Edward checked the film taken by his crew at St Andrews. William wasn't on it. That was one of the lies Bolland told to the media.
As for Sophie, the person was supposed to vet her clients helped the News of the World set her up. The guy left the UK when the story was printed.
The NOTW sent a copy of the article to Buckingham Palace the Thursday before the article was to appear (NOTW only published on Sundays). The Queen's Private Secretary Sir Robert Janvrin contacted the head of the Press Complaints Commission (Guy Black, who was also the Guy Bolland's partner) for advise. Janvrin was told that the PCC could do nothing to stop the article (complaints could only be filed after an article appeared in print).
I can't remember whether it was Bolland (Janvrin also consulted him) or Guy Black who suggested to Janvrin that he could offer a different story to the NOTW in exchange for the article being spiked.
Rebekah Wade had been extremely uncomfortable about the original article and agreed to drop the sting story in exchange for an exclusive interview with Sophie. Janvrin sat in on the interview, which appeared in print the Sunday after the original article had been due to be printed.
The people involved with the sting were outraged about the deal Wade made with the Palace, went behind her back and phoned their reporter friends on the Sun and the Mirror and gave the sting story to them to publish - however, they made up the quotes attributed to Sophie. At best, they were distorted paraphrases. The Palace had received copies of the audio tapes so they knew exactly what Sophie did and did not say.
The NOTW then decided to run the original article claiming they were doing so out of fairness to Sophie and to set the record straight as to what she said. But the public only remember what was reported first (which is why the media rushes to be first with a story no matter how inaccurate that story might be).
The broadsheets were outraged by the NOTW's behavior and started to do some digging. The Guardian in particular did some major investigating and using phone records discovered that somebody in Charles's office was one of the sources for the articles about the sting that appeared in the Sun and the Mirror.
There were several odd things about the NOTW's story. They never published the full transcript of the conversation between Sophie and the "sheik". The article was divided up into several smaller articles, and it was impossible to get a sense of the flow of the conversation or to put the various segments into a chronological order.
There were no (or very little) quotes from the "sheik". So far, we have never found out what he said to Sophie, which could have a huge bearing on why she was so open with him.
I think that either the "sheik" mentioned that he was a good friend of Charles, or that what what she was told by her employee whose job it was to vet the clients.
When the Camillagate and Squidgy phone call tapes were published by the tabloids, they also published a phone number that the public could call to hear the entire conversation. When Fergie was caught selling access to Andrew, the public saw the video tape.
What was on the Sophie tapes that even the NOTW felt had to remain hidden from the public? IMO, it had to be a reference to Charles.
It's funny. Harry and Meghan's behavior usually reminds me of the stunts that Diana pulled, but the incidents involving Edward and Sophie reveal that Harry is also Charles's son and it's not just Diana's playbook that's being used.
And it shows another example of Charles's hypocrisy. He was outraged that Sophie was photographed standing next to her client's product (a luxury car) and that the client used the photo for promotional purposes (without Sophie's approval), yet he has been silent during the 2 years that Meghan has blatantly merched clothes and jewelry at virtually every public appearance she's made.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Responses are not allowed!