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

She has to protect her own family now.

How do you explain that for about the first 38 years of her life, no one had a bad word to say about her (including ex-husband and colleagues she worked with for 8 seasons of 'Suits'). In fact the exact opposite - that she was always kind and generous.

Oh yeah?

No evidence or proof, as usual🙄

Solely is what you said. And then I did some more reading up on it since and found out William also threatened to sue. And I then refered to this in another post. So do you still think there was an affair?

All of your conclusion are pure speculation and not a shred of evidence is there to back it up. The Byline Times 'expose' from where you got most of this doesnt provide any evidence other than a source from within the royal household which is clearly Harry. Its a total PR job from his camp. The author of the article Dan Evans testified on behalf of Harry at his phone hacking trial and was himself guilty of 2 counts of phone hacking. Its absolute nonsense.

Yeah the fact the article posted to make Meggy seem credible was actually showing how dishonest she has been is probably a great indicator as to why jm avoids any kind of evidence the vast majority of the time.

Amazing own goal.

I posted this already. You miss it?

Harry “preferred not to be in the same room with his stepmother when he spoke to the King about his cancer diagnosis,” Camilla’s pal, Petronella Wyatt, wrote in a column for The Telegraph Monday.

Harry was cut off financially when he refused to remove the name of a Palace aide in his case against The Sun. The Byline Times expose is a grift. It reads as if the Royals pulled the rug from under them. It is more spin. The Sandringham Summit included an agreement regarding funding. Harry agreed with this agreement. Another part of that agreement was that he was free to seek financial independence, to sign commercial deals, to have the power to control his own press and who he allowed to do that for him, the freedom to speak his truth whenever he wanted and he was freed up from and unencumbered by the constraints of the men in grey suits (with their silly nicknames), free to pursue whatever passion projects he had. He was also free to sue whoever he wanted unless it conflicted with the Palace.

They were receiving money into the summer of 2020. As agreed. According to ITV this funding was cut off when....Harry broke the agreement. Libby Wiener, ITV political correspondent, said the Palace warned Harry several times that he was breaking the terms of his agreement, the one connected to his funding.

He broke the agreement, the consequences kicked in (funding cut) and he wasn't happy. Remember Oprah? They cut me off? Had he said he broke the agreement then it would be more accurate. The Byline Times spins this as the Sandingham Agreement collapsing because his allowance was maliciously cut off. Can't be having the Sussexes outshine the Royals. Force them back into penury and beholden to the institution. Nonsense.

In fact it collapsed because he broke the terms and his actions had consequences. Byline Times says the source of the conflict was Harry choosing to include a Palace aide in his lawsuit against The Sun. According to ITV, while living in California, a free Harry launched legal action against The Sun in April 2020 about incendiary allegations about a Royal leak. The Police investigated.

The Royal Household did an inquiry. By June 2020 their findings were that there was no evidence of a leak, The Palace warned Harry to withdraw the allegation because there was no evidence but he was still free to pursue his case against The Sun. He refused.

And you can guess what happened. His allowance would be stopped. Harry was going to sue armed purely with his gut feelings and not facts about a palace aide. Imagine the fallout if he went to court and named the aide (for whom there was zero evidence of leaking). Employment laws would come into it i.e. We and the Cops (who were called in because it is that serious) have absolutely no evidence against you but you're fired anyway. Hello unfair dismissal.

You can't make accusations without hard evidence. Harry didn't have it and he was warned that he didn't have it. But Harry is right (in his own head). And he went and got himself cut off.

The aide was questioned by the police. He acknowledged knowing Dan Wooten socially. He also said they weren't friends and that he wasn't selling stories to him. Lying to police can land you in prison.

He told police that his partner had been paid by The Sun but that money was related to stories about the clients his partner represented as a publicist. They didn't represent H&M or anyone associated with them.

The Byline Times smoking gun is a photo of the Palace aide at a party with Dan Wooten. As we know if you're photographed with someone in the media then this means you are friends with that person and that you're leaking to them. That is what their story is based on.

The police couldn't uncover evidence of leaking whereas Princess Beatrice and Eugenie were demonstrably leaking to another Sussex nemesis in Piers Morgan. I mean they were pictured coming out of a pub with him and his wife. They must be leaking too right? Well yes. Morgan was on Fox a day or two later, he said he'd been at a dinner and "some royals" were there. He said the temperature towards Harry is very chilly.

It doesn't take a police investigation and a royal inquiry to find out who the leak there is. Now this was hardly an exclusive given what Harry has been up to but it goes to show that Harry was bent on suing The Sun, wouldn't listen to the police and refused to remove the aides name knowing there was no evidence at all against them. Yet he would turn a blind eye to family (and particularly those close to him in the Yorks) who were socialising with Piers bloody Morgan of all people. As far as I can see the Sussexes are still tight with the York sisters.

The Byline Times had (has) a bias against William and Kate. Tellingly they included a discaimer on their site stating that reports written by them "could" be for financial compensation i.e. If you have a story which legit papers won't touch with a bargepole because of your "sources" then they will write it up for you at a price. The director is Graham Johnson and a regular writer (one of the co-authors of the leaking palace aide piece) is Dan Evans. They both collaborated with Harry and his legal team during his case against the Mirror Group. They were involved with strategy meetings and gave evidence on his behalf. They are convicted hackers who committed crimes which resulted in custodial sentences.

Graham is a self-declared professional liar. Both are accused of bribing private investigators with money if they gave evidence on behalf of celebrities. They both saw the light, changed their ways upon release. They created their newspaper and like the ethical journalists they now are (lol) they will write stories for compensation.

You can't write a story for the Washington Post about Jeff Bezos or Amazon without disclosing at the end that he is the owner of the Post. Disclosure of potential bias is basic journalism. So were ties to Harry and his case and how they were collaborators highlighted in their article? Of course not. Make of that what you will.

Bizarrely in the article they say they received information from an "unknown source". Someone they never actually met. You protect your sources as a journalist but at least you know who your sources are so their legitimacy can be verified. I mean we don't want to come across as professional liars who went to prison for unethical journalistic practices now do we?

William is the obvious target. In their flailing since Megxit then I think H&M need an antagonist. Someone they can pin the blame on and that person is William. There he is having aides leak to the press trying to undermine the noble Sussexes. Convicted journalists are quite happy to grift off a public who understandably don't want to do a deep dive into the facts. Hopefully this sheds some light on the shenanigans involved.

And yet he made no comment on the African park scandal...

Very true. That's gone everso quiet. Marvellous what Michael Bublé warbling at him can make Harry forget.

I was typing up a response to your fantasy version of events and then Valoren posted, and said it better than I could.

If I could thank this post twice, I would.

That's my concern!

....

He should have come in via Mexico

Interesting article, particularly because the Heritage Foundation has now included quotes from his recent scripted interview with GMA regarding his consideration of taking US citizenship. (I hadn't realised he would have to ditch his titles and renounce his allegiance to any "foreign prince", which would undoubtedly be the crossing of a bridge that Meghan would never permit! It would reduce Harry even further down the pecking order, but at least he'd be able to hang out with Prince Mario-Max Schaumburg-Lippe; all mates together 😀)

But my main takeaway is that it would seem Harry never considers the possible consequences of his words or his actions. Blabbing on about habitual drug taking - which, as Nigella Lawson could attest, is a no-no for a visa entry into USA - in Spare has ultimately led to this court action. Harry seems to be being protected by the Biden administration via the DHS; that could evaporate as quickly as the morning mist in the Republican's get the presidency.

Quick thought, could Harry become "Undocumented"? Oh, the irony!