The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: April - August 2023

[Anna1519]

I have no idea if any of this article is accurate, but I find it interesting that the part regarding the couple requesting a ' lift ' home is debunked but the British government / palace involvement regarding The First Lady attending the IG appears to be regarded as correct. I am wondering why one section is claimed to be nonsense but the other part could be true. From what I see it is all the one article. I can see no evidence that one is accurate and the other is not. One could argue that if they had obtained the lift in Airforce 1 then they would have not attended the internment.

I am pretty sure Dr, Biden is more than capable of making her own decisions and does not require input from the British government / palace

Lets be honest none of us have an idea.

I mean the article clearly states that the Telegraph has independently confirmed that the IG story was true, whereas no one from either the WH or the Sussex camp was willing to go on the record for the story about them requesting a ride on Air Force One. Hence why there is more ambiguity about one story versus the other.

"As such, Jill Biden was invited to attend the 2022 Invictus Games in The Hague but that too was declined, The Telegraph has confirmed. British officials are understood to have conveyed to National Security Council staff in a “working level conversation” that they thought the idea would land badly with the palace."

No one suggested the First Lady is incapable of making her own decisions, which is why I said it was a bad look on her part as well.

 

[Granada]

Regarding Jill Biden, personally from diplomatic perspective ( if the Invictus Story is true) She did the right thing by not attending.

She has been in Washington DC Politics for decades, over 45 years. A powerful Senator, then VP, then Presidential Wife. She smartly knows how "optics" work in Politics. And International Relations too, regarding a fracture in personal relationships in the most famous-iconic Royal Family in the world.

And in spite of whatever her personal inclination are, or affinity for Veteran Causes, she was not going to get embroiled in appearing to "choice sides" in the VERY Public and Family fallout then between The Sussex's and The Queen, Charles and William.

I doubt Jill Biden needed any Advisor on that point anyway. Just my opinion.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I mean the article clearly states that the Telegraph has independently confirmed that the IG story was true, whereas no one from either the WH or the Sussex camp was willing to go on the record for the story about them requesting a ride on Air Force One. Hence why there is more ambiguity about one story versus the other.

I've now corrected my comment which said there was no original reporting in the Telegraph article, but the Telegraph article only clearly states that the paper has independently confirmed that Jill Biden was invited to the Invictus Games in 2022. The following paragraph about the "working level conversation" between British officials and the National Security Council is simply a reference to the original report, as far as I can tell.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Could you explain what those holes are?

Sure.

1. As stated earlier, why would they take a plane to the East Coast when their children, whom they unexpectedly been away from for nearly a month, are on the West Coast? Why wouldn't they get a red-eye to Montecito?
2. The Bidens arrived in London for the funeral at 10:00 pm Saturday, and spent Sunday paying their respects and attending HM The King's reception. When would their staff, whose job is to handle the logistics of President and Dr. Biden's itineraries, have time to talk to Sussex staff?
3. TRH The Sussexes were prominent participants in HLM The Queen's funeral. This was the first time the world was seeing the couple interact with TRH The Wales since HRH Prince Archie of Sussex's christening. HRH The Duke of Sussex walked behind her casket and stood vigil at her side. HRH The Duchess of Sussex rode with HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh as the third most senior adult woman in the BRF. They sat in the front row in the more intimate committal ceremony. What could flying with the Bidens give TRH The Sussexes that participating in the funeral wouldn't have already?
4. The more reliable Telegraph has not been able to independently confirm the Daily Mail's article, so it's really only the latter's word that the incident happened.
5. Finally, if the story was true, why is it just coming out now? Even if you argue it was for the sake of HLM The Queen and the grieving BRF, what was the excuse afterwards? It didn't come out during the Netflix show, the autobiography, the podcast, or the paparazzi incident. TRH The Sussexes being shunned by the President of the United States would have sold a lot of papers. Why release it when things are relatively quiet on TRH The Sussexes' front?

Naturally, of course, confirmation bias comes into play. If you already that TRH The Sussexes are famewhores who will use HLM The Queen's death to boost their own stars, then you'll accept the story as true. If you believe that, in spite of their critique of the BRF as an institution, TRH The Sussexes loved HLM as a person and their singular focus was grieving and honoring her, then you won't.

 

[Ghost]

Sure.

1. As stated earlier, why would they take a plane to the East Coast when their children, whom they unexpectedly been away from for nearly a month, are on the West Coast? Why wouldn't they get a red-eye to Montecito?
2. The Bidens arrived in London for the funeral at 10:00 pm Saturday, and spent Sunday paying their respects and attending HM The King's reception. When would their staff, whose job is to handle the logistics of President and Dr. Biden's itineraries, have time to talk to Sussex staff?
3. TRH The Sussexes were prominent participants in HLM The Queen's funeral. This was the first time the world was seeing the couple interact with TRH The Wales since HRH Prince Archie of Sussex's christening. HRH The Duke of Sussex walked behind her casket and stood vigil at her side. HRH The Duchess of Sussex rode with HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh as the third most senior adult woman in the BRF. They sat in the front row in the more intimate committal ceremony. What could flying with the Bidens give TRH The Sussexes that participating in the funeral wouldn't have already?
4. The more reliable Telegraph has not been able to independently confirm the Daily Mail's article, so it's really only the latter's word that the incident happened.
5. Finally, if the story was true, why is it just coming out now? Even if you argue it was for the sake of HLM The Queen and the grieving BRF, what was the excuse afterwards? It didn't come out during the Netflix show, the autobiography, the podcast, or the paparazzi incident. TRH The Sussexes being shunned by the President of the United States would have sold a lot of papers. Why release it when things are relatively quiet on TRH The Sussexes' front?

Naturally, of course, confirmation bias comes into play. If you already that TRH The Sussexes are famewhores who will use HLM The Queen's death to boost their own stars, then you'll accept the story as true. If you believe that, in spite of their critique of the BRF as an institution, TRH The Sussexes loved HLM as a person and their singular focus was grieving and honoring her, then you won't.

Some of the arguments are valid and some can be challanged. In the end, it’s a possibility. The most interesting part is that it has not been denied. Last week, a really … low reputation site from US has thrown out there a rumour that was quickly denied by Scobie. Not this article.

 

[kalnel]

It's worth pointing out (as the DM article did) that riding Air Force One is not "free" for the president's guests. I wonder if H&M requested a "free" ride and got a big "no" in response.

This reminded me of a minor controversy after Princess Beatrix and Prince Claus flew on a U.S. Air Force jet to their honeymoon. The royal house (or maybe the Dutch government?) paid for the trip, but there was a flap about whether the Air Force had charged for the plane at an amount equal to the price of commercial tickets to the same destination. After much discussion and recalculation, the Dutch ended up having to pay more, but a tiny amount -- less than $100, if I remember correctly.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: Apr. 2023 -

Some of the arguments are valid and some can be challanged. In the end, it’s a possibility. The most interesting part is that it has not been denied. Last week, a really … low reputation site from US has thrown out there a rumour that was quickly denied by Scobie. Not this article.

When I first saw the article about the Sussexes asking for a ride on AFO, I thought: ludicrous. No way would they make such an absurd request, which would obviously be denied. Not to mention someone has to pay for them.

Now, I’m not sure what to think. The Sussexes love to talk. They love to sue. They love to correct so called “mis information.” The silence is deafening. Neither directly nor indirectly have they denied this story that does nothing good for them. It just makes them look even more entitled and clueless. Maybe it’s because they can’t deny it.

IF- they asked- no way would they have gotten a yes. The Sussexes do absolutely nothing good for the President. Why would he want to be seen with them? They are at best controversial. They are irrelevant in the US. And they are embroiled in a very public feud with their family…..a family the US and Biden does work with. President Biden made a point of seeing William when both happened to be in Boston at the same time. That is the branch of the royal family tree he wants to be seen with.

I do think the Sussexes would have loved being seen getting on AFO. It’s right up their ally. Especially after they weren’t invited to the diplomatic dinner after TQ died.

Whether they made such an absurd request, that they SHOULD have known would be a hard and immediate no, I don’t know.

 

[ladongas]

This story seems basically unsourced and illogical. The logistics would have required them to skip HM’s interment, and to find a flight from Washington to Santa Barbara. Surely no one actually believes that either of those things would have been considered by the Sussexes.

 

[Erin9]

This story seems basically unsourced and illogical. The logistics would have required them to skip HM’s interment, and to find a flight from Washington to Santa Barbara. Surely no one actually believes that either of those things would have been considered by the Sussexes.

Maybe they didn’t know Biden’s exact schedule when they asked.

Changing planes is not at all uncommon for Americans going to and from Europe. I generally have to change planes somewhere on the East coast. (Although- I’m going to Amsterdam/Belgium in the Fall, and I got a direct flight. Super excited.lol) Plus- the cache of being on AFO would have been well worth it imo. I doubt changing planes would have been an issue AT ALL if the opportunity to be seen on AFO was out there.

I don’t necessarily buy the story, as I said, IDK what to think. But the logistics aren’t part of why I question it. I doubt the Sussexes knew what they were or cared IF this even happened. I just find it hard to fathom even they would make such an idiotic request.

 

[tommy100]

Yes if I question the story I don't do so because of the logistics. It was announced well in advance that the Bidens would be attending so its perfectly possible they asked before the Bidens had even left America. They do (or did I've lost track of who works for them and who has left) have staff who worked for the Obamas / Democratic party in the past so there may well have been conversations.


I can well imagine them wanting to be seen to travel on Air Force One. I can imagine them happily changing planes on the East Coast to get home, Air Force One or no Air Force One.

Personally the fact it hasn't been denied makes me think there may be some truth to it even if it was only a half serious throw away request / enquiry.

 

[TLLK]

Yes if I question the story I don't do so because of the logistics. It was announced well in advance that the Bidens would be attending so its perfectly possible they asked before the Bidens had even left America. They do (or did I've lost track of who works for them and who has left) have staff who worked for the Obamas / Democratic party in the past so there may well have been conversations.


I can well imagine them wanting to be seen to travel on Air Force One. I can imagine them happily changing planes on the East Coast to get home, Air Force One or no Air Force One.

Personally the fact it hasn't been denied makes me think there may be some truth to it even if it was only a half serious throw away request / enquiry.

I tend to believe that if such a request was made, it was an impulsive one. They may have though that there was no harm in asking. The goal being an opportunity to speak in person with the FLOTUS about future engagements with the Invictus Games or other philanthropic activity.



For that type of opportunity, I believe that they'd have been willing to have a layover for the night or simply take a red eye back to the West Coast.

 

[UglyAmerican]

There have been so many confirmed incidents involving the Sussexes' inability to recognize when their desired outcome is impractical or impossible from a logistical standpoint that I'm hesitant to give them the benefit of the doubt on that score. But of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

Was the bit about the basket of lemons confirmed? I've lost track. That would be a very odd gift to send to someone who most likely doesn't do a lot of cooking. Between the White House's renowned kitchen staff and Dr. Biden's own teaching career, I can't imagine what she'd have done with them.

 

[Prinsara]

I feel like you are not allowed to send food to the White House given the insanely tight Secret Service protocols around POTUS, FLOTUS, and their protection circles. Meghan would not be on a list of people who would be approved to send food to them.

I could be wrong; Meghan may very well have sent that lemon basket, but I'd be very surprised if it ended up in Dr. Biden's hands.

 

[SLV]

I actually don't see why it is such a big deal that they asked (if they did).
It is better for the environment to fly together. The more people in a plane, the better.

 

[Granada]

I'm guess now with all the Commentary about this, "did they or didn't they request to accompany The President of The United States on Air Force One back to The USA", I'm going to go out on a limb and bet they did request it. What makes me again lean that way is that there was no denial. That's simply not how The Sussex's operate when they feel they are being " wronged ". Their reputation, and need for respect, especially now, matters greatly.

Another impulsive, and not well thought through action, that unfortunately they have a history of doing.

In a way, I can see how it could have gone down. A highly emotional time of grief, coupled with the stress of family tensions being played out in public. Plus Harry and Meghan were well aware they were being demoted, (in the hierarchy they LOVE to complain about) or sidelined as NON working Royals, but ARE still core or central members of the now King Charles Family. A bitter pill they are very obviously still struggling with.

Then a thought, what about requesting a ride with the Biden's on Air Force One back to The States ? The prestige of that ! Positive glowing headlines ! Simply "golden PR" to refurbish their reputation in the States as still "global players" with credibly, that DO matter.

In Harry's defense, he had met and associated with the Biden's previously and probably didn't realize how presumptuous or unattainable the request would be. Another example of him, WITHOUT the Advisors that until a few mere years ago guided and protected him, not understanding Politics and optics. Especially involving The President, Air Force One and how it would appear. Ramifications with new King Charles lll, that if the Story is true, were oblivious to The Sussex's.

And Meghan, who had previously called up a couple of Senators on a whim to advocate for Policy - Legislative changes, (that left them baffled) unfortunately didn't realize that either.

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong here. But that silence from Montecito is deafening.......

 

[Somebody]

I actually don't see why it is such a big deal that they asked (if they did).
It is better for the environment to fly together. The more people in a plane, the better.

It's for the president to offer not for someone to ask.

And unfortunately, they seem to have a habit of asking freebies that no person would normally even consider asking. It again shows how entitled they are; they seem to think that they are so important that everyone should be happy to spend thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars on them just because of who they are. While in this case, it would also have been a golden PR moment for them while putting the Bidens in a very uncomfortable position (not sure they registered the latter).

 

[Maryrose]

Logistically the Air Force 1 story doesn't make sense. I find it hard to believe that the tabloids held onto this story for this long.. Pagesix and the Daily Beast both had this item up on their sites for a day before it was taken down. Any anti-Sussex articles usually stay up on their sites for a week so IMO they even realized it was a far fetched article. As for the Sussex camp and the WH not responding I think the Biden administration has more important things on their plate than getting dragged into gossip and innuendo.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I find it hard to believe that the tabloids held onto this story for this long..

The Daily Mail is the only paper to have independently reported the recent Sussex-Biden stories, and its report (see the previous page of the thread) does not give any hint as to how long it had the information before publishing the story.

 

[Ista]

Several posts have been removed since conspiracy theories fall under the heading of speculation, which is against forum rules.

Let's also keep in mind that this story, while being widely reported, has not been confirmed by additional reputable sources, or by the principals involved.

 

[Katymcwaity]

News about one of the court cases

Prince Harry set for court showdown with The Sun publisher https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66322279

 

[TLLK]

News about one of the court cases

Prince Harry set for court showdown with The Sun publisher https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66322279

The Duke of Sussex is to take The Sun's publisher to court over claims it used illegal methods to gather information on him.


Prince Harry's case could go to trial in the High Court next year after a judge ruled on Thursday that parts of his claim can proceed.


While his allegations of some illegal methods will go to trial, a judge dismissed his phone-hacking claims.

With the phone hacking claims now dismissed by the judge, will Prince Harry's legal team be able to prove any other allegations of use of illegal methods?

 

[Ghost]

The telegraph article:

Prince Harry's phone hacking claim against Sun publisher thrown out b…

archived 27 Jul 2023 11:49:24 UTC

archive.is

“Prince Harry’s phone hacking case against News Group Newspapers has been thrown out by a judge who ruled that only part of his lawsuit will go to trial at the High Court.

“His claim that he was unable to bring phone hacking allegations owing to a secret deal with the palace was branded “implausible”.

“Mr Fancourt also refused the Duke’s permission to amend his claim after he alleged that a secret deal brokered between Buckingham Palace and NGN executives had stopped him from bringing the hacking claim until September 2019.”

“However, the High Court judge said he would allow the Duke to proceed on his claims about other unlawful intrusions by NGN, such as the alleged use of private investigators and blagging.“

 

[tommy100]

Interesting how different media are headlining their articles/which way they are spinning it.

I'm not at all surprised the phone hacking claims were thrown out. Most telling bit to me is that the judge has refused to further the claim BP and NGN had a secret deal.


The full judgement is here
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Duke-of-Sussex-v-NGN-Judgment-270723.pdf

Edit - ouch! Quite critical of the claim about the 'secret deal' between the RF and the media group. The judge even uses Spare and the fact it didn't mention such a detail as evidence against harry's late claim. Eek.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The full judgement is here
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Duke-of-Sussex-v-NGN-Judgment-270723.pdf

Thank you for posting the full judgment. It is a great help in understanding a very complicated (at least for me) case.

I've only had time to read the first part of the judgment, but as I understand it, the issue (correction: the first issue) the judge was being asked to decide was this:

The statute of limitations barred the Duke of Sussex from suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) for phone-hacking if more than six years had passed since he learned the facts giving him a "worthwhile claim" to sue NGN over phone-hacking.

The Duke filed his lawsuit in 2019. He originally stated he did not know he was a victim of NGN's phone-hacking until around 2018, so his 2019 lawsuit was within the six-year limit.

NGN stated that evidence clearly showed that around 2012, the Duke already had the facts he needed to bring a lawsuit, so the six-year limit expired before he sued in 2019.

NGN asked the judge to give summary judgment in NGN's favor.

The Duke then claimed he would have filed his lawsuit in 2012 if his family's "secret agreement" had not stopped him at that time.

The judge stated that the Duke's first explanation for why he did not sue earlier (he did not know he had the evidence to sue until 2018) and his second explanation for why he did not sue earlier (his family stopped him from suing in 2012) contradicted each other:

"10. It is self-evident that a factual case that one did not know before 2018 enough about deliberately concealed facts to be able to bring a worthwhile claim is inconsistent with a factual case that one would have issued a claim in 2012 were it not for an assurance that it was not necessary or appropriate to do so. A party is not permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent factual cases."​

Thus, the judge needed to decide whether to allow the Duke to amend his argument in this manner.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The full judgement is here
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Duke-of-Sussex-v-NGN-Judgment-270723.pdf

The judge stated that the Duke's first explanation for why he did not sue earlier (he did not know he had the evidence to sue until 2018) and his second explanation for why he did not sue earlier (his family stopped him from suing in 2012) contradicted each other:

"10. It is self-evident that a factual case that one did not know before 2018 enough about deliberately concealed facts to be able to bring a worthwhile claim is inconsistent with a factual case that one would have issued a claim in 2012 were it not for an assurance that it was not necessary or appropriate to do so. A party is not permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent factual cases."​

Thus, the judge needed to decide whether to allow the Duke to amend his argument in this manner.

According to the judge, the Duke of Sussex did not provide an explanation for why he (the Duke) switched from saying he did not file a lawsuit earlier because he did not know about the extent of the phone-hacking until 2018, to saying that he wanted to sue in 2012 but was prevented by a secret agreement. Quoting the judgment again:

"70. However, this does not explain why the Duke's factual account changed from his pleaded case and is put forward so late. There was no explanation as to how the Duke was unable to remember, before preparing his witness statement, that the secret agreement about which he was told in 2012 was the reason why he did not issue proceedings against NGN then. Nor does it explain why, following the witness statement, a draft amended Reply was only produced on the first day of the hearing of NGN's Application."​

At paragraph 48 of the judgment, the judge observed that the Duke of Sussex's statements up until 2021 also differ from his statements in 2023 in other respects:

1. He originally stated that before September 29, 2013 (the relevant date for the statute of limitations), he was only told about one incident of his voicemail being hacked. Later, however, he said he was informed in 2012 about evidence that his voicemail was hacked on multiple occasions.

2. He originally stated it was legal advisers who told him had a legal claim against NGN for other illegal acts. Later he stated it was Queen Elizabeth II whom he learned it from.

"48. The underlining added to the quotation above identifies the changes in the Duke's factual case, if he is given permission to amend. Instead of just one voicemail interception notified in 2006 and other people otherwise being the only victims of hacking, the Duke now accepts that he was told before or around 2012 that there were likely to be further intercepted voicemails involving him, and by para c he accepts that he could (and would) have brought a claim in respect of the intercepted voicemails of which he was notified in 2006 and in about 2012 but did not do so because of the secret agreement. In relation to other unlawful acts, the Duke's case is that he was not aware that he had a claim until 2017. The proposed amendment also deletes a plea that he became aware "through legal advisers to his family" that he had a claim, so that the awareness is said to stem from being given permission by Her late Majesty The Queen to seek a resolution."​

The Duke's 2021 response is at paragraph 29 and his 2023 witness statement is at paragraph 35 of the judgment.

 

[Somebody]

Sounds like the judge found that he cannot trust a word he says because his statements contradict each other. While in other instances in the eyes of some people he gets away with it, in a legal case he does not.

 

[Curryong]

If the judge really could not ‘trust a word Harry says’ then the entire case would have been dismissed. Instead he has been allowed to proceed with part of his case, so the judge found merit in that portion.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The judge also stated (paragraph [80]) that the Duke's present claim that he was prevented from suing in 2012 by the alleged secret agreement contradicts the Duke's witness statement from last year, in which he implied he only learned in 2018 that "there was an agreement between the Institution [royal family] and NGN". Quoting the witness statement:

"17. It is important to emphasise that from 2005 I never had any interface or interaction with the family representative, Gerrard Tyrrell, who, in hindsight, was clearly getting instructions from within the Institution not to involve myself or William about phone hacking by the News of the World. No one was ever brought together for a discussion and there were no structured meetings of any sort, certainly none that I was invited to or made aware of. I only really started to regularly speak with Gerrard when I started dating Meghan, about the defamatory stories then being published.

18. I became aware that I had a claim that I could bring against NGN in 2018. However, there was in place an agreement between the Institution and NGN that we would not engage, or even discuss, the possibility of bringing claims against NGN until the litigation against it relating to phone hacking was over. The institution made it clear that we did not need to know anything about phone hacking and it was made clear to me that the Royal Family did not sit in the witness box because that could open up a can of worms. The Institution was without a doubt withholding information from me for a long time about NGN's phone hacking and that has only become clear in recent years as I have pursued my own claim with different legal advice and representation."​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the judge really could not ‘trust a word Harry says’ then the entire case would have been dismissed. Instead he has been allowed to proceed with part of his case, so the judge found merit in that portion.

I am not sure what you mean. He is allowed to proceed with the part of the case about the illegal activities other than phone-hacking because, in the judge's words, "There is no evidence currently before me that the Duke knew before the Applicable Date that NGN had done anything other than hack his mobile phone (at the News of the World)" and therefore the six-year limitation is not proven to have expired in regards to those "other" alleged illegal activities. (Whereas, in regards to the phone hacking claims, the judge ruled "There is no doubt that the Duke actually knew [about the alleged phone hacking] in about 2012" and therefore the six-year limit had passed by 2019, despite his claims to the contrary.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the Duke of Sussex's own description of the secret agreement which he now says stopped him from bringing his lawsuit earlier:

"in or around 2012, the institution of the Royal Family ("the Institution") and the Defendant [NGN] agreed that members of the Royal Family, and in particular the Claimant [HRH Prince Harry] and his brother, HRH Prince William, would bring claims against the Defendant only at the conclusion of the Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation and at that stage the claims would be admitted or settled with an apology ("the Secret Agreement")."​

The judge refused to permit the Duke of Sussex to amend his pleading to use this new allegation. I will try to summarize the judge's reasons (paragraphs [73]-[83]).

1. According to the Duke of Sussex, NGN secretly agreed that when the royals eventually sued NGN, NGN would admit the claims or apologize. The judge thought it "seems inherently unlikely" that NGN would agree in advance to admit wrongdoing or apologize without knowing exactly what claims they would be required to admit or apologize for.

2. According to the Duke, the royals secretly agreed they would delay suing NGN until NGN's ongoing phone-hacking lawsuits (Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation (MTVIL)) had ended. However, emails between the Director of Royal Communications and NGN executives in 2017-2018 show that the palace wanted an out-of-court settlement, not a lawsuit, and that the palace did not want to wait for NGN's lawsuits to be finished. For example, the Director of Royal Communications wrote: "There seems no real necessity to wait until all of the other civil cases are addressed for reasons which are self-evident. [...] We would really like to progress and settle things soonest, without reverting to our lawyers."

3. Emails which Prince Harry sent to the then Director of Royal Communications in 2017-2018 "show that the Duke [Harry] was pushing hard for resolution of his complaint against NGN before his wedding in May 2018". (He also filed his current lawsuit in 2019.) Since the MTVIL has not ended yet (paragraph [42]), the judge sees his actions as inconsistent with his claim that the secret agreement blocked him from taking action to resolve his complaints until the MTVIL ended.

4. None of the people the Duke says were or may have been involved in making the secret agreement, or notifying him about it, have given evidence for its existence.

5. There is no mention of the alleged agreement in the above mentioned 2017-2018 emails, or in 2012-2013 emails between lawyers for Prince Harry and other royals and lawyers for NGN, or in the Duke of Sussex's autobiography "Spare".

6. The claims about the alleged agreement contradict many earlier statements made by the Duke of Sussex during this court case (see previous posts).