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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, who is advising him ? Or is this Harry's own decision-making to appeal this ?
I don't get this. It never had a chance of success anyways.
So this refusal to accept the reality and consequences of The Sussex's own choice to leave, seems to be just more sour grapes.
He can't and won't accept that his life as a "working royal" is over. And that the "perks" associated with " the job " are lost.
Done. Never to be revisited.
 
Magnolia471 said:
I don't understand why his lawyer is still bringing up in the court the infamous "car chase" in New York if this case discusses Harry's protection in the UK. What happens in the US is not the concern of Ravec.
Click to expand...
I think it has more to do with the fact that they are still a high security couple and that the car chase in NYC goes to show that they need a security detail.
 
MaryRose. It wasn't a "car chase". That, in NYC gridlock traffic is an impossibility.
For that preposterous claim, they were here in the States criticized and laughed at.
The Cab Driver himself involved, in the musical set of car changes that resulted, said " I never felt as though I was in any danger".
If they need a Security Detail, fine. But that is s something they will have to pay for..... on their own.
 
Actually reckless behaviour.

“The letter revealed that “a thorough review” of the incident had taken place and although no formal charges were brought against anyone involved at the time “we did conclude that the behaviour in question was reckless. As a result, [redacted text], beginning with an upcoming trip in the current weeks”.

The investigation found reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi during the night in question.”

Maryrose said:
Actually NYPD has confirmed that there was a reckless car chase and they have enough evidence to arrest 2 people.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry my mistake it was reckless "behavior".
I work in NYC any reckless behavior while driving a car, bike, or scooter is a danger to every person on the street.
 
Speaking of things being expensive, will Harry be expected to pay any or all of the other side's legal fees on this case? Or will he only be accountable for his own?
 
Maryrose said:
Sorry my mistake it was reckless "behavior".
I work in NYC any reckless behavior while driving a car, bike, or scooter is a danger to every person on the street.
Click to expand...
As far as I iunderstand, the reckless behavior was on the part of Harry and Meghan's driver, who almost ran over some pedestrians.

Changing subjects, in the latest bizarre twist, Donald Trump seems to have said that, if he becomes the next POTUS, he "will not protect" Harry from deportation if he is found to have secured a U.S. visa unlawfully. Apparently Trump also said that Harry "betrayed the Queen" and, as far he is concerned, should be "left on his own".
 
GondorHasNoPants said:
Speaking of things being expensive, will Harry be expected to pay any or all of the other side's legal fees on this case? Or will he only be accountable for his own?
Click to expand...
The former Home Secretary Priti Patel said when she was still in post that the Home Office would seek to claim back as much of their costs as possible from Harry. I think the position will still be the same whoever is Home Secretary as spending £450,000 (so far) of taxpayers money having to defend a legal case being brought by a Prince who has signed several multimillion dollar commercial contracts based solely on his status as a UK Prince won't look good for any Home Secretary in any government.

I would expect he may well have to pay some of the costs of the Government lawyers.

Edit - an article in the times (archive copy here) says Harry could have to pay up to £1million for his and the Home Office costs, noting:
The loser in High Court cases normally pays both sets of bills.
Click to expand...

I've read the whole judgement and it is telling to me how the Judge speaks of the professionalism and expertise of so many of the witnesses from the RAVEC side. It jars considerably with the at times quite blunt descriptions of Harry's actions / believes / arguments.

The fact that they could not pay for police security was seemingly mentioned by RAVEC officials, Palace staff and other many many times even in the days after they announced they were leaving the working RF.

The NY car chase is largely irrelevant as RAVEC makes clear it has no power to protect people overseas long term.

The car chase at the Wellchild Awards came about at a time Harry's team had failed to give the required 28 days notice of a public visit to the UK.

It is also noted that, frankly, it is not up to RAVEC to be concerned with people being able to get pictures of the couple.

The essential point that was being made on behalf of the defendant, however, is that potential problems arising from the activities of paparazzi are not a matter for RAVEC. [redacted text]. As [the Current Chair] explains, “[redacted text]”. The same point emerges from the evidence of Mr Hipgrave. RAVEC is concerned with security against persons bearing a hostile intent towards an individual, not those who, however recklessly, may cause danger in their efforts to get a photograph of a celebrity that they can then try to sell to a media outlet.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tommy100 said:
I've read the whole judgement and it is telling to me how the Judge speaks of the professionalism and expertise of so many of the witnesses from the RAVEC side. It jars considerably with the at times quite blunt descriptions of Harry's actions / believes / arguments.
Click to expand...

I have been reading it as well and I concur with your opinion. The judgement makes it clear that Prince Harry’s security was raised as an issue early on and that he disregarded it.
 
The Wrap takes a look at the lack of content H&M have produced for Netflix, with their deal set to expire soon.

Meghan and Harry’s $100 Million Netflix Deal Is a Hollywood Miss

What’s gone wrong? TheWrap spoke to multiple insiders who say the Sussexes have worn out their welcome in Hollywood with an iron-fisted desire for control, combined with a lack of experience. A revolving door of executives have departed the couple’s production company, Archewell, in the past two years while a long list of exhausted agents, producers and other industry veterans have stamped it with a “life’s too short” reputation.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to read that even the people who worked on their documentary found them difficult to work with.
 
Thanks to both Hallo girl and Kenya for those two really great and insightful Articles.

If I were The Sussex's, I would certainly be alarmed at the seemingly downward trajectory of their Sussex Brand and ongoing financial stability and growth.
The goal to be Global Influencers, Humanitarian and Philanthropists certainly hasn't panned out.
If their Netflix Contract isnt renegotiated ? What then ?
I always thought it would have been smarter and profitable for Meghan to resurrect The Tig. A known quantity for her.

She might have to, it looks like.
 
Last edited:
Kenya said:
The Wrap takes a look at the lack of content H&M have produced for Netflix, with their deal set to expire soon.

Meghan and Harry’s $100 Million Netflix Deal Is a Hollywood Miss



It's interesting to read that even the people who worked on their documentary found them difficult to work with.
Click to expand...
I also found this article very interesting. For those who may be unfamiliar with The Wrap, it’s basically a trade publication that focuses on the entertainment business. I would consider it fairly credible.

People have speculated before about the high turnover at Archwell and how the Sussexes might be proving difficult to work with, but this is the first time I have seen it laid out this clearly by writers who know the entertainment industry.

I will be very surprised at this point if their Netflix deal is renewed but we will see. It’s set to end at the end of this year I believe
 
This quote might highlight what has been the problem from the start “She is extremely ambitious and knows what she wants", especially in combination with “Everything with them was fraught and complicated because they wanted complete control" and “It appears that they just want what they want and won’t take advice”.

And as long as this (them not taking advice and wanting complete control) doesn't change (and I don't see any indication it will), hiring other capable people for their team will not be the solution as those people will not have sufficient space to make anything that it not directly related to their position as members of the royal family (as independent of the quality that will always attract a large following) a success.
 
Last edited:
Granada said:
MaryRose. It wasn't a "car chase". That, in NYC gridlock traffic is an impossibility.
For that preposterous claim, they were here in the States criticized and laughed at.
The Cab Driver himself involved, in the musical set of car changes that resulted, said " I never felt as though I was in any danger".
If they need a Security Detail, fine. But that is s something they will have to pay for..... on their own.
Click to expand...
How else would you define "reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi"?

Mbruno said:
As far as I iunderstand, the reckless behavior was on the part of Harry and Meghan's driver, who almost ran over some pedestrians.

Changing subjects, in the latest bizarre twist, Donald Trump seems to have said that, if he becomes the next POTUS, he "will not protect" Harry from deportation if he is found to have secured a U.S. visa unlawfully. Apparently Trump also said that Harry "betrayed the Queen" and, as far he is concerned, should be "left on his own".
Click to expand...
From the BBC: "Reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi".
 
Archduchess Zelia said:
How else would you define "reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi"?


From the BBC: "Reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws and persistently dangerous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of paparazzi".
Click to expand...
I think the main point is that Harry's case was about protection "full stop" and the judgment that resulted rejected that differentiated between protection against everything and protection against a threat to harm or kill. As always, when Harry visits the UK any potential threats will be assessed at that time and measures put in place. Such protection would not be focused on managing paparazzi. I have no doubt that Harry does not see the difference, as his mother was killed during a paparazzi chase, but there is a difference.
 
:previous: Pretty sure I didn't bring up (the subject of) Harry's court case as I'm not particularly interested by it, so I'm not sure what to make of this reply.

My post addressed the fact that it sounds like there's an assumption the NYPD have not being truthful in their report used in a court of law when some people choose to disregard a very detailed description of how the Sussexes were put in a dangerous situation by chasing paparazzis. I'm just puzzled by that.
 
Who is paying for these court costs? Doesn't RAVEC have real work to do and don't need to keep being pestered by Harry? He doesn't seem to understand the real world, his argument is akin to an employee leaving his job but demanding he still gets benefits and access to the company car. He is such an entitled poor excuse for an adult.
 
Somebody said:
This quote might highlight what has been the problem from the start “She is extremely ambitious and knows what she wants", especially in combination with “Everything with them was fraught and complicated because they wanted complete control" and “It appears that they just want what they want and won’t take advice”.

And as long as this (them not taking advice and wanting complete control) doesn't change (and I don't see any indication it will), hiring other capable people for their team will not be the solution as those people will not have sufficient space to make anything that it not directly related to their position as members of the royal family (as independent of the quality that will always attract a large following) a success.
Click to expand...
The comments about not taking advice and the amount of turnover sounds very much like comments that were made by staff when they were working royals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -
35 36 37
Replies
1K
Views
129K
moby
moby
iceflower
The Duchess of Edinburgh's Fashion and Style, Part 2: July 2024 -
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
  • Locked
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: April - August 2023
53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
259K
Marengo
Marengo
Marengo
Princess Märtha Louise of Norway and Durek Verrett: 31 August 2024
9 10 11
Replies
303
Views
40K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
  • Sticky
Princess Theodora of Greece and Matthew Kumar - 28 Sept. 2024
6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
26K
Moonmaiden23
Moonmaiden23

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom