Harry Says His Fight Against Tabloids Is a 'Central Piece' of Rift with the Royal Family

[popthepopcorns]

Is there anyone in the public eye more delusional and lacking in self-awareness than Harry?

The Duke of Sussex, 39, sat down for a new interview for ITV's documentary Tabloids on Trial, premiering on Thursday, July 25. In a preview released a day before the airing, Harry discussed his reasons for publicly pursuing lawsuits against publications over allegations of phone hacking and other unlawful acts — a contrast from his brother, Prince William, who reportedly quietly received a "very large sum of money" in a settlement from News Group Newspapers (NGN) in 2020 amid a claimed "secret agreement" with the royals.
ITV's Rebecca Barry asked Prince Harry in the clip, "To what extent do you think your determination to fight the tabloids destroyed the relationship with your family?"
"I think that's certainly a central piece to it," the Duke of Sussex replied. "That's a hard question to answer because anything I say about my family results in a torrent of abuse from the press."
"I've made it very clear that this is something that needs to be done. It would be nice if we did it as a family," he continued. "I believe that, again, from a service standpoint and when you're in a public role, that these are the things that we should be doing for the greater good. But I'm doing this for my reasons."

I thought it was familiar.

☺️

Oh yes @RocketsMagnificent7 I recall this story too.

Honestly this is reaching absurd levels now and I have reported to Mumsnet HQ .

It “reveals” absolutely nothing!

If it is me then all it proves is that I have been consistent!

And if it isn’t me, Meghan has obviously been generous several times over.

Either way, please read the full thread. I have consistently said quite clearly that I am not a royalist and that I am sympathetic to M & H, particularly their situation with the press which, believe it or not, is what this thread is about!

So what exactly is it I have done wrong?

Is it that I am generally polite and willing to see shades of grey and not just post in extremes of RF = bad and M & H = good that is confusing you? As I have consistently said, there are faults on both sides. I favour M&H though because I think they are up against a massive press onslaught. And I am interested in the tabloid, palace, Harry triangle.

Btw, Mumsnet HQ will verify that I have posted supportive comments about William and Catherine for the same reason on some royal threads if you care to go searching for those?

Finally, to assist your assiduous troll-hunting, just because I am posting very early in the morning, it does not mean I am posting from a strange time zone in communist Russia, I simply got up in the night to have a pee 😀😀

Yes @Thedom I saw that interview too, I had no idea about his son. He came across so well.

Does he not understand that the family needs the tabloid in order to keep the public interested? Tabloid stories = survival of the RF.

I think the RF survives because the monarch is head of state, and in the last century or so senior royals have gone in for charity/community roles.

They do not survive because of the tabloids. Last time the monarch got an absolute tabloid kicking was in the 1990s - starting with the annus horibilis and ending with the death off Diana. But did that change the essentials of what they did? Not really - the monarch still did the constitutional duties, and the others all just carried on, and waited for it all to fade, which it did.

Their timeline is counted in reigns and centuries, not tabloids that will be chip paper by next week, let alone SM that's even more ephemeral

@Applecidervinegar641

Never said you were a troll. That's one thing I absolutely would never accuse you of being. So, as you've said to another, please don't put words in my mouth.

Oh and no confusion. I think people would have more respect for your opinion if you'd simply own the fact you are a fan of H&M.

If she had wanted it out there she would have reported it herself you don't get it reporters don't "just" find stories they are given them

I honestly don’t understand why you keep posting on this thread, when you are just getting caught up in arguments all the time.

Surely it’s a waste of your time and energy?

This isn’t a thread that is sympathetic to H&M.

You can leave your opinion on here like everyone else and leave it at that but you don’t.

You constantly quote posters expecting a reaction. If you do that on this thread….then you’re gonna get one. Then you complain how awful this thread and how awful we all are. Thats just attention seeking.

Now you’re reporting posters?

All for what? To defend two privileged multi millionaires? Spoiler alert, they’re fine! They don’t need you wasting your energy on this. It makes no difference to their day. It clearly does to yours however, so for your own sake, chill out and go find a thread that you can handle

Disagree

Reporters are "given" stories that are invented opinion pieces by commentators, use SEO and repeat SM twaddle (a major factor in the reporting in the early days of Kate's illness, which spiralled when that was taken to mean 2there must be something in it" rather than "here's more SM bollocks") or they just make things up.

As someone once wrote (Jilly Cooper, IIRC) bits in quotation marks in an article just mean invented by the journalist.

Sorry who reports on the the Royals doing charity work?

The Royals are unelected, therefore the onot way they can survive in a modern democracy is for them to be held to account by the Media.

There aren’t the systems in place like we have with Parliament to deal with MPs/parties.

The media keeps a check on their behaviour and has the ability to rein them in. Look at the work they did to expose Andrew and Epstein.

The Royals can’t survive without the tabloids

I thought I recognised the story but can’t for the life of me remember who originally posted it !

With respect I have tried to leave my opinion on this thread and it is constantly quoted and challenged so I have replied!

I don’t constantly quote “expecting a reaction”; I am defending my point of view like everyone else.

Basically what many of you are saying is that no one who has a different view to the majority is “allowed” to post?

I haven’t been disrespectful or impolite, I have just put alternative opinions, so why is it you can’t “handle” that to quote your phrase?

And the argument about “why waste your time”? Surely that applies to everyone on here!

Why do you feel the need to defend yourself? It’s a chat site about Harry and Meghan, hardly an issue anyone should feel the need to defend themselves over.

Im sorry, but you repeatedly quote people and then act offended by their comments. Politely arguing, is still arguing and you consistently make a habit of it.

If that’s your aim, then fine but stop complaining when people argue back.

Sorry who reports on the the Royals doing charity work?

That's what the Royal Rota exists for.

It's not a secretive group that gets priority briefings. It's a pool arrangement, sharing stills and video plus 1x print reporter, who go along (in turns, by rota) to cover engagements when either the venue is too small for a full press pack or when the engagement might not otherwise garner much attention. The rota output is pooled, so any outlet has it available and can choose to run it. Whether they do or not is up to individual editors, and depends on what pool material there is and what other news there is that day. MSM is not a monolith, and those decisions will vary.

And yes, there is reporting. If you google then you find things like "Princess Alexandra visits market in Brixton" which I very much doubt was covered other than by the rota

It's a shame that some work does not get more attention (perennial example is the Duchess of Edinburgh's work against VAWG, FGM and rape as a tool of war)
But she carries on with it, irrespective of British tabloid interest. I don't think she's chasing press attention to validate it I think she's doing it because she thinks it's right. And instead of attention, she gets international respect, especially when she takes those messages on her visits to places like Colombia and Sudan.

There is of course also the late Queen's maxim that she had to be seen to be believed - ie that they have to be out and about. And I think they do that because it's valuable in itself, irrespective of whether it makes the press. And of course you're right in the sense that only a tiny fraction of eg the Princess Royal's engagements ever get coverage. But she still keeps going, without any signs whatsoever of courting the press.

Uh huh, the Royal Rota is an itinerary

How do the public see the charity work that happens? How do they hear the speeches that’s the royals give at these events?

Answer: The UK Media

I am not seeking to argue. And this back and forth is worthy of the fifth form frankly,

I don’t understand the argument that, if the majority of the posters find the tabloid intrusion that Catherine and William have suffered to be hideous, which I agree it very much is, then why that doesn’t apply to the press intrusion Harry and Meghan have suffered too? It’s not logical!

No one should be supporting underhand journalistic methods wherever they are applied!

Lots of posters will say that Harry brought it on himself by publishing Spare but a lot of the nasty incidents happened way before Spare was even written and he said consistently that one of his aims in writing the book was to get everything out there, the good and the bad, so that tabloids had no need to pay off palace staff or use intrusive methods to gain information about him.

Same argument. Wash. Repeat

What's your evidence that Palace staff were ever paid by the tabloids, @Applecidervinegar641 ?
None.
Harry and Meghan seem to court the press continuously, that's their celebrity lifestyle and choice.

Yes it’s a Faustian pact that the royals have to sign in order to keep them relevant and popular. Without the press there would not be a monarchy as it would be tantamount to carrying out charity work behind closed doors.

Obviously, the challenge in a nutshell is to keep the favourable stories circulating and the negative stories suppressed just like in any other organisation.

We have all read the stories and accounts from former equerries about the different offices within the institution of the Monarchy briefing against each other. I think it’s a pretty toxic structure tbh, not given to help smooth family relations. That is why I believe Harry when he said he was briefed against from within as someone is bound to bear the fall out simply from that set up alone.

Add: without the press there wouldn't be Harry and Meghan.
Without the RF there wouldn't be Harry and Meghan.
Two Faustian pacts right there.

Which equerries have said that?

I thought this line originated from Scobie (various bits of commentary and in Endgame). I can't remember if it's in Spare as well.

(Genuine question, btw, wondering if I've missed something. Equerries would normally have nothing to do with the communications offices; completely different roles, so again wondering what I've missed)

Harry wasn't briefed against. What nonsense. All the bad stuff that came out about Harry came from himself. They protected and promoted him. They set up Invictus for him and gave him projects through the Royal Foundation. They couldn't have helped him more, because look what he's like without them.