The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024

[shady lady]

As expected, it was a mixed ruling, so both the Duke and the Mirror can claim some vindication.


Going forward, Harry has to be mindful of his court cases. Suing newspapers in cases that have merit such as phone hacking or obvious defamation is different from suing them for honest opinions in matters of public interest, which are viable defenses against libel accusations in British law.


Even though freedom of the press is not quite as protected in the UK as in the US, British judges are mindful of its importance and it is unlikely that they will rule in Harry's favor in matters that involve reasonable opinion or interpretation of the facts, even when that opinion might turn out to be defamatory in the common law.



In other words, what I am trying to say (and is unrelated to the hacking case in discussion) is that Harry cannot sue newspapers whenever they publish something about him with which he disagrees. That is not reasonable and, if a pattern like that emerges, he risks being shut down by the courts.

Yes, that is very important. It's one thing to be the victim of a terrible practice like phone hacking, with which we can all sympathise, but it doesn't justify trying to suppress freedom of speech, facts and opinions.

I note that in PH's statement via his lawyer, he said:

"Today is a great day for truth as well as accountability"

A tad ironic considering he himself has proved to have been economical with the truth - see my linked article in post #1095 for some examples of this. I suppose when he says "truth" he means his truth

PH needs to be mindful that the importance of the truth applies to everyone, and no one should be exempt from accountability, him included.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Interesting article.

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-not-practicing-what-they-preach-1851622

Thanks for this - be sure to read the comments if you’re interested

He seems to be set in his ways just like his wife, there is nothing that will make them change their mind, their claims or seek a resolution to all these negative PR problems they have.

It all started with a lie on that Oprah interview that the in-laws are racist and has not change as bit with this recent as this court case exposing entitlement vs their reality. Harry seems to have a lot of enablers feeding his mind with nonexistent issues he can't step away from or even be quiet about.

Yes, I agree. And who stands to gain? Follow the money - wonder how much their lawyer fees are thus far?

The expenses for the salary and staff are about $640,000 of expenses of approximately $2,600,000. The other two million in expenses represents about $1,300,000 in grants to other organizations. You are correct that their main charitable activity is currently making grants to existing organizations. Their largest appears to be to Georgetown University. Other expenses include services from Invisible Hand, which I believe does their PR ($180,000 approx), Jiore Craig who seems to work against digital misinformation based on a quick online search (approx $120,000) and Herlihy Loughran ($127,000)

This last company’s website is not particularly clear about what their services entail but it does appear to be in the PR vein as well: https://herlou.com/

Another expense is $34,000 in travel for the year. (Doesn’t seem high to me)

Invictus does not appear to have received any funding or grants from Archewell but that is probably because it is its own organization with its own funding. A full list of the grants they have made is available in their tax forms, located here:
https://archewell.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/the-archewell-foundation-2022-public-disclosure.pdf

Thanks so much for sharing all of this information! They have three full time employees listed at 40 hrs/week and the two directors (H & M) at one hour each per week…..

Tatiana Maria and shady lady-Thank you for sharing all of this information today.



Congratulations to Harry on his partial victory. The phone hacking should have never happened to anyone.

I am echoing your thanks for all of this great information and all of the insights and opinions.

Phone hacking is despicable and I’m glad that the court agreed and awarded Harry damages.

Two questions: how does the amount Harry received compare with what William received?
- can Chelsea Davy and others now ask the court for damages since the judge ruled that her phone (and others) the judge listed were also hacked?

I know I said two questions but I’m also wondering how much this case cost the court considering that the judge blamed Harry’s lawyers for providing the evidence in a format that caused the judge a lot of extra work - not Harry’s fault but the attorneys. Were the attorneys American or British and if British, it sounds like they should have known better.

 

[TLLK]

I am echoing your thanks for all of this great information and all of the insights and opinions.

Phone hacking is despicable and I’m glad that the court agreed and awarded Harry damages.

Two questions: how does the amount Harry received compare with what William received?
- can Chelsea Davy and others now ask the court for damages since the judge ruled that her phone (and others) the judge listed were also hacked?

I know I said two questions but I’m also wondering how much this case cost the court considering that the judge blamed Harry’s lawyers for providing the evidence in a format that caused the judge a lot of extra work - not Harry’s fault but the attorneys. Were the attorneys American or British and if British, it sounds like they should have known better.

Regarding William's settlement, I've read estimates of up to 1 million pounds but typically all I've seen is that it was referred to as a "large sum of money." Reportedly it was donated to charity.



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...one-hacking-claims-court-filings-prince-harry


As for Harry's attorneys, I don't know if they're British or American. Possibly there was a combination of the two?

 

[Erin9]

Yes, that is very important. It's one thing to be the victim of a terrible practice like phone hacking, with which we can all sympathise, but it doesn't justify trying to suppress freedom of speech, facts and opinions.

I note that in PH's statement via his lawyer, he said:

"Today is a great day for truth as well as accountability"

A tad ironic considering he himself has proved to have been economical with the truth - see my linked article in post #1095 for some examples of this. I suppose when he says "truth" he means his truth

PH needs to be mindful that the importance of the truth applies to everyone, and no one should be exempt from accountability, him included.

Very well stated.

The phone hacking was wrong. So- glad he won that.

But- yeah- anytime I hear the Sussexes talk about truth and accountability- I think they need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

 

[HRHHermione]

Thanks so much for sharing all of this information! They have three full time employees listed at 40 hrs/week and the two directors (H & M) at one hour each per week…..

And three full time employees is quite a lot to oversee what amounts to 1.3 million in grants. They don’t appear to be doing any active fundraising or development work.

The one thing that really stuck out to me though was that their investment income was only listed as around $4,000. I truly don’t know how that little investment income on 8 million in assets makes sense, but my finance knowledge is limited to basic, required graduate school courses and I’ve never studied non-profit structures in any depth.

 

[soapstar]

I’m glad that Harry won for the 15 times he was legit hacked. Phone hacking is awful and shouldn’t be used on anyone.

It is also curious that the judge felt it necessary to make a point that "a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the Press towards the Duke over the years was not unlawful at all" although that was not particularly relevant to these specific hacking allegations in my opinion. That is an important and not so subtle message to highlight that the Press being nasty (or even "oppressive" as the judge put it) to public figures does not necessarily imply that they are acting unlawfully.

I hope he listens to the judge. Harry seems to have a hard time understanding that he can’t control what the media says about him. Whether he likes it or not, the media are going to write negative/unflattering stories and suing everyone is an endless battle.

"Today is a great day for truth as well as accountability"

A tad ironic considering he himself has proved to have been economical with the truth - see my linked article in post #1095 for some examples of this. I suppose when he says "truth" he means his truth

PH needs to be mindful that the importance of the truth applies to everyone, and no one should be exempt from accountability, him included.

Very true.

 

[Alison H]

It's not just Harry. They found that some of the articles about Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell were obtained by phone hacking, and awarded him damages. They also found that some of the articles about the two other test claimants were obtained by hacking, although their cases were dismissed on time limitation grounds.

It's likely that damages will now be awarded to other people: these four were test cases. I would think that Chelsy Davy could bring a case if she wanted to.

 

[shady lady]

As for Harry's attorneys, I don't know if they're British or American. Possibly there was a combination of the two?

Whoever they are, they will be very expensive!

Re: who pays PH's court costs in this case: I haven't found any definite info about this yet (or I missed it). As he refused to settle and it was a partial (just under 50%) win, he may have to pay some or all of it himself, but I am by no means sure.

Meanwhile, here's an archived link to an article in the Independent containing Piers Morgan's response to the judgment - he was named by both Fancourt J (the judge) in today's ruling, and PH in his statement via his (very expensive) lawyer:

https://archive.ph/ST05G

it won't play the video of Piers Morgan speaking, but that is easy enough to find online (it's on you tube and such)

 

[soapstar]

It's not just Harry. They found that some of the articles about Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell were obtained by phone hacking, and awarded him damages. They also found that some of the articles about the two other test claimants were obtained by hacking, although their cases were dismissed on time limitation grounds.

It's likely that damages will now be awarded to other people: these four were test cases. I would think that Chelsy Davy could bring a case if she wanted to.

Glad those claimants were able to get some justice too.

It does sound like Chelsy has a claim, though I’m not sure she would bring one. She once mentioned in an interview that she hated the media intrusion and since she now lives a really quiet life with her husband and son, I don’t know if she would want to put the spotlight back on herself again.

Harry has so many lawsuits so it’s hard to keep up, but was this the case where he was offered a 200,000 settlement, or was that the NGN lawsuit?

 

[irish_royalist]

I wonder will Harry donate the payout to a good cause, maybe Invictus or Archewell?
Putting 'compassion into action'?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Harry has so many lawsuits so it’s hard to keep up, but was this the case where he was offered a 200,000 settlement, or was that the NGN lawsuit?

It was the News Group Newspapers case in which the Duke of Sussex testified he had been offered a settlement (in 2019). The amount wasn't mentioned in the court ruling.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2023/1944.html

 

[Kenya]

And three full time employees is quite a lot to oversee what amounts to 1.3 million in grants. They don’t appear to be doing any active fundraising or development work.

The fact that they don't appear to be doing any active fundraising or development work or any programming beyond their half-day symposium in New York is also what makes the $180,000 expense for PR eye-popping to me. I've served on 8 non-profit boards throughout my career, and I can't imagine any responsible board approving that kind of expense for PR. In fact, none of the organizations I've worked with have even had a budget for PR. The work they do in the community is their PR and what facilitates their fundraising and donations.

Also, I was surprised to learn that the $2 million they raised this year came from two anonymous donations of $1 million each. They have a lot of rich friends, so it's kind of shocking that they only had two donors. But I suppose it's a hard sell to get people to give you money so you can then support other organizations when they could skip the middle man and donate to those organizations directly. That's why I wonder if Archewell will ever shift to more of a program-based approach so it becomes know for doing work in certain fields and people have a better idea what they're supporting when they donate to Archewell.

In other news that probably won't go down a treat in Montecito or the WME offices, The Hollywood Reporter named H&M two of their biggest losers of the year. From the article:

Lost — Harry and Meghan

In 2020, the royal duo fled a life of ceremonial public service to cash in their celebrity status in the States. But after a whiny Netflix documentary, a whiny biography (Spare — even the title is a pouty gripe) and an inert podcast, the Harry and Meghan brand swelled into a sanctimonious bubble just begging to be popped — and South Park was the pin. The show’s 20-minute “World-Wide Privacy Tour” takedown in March was savage, and was followed by Spotify dropping Archetypes, with a top executive labeling the duo “grifters.” Still, all the scorn and mockery beats otherwise having to attend 200-plus official royal family engagements a year, which sounds hellish.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

A couple of people have mentioned that HRH The Duke of Sussex doesn't use his partial victory here as encouragement to sue the papers for unflattering stories about himself or his family. When has he done that? All of his and HRH The Duchess of Sussex's lawsuits have been about genuine illegal action on the part of the press (unless I'm missing one), and so far they have been mostly successful. This USA Today article summarizes I believe all of TRH The Sussexes cases: https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...uchess-meghan-lawsuits-explained/70243873007/

To summarize:

Mirror Group Newspapers- hacking- partial victory
News Group Newspapers- hacking- pending
Associated Newspapers LTD- libel- pending, wins and losses on both sides
Associated Newspaper LTD- copyright violation- victory
X17- privacy invasion- settlement in their favor
Splash News/Picture Agency- privacy invasion- settlement in their favor

On another note, I am glad that the judge acknowledged that, in spite of a free press and therefore nothing can be done about it, the presses treatment of HRH The Duke of Sussex has been oppressive rather than something he should just grin and bear.

 

[TLLK]

The fact that they don't appear to be doing any active fundraising or development work or any programming beyond their half-day symposium in New York is also what makes the $180,000 expense for PR eye-popping to me. I've served on 8 non-profit boards throughout my career, and I can't imagine any responsible board approving that kind of expense for PR. In fact, none of the organizations I've worked with have even had a budget for PR. The work they do in the community is their PR and what facilitates their fundraising and donations.

Also, I was surprised to learn that the $2 million they raised this year came from two anonymous donations of $1 million each. They have a lot of rich friends, so it's kind of shocking that they only had two donors. But I suppose it's a hard sell to get people to give you money so you can then support other organizations when they could skip the middle man and donate to those organizations directly. That's why I wonder if Archewell will ever shift to more of a program-based approach so it becomes know for doing work in certain fields and people have a better idea what they're supporting when they donate to Archewell.

In other news that probably won't go down a treat in Montecito or the WME offices, The Hollywood Reporter named H&M two of their biggest losers of the year. From the article:

Thank you sharing your perspective on the matter Kenya as I have little experience in these matters.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

It's been extremely entertaining to see how the likes of the Daily Mail – who usually immediately blast the littlest and most insignificant stories about the Sussexes top of their website, across multiple articles – not only took forever to post about the verdict and then when they finally did, they decided to bury the article several paragraphs down

Says everything you need to know about the tendentiousness of the British tabloids.

 

[Somebody]

On another note, I am glad that the judge acknowledged that, in spite of a free press and therefore nothing can be done about it, the presses treatment of HRH The Duke of Sussex has been oppressive rather than something he should just grin and bear.

The judge precisely said that he should just grin and bear it...

I recognise that Mirror Group was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the Duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the Press towards the Duke over the years was not unlawful at all. Mirror Group therefore only played a small part in everything that the Duke suffered and the award of damages on this ground is therefore modest.

The one thing (and rightly so!) the press shouldn't engage in is illegal actions such as phone hacking. Other means of gathering news is fine. Moreover, Harry's side was chastised: Harry shouldn't have brought all of his grievances up during the court case. The judge used words such as 'frustration' and 'annoyance' (which are pretty strong words in a judgement), so, he clearly wasn't happy with Harry's part in the court process and states that especially Harry's representatives who should have known better.

 

[Asteria12]

I wonder will Harry donate the payout to a good cause, maybe Invictus or Archewell?
Putting 'compassion into action'?

I'm sure their PR folk would recommend it as a positive gesture for positive image burnishing! ?

 

[changemysoul]

It's been extremely entertaining to see how the likes of the Daily Mail – who usually immediately blast the littlest and most insignificant stories about the Sussexes top of their website, across multiple articles – not only took forever to post about the verdict and then when they finally did, they decided to bury the article several paragraphs down

Says everything you need to know about the tendentiousness of the British tabloids.

I agree with the above.

Aside from that. I don’t think was worried about much money he got in the end. If it was purely about money, he wouldn’t have taken this to court.

And the judge a great all of it wasn’t oppressive and etc. He didn’t say that it wasn’t at all, so I would assume that he agrees -even with this criticisms- that some of it was.

It is funny to see the lack of reporting around the case and how much of a victory this is for not just Harry but all who brought claims forward. More importantly, Harry, by taking most of the mud-slinging and pressing forward, will allow others to come forward and get justice for themselves. As I believe, only four cases went forward to see if there would even be anything there and to see how the cases would be handled as a benchmark.

So no matter how much people bemoan Harry for rightfully taking the papers to court, he, along with those who had the courage do it despite the wrath of the British press, have allowed others to have a true case of seeking justice for themselves.

Harry only needed to prove one and they managed to prove 15.

And a shame, that even as the Leveson inquiry was going, they still chose to engage and hide their criminal behavior.

People want to dismiss Harry as being frivolous when clearly, that hasn’t been the case.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The fact that they don't appear to be doing any active fundraising or development work or any programming beyond their half-day symposium in New York is also what makes the $180,000 expense for PR eye-popping to me. I've served on 8 non-profit boards throughout my career, and I can't imagine any responsible board approving that kind of expense for PR. In fact, none of the organizations I've worked with have even had a budget for PR. The work they do in the community is their PR and what facilitates their fundraising and donations.

A nonprofit, which doesn't pay taxes, spending $640,000 to make $1.3 million in donations is inexcusable, especially when some of their budget goes to PR. It's not illegal but Archewell is not a respectable charity.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

The fact that they don't appear to be doing any active fundraising or development work or any programming beyond their half-day symposium in New York is also what makes the $180,000 expense for PR eye-popping to me. I've served on 8 non-profit boards throughout my career, and I can't imagine any responsible board approving that kind of expense for PR. In fact, none of the organizations I've worked with have even had a budget for PR. The work they do in the community is their PR and what facilitates their fundraising and donations.

Also, I was surprised to learn that the $2 million they raised this year came from two anonymous donations of $1 million each. They have a lot of rich friends, so it's kind of shocking that they only had two donors. But I suppose it's a hard sell to get people to give you money so you can then support other organizations when they could skip the middle man and donate to those organizations directly. That's why I wonder if Archewell will ever shift to more of a program-based approach so it becomes know for doing work in certain fields and people have a better idea what they're supporting when they donate to Archewell.

In other news that probably won't go down a treat in Montecito or the WME offices, The Hollywood Reporter named H&M two of their biggest losers of the year. From the article:

Kenya, thanks for sharing this! I’ve been on several non profit boards and did a double take as well! That PR expense is mind blowing and I wonder what it entails. My experience has been the same - the boards I served did the fundraising. Our only PR expenses were things like printing tickets and ads - but we tried to get those donated as well!
Archwell’s model seems to be as a clearinghouse of sorts for donations. Give us your donations and we’ll put them to good use as we see fit and use our brand/public face to both award these grants and publicize them.
Anyone who has enough money to make a substantial donation to any charity ought to also have enough knowledge and savvy to figure out where they want it to go, IMHO. I just have never understood why someone would want to donate to any kind of clearinghouse like Archwell instead of directly to a charity. But maybe I’m missing something…

 

[Mbruno]

On another note, I am glad that the judge acknowledged that, in spite of a free press and therefore nothing can be done about it, the presses treatment of HRH The Duke of Sussex has been oppressive rather than something he should just grin and bear.

"Oppressive" perhaps, but "most of it", in the judge's words, was "not unlawful at all". It sounds like a clear message to me.

Harry cannot seek to criminalize opinions, even when they are later proven to have been false or defamatory, as long as those opinions were honestly held at the time. And he must respect the freedom of the press.

Those are separate issues from clearly unlawful acts such as hacking into someone's phone.

.

So no matter how much people bemoan Harry for rightfully taking the papers to court, he, along with those who had the courage do it despite the wrath of the British press, have allowed others to have a true case of seeking justice for themselves.

Harry only needed to prove one and they managed to prove 15.

.

Yes, but 15 is a little over 10 % of the 140 instances of unlawful acquisition of private information that Harry originally claimed. In the end, only 33 were selected to go to trial anyway.

Please note that I am not trying to exonerate the Mirror Group, which was clearly held to account for its past acts by the judge. But I do think Harry tends to overstate his claims sometimes.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

There was no need for the judge to call the press's action "oppressive" if he had no sympathy for HRH The Duke of Sussex's plight, even if there was nothing illegal done to him, and that acknowledgement is significant. It corroborates HRH The Duke of Sussex's own complaints about the press's extreme focus on him. I interpreted less as "them's the breaks, Harry" and more, "The press is over the top and it has had a big impact on your life, but there's nothing we can do because they're not doing anything illegal." Same ultimate result, but a lot less callous, imho.

And I agree with changemysoul. HRH The Duke of Sussex didn't need to prove that all of his articles were the result of illegally gathered information- he just needed to prove it happened once. If a person has twenty things in their house and one of them was stolen, then their as much of a thief as if all of them were stolen. Even the ruling stated that after the illegal gathering of his information led to 15 articles being written, HRH The Duke of Sussex believed that all the articles about him were written that way, which is a normal reaction. If someone has stolen from you several times, you not going to believe them if they say "Trust me, I didn't steal from you this time."

 

[VictoriaB]

The Times has a useful summary of which of the articles the judge found to have been obtained through illegal means and which were not.

https://archive.is/LZQfN

 

[changemysoul]

"Oppressive" perhaps, but "most of it", in the judge's words, was "not unlawful at all". It sounds like a clear message to me.

Harry cannot seek to criminalize opinions, even when they are later proven to have been false or defamatory, as long as those opinions were honestly held at the time. And he must respect the freedom of the press.

Those are separate issues from clearly unlawful acts such as hacking into someone's phone.



Yes, but 15 is a little over 10 % of the 140 instances of unlawful acquisition of private information that Harry originally claimed. In the end, only 33 were selected to go to trial anyway.

Please note that I am not trying to exonerate the Mirror Group, which was clearly held to account for its past acts by the judge. But I do think Harry tends to overstate his claims sometimes.

Fair enough, if you view it that way. Given how, The Mirror proudly claimed it wasn't apart of hacking but doing it as Leveson went on, to me says Harry hasn't overstated at all.

But I also recognize that you have a different view overall and that's alright. We'll have to settle with agreeing to disagree.

--

On another note, The GoldDerby had an Exclusive about the panel Meghan moderated for Misan's film The After. Along with the article is a video of the discussion.

https://www.goldderby.com/article/2023/meghan-markle-the-after-misan-harriman/


EDIT: I just finished listening to the discussion and at the end, Meghan mentioned that Misan was teaching him about photography and she brought him a camera and he told her it's not the kind that Misan has. It's cute.

 

[Asteria12]

The Times has a useful summary of which of the articles the judge found to have been obtained through illegal means and which were not.

https://archive.is/LZQfN

Thanks for the link VictoriaB!


Chelsy could possibly sue but it seems likely that she won't welcome a return to the glare of "Harry's Show".

 

[yukari]

I hope this will bring some sort of closure so he can move on. Because even though he said this lawsuit is not about money, this is a civil lawsuit so that's all he will get (plus a half apology). No one will be sent to jail (it's been reported that no subsequent investigation by the Met following this trial) and this will not stop the press from printing unflattering stories about him either.

While he thinks of this as "slaying dragon", in this case I doubt the said "dragon" gets even a scratch. This trial will not bankrupt the Mirror not will it lead to something similar to Leverson Inquiry. I doubt people will evrn start mass-boycotting the Mirror upon a fact that they hacked Harry's (and other people's) phone a decade ago.

If this is a movie, I could see this as the climax, a benchmark point and more hacking victims would seek justice and brought down the Mirror, but sadly in reality most of those victims don't have sufficient resources at their disposal like Harry or Hugh Grant or Elton John to go through with the lawsuits. I suspect even Chelsey Davy or Guy Pelly will choose to move on with their life instead of filling lawsuit for something that happened a decade ago just for the sake of getting justice (since the compensation money they receive might not worth their time and energy and lawyers bill they'll need to spend in the process).

 

[Alison H]

He's also called for the financial regulators to launch an investigation, on the grounds that the Mirror "deceived" the stock market. That's not going to happen. Shares in the Mirror Group's owner actually rose slightly yesterday. He's made his point and he needs to move on.

 

[shady lady]

Kenya, thanks for sharing this! I’ve been on several non profit boards and did a double take as well! That PR expense is mind blowing and I wonder what it entails. My experience has been the same - the boards I served did the fundraising. Our only PR expenses were things like printing tickets and ads - but we tried to get those donated as well!
Archwell’s model seems to be as a clearinghouse of sorts for donations. Give us your donations and we’ll put them to good use as we see fit and use our brand/public face to both award these grants and publicize them.
Anyone who has enough money to make a substantial donation to any charity ought to also have enough knowledge and savvy to figure out where they want it to go, IMHO. I just have never understood why someone would want to donate to any kind of clearinghouse like Archwell instead of directly to a charity. But maybe I’m missing something…

The above explains perfectly what I was trying to say back along when I posted about Archewell and questioned the point of it. You've hit the nail on the head beautifully. Thank you!

Meanwhile here’s today’s UK front pages for anyone who is interested:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-67734386

or here - it says "thursday" in the link but it will take you to today's pages:

https://news.sky.com/story/thursdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754

 

[changemysoul]

Thanks for the link VictoriaB!


Chelsy could possibly sue but it seems likely that she won't welcome a return to the glare of "Harry's Show".

It wouldn’t be the Harry show. It’d be Chelsy using her agency to go after people who committed a crime against her, along side the other 104 people who have claims against MGN.

 

[TLLK]

Thanks for the link VictoriaB!


Chelsy could possibly sue but it seems likely that she won't welcome a return to the glare of "Harry's Show".

Personally, I don't believe that she will opt to launch any legal action. I have read that she didn't believe that their breakup had to do with the phone hacking.