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

There are several explanations.

1. He is lying. He did write a manuscript with the names in (plus other lines of text) at some point. Those names were removed from the final manuscript meant for publishing. However, someone clicked on the wrong file, and sent Xander the un-redacted copy. I think this is the most likely explanation.
2. A deliberate decision was made - by persons yet unknown, but on OS's side of the camp - to release one foreign language copy with the names in, to kick up a buying/publicity frenzy similar to the Spanish release of Spare, 3 days early. This is not only a costly thing to do in terms of pulping and reprinting, but leaves OS and his people open to libel laws, and potentially damages the reputation of the local publisher, who might also bring action against OS.
3. People other than OS, and without his consent, made the decision to add in 5 lines - 2 paragraphs of text including names. That party would need to have the names, and, as the names were mentioned in the context of Meghan's and Charles' letters, some knowledge of the content of those letters.
4. Candidates for option 3 could be (according to what's been said by OS and the Squad): The British Press, the Royal Family, Xander, the translators, H&M.

I agree with you, and I'm sticking with 1. He did have an early draft with names included, and by honest mistake or sheer incompetence, that early draft was sent to Xander as the final draft when the licensing deal was done with them. Everything else is too fanciful.

Jan Moir in the DM yesterday said that the most basic research would show that the PoW has never been called that, and she's not what you'd call a fervent royalist.

I suppose the one bright spot in this is that any credibility Scooby might have had as a commentator is well and truly down the drain. I wonder how he'll make an attempt to recover?

I thought it was a cheek when they accepted a Ripple of Hope award @Maireas

They’d be well suited to a Tidal Wave of Shite trophy though.

I think the names were deliberately included. Who is responsible for that not sure. But it was done to stir up a publicity frenzy.

I'd say it couldn't possibly be because he's swore on his life and his families life apparently but he's a known liar so I'm not sure swearing on your life means much...

Shall I start a new thread if this one fills up? Do you guys want to keep discussing this topic?

Of course! I didn't think of that. That would be EXACTLY why Piers did it.

Lurking but yes please. This is going to run and run - as far as I can see OS has upset the RF, the Dutch publisher and the translators. Don't normally follow threads on here but I can't wait to see how this pans out.

Even if they go down, I think Meghan would love to appear in the witness box: the outfits, the one sad tear, the international attention….

Meanwhile the silence from California is deafening....

Yes, but doesn't that mean both Charles and Catherine would have to be in the witness box too? To refute any claims about what was said, how it was said and who in fact said it? That would not be what the RF would want at all, and I doubt very much they would want H&M on the stand either.

PM just wants to be "right" about MM and PH. And he probably is in many ways, he's just a complete showboating arsehole about it. The names were already out there, he says he got legal advice to release them ,and was advised he would have the defence of fair comment in the public interest, and the defence that he's categorically saying C&C are not racists.

I might be wrong but I think if you are the plaintiff, I think it's up to you whether you take the stand – you can leave it to your counsel to put your side across. But as the defendant subpoenaed to give evidence, you might be compelled to.

@Angrycat2768 I agree I think a lot of this is down to PH rather than MM.

It is very clear he did not tell her a lot of what she needed to know e.g. curtseying, letters patent etc. I suspect he thought she would not marry him.

There were also clearly cultural differences US vs UK e.g. the “wedding” rather than a blessing. Had MM said the Archbishop conducted a private blessing 2 days before no one would have cared saying ha ha we got married 2 days before was not true. Harry could have explained that.

Harry had the opportunity to correct the OW interview either before it aired or just after, instead he left it until after Spare was published to row back slightly.

The bottom line is OS has either seen or been told about private letters between KC and MM. The question is who leaked them?

I'm tending to version 1, that the Dutch publisher got the wrong draft BUT that on the basis that any PR is good PR then OS decided to use it. Unfortunately he's got himself into a complete twist with all his versions and 'it's not my fault it's those rotten translators inserting stuff.' Do you suppose he's getting any legal advice?

I don’t think they would have to appear and also they don’t necessarily have to refute it either.

Happy to be corrected on that though.

Yes, but doesn't that mean both Charles and Catherine would have to be in the witness box too?

The monarch being summoned to the courts that operate in his name? not going to happen - the monarch IS the law.

She knows what a wedding is. It’s not some different thing in the US.

True, but libel is notoriously hard to prove, and if you are not going to give primary evidence in person, and accept being cross examined, you tip the balance in favour of the defendant massively. Agree it would be up to either side to seek to subpoena H&M, but they are unlikely to be giving evidence for the RF willingly. They have no scruple in putting the boot in, so they will. Without a RF witness giving compelling evidence on examination or re-examination, H&M's evidence will probably prevail.

@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar 9.11 post - 🙌🏻

"Like all feminists, she just wants to lift all women up, by calling them slags and racists"

@SidekickSylvia Like ALL feminists? I'm a feminist and have spent my working life of over twenty years with abused women and their children. I travel the country to help them. What have YOU been doing, apart from insulting feminist women by saying we all insult women, eh? So hypocritical.

As for Katie Keen, I have heard this online from the squaddies for some time. I think they want to imply to people that Catherine says she is 'keen' to get involved in initiatives but that she doesn't follow through with the actual work.

The problem with the conversation especially in legal terms is there may not have been a memorable conversation for some of the parties concerned. An example would be Harry and Stephen Colbert, had the ginger gene conversation been in the dressing room and Harry tells Meghan or anyone how Stephen was laughing about the children’s ginger gene and lack of Meghans gene then the conversation takes a different turn and Stephen goes from a conversation which Harry instigated to accusations. The recollection may vary maybe “haven’t got a clue”

I'm certainly no expert, but I believe English libel law is known for very much favouring the complainant. The defendant has to prove that what they wrote is true, rather than the complainant having to prove that it is false, as is the case in other jurisdictions. That's why 'libel tourism' is a thing, with Johnny Depp versus The S*n being a case in point, even though he ended up losing.

Not that I see anything related to this book getting anywhere near a courtroom. No way would any of the parties want that. Any claims would likely be settled out of court.

Thank you.

Who really thinks Charles was musing about what children would look like each time Harry had a new girlfriend?

Meghan is gorgeous. Anyone musing about her future children was hoping they’d look like her.

Yes that's a great analysis! I feel he wanted to release the names, was advised against it, but it someone got leaked by accident. Now he's blaming the translator which is despicable because it's unheard of for professional translators to embellish or add content. It's their basic codex for the job.

However a little tin foil hat side of me feels maybe he was made an offer he couldn't refuse to "leak" the information in a way that was impossible to prove (and blaming the translator is a tactic to make it more convoluted). I don't think he would risk it just for PR and book sales, but someone could have offered him a substantial sum of money to go through with it. It would easily cover any legal fees plus potential fines.

@IcedPurple I totally agree, I think you are right that in English/Wales law, it's for the defendant to prove their case. However, in a situation of second hand, he said this/no he didn't type libel, I still think the Claimant would need to be giving some pretty robust evidence to refute a defence of truth/fair comment/public interest, including being willing to be cross examined.