Royal News and Views

Royal News and Views
[ Royal News and Views ]

June 8 - Sussex Thread

Posted by Susan T on June 8, 2023, 7:40 am

n/t

This message is locked.

Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works

Posted by Susan T on June 8, 2023, 7:46 am, in reply to "June 8 - Sussex Thread"

Towards the end of the day the focus switched onto a news story about his break-up with Chelsy Davy, printed with the headline, 'Hooray Harry's Dumped'. 'My Lord, this was hurtful to say the least,' said the prince, adding that he found it 'a little bit mean' that such a private moment was 'turned into a bit of a laugh.'

'You are not suggesting that they [the newspaper] were celebrating you had been dumped,' said Green, incredulous. 'Yes, I am. For me,' said Harry, touching his heart with fluttering fingers, 'as the subject or victim of this, to see that word used in this term is hurtful.'

If only a newspaper sub-editor – or anyone with a rudimentary grasp of grammar – had been on hand to explain the difference between Hooray Harry's Dumped and Hooray, Harry's Dumped.

How can a man come through an expensive education without knowing the basic rules of punctuation? Or expect to single-handedly 'save journalism' if he doesn't even know how a comma works?

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works

Posted by Arlene on June 8, 2023, 8:12 am, in reply to "Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works"

I woke up to a notice on my phone stating a legal expert stated Harry would likely win significant damages from lawsuit. It was in US Weekly and stated, "You never know what a judge is gonna do, but I would expect that he will be awarded significant damages because this is pretty outrageous, their conduct." What???? Well, considering it was US Weekly and the person was Neama Rahamani, former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers. I guess he is an expert on what British judges do--but hey The Wife won (sort of) a suit based on her lies.

This message is locked.

Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works

Posted by karenl on June 8, 2023, 7:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works"

Exactly, US Weekly is a gossip magazine and Omid Scobie use to work for the publication and I think he still contributes to it.
It wouldn't surprise me that the President of the West Coast Trial Lawyers got a call from the wife or Scobie to comment.

This message is locked.

Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works

Posted by JohnW on June 8, 2023, 10:08 pm, in reply to "Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works"

That is too funny. Presumably he also has never heard of the expression, 'Hooray Henry'!

OT. This reminds me of the (apocryphal?) telegram sent from Moscow authorities in response to a provincial request to confirm a death sentence: "PARDON IMPOSSIBLE EXECUTE".

This message is locked.

Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works

Posted by karenl on June 8, 2023, 11:23 pm, in reply to "Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works"

I've always said Harry has trouble with words over three, maybe four letters and more than one syllable. Commas would throw him over the edge.

This message is locked.

Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works

Posted by JohnW on June 8, 2023, 11:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works"

If a comma throws him over the edge I wonder how he would react to a colon or, even better, a semi-colon. Presumably he might think the latter the result of some form of brutal surgery.

This message is locked.

Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works

Posted by karenl on June 9, 2023, 12:48 am, in reply to "Re: Harry reform journalism? He doesn't even know how a comma works"

It shows, sadly, Harry's lack of learning even the basics. He wasn't interested in an education except only the subjects he wanted to learn. This lack shows up in a critical event such as being called to testify in a trial.

This message is locked.

“He’s A Troubled, Angry, Sad, Bitter Man” | Prince Harry is Out "For Revenge”

Posted by Susan T on June 8, 2023, 8:11 am, in reply to "June 8 - Sussex Thread"

I'm getting the feeling that the lack of evidence doesn't mean that he will lose this case.

If he wins, he will be more insufferable than ever.

Link: TalkTV

This message is locked.

"Hard Evidence of suspicions"

Posted by Susan T on June 8, 2023, 2:21 pm, in reply to "“He’s A Troubled, Angry, Sad, Bitter Man” | Prince Harry is Out "For Revenge” "

"A lack of evidence is not evidence that a thing happened, but sometimes it could be. So, a lack of evidence can be evidence in itself, except when it's not."

My head hurts.

Link: BlackBeltBarrister

This message is locked.

Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions"

Posted by Martha on June 8, 2023, 3:02 pm, in reply to ""Hard Evidence of suspicions""

There are any number of ways Chelsy's phone number could be obtained by the press. Dry cleaning receipts, delivery receipts and school records are just a few. Could her phone have been hacked? Yes. If someone could put a tracking device on her car (simple to do) they might have been able to hack her phone (more difficult). But all of that is speculation, not proof.

===

This message is locked.

Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions"

Posted by Susan T on June 8, 2023, 3:28 pm, in reply to "Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions""

But these barristers appear to be saying that he doesn't necessarily need proof to win his case.

Reminds me of this Arthur Conan Doyle quote: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

I don't think Harry has eliminated all which is impossible. He's tried to eliminate things which are very possible, such as somebody at a restaurant tipping off the paps or that Chelsy's girlfriends could have been sources for stories. (How the heck would Chelsy's friends even know what various reporters look like? Anybody could have overheard them chattering about Chelsy and Harry.)

I'm just trying to be prepared for him winning because so far, he and his wife have won their cases even though the media kept insisting that their cases were weak.

It could turn out to be yet another pyrrhic victory and he could end up wishing her would have accepted the 100,000-pound settlement that was offered.

Or winning could encourage him to file even more lawsuits as other sources of income dry up.

This message is locked.

Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions"

Posted by Martha on June 8, 2023, 4:51 pm, in reply to "Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions""

If Harry wins, THAT will be a miscarriage of justice. At the very least, the plaintiff needs to prove their case and all he can prove is that his feelings were hurt. While he did raise a few good points overall his argument has been "because I said so".

===

This message is locked.

Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions"

Posted by Susan T on June 8, 2023, 5:47 pm, in reply to "Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions""

I'm not willing to put in the time to watch a live stream of barristers reporting on each day's testimony, but I don't think we can judge the merits of the case based on what the media is reporting.

Too many journalists want to see Harry and especially his wife crash and burn and those wants creeps into their reporting.

Our American judicial system may have its roots in the English system of justice, but American law and English law parted ways a long time ago. And royal reporters do not appear to be well-versed in English law. Some of them don't realize that Harry's barrister isn't allowed to have practice sessions or otherwise instruct him how he should answer if asked a particular question.

Nobody seems to be questioning that he just happened to bump into David Sherborne while visiting Elton John and they just happened to converse about phone hacking and lawsuits.

This message is locked.

Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions"

Posted by Martha on June 8, 2023, 6:16 pm, in reply to "Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions""

I thought it was interesting that Harry just happened to bump into Sherborne and golly gee whiz if the idea for a lawsuit didn't just pop up between them. In a U.S. court the defendant's lawyer would have jumped on that, but this trial is definitely progressing differently than a trial here. As much as so many in the press would like to see Harry go down in a fireball of shame, there is a good story about an individual's privacy rights, the right of the press to scrutinize public figures and how much is too much. It looks like the media would rather write the easy story than delve deep into examining press practices. Too much of what I've read so far is piling on, not journalism.

===

This message is locked.

Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions"

Posted by karenl on June 8, 2023, 7:25 pm, in reply to "Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions""

The Black Belt Barrister sure turned his spiel on evidence into a right legal word salad.
This whole phone hacking business happened years ago. As reforming journalistic practices, I think reforms have been in practice, although there's always exceptions to the rule. At least things improved in the UK and by that example things improved in this country. Harry isn't nor will he further "reform" the press...they reformed themselves..with the help of the Courts, but they still acted accordingly.
Harry's lawsuits are about revenge, PR, "poor me" and taking away Freedom of the Press because they're "mean to me and Meghan". The press is going after Harry because that's what the press does, if it's attacked, it goes after the attacker. As far as the press actions in the hacking, this was all addressed years ago with the News of the World hacking scandal. This is Harry's rehash.
As for Harry's fluttering his fingers over his heart and crying jag in Court...don't believe it was genuine..it was an act. He learned how to cry and act from the wife. He was fine when he left Court with a big grin with the lawyer he just happened to run into while in France.

This message is locked.

The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group

Posted by Susan T on June 8, 2023, 10:20 pm, in reply to "Re: "Hard Evidence of suspicions""

If he doesn't win, there's going to be a lot of very surprised English barristers. Here's another one that says he thinks Harry will win.

Harry only has to convince the judge that the info in one of the 33 articles was obtained by illegal means. The Mirror Group have to convince the judge that the info in all of the articles was obtained legally.

Link: Sky News Australia

This message is locked.

Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group

Posted by karenl on June 8, 2023, 11:53 pm, in reply to "The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group"

Okay, but, ""Prince Harry today admitted to a judge he was not aware of 'any evidence' he had been hacked by a tabloid news group."
I consider that the smoking gun against Harry. He contradicted his entire case. I'm not the justice and their judicial rules and conduct are night to the US judicial system's day.
My father would always shake his head at British Judicial System. He was also glad he didn't have to wear a GD wig. It also doesn't help with our modern day trend of every analyst, legal or not, has to put his/her two cents in after scrutinizing every detail and then conclude the case will go "x" or "y", because "That's my conclusion." I'm showing my age, I just want the news media to report the news, nothing else, like they did when I was growing up.

This message is locked.

Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group

Posted by Susan T on June 9, 2023, 12:18 am, in reply to "Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group"

What I'm getting from listening to barristers is that the case will be judged on the balance of probabilities.

Harry has essentially admitted that the article were true. His contention is that there were no legal means for the media to have obtained that info. Therefore, since they had the correct info, they had to have obtained it illegally.

The barrister for the Mirror has shown that some articles the info came from interviews Harry had given, or articles printed elsewhere, or have suggested other ways info could have been obtained, such as the chef or somebody else in the restaurant calling a pap and telling them where Harry was.

Neither side is going to be able to produce hard evidence. The articles were written so many years ago, the reporter may no longer have their notes or remember who their source was, not that they would reveal the source if they did remember.

Most of the articles written about Harry's testimony have been written by people with no legal expertise and who wish to see Harry taken down. These same people told us that Meghan would lose her case. She didn't.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't run out and splurge on champagne to celebrate Harry's loss because this case is not the slam dunk that reporters are claiming it is.

This message is locked.

Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group

Posted by karenl on June 9, 2023, 12:43 am, in reply to "Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group"

That's absolutely correct. No one knows how a case will be decided, not the "experts", commentators, the media or any of us as the public. We only know when a judge or jury announces the verdict/judgement.
When I pointed out Harry statement to the judge, his sort of admission, there's evidence on both sides that point to errors on the opposing side. It's what goes on in a trial. A judge/jury has to decide on which side has provided evidence/fact to prove their case. Very rarely is there a predicted slam dunk especially in civil trials. We won't know the outcome for several weeks, in the meantime we have a ton of speculation.

This message is locked.

Maybe I'm all wrong about this

Posted by Martha on June 9, 2023, 12:46 pm, in reply to "Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group"

While we're waiting to see which way this case goes, has anyone else noticed that Chelsy has remained quiet throughout the trial? She wasn't called to give testimony on whether or not she talked to any of her friends about private details about her time with Harry or if she found out after the fact that any of her friends had talked to the press. Supposedly it was her car that had a tracking device put on it, so why wasn't she there to testify to that point? Why wasn't she asked if there was any way her phone number could have been obtained, if there were any instances of strange sounds on her phone or other clues that it had been hacked? Could it be that Harry's lawyers didn't want her to testify that the relationship ended because of Harry's ceaseless moaning and his lack of intellectual curiosity? She studied law so theoretically Chelsy would have made an excellent witness.

===

This message is locked.

The Trial

Posted by Karen on June 9, 2023, 12:56 pm, in reply to "Maybe I'm all wrong about this"

The trial is accually going to take at least another 2 weeks to run. It's not just Prince Harry suing Mirror Group. About 100 other people are suing them.

This message is locked.

Re: The Trial

Posted by Susan T on June 9, 2023, 1:04 pm, in reply to "The Trial"

And isn't one of them Elton John? Is Sherborne representing all of the plaintiffs?

This message is locked.

Re: The Trial

Posted by karenl on June 9, 2023, 7:10 pm, in reply to "Re: The Trial"

Yep, Elton John is included and Hugh Grant is another celeb that I know of right off the top of my head.

This message is locked.

Re: The Trial

Posted by Susan T on June 9, 2023, 7:19 pm, in reply to "Re: The Trial"

And Elton John just happened to invite Harry and wife to the south of France where they just happened to meet David Shelborne.

This message is locked.

Re: The Trial

Posted by karenl on June 9, 2023, 7:30 pm, in reply to "Re: The Trial"

Hmmmm, Oh, what a coincidence.

This message is locked.

Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this

Posted by Susan T on June 9, 2023, 1:00 pm, in reply to "Maybe I'm all wrong about this"

Maybe she didn't volunteer to testify.

If she had to be subpoenaed to appear, she'd basically be a hostile witness and Harry's barrister wouldn't be able to question her beforehand and know what her evidence was. Not knowing what is going to be said by somebody you call as your side's witness could lead to some unpleasant surprises.

She's moved on. If she wasn't interested putting her past life on display by suing the Mirror Group for monetary damages, why would she want to rake up the past to put money in Harry's and his wife's pockets?

This message is locked.

Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this

Posted by Martha on June 9, 2023, 3:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this"

Agree, but I still find it interesting that she didn't testify in support of Harry. Not just that but no statements or positive signals at all. Obviously she's moved on, and I'm sure that she and her husband have other things to think about and discuss.

None of Harry's old friends that were wrongfully accused of leaking to the press have spoken up, either. It may have been a calculation by the lawyers that nobody else's testimony was needed.

===

This message is locked.

Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this

Posted by Susan T on June 9, 2023, 4:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this"

Keeping her head down. Doesn't want to remind people of the time she sat on Harry's shoulders with her skirt over his head, or that lovely habit she and her friends had of greeting each other by licking faces.

And if he contacted her asking her to appear in court, a little payback for not inviting her to the exclusive evening wedding party?

This message is locked.

Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this

Posted by Martha on June 9, 2023, 5:45 pm, in reply to "Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this"

Chelsy was never sanctimonious or overly impressed with herself. I'll give her that. The late queen would not have approved of Chelsy getting drunk and landing rear-first in the punch bowl but it would have livened up Christmas at Sandringham.

I think Chelsy is just fine with Harry's wedding being the last royal event on her calendar. She's married, has a young son, runs two businesses and has no time for Harkle nonsense. My guess is that she looks at the manchild Harry has become and thanks her lucky stars that she got out when she did.

===

This message is locked.

Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this

Posted by karenl on June 9, 2023, 7:08 pm, in reply to "Re: Maybe I'm all wrong about this"

The story on the Net from a couple of bloggers plus Neil Sean (I know) ran stories that Chelsy was blindsided by Harry putting her in his book without permission and then naming her in his lawsuit without notifying her or getting permission. Reportedly, Chelsy, her husband, Chelsy's parents and her brother are beyond furious with Harry. IF the story is true, then I could see if Chelsy was asked to volunteer to give testimony, she would tell Harry and his barrister, where to go. Both Chelsy and Cressida now have led quiet, happy lives with their husbands and new babies. Harry violated the privacy of both. I don't think Chelsy wants to rehash the "Harry" time of her life.

This message is locked.

Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group

Posted by karenl on June 9, 2023, 7:36 pm, in reply to "Re: The ‘smoking gun’ in Prince Harry’s case against Mirror Group"

One thing I thought about that if the Mirror loses, they can appeal the decision. Granted, as with the DM's parent co. and Meghan's suit, the Mirror may choose not to, but there is the option. In that respect, the other media groups could appeal if they lose their cases. In theory, Harry could potentially be tied up with each case for quite a while and spend even more money.
It was something to consider...there's still this present case and the other media cases to get through first. Well, and Harry's other case considering his security, if the Govt. loses, they could appeal also.

This message is locked.

Re: “He’s A Troubled, Angry, Sad, Bitter Man” | Prince Harry is Out "For Revenge”

Posted by karenl on June 8, 2023, 7:35 pm, in reply to "“He’s A Troubled, Angry, Sad, Bitter Man” | Prince Harry is Out "For Revenge” "

I don't think a court win will change the opinion of the majority of the public, they'll look at it as another rich man and a Royal influencing the Court because of his status. It'll add to the public's loathing. It happened to Meghan when she won against the DM.

This message is locked.

The Revolving Door At Archewell Spins Again

Posted by karenl on June 10, 2023, 12:20 am, in reply to "Re: “He’s A Troubled, Angry, Sad, Bitter Man” | Prince Harry is Out "For Revenge” "

"The marketing director at an exclusive hotel around the corner from Meghan and Harry's mansion where Audrey Hepburn, Winston Churchill and JFK were guests is their new office chief, MailOnline can reveal today.

Harrison Colcord worked at the San Ysidro Ranch, where rooms are between $2,655 and $4,000-a-night and the Duke of Sussex did his incendiary TV interviews with Anderson Cooper and Tom Bradby in January to promote Spare.

Ms Colcord appears to have left San Ysidro Ranch and her role as Director of Sales and Marketing a month later, with no new job listed on her LinkedIn.

But today the British owner of a Montecito bike store revealed she is now working for Harry and Meghan after publishing a letter from the couple thanking him and his wife for a free bike they gave to Archie on his 4th birthday on May 6."

The free bike Archie received is listed for $11,000. A bike is a great gift for any child, but an $11,000 custom made bike? By this time next year, Archie will have outgrown it. Even though it was a gift, the cost was outrageous. The shop owners are really defensive when called out on Twitter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-12177789/Revolving-door-Harry-Meghans-Archewell-Duke-Duchess-hire-new-assistant.html

This message is locked.

Re: The Revolving Door At Archewell Spins Again

Posted by karenl on June 10, 2023, 12:46 am, in reply to "The Revolving Door At Archewell Spins Again"

Another opportunity to merch under the excuse of Archie's birthday.

This message is locked.

To be honest...

Posted by Hollie24 on June 9, 2023, 6:40 pm, in reply to "June 8 - Sussex Thread"

...I've given up following this court thing. I think I've reached maximum Harry whingefest capacity and can't handle any more. It's why I'm not commenting on it now. I do read all y'all's comments, though!

This message is locked.

« Back to index

137

[ Royal News and Views ]