The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: April - August 2023

[camelot23ca]

“ In claiming such stories were “hurtful, mean and cruel”, the Duke laid bare his deep sense of unhappiness – not just with the media – but a life he seems now to wish was lived a different way.”

Prince Harry’s paranoia reveals a man who has failed to cope with his fame

Grilling at the hands of a KC was quite a bit tougher than Oprah

www.telegraph.co.uk

He seems to be using this trial as a kind of therapy.

 

[JR76]

He seems to be using this trial as a kind of therapy.

He's been using the world as a kind of therapy for the last few years.

 

[wbenson]

Harry's Witness Statement (documentcloud)

https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...-statement-of-prince-harry-the-duke-of-sussex

His legal name is "Henry", right? Shouldn't he use it for this lawsuit instead of "Harry"?

English law doesn't really have the "legal name" in the way that civil law countries do. You can use any name as you please (unless you're doing it to commit fraud or something like that).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry's Witness Statement (documentcloud)

https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...-statement-of-prince-harry-the-duke-of-sussex

His legal name is "Henry", right? Shouldn't he use it for this lawsuit instead of "Harry"?

I'm not familiar with UK legal system, but the way it's been presented here, Harry can accuse MGN based on his assumptions/conjectures (or his feeling) instead of hard evidence and it's up to MGN to provide evidences that they didn't do it? Is that how it work in the UK?

In this type of trial - yes.

He is saying that the information for the stories was obtained illegally. The other side has to show that the information was obtained legally. If the media is able to show that most, if not all, of his stories were obtained legally he will lose.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't think it ever benefits anyone to sue the press. Even if they win, they lose, because the press just hits back harder next time.
Better to let the stories get stale and die out.

 

[Alison H]

A lot of Harry's statement is just ranting. I don't think anyone would deny that he's been the subject of press intrusion or that it damaged his relationship with Chelsy, but that in itself isn't illegal. He doesn't seem to have any proof that his phone was hacked, and the Mirror's lawyers keep showing that the stories were in other papers too.

 

[Hallo girl]

I was struck in reading the testimony by how often Prince Harry believes the press were doing surveillance even in stories where they got key facts wrong. (The example being that they printed Chelsy Davy was furious at him for attending a strip club when in fact she was ok with it)

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that the tabloid press sometimes get half a story and the rest is just insinuation/conjecture. Sometimes it’s just a guess based on what they can confirm, and it’s not hard to confirm a public figure visited a certain bar through legal tactics, like talking to the staff. He seems to have given the press more power in his own mind then they have.

This is so true, even nowadays when you read the actual wording in a tabloid story it is obvious it is not necessarily totally accurate. The use of ‘could’ ‘ maybe’ ‘ perhaps’ etc etc.
It is also important to remember that there have been major changes in the press in the last 20 years, I appreciate part of his case is earlier.
He also needs to remember the War of the Wales, where there were stories in the press everyday about Charles and Diana, it transpired that a great deal of the stories came directly from the couple themselves, briefing against each other.
I would hate that to be brought up in court.

 

[Kenya]

Harry's Witness Statement (documentcloud)

https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...-statement-of-prince-harry-the-duke-of-sussex

When the Netflix program and Spare came out, I was astonished to realize how little Harry seemed to know about royal protocol, despite living his entire life in the midst of it. But even knowing that now, I still find it remarkable that in Paragraph 18.c. of his statement, he refers to his father as HRH King Charles III! I wish I could give him the benefit of the doubt that someone else wrote that, but under oath, he insisted that he wrote the statement himself, during a conference call with his lawyers. Good grief.

Matt Wilkinson, Royal Editor at the Sun, is live tweeting the hearing (@MattSunRoyal), and, as a lawyer myself, I'm shaking my head at Harry's legal team. The Mirror's solicitor has repeatedly pointed out that many of the stories about which Harry complains in his statement were sourced from articles published in other papers and/or comments made on the record by the Palace, not from phone hacking. In fact, one story Harry mentioned in his witness statement was written in 1996, two years before Harry even got a mobile phone. In another, information Harry contends was "private" actually came from an interview he gave for his 18th birthday.

Hence, my issue with Harry's legal team. How did they not carefully investigate each story Harry mentioned in his statement to make sure the material "facts" in the story did not come from a source other than phone hacking? I absolutely believe that Harry's phone was hacked and that some stories probably did come from illegally gathered information. But by also including stories that came from non-phone hacked sources, his legal team had made him look foolish, sloppy, and unreliable. In courts, we deal with facts, not opinions, not feelings, not suspicions. Harry's attorneys have done him a great disservice by not carefully investigating the origin of all these stories.

 

[Granada]

Kenya excellent points. But in his Legal Teams defense, they are "working" with Harry, who seems convinced he is always in the right and knows best.
As evidenced by his refusal to follow The Judge's instruction to be available for Court yesterday, that Harry...... simply ignored.

I also love the statement by Harry that, "The tabloid press was always THE THIRD PARTY in his relationships".

How interesting and in my opinion intentional, to use that phrase.....so similar to Diana's most famous lament, " Well there were THREE of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded".

I'm just waiting for him to start going after William and the "secret settlements" as he termed them. The Courtiers and other "Family Members" "trading stories" for favorable coverage of their principal.

So far much nothing... to me is proving his case. But I doubted that all along was his primary motive. Its still ALL about settling scores and revenge. With Harry always the victim.

This time in a public Court.

 

[Adda]

What a trainwreck. Thank God he was born second.

 

[Kenya]

Kenya excellent points. But in his Legal Teams defense, they are "working" with Harry, who seems convinced he is always in the right and knows best.
As evidenced by his refusal to follow The Judge's instruction to be available for Court yesterday, that Harry...... simply ignored.

True! Sometimes all the good lawyering in the world isn't enough if you have a recalcitrant client.

 

[duchessrachel]

Harry just had to go there.....He criticized angrily about "The state of our Press AND OUR GOVERNMENT which I believe are both at rock bottom".

Clever, very clever to make a populist attack against "The Government". To gin up support for his cause as a champion of those with no voice. A generic dig against "The Government" will certainly resonate with some. How many ? Pretty rich coming from the man who quit his Job AND his Country.

The Government isn't on Trial. Why go there ? Oh, I guess change laws to mollify Harry.
But that comment, I'm betting will be the takeaway line. "OUR Government is at rock bottom" ?

Very Edward Vlll like when, as Prince of Wales, he said in public during The Depression, to much popular acclaim....."something must be done" when seeing the plight and horrible conditions of Welsh Miners. His popularity, already sky high, surged. Needless to say "The Government" was furious at Prince Edward's overstepping the mark. Edward knew The Royal Family cannot comment on political matters. Especially a future King.

All it does is lead to controversy. Of which Harry is well aware. But he went there anyway. Purposely.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Harry is doing something similar here when he says, "I may not have a role within the Institution but, as a member of the British Royal family, and as a soldier upholding important values, I feel there's a responsibility to expose this criminal activity in the name of public interest"

So he has taken it upon himself to speak for the Royal Family. That is rich! Someone in the family needs to have a word with him that he does not speak for them.

 

[Erin9]

I wonder if Harry is regretting Spare yet. The lawyer is using it to contradict his witness statements.

 

[Granada]

Criticizing the UK Government as being "rock bottom" was yet another attempt to elevate dim Prince Harry "saviour" credibility.

Just who does he think he is ? A Royal Prince, who LEFT The UK, feels emboldened to attack the Government. Simply unbelievable. Another oblique challenge to Authority put forth by this delusional man-child. Charles must be beside himself with frustration and fury.

[.....]

 

[tommy100]

I wouldn't be surprised if his comments about the government result in a debate from MPs about taking action to stop him being Counsellor of State.


It didn't seem to go well for Harry today, that is what I'm reading even in the likes of the gurdian.

I really do question his legal team if there are such obvious holes in their case, presenting stories proven to have come from other newspapers, public statements and Harry himself but claiming they were from hacking. And these, let's not forget are the 30 articles they chose out of 100+ submitted for the case - they were asked to pick their best ones in effect and still picked such ridiculous ones that are proven to have come from elsewhere. What are they playing at?

 

[Erin9]

When the Netflix program and Spare came out, I was astonished to realize how little Harry seemed to know about royal protocol, despite living his entire life in the midst of it. But even knowing that now, I still find it remarkable that in Paragraph 18.c. of his statement, he refers to his father as HRH King Charles III! I wish I could give him the benefit of the doubt that someone else wrote that, but under oath, he insisted that he wrote the statement himself, during a conference call with his lawyers. Good grief.

Matt Wilkinson, Royal Editor at the Sun, is live tweeting the hearing (@MattSunRoyal), and, as a lawyer myself, I'm shaking my head at Harry's legal team. The Mirror's solicitor has repeatedly pointed out that many of the stories about which Harry complains in his statement were sourced from articles published in other papers and/or comments made on the record by the Palace, not from phone hacking. In fact, one story Harry mentioned in his witness statement was written in 1996, two years before Harry even got a mobile phone. In another, information Harry contends was "private" actually came from an interview he gave for his 18th birthday.

Hence, my issue with Harry's legal team. How did they not carefully investigate each story Harry mentioned in his statement to make sure the material "facts" in the story did not come from a source other than phone hacking? I absolutely believe that Harry's phone was hacked and that some stories probably did come from illegally gathered information. But by also including stories that came from non-phone hacked sources, his legal team had made him look foolish, sloppy, and unreliable. In courts, we deal with facts, not opinions, not feelings, not suspicions. Harry's attorneys have done him a great disservice by not carefully investigating the origin of all these stories.

Yeah. Referring to his father as HRH King Charles III is quite something. I believe in the same statement he referred to his mother as Princess Diana. And he swore he wrote it. He really really is quite ignorant.

The number of contradictions is almost astounding. Except…I pretty much expected this from Harry.

 

[Somebody]

In this type of trial - yes.

He is saying that the information for the stories was obtained illegally. The other side has to show that the information was obtained legally. If the media is able to show that most, if not all, of his stories were obtained legally he will lose.

Does the other side need to prove that it was obtained legally or that it could have been obtained legally? Given that Harry is making claims without any evidence, wouldn't it suffice to explain how that information could have been obtained legally?

 

[Heavs]

The thing is, the government in a democracy cannot/should not unnecessarily restrict the free press.

It is not the government's job to make sure that the press aren't writing gossip about Harry's life and relationships.

There were government enquiries into the behaviour of the press and the hacking scandal. The press do not report on things (generally speaking) that will endanger the BRF in security matters etc. But the government (any government) cannot pass a law that says "don't be mean to Prince Harry" which is essentially what he seems to want.

He's said that before with his "the First Amendment is bonkers" quote and his work with groups trying to censor internet content. He basically doesn't want anyone to be able to say anything he doesn't like but wants to say whatever he likes whether it is factually true or not IMHO.

 

[Marengo]

Posts containing insults have been deleted, as have been the replies to these posts.

 

[Alison H]

People in the UK will be aware of the current intense press coverage of the private life of TV presenter Phillip Schofield, and the fact that he's referred to the case of Caroline Flack, who took her own life partly because of hassle from the press. There's a lot of intrusion into the lives of famous people, not just from the UK press but from the press everywhere, and it must be horrendous to deal with. But the government in a democracy can't start censoring the press, unless it's a matter of national security. I wish there was an answer.

 

[HRHHermione]

People in the UK will be aware of the current intense press coverage of the private life of TV presenter Phillip Schofield, and the fact that he's referred to the case of Caroline Flack, who took her own life partly because of hassle from the press. There's a lot of intrusion into the lives of famous people, not just from the UK press but from the press everywhere, and it must be horrendous to deal with. But the government in a democracy can't start censoring the press, unless it's a matter of national security. I wish there was an answer.

It’s not a perfect answer, but to some degree, people can choose whether to seek out the glare of the spotlight and the associated risk and reward. Most people don’t become famous at birth. Prince Harry didn’t get that choice and I am very sympathetic to that, but I would be a lot more sympathetic to it if he had safeguarded his own privacy and that of his family rather than being extremely revealing of personal information when it can be monetized.

 

[Alison H]

Yes - Piers Morgan's rather amusing comment on today's proceedings was that he looks forward to hearing all about Harry's crusade for privacy in Harry's next book.

 

[kalnel]

The Washington Post didn't pull any punches in its story today:

"Harry has lately lived in a soft-focus world, sitting with friendly interviewers — such as Oprah, literally a friend — who ask performative questions under the close watch of his vigilant PR team. In fact, Harry and his wife Meghan’s six-hour Netflix documentary was self-produced by the royal couple. Tuesday’s court session opened the prince’s version of events to hard-edge scrutiny."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/06/06/prince-harry-testify-court/

 

[Springbee]

"A judge has given the US government a week to make a decision on releasing records relating to the Duke of Sussex’s visa application."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...-spare-drug-taking-us-visa-application-court/

 

[Curryong]

Yes - Piers Morgan's rather amusing comment on today's proceedings was that he looks forward to hearing all about Harry's crusade for privacy in Harry's next book.

The Piers Morgan who has always denied that he knew anything at all about hacking, illegal information gathering, when he was editor of the Mirror.

The Piers Morgan who has almost daily blasted Harry and Meghan for something or other on his TV show and in articles in tabloids. That Piers Morgan. A Completely unbiased observer.

 

[Ista]

An interesting article from the Telegraph that goes over a number of Prince Harry's claims, and the questioning by the barrister representing the Mirror:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...-high-court-mirror-group-newspapers-tabloids/

 

[FigTree]

The Piers Morgan who has always denied that he knew anything at all about hacking, illegal information gathering, when he was editor of the Mirror.

The Piers Morgan who has almost daily blasted Harry and Meghan for something or other on his TV show and in articles in tabloids. That Piers Morgan. A Completely unbiased observer.

We all know they were vile. We all know Morgan was probably hacking.

Harry didn’t embarrass himself today…in that he didn’t loose it.

He did have it rough. The press before Leavenson (sp?) was the Wild West. But he is just really angry but the case is about hacking not about the fact the media did make your life pretty miserable at times.

He sees his life work as reforming the media but in large part it massively has been.

You can’t control the media. The questions come when they violate the human rights acts…which they did in the past.

 

[Curryong]

The BBC’s view about Harry’s demeanour in Court and what went on.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65827802

 

[tommy100]

Interesting that they've chosen 30 of their 100+ articles yet the Mirror legal team have been so easily able to prove where such stories were published first, including at times from Harry's own comments. I'm surprised such a high price legal team working for Harry weren't able to find that out themselves.

TBH to me it feels a lot more like a case of throwing enough mud at the wall that some of it will stick in the end.

The guardian have a very balanced view of it all from their journalist who was there (even bumping into Harry in the gents toilets before it) and point out Harry had really not much to say in many ways, certainly a lot of this seems based on his feelings rather than hard facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ts-to-the-witness-box-harry-has-little-to-say

 

[Ripley]

Does the other side need to prove that it was obtained legally or that it could have been obtained legally? Given that Harry is making claims without any evidence, wouldn't it suffice to explain how that information could have been obtained legally?

No, the burden of proof is on Harry. The Mirror Group doesn't need to prove anything. https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/glossary/standard-and-burden-of-proof/