royal’ deals with tabloids.

Personally think the ‘payments ‘ were a cover . They seem to be small amounts but again it would mean that C and W can get their message out but blame an employee or contact if it blows up . As it has .
Again I ask why , if the Windows are so beloved , do they need tabloids to keep their secrets or play good guy bad guy to boost W and C ?

One thing is strange - I looked at comments on the daily Mail ( someone has to ) and the sentiments under ‘royal ‘ articles are overwhelmingly negative !
What is going on ?
Has the worm finally turned it have they stopped deleting the negative comments? If so why ?

( there is no suggestion that H expected security for life )

Harry and Meghan certainly said that in their manifesto published on the Sussex Royal website on 9 January 2020. They wrote:

Does their future financial autonomy extend to covering the costs of security?The provision of armed security by The Metropolitan Police is mandated by the Home Office, a ministerial department of Her Majesty’s Government, responsible for security and law & order. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are classified as internationally protected people which mandates this level of security.

I think that is one of the key problems too - Harry did not realise that his status as an IPP fell away if he was not a working royal, and aside from that he did not qualify for Met Police security just by virtue of who his family was (unless the level of threat against him was such that security would be provided regardless).

H has offered to pay for his own security when I the UK . Has Andrew done that ?

Offered to pay? Andrew might have done, we don’t know. But since Met Police security isn’t for sale, it’s a moot point.

Not for sale is a strange way to put it
He offered to pay for himself - ie not take from taxpayer

I can see why the ‘royals’ would be confused . ‘What’s that ? Pay for something ? Out of your own pocket ??’
lol

I personally think Harry was told about the security falling away if he left. I think that is one of the complexities the Queen alluded to in one of her statements but I think Harry didn’t believe them maybe thought it was a trap and they were using this to make them stay. I think that’s why he announced his IPP status in his manifesto. Basically he thought he had IPP status in his own right regardless of what the queen said as he was in line to throne etc.
he didn’t understand that is not the case and definitely wouldn’t be if he left.
I think that shows his arrogance and sense of entitlement.
anything the family said to him late 2019 time to try and get him to understand the position with security was probably taken by him and his advisers as a trap and not true.

The Metropolitan police’s specialist protection services "should not be made available for payment" is how the High Court judge phrased it in its decision then, if you prefer.

@Serenster

Im surprised you don’t remember - only a few months ago there was the leak of the email where Andrew was asking for his 3 million tax payer paid security back!

And Harry is currently suing the Home Office asking for his tax-payer funded security to be reinstated. Royals do cling to this, don’t they!

Yes as he was blocked from paying for himself
Do keep up

Yes as he was blocked from paying for himself

As the High Court held, paying for himself was never a viable proposition though.

Harry’s court papers also show that he only made the offer to pay after he launched his legal challenges against the Home Office to reinstate his taxpayer funded security. So, as has been suggested by the press, it’s quite possible that offer was only made for PR purposes, and was never genuine.

Thanks for your post. Whilst I don't entirely agree with you, I do think certain elements may well be true.
I wish there were more posts like yours... middle of the road and wanting to disscuss. I don't doubt there was an element of paranoia, but the media was full on dreadful at this point against his wife, so it wouldn't surprise me.

@Samcro you are very norty 😂

Harry did not realise that his status as an IPP fell away if he was not a working royal

What a shame that doesn't apply to Andrew too.

He may have asked but as far as I know he didn’t get it .

It does, I think, Roussette?

And is he currently getting Met Police Protection? The Royal Lodge is protected because it’s on the Windsor Estate, but is Andrew personally protected as well? I don’t know - happy to be informed on this point

But since Andrew is such a (deservedly) unpopular figure right now, it’s also possible that he currently qualifies for security on the basis that the current level of threat against him is such that security would be provided regardless. If the Security Services are for example aware of credible threats against him because of his past activities, they would be justified in providing him with security.

His bruv pays. Not a good look.

That implies then that he’s not being protected by the Met Police, Roussette, if Charles is paying for private security?

I would like to see the actual similar level of threats to Andrew as H&M.

His brother pays for his security at the moment and it is said to be £3M a year. If you remember the wonderful Priti Patel lobbied parliament for his taxpayer security to be restored. I think that tells us all we need to know, to save embarrassment, Bruv stepped up. As far as we know. Given how opaque royal accounts are, nothing would surprise me.

I have no idea. It is cloaked in secrecy quite obviously. It's the King so we don't know.

It is a terrible look and I’m glad these things are coming out .

So Andrew is under threat because he associated with a pedophlie and the king pays
H ( and family) is under threat because he left the Firm and he can go whistle ?

That’s ‘royal’ morality for you . Mafia like
Do what you like but don’t go against the family

All sorts of people get state protection because of the level of threat against them, Novella. There’s no “moral probity” standard applied when deciding who is at risk of being killed or injured. If Mohammed Bin Salman visited the UK, he’d also be provided with protection as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact he was implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, for example.

If the level of threats against Prince Andrew is deemed high enough to warrant protection, he will get it despite his association with Epstein, not because of it.

If the level of threats against Prince Andrew is deemed high enough to warrant protection, he will get it despitehis association with Epstein,not because of it.

That's obvious. Crackpot royalists would consider he'd damaged the Monarchy but given that a poster on here said that crackpots after you shouldn't entitle you to taxpayer funded protection, he obviously doesn't need it!