Omid Scobie's New Book - PART 2

[Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar]

I'm not sure what is the correct etiquette for carrying on a thread, but here we are. Thanks to @BoxedandRibboned for the original thread.

Original thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4935714-omid-scobies-new-book?page=40&reply=131041571

Let's be honest, if covid hadn't happened in early 2020, they would have got a LOT more global attention.

I've always said Covid was the curveball that scuppered their plans.

Harold managed to fleece gullible bankers out of an eye watering £750k with Diana sob stories. Just the once mind but even then it was always obvious he had to up the shit shovelling to score a sustainable payday.

Even after spare was published KC made H a privy state Councillor

No he didn’t. Harry is not on the privy council. He is a counsellor of state if that is what you mean, but he already was during the late Queen’s reign. In practice he can’t carry out any duties of this role as he does not live in the UK

There’s a YouTube video of the Royal Correspondent ( Evers?) and he shows the actual pages naming KC and Catherine .,

£750,000?? Seriously? The mind boggles .

Mylovelygreendress It's unwise to name names - you are repeating the libel.

Ah, fair enough; I've not seen screenshots, but if the names really were used then they were

As said I won't be reading it, but for anyone who has, are we any clearer on what was supposedly said about Archie or is it all still just a vague smear?

What libel ??

Sadly the screenshots are all over the internet . I am hopeless at finding things but even I came across them. I think there are even screenshots higher up this thread, or a link to them. What a sorry tale

Yes Councillor of state, thank you
(Have a horrid lurgy atm and brain not working properly...)
But my Q remains ..
Why??

Well I've read the screenshots and I'm still no clearer. Although it's hardly surprising given their own story seems to have changed on the matter so frequently. It certainly seems like the sensation of having the trump card of a royal racist was more interesting that the actual 'racist' incident.

It's libellous to say they're the racist Royals without having proof it was definitely them who said it.

I am not going to debate this however all I said was there is a YouTube video., really don’t think that can be classed as libel.

Charles didn’t appoint him. Harry became a
counsellor of state automatically when he turned 21 due to his then place in the line of succession. But as I said, he has effectively been sidelined because he does not live in the UK. To compensate for his (and Andrew’s) effective removal, the Princess Royal and the Duke of Edinburgh have been appointed as extra counsellors

As I understand it Charles has no choice because the Counsellors of State are always the spouse and then the next 4 in the order if succession over 21 . He doesn’t get to choose

"Someone else did a video" is not a legal defence though. While it's highly unlikely anyone would be sued on here, MN did remind us yesterday that we as individual posters are legally responsible for what we post, not MN.

Ah! Thank you very much! It's been bugging me...

Bloody hell piers Morgan has named the duo now….

Pointing out there is content elsewhere on the internet which may contain libelous content isn't itself defamatory.

Posting a link might be a grey area, but in this particular situation no MN poster is in danger of being hauled into court by anyone over this story.

Blimey, how offensive is this?! Some things really haven't aged well...

I have to say, Scobie's book passages about some blatantly racist comments and abuse Meghan received are horrendous (he included some quotes and names). He was also subject to some and I think all of it is utterly vile.

I can imagine people like those who made the above comments about Catherine and her future children would have made far worse comments about Meghan and her future children. I think it's a sad reality there are some racists and just generally vile people everywhere. Aristocracy is certainly not free from those types, quite the contrary.

I reported someone earlier for naming them, questioning whether it was libellous, and the response I had from MN was that the names were widely known across the internet so they weren’t going to take any action,

Really? I don't know how who they are talking about

I have to say, while I don’t care if they keep their titles or not, I do wish they weren’t in the line of succession. If you can be booted for being married to a Roman Catholic I think there should be a new rule that you can be booted from being the child of a monarch who doesn’t fancy being a glorified civil servant.

If you don’t want to cut the ribbon at the opening of a new swimming pool in Bognor on a Tuesday on Feb because you’re too fancy as the monarch’s offspring then you can move merrily to wherever you think is best, but you don’t get the throne if the real ribbon cutting offspring get caught in a storm in their helicopter.

They are named is this thread, very recently.

The pictures are all over X.

Interesting that it's Piers Morgan who has gone for it though, given he supposedly gets on quite well with the Royals.

I wonder if they have judged that with all the twitter nonsense now going on it's better to just let the names be out there? Nobody seems to be taking it very seriously anymore and so much time has passed I'm not sure it's actually very impactful