The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[barbk]

And strangely enough, the Daily Mail's article on the result is both buried and doesn't allow comments. I wonder why.

 

[taf2002]

And strangely enough, the Daily Mail's article on the result is both buried and doesn't allow comments. I wonder why.

It doesn't fit someone narrative. I wonder whose?

 

[MacMadame]

This columnist thinks Harry has been vindicated and redeemed by the court verdict. I don't agree. I think it's too little too late.

Harry wanted respect. Now, with this court victory, he’s earned it | Barbara Ellen

After all the reputational damage the prince has suffered – yes, some of it self-inflicted – this was a courageous stand, writes Barbara Ellen

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lynn226]

This columnist thinks Harry has been vindicated and redeemed by the court verdict. I don't agree. I think it's too little too late.

Harry wanted respect. Now, with this court victory, he’s earned it | Barbara Ellen

After all the reputational damage the prince has suffered – yes, some of it self-inflicted – this was a courageous stand, writes Barbara Ellen

www.theguardian.com

I don't know if he restored his reputation or not, but there were a few good ones liners in there.

The Prince of Wails
The Wide Privacy Tour

 

[MacMadame]

I would say that he was vindicated in his accusation. But that's about it. Also, who here is shocked that the Daily Mail tapped Harry's phone?

 

[marbri]

Nobody should be shocked if they know the history of this case.

I don't know how much airtime this got in the US (outside of Tampongate) but this was big news for a long time. We know it happened. There have been court cases, settlements, accusations and inquiries etc..

So the way I see this particular suit of Harry's is specific to him, how often he was hacked and what affect it had on his life ( for settlement amount I assume). He and his team put forth 33 articles. The judge agreed that 15 of the 33 were due to unlawful information gathering and dismissed the remaining 18.

I get the impression out there on social media that a lot of people are conflating this specific case history with Harry and Meghan's various other cases against media. This has nothing to do with her and their timeline.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/prince-harrys-phone-hacking-lawsuit-against-uks-mirror-group-2023-12-15/#:~:text=LONDON%2C%20Dec%2015%20(Reuters),High%20Court%20ruled%20on%20Friday.

Phone-hacking, the illegal interception of voicemails on mobile phones, first came to public attention in 2006 when the then-royal editor of the News of the World (NoW) tabloid and a private investigator were arrested.

They pleaded guilty and were jailed in 2007.
.......

The Mirror group had consistently denied its journalists had been involved in hacking, including at a public inquiry. But in 2014, it admitted liability and has since settled more than 600 claims at a cost of around 106 million pounds.

For those interested who may have been too young at the time or it wasn't covered much where they lived you can get a bit of history here:

News International phone hacking scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is probably a more extensive list somewhere as well of all the victims of this really.
.

 

[skategal]

I don’t know if it vindicates Harry or not but those journalists should be thrown in jail for hacking someone’s private phone.

Same goes for anyone else’s phone they have hacked.

It’s disgusting behaviour.

 

[marbri]

I don’t know if it vindicates Harry or not but those journalists should be thrown in jail for hacking someone’s private phone.

Same goes for anyone else’s phone they have hacked.

It’s disgusting behaviour.

Some were, in 2007.

 

[miffy]

Unfortunately for Harry he owes £50k of the £140k he was awarded to the suit he failed to get stopped last week, and because his awarded money was less than the settlement he turned down on this one he’ll probably have to pay both sides costs. This is more of a moral win than anything else - he might even lose money overall.

 

[Karen-W]

Just to be clear - it wasn't necessarily phone hacking but unlawful information gathering - which can include hiring detectives/private investigators to obtain access to confidential records (like medical, financial or school) through means like bribery or outright stealing, etc. Also, it seems more likely than not that most of the phone hacking that DID occur was not on Harry's phone directly but on his friends and school mates, or even his staff, etc. Not that any of this is right or okay - it's not.

I just hope Harry is able to find some closure and peace and begin to mend the many broken fences in his life as well as his emotional well-being, otherwise I fear he'll find this judgement is as hollow and fruitless as all the money in the world.

 

[puglover]

No question phone hacking, unlawful information gathering, obtaining access to confidential records, breaking NDAs, leaking confidential private information under the heading "source close to ........" are all despicable and when caught should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Everyone is entitled to their own privacy. We know these "investigators" must listen and comb through interminable amounts of minuscule crap looking just for the most salacious, scandalous thing - context, be damned. But they are paid for it.

I have a greater dislike for these memoirs written by supposedly beloved members of the family who grind their axe publicly, especially knowing that those they are hurting cannot really respond. We have experienced a bit of this in my own family and it is just beyond hurtful.

 

[Coco]

Was it proven that the Palace leaked stories about Prince Harry?

 

[miffy]

Was it proven that the Palace leaked stories about Prince Harry?

No.

 

[miffy]

It’s thought Harry will lose well over a million on this ‘win’. Ouch. Legally he is seen as having lost as he won around 40%. Very confusing.

I wonder how the rest of his court cases will pan out. It’s a sad way to spend what is left of his inheritance.

 

[millyskate]

I would say that he was vindicated in his accusation. But that's about it. Also, who here is shocked that the Daily Mail tapped Harry's phone?

Indeed, no surprise there. l thought the main revelation of the trial was it also tapped Kylie Minogue's phone! I also thought that widespread phone tapping by the Daily Mail was very old news. I remember it being discussed when I was interning at The Guardian for a week back in 2012...

 

[ballettmaus]

I'm confused as to how this would vindicate Harry. He accused the Daily Mail of hacking/obtaining the information unlawfully and he was proven correct (which happens every day in every country, someone accuses someone of unlawful acts and they are proven correct) but how would that vindicate him about everything else?

I'm not sure why this went to trial, though. Or rather, why this wasn't proven before the trial. If there are accusations of hacking, wouldn't there have to be evidence of hacking? So, who cares what the court says, if the evidence is there then the evidence is there.

 

[marbri]

Based on some posts and questions still being asked I think it's best for people asking to research the history of this case themselves. Harry's case is just one story of thousands. Start with googling News of the World and voicemails. Only then can you put this all into context of this specific suit and "victory" with all the other stuff Harry (and Meghan) are doing. Apples and Oranges.

 

[skategal]

The bigger story for me is the lengths that these “journalists” will go to get private, personal information.

Any celebrity or public person deserves their privacy and there should be tougher penalties for breaking these laws.

These so called “journalists” need to be stopped and if Harry can lend his name to help with that effort, it can only be for the good.

He probably doesn’t even care he lost money.

It’s the principle of the thing.

 

[marbri]

It's interesting isn't it, this privacy thing.

Because it does seem that Harry's principles extend to journalists only as he seems completely oblivious to the gross invasions of privacy he committed against others in this crusade of his the past few years. And not just to celebrities or public persons but to private persons he clearly didn't give a second thought to when he spoke about romps in a field behind a pub. And I think that speaks volumes as well

 

[skategal]

It's interesting isn't it, this privacy thing.

Because it does seem that Harry's principles extend to journalists only as he seems completely oblivious to the gross invasions of privacy he committed against others in this crusade of his the past few years. And not just to celebrities or public persons but to private persons he clearly didn't give a second thought to when he spoke about romps in a field behind a pub. And I think that speaks volumes as well

I get your point.

But there is a difference between spilling your guts about your own experiences (regardless of who is harmed) and breaking the law.

Neither are good but one gets you jail time.

 

[marbri]

I get your point.

But there is a difference between spilling your guts about your own experiences (regardless of who is harmed) and breaking the law.

Neither are good but one gets you jail time.

Putting aside the legal part, because I have no argument that what was happening back then was a gross invasion of privacy, illegal, absolutely disgusting and anyone guilty should face what they must.

But focus on principles. Since you attributed that to his motives. That I would argue. I think Harry has a vendetta against the media, justifiably for sure, but I think he is a raging hypocrite when it comes to privacy. What I see is a man who hates when his privacy is violated but has little to no regard for anyone else.

What he did, for instance, to Sasha Wadpole was disgusting. Particularly as someone so acutely aware of how intrusive and relentless British media can be. And he portrayed her and the situation in a very different way to how she describes it. And the differences in how they each tell the story is, to me, very revealing about his character. And the way she responded a credit to her character.

I just don't think he is the knight in shining armour slaying dragons that he thinks he is. He could be, one day, but he has a long journey ahead of him and a lot of self reflecting before he gets anywhere close to that.

 

[taf2002]

It's interesting isn't it, this privacy thing.

Because it does seem that Harry's principles extend to journalists only as he seems completely oblivious to the gross invasions of privacy he committed against others in this crusade of his the past few years. And not just to celebrities or public persons but to private persons he clearly didn't give a second thought to when he spoke about romps in a field behind a pub. And I think that speaks volumes as well

IIRC he didn't name names or obtain his info by hacking.

 

[skategal]

Putting aside the legal part, because I have no argument that what was happening back then was a gross invasion of privacy, illegal, absolutely disgusting and anyone guilty should face what they must.

But focus on principles. Since you attributed that to his motives. That I would argue. I think Harry has a vendetta against the media, justifiably for sure, but I think he is a raging hypocrite when it comes to privacy. What I see is a man who hates when his privacy is violated but has little to no regard for anyone else.

What he did, for instance, to Sasha Wadpole was disgusting. Particularly as someone so acutely aware of how intrusive and relentless British media can be. And he portrayed her and the situation in a very different way to how she describes it. And the differences in how they each tell the story is, to me, very revealing about his character. And the way she responded a credit to her character.

I just don't think he is the knight in shining armour slaying dragons that he thinks he is. He could be, one day, but he has a long journey ahead of him and a lot of self reflecting before he gets anywhere close to that.

He’s not the brightest and probably thought he was vague enough that it wouldn’t be able to be revealed.

She was the one who identified herself after all.

What Harry has done to his family and their privacy is 1000 times worse IMO.

I’m not a fan of airing family dirty laundry in public.

He could have told his story without the nitty gritty details about his father and brother.

 

[Lynn226]

It's interesting isn't it, this privacy thing.

Because it does seem that Harry's principles extend to journalists only as he seems completely oblivious to the gross invasions of privacy he committed against others in this crusade of his the past few years. And not just to celebrities or public persons but to private persons he clearly didn't give a second thought to when he spoke about romps in a field behind a pub. And I think that speaks volumes as well

It seems Meghan has the same principles. She wants to talk about everyone, but if her family speaks out, then she condemns them.

 

[puglover]

I am not sure I buy the media being responsible for Diana's death as there were other contributing circumstances, especially how and by whom her car was driven. I can certainly understand, though, anyone who loved her having a major issue with the media. That Martin Bashir interview has to be a whole new low in journalism. How any person could take a vulnerable young woman like Diana and out and out lie to her, show her forged documents, play on her insecurities and convince her to give that interview are evil. No wonder she was paranoid and we now realize a young William ended up being somewhat of a confidant through all of that. I can barely look at pictures of her in that interview and not want to cry for her.

 

[marbri]

Do people really not understand why she named herself? I give up

 

[Lynn226]

Do people really not understand why she named herself? I give up

I would not want sex with an underage prince to be my fifteen minutes of fame. To each their own.

 

[skategal]

Do people really not understand why she named herself? I give up

I think there were several reasons she named herself.

Only one (to get the press/paparazzi off the case) was noble.

 

[marbri]

Of course. If only she had an opportunity in the three decades before that book was published to tell her story and get those 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Jenny]

sex with an underage prince

Just looked it up - it was her 19th birthday, he was 16 or 17 at the time. From a numbers standpoint, I don't think that's at all scandalous or inappropriate.