Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Murdock must be really panicked at this stage about impending court cases. Family Guy (Fox) /Sky Aus are owned by him.

He seems to be in a spot of trouble, so any cheap shot is worth it. https://bylineinvestigates.com/2023/10/23/confessions-of-a-news-of-the-world-reporter-news-of-the-world-fixed-prince-harry-false-drug-tests/

Amazing how this story isn't reported elsewhere in the British media!

I don't watch either but will make an exception for this!

So, Father of the Year, King Charles withdrew agreed financial support for their trial year in Canada £700K and security (despite Harry being at the same security risk level as the monarch) to pressure Harry from taking legal proceedings against one of William's aids who was leaking personal information about H&M to Dan Wootton for payment. Charles hoped that this would prevent H&M leaving as they would be too worried about security, and so remain under his control (as he would have control of the purse strings).

They say, this is the reason that Harry wrote 'Spare'.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/10/25/exploding-megxit-how-dan-wootton-and-a-cash-for-leaks-scandal-split-the-monarchy/

Would this be the Murdock owned US media by any chance such as Page Six, Fox, New York Post, Family Guy (owned by Fox) for example? Basically all the right wing owned US media?

So in revenge Harry wrote about his frozen todger. That showed them 😂

I've tried to post an archive doc before and been told off. The byline story is a bad rehash of old falsehoods. This was published at the time, setting out what actually happened

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/harry-charles-finances-royal-palace/2021/06/24/675411b0-d4ca-11eb-b39f-05a2d776b1f4_story.html

That article is just a press release from the Firm.

And we do know that is factual that their security was pulled by Charles and that the tabloids were informed by someone (Harry says that it could only be Charles or William who knew) where they actually were staying in Canada. You would want to be fairly desparate situation to phone up someone you had never met and ask for help which is what Meghan did by phoning Tyler Perry who did rescue them.

No, its quite serious actually. The partner of one of Prince Wiliam's aid was selling info on the Sussex's to The Sun. The admin staff in the The Sun got nervous about this (worried that the same thing would happen to them as happened to he News of the World and a whistleblower reported it. The Met Police couldn't do anything about it (which was basically bribing a public official) because they couldn't get access to Royal Property. The Palace decided to investigate (Simon Case, now head of the Civil Service) who dismissed the claim as the person involved claimed that althought they had met Dan Wootton who was paying these sums, they didn't know him personally which was discovered to be a lie as Bylinetimes produced a photo of the couple at an intimate party (20 people in a posh hotel at a party organised and paid for by Dan Wootton). Wootton put the photo up on instagram by the way 🙄

Harry sent formal 'letters before action' detailing the claims about Wootton and the palace to News UK.

Charles ( right hand man Lord Peel) but pressure on Harry to alter the legal papers (removing the name William's assistant who was leaking to his partner who was getting paid by Wooton).

When Harry wouldn't do that, they were cut off by Charles - Charles siding with the Wiliam's assistant against his own son).

Now, who would want a father like that, who knowing that there are very credible death threats against his son and grandson, would just cut them off and side with one of Wiliam's employee.

The employee has since left the employment of the Palace!

The relevance to the court case is that the Sun (Dan Wootton) was bribing public officials (Palace staff) for information. The payments were being made to the Aide's partner. Harry was pursuing a legal case against Wootton and The Sun and named the Aide in the legal papers. Charles wanted Harry to withdraw his name because he didn't want the world to get an airing of William & Charles' dirty laundry. Harry knows for a fact that the Palace / staff were leaking information about H & M to Wootton/The Sun as Harry caught them out (a la Colleen Rooney). Harry had hand written a letter to Charles (with no copies to anyone else) where he offered to give up his titles. Charles was the only person who knew of this offer and Wootton was the only one to publish that piece of information. (Wootton was the person who broke the Megxit story).

The implication for the palace is that palace staff will be called as witnesses in the court case. And Charles does not want that to happen.

The Sandringham Agreement with the Quen was published in a statement initially (which included that there would be a transition period where their security would be taken care of and that they would be given €700K to help them find their feet). That was pulled by Charles (nasty overriding his mother's wishes). We know for a fact that the security was pulled and that H&M had to go begging for help from Tyler Perry. That doesn't look like that was a planned moved because 'they liked what they saw they were worth on paper' because the picture would not have been very rosy at the start of the pandemic when they had to flee their rented house in Canada because their security was withdrawn and the paps were banging on the doors.

The Byline article co-written by Dan Evans who was Harrys witness in the hacking trial? There is no bias going on there at all, at all.

I particularly like the narrative that this was all Charles desperately trying to trip up Harry and Meghan because they were going to outshine him when they left. It’s going on four years now and I don’t buy why Chuck needed worrying or scheming about undermining them. They’ve been generally shunned in Hollywood. With that in mind I wonder where the narrative is coming from. I see Omid Scobie (he who covertly collaborated with H&M) has another book coming out and perhaps this article is drummed up for both the promotion of that as well as getting a narrative into the public ahead of Harrys court case. Judging by his trial for the phone hacking then he’ll need any help he can get. Even if it’s from convicted phone hackers turned whistleblowers and anonymous staff.

I think the Family Guy skit was pretty tame and nowhere near the roasting they got from the ultra conservative (lol) Murdoch-not-controlled South Park. I don’t think the pointed satire from Matt and Trey had any effect though as H&M were back in NY a few weeks ago for a mental health summit. Thankfully no near catastrophic car chases this time. Meghan was in full word salad flow e.g. “being a mom is the most important thing to except being wife to this one”. They were staying at a hotel which was approx. 200 yards from where the event was being held. They could have simply walked there since there was no crowds but instead they went around a city block in a cavalcade of SUVs announcing their arrival and beautifully illustrating the satire from South Park. Act like the big shots you think you are if you like but clearly there is a delusion going on there big time. (e.g. 6th in line to the throne and family having the same level of security threat as the monarch? Lol).

However the bias is pretty stark. Convicted phone hacker says in court on behalf of Prince Harry that phone hacking happened. Stop the Press. 2012 called and wants its headline back. Prince Harry armed with multiple examples in court can’t conclusively prove that he was hacked because the stories could have stemmed from other sources beyond phone hacking and just because thinking such stories came from hacking doesn’t mean they did . Judge says “Dude, it’s 2023, that was 20 plus years ago so why didn't you sue when people were getting convicted for such crimes? Ok, I'll be fair, you can go to trial for the stuff like them paying people 50 quid for tip offs so they could snap you falling out of night clubs”. 

Remember the only royals who are officially confirmed in court records as having secretly/covertly worked with a journalist (Omid Scobie) was Harry and Meghan via their aide Jason Knauf. As elephants in the room go then that’s a sizeable one and one which Byline blankly ignores. Perhaps we’ll see these allegations gain something as credible in court this January. Who knows.

Of course, if Harry had mentioned it to Meghan, she’d have likely forgotten about it anyway. She has form in that regard. Not that she’d have leaked it, of course

When is Omid Scobie’s book due out? It must be soon. The prep work is underway, clearly

Maybe you really have no understanding of how tortuous H&M’s minds are.

I'm not on a jury to decide anyones guilt. The prospect of perjury sure does prompt people to make admissions. Irrelevant to the court case? Yes and minimise away but proof, for me, that they are hypocrites i.e. My family/staff briefed press against us, we have no proof of this but feel sure it happened so it must have but when we do things like that (with proof) it's a-ok because we have to get our truth out there somehow.

And you believe that? Knauf never told me what he said even though I gave him detailed notes to throw my family under the bus covertly? Let it all come out in the case since you think it's an open and shut case then. It will be interesting to follow. At least Harry has some evidence this time.

I answered. I'm not on any jury and the people you mention are not on trial. Thinking someone is guilty because you don't like them and innocent because you like them isn't healthy at all. I need to read up about Wooten/Jones as not overly familiar with them. I think this whole Byline business isn't gaining any real traction at all and given the bias involved and likely promo/publicity going on then maybe that's the reason why.