The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022

[UglyAmerican]

I bet Harry know something none of us know that is why he is speaking out. Harry might not be always be right but he is not always wrong either. There are many double standards that go on. I know many will,not agree with me that’s okay we all have our own opinions. I am siding with Harry from what I know.

I doubt Harry knows more about the risks to his own security than the Met does. Moreover, I've seen no evidence that either Harry or Meghan is capable of perceiving a threat, or a double standard, or any other kind of unfairness, and then keeping quiet about it. If there was a real threat, he'd have cited that in this case, not a pushy photographer.

 

[LauraS3514]

I remember that and remember the time that Princess Beatrice's car was stolen/damaged or something and people queried why her protection officer didn't ensure she had taken the keys out and the answer was 'his job is to protect the person and not protect them from their own stupidity'.

The same thing was asked about Harry and the Vegas photos - what were his protection detail doing that people were allowed to get that close with cameras - well again 'we aren't here to protect him from his stupidity but only from physical harm'.

No way would an RPO carry the parcels of their protectee as they wouldn't be able to do their job if needed it they had their hands full.

A similar quote came after Sarah's pool pictures with John Bryant: "we're here to protect their lives, not their morals.""

 

[Mbruno]

I'm starting to think that this couple believes the road to whatever they want and are denied are possible by pursuing legal means. Control of the press and control of their security to reflect how they believe it should be.

Could it be an infuence from Harry's American wife? I am sorry to say that, but litigation seems to be an American habit. No wonder Donald Trump told Theresa May he would have "sued the EU" instead of negotiating the Brexit deal !

Having said that, all actions of a British government department are subject to judicial review as the government cannot act unlawfully nor exceed the powers that the law gives to it. I believe, however, that it will be difficult for Harry to convince a judge that the Home Office acted unlawfully in this case.

 

[AC21091968]

It's hard to determine just what was going through Harry's mind with this lawsuit and could be any or all of what you've suggested but one thing I know it was *not* and that is that Harry had a real, legitimate case to present in front of a judge.

The team of attorneys that Harry has on retainer though must have some very healthy bank accounts these days. They'll find something new to take on. My guess? A bird sanctuary!

Without sounding exaggerating or borderline ludicrous, I started to think that Harry and his legal team confidently believed that they could be successful in winning the court case for Met Police protection like Meghan's legal action against Mail on Sunday. The difference is that during this time, a family member of Her Majesty is taking legal action against Her Majesty's government, not just a newspaper corporation. If what The Telegraph article correctly described the atmosphere, the court room was explosive, even more so than Meghan v.s. MoS. The Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures were not kidding themselves in their attack/rebuttal against The Duke of Sussex. It's worse than the MoS in terms of pointing out the discrepancy between the Sussexes' public statement and what happened behind the scene (if it turn out to be true). Except this time, the Sussexes have a much lower chance to succeed in overturning previous decision to withdraw the police protection. The government went as far as labelling private payment/reimburse as irrelevant and denouncing that the offer was even submitted to Ravec.

In a statement released on behalf of the Duke in January, it was claimed that he first offered to “pay personally for UK police protection” for himself and his family in January 2020 at Sandringham, but the offer was refused. The Duke did not state who the offer was made to.

However, the Government said that the offer - which is now in his witness statement - is “irrelevant”, as it “was notably not advanced to Ravec” when he visited in June 2021 or in any of the immediate correspondence which followed.

In any event, the court documents note, “personal protective security is not available on a privately financed basis” and Ravec does not make decisions on security on the basis of payment.

Mr Justice Swift, High Court judge was having none of Shaheed Fatima's claim (Duke's QC) about Harry's need of personal protection by Met Police. I would not be surprised if Mr Swift was annoyed that Harry's security/protection was even brought up in Court. To put it bluntly, he was dismissing Harry's back story and "playing the victim narrative".

It was one of a number of heated exchanges between the judge and the QC. At one point, Mr Justice Swift noted: “Court proceedings are not a platform for people generally to tell their story, rather it is the forum for people to resolve legal disputes.”

I actually not surprised by Harry's legal action, given how litigious the Sussexes have behave in the past. At one point last year or the year before, I actually have the thought of Sussexes suing the UK government at the back of my mind, especially after they threaten the BBC with legal action. It seems to me that they would go down the legal route if they things don't go their way. The Home Secretary was right to warn Harry on paying the excess cost for this court case, because it's a waste of time, resources and taxpayer's money. The constant legal action is surely costing the Sussexes a fortune and the only winner here is their lawyers. They are making more enemies than friends at this point and I doubt any Cabinet ministers are sympathetic or on the Sussex side at this point.

 

[Claire]

I am beginning to believe the conspiracy theorist that note this is just one step closer to getting the rank of international protected person so he can get free security and hobnob with the elite worldwide.

 

[muriel]

I am beginning to believe the conspiracy theorist that note this is just one step closer to getting the rank of international protected person so he can get free security and hobnob with the elite worldwide.

I presume that is only relevant if he wins the legal action.

 

[yukari]

(...)

I actually not surprised by Harry's legal action, given how litigious the Sussexes have behave in the past. At one point last year or the year before, I actually have the thought of Sussexes suing the UK government at the back of my mind, especially after they threaten the BBC with legal action. It seems to me that they would go down the legal route if they things don't go their way. The Home Secretary was right to warn Harry on paying the excess cost for this court case, because it's a waste of time, resources and taxpayer's money. The constant legal action is surely costing the Sussexes a fortune and the only winner here is their lawyers. They are making more enemies than friends at this point and I doubt any Cabinet ministers are sympathetic or on the Sussex side at this point.

I'm still waiting lawsuit against Valentine Low and The Times for the bullying allegation. I've checked their online articles and there's still no note about complaint filed either.

 

[RoyalNight]

I'm still waiting lawsuit against Valentine Low and The Times for the bullying allegation. I've checked their online articles and there's still no note about complaint filed either.

And against authors of 'Finding freedom'...

I'm afraid that Harry's constant highlighting they're not protected enough might give someone crazy ideas.

 

[muriel]

And against authors of 'Finding freedom'...

I'm afraid that Harry's constant highlighting they're not protected enough might give someone crazy ideas.

The can't sue the authors of Finding Freedom as emails from KP, revealed a part of the litigation against the Daily Mail, clearly lay out H&M's collaboration with the hagiography.

 

[Mbruno]

And against authors of 'Finding freedom'...

I'm afraid that Harry's constant highlighting they're not protected enough might give someone crazy ideas.

That is actually a relevant point. By constantly repeating how unprotected he and his family are, Harry may be inadvertently making his family and himself more vulnerable as someone may consider them “ easy targets “.

 

[Camsterlaird]

I am sorry, I seem to missing something. When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stated they did not want to working royals anymore, did they not realise that this meant their RPOs would be stood down and they wouldn't have access to them? I do not wish to be unkind, but they seem to want to have their cake and eat it.

 

[RoyalNight]

The can't sue the authors of Finding Freedom as emails from KP, revealed a part of the litigation against the Daily Mail, clearly lay out H&M's collaboration with the hagiography.

Yes, I know. But even before the emails were revealed it was very telling why H&M hadn't made any legal moves against the authors.

 

[Denville]

I am sorry, I seem to missing something. When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stated they did not want to working royals anymore, did they not realise that this meant their RPOs would be stood down and they wouldn't have access to them? I do not wish to be unkind, but they seem to want to have their cake and eat it.

No, Harry clearly thought that as he didn't ask to be a Prince, he still had the risks associatd with royal life and that he should still have RPOS

 

[Ghost]

I am sorry, I seem to missing something. When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stated they did not want to working royals anymore, did they not realise that this meant their RPOs would be stood down and they wouldn't have access to them? I do not wish to be unkind, but they seem to want to have their cake and eat it.

As they stated in their infamous publishing on the defunct sussexroyal site, they were convinced that the status of “international protected persons” will be kept. After the Commonwealth service at WA that status was withdrawn.

That declaration on their site said a lot about what they thought they deserved and could do.

 

[Ista]

Let's stick to discussion of the recently posted news about the High Court hearing. The thread is not open for rehashing old news. Any more of that and the thread will be closed.

 

[AC21091968]

On a different note, The Telegraph is reporting that Harry is renewing Frogmore Cottage lease in order to serve The Queen, particularly on the Counsellor of State.

Prince Harry will renew Frogmore Cottage lease to keep serving Queen
The Duke will still be able to do duties for the monarch as he is domiciled in Britain thanks to his Windsor address
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...news-lease-frogmore-cottage-keeping-one-foot/
Archived link: https://archive.vn/fTqjY

 

[Osipi]

Renewing the lease on Frogmore is his prerogative but what I'm wondering is just how much he reallty intends on using it. Is this an indication that the family may be heading to the UK for either Philip's service of thanksgiving or the Platinum Jubilee? Or is this solely to retain his position of Councillor of State. Seeing as the Counsellors haven't really been used since 2002 (if I'm not mistaken), I'm thinking he'll be using Frogmore. Especially until after that bird sanctuary has had the work done on it to remove the awful smell that's engulfing the entire area of Montecito (later this year?).

 

[Mbruno]

On a different note, The Telegraph is reporting that Harry is renewing Frogmore Cottage lease in order to serve The Queen, particularly on the Counsellor of State.

Prince Harry will renew Frogmore Cottage lease to keep serving Queen
The Duke will still be able to do duties for the monarch as he is domiciled in Britain thanks to his Windsor address
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...news-lease-frogmore-cottage-keeping-one-foot/
Archived link: https://archive.vn/fTqjY

It should be profoundly irritating to the British people that Prince Harry wants to keep himself in a constitutional position to perform important state functions in the United Kingdom like receiving the credentials of foreign ambassadors or approving orders in council (i.e. executive orders for the U.S. readers) when he effectively decided to ditch the UK and live in California. I suspect the British Parliament will eventually put an end to this farce.

 

[Leopoldine]

A similar quote came after Sarah's pool pictures with John Bryant: "we're here to protect their lives, not their morals.""

That's the ethos of protection detail. It's why the Bush twins' Secret Service detail didn't interfere or "call it in" when Barbara and Jenna went to bars and had drinks as legal minors in Texas. The protection teams need the protectees to trust them.

 

[Moran]

Didn't Harry say his father and brother were trapped? Is he rushing towards the trap now? It isn't as if he's so desperately needed as a CoS but if these publications are true, he looks rather determined to keep trap privileges.

And what if he doesn't win his case? How is he going to use Frogmore if it's too dangerous for him and his family to be there?

He baffles me.

 

[Ista]

At TLLK's request, here is a link regarding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's recent lawsuit:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-launches-libel-action-against-mail-on-sunday

The thread is open for discussion on this topic only. Ignoring that rule will result in the thread being closed.

 

[Osipi]

Anyone else besides me think that this couple is getting litigation slaphappy crazy? They may have legitimate reasons to open lawsuits here and there and should stand up for wrongs that have been done to them and justice served but the downside to all this is that if these two get the reputation of taking everything they can to court, that's going to turn a lot of people away from wanting to work with them in the long term effects of things.

 

[Sunnystar]

I don't get it... Those news orgs are reporting the same info as the Telegraph, The Times, etc, right?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

According to the Guardian article, only the Duke of Sussex is suing, and his libel claim is "reportedly" (reported by whom?) related to this article by Kate Mansey in the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, published on February 19.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arry-tried-legal-fight-bodyguards-secret.html


Victoria Ward of The Telegraph reports:

The Duke’s legal firm, Schillings, has alleged that the claims he lied about offering to pay for his protection and that he wanted the existence of the litigation to remain confidential are false and defamatory, the Telegraph understands.
​

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ches-libel-case-against-daily-mail-publisher/


Quoting the Mail article, it would seem that this is the allegedly false and defamatory claim "that he wanted the existence of the litigation to remain confidential":

Prince Harry tried to keep details of his legal battle to reinstate his police protection secret from the public, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

High Court documents show he sought a far-reaching confidentiality order on documents and witness statements surrounding his case against the Government.

But the Home Office argued for transparency, saying 'there must be a sufficiently good reason, in the wider public interest, to justify the departure from open justice that such an order involves'.

Both sides then agreed that some papers would be made public with the Home Office agreeing to carry out a 'confidentiality exercise' to determine what would be kept secret, even though it caused 'an unprecedented expenditure of time and resources'.
​

And this would seem to be the allegedly false and defamatory "[claim] he lied about offering to pay for his protection":

When The Mail on Sunday last month revealed that Harry was suing the Government, his spin-doctors swung into action, briefing journalists that Harry was being denied the right to pay for bodyguards.

It led to inaccurate reports across the media, such as the BBC headline: 'Prince Harry in legal fight to pay for UK police protection.'

As documents lodged at the High Court last week show, no such offer to pay was made in the Prince's initial 'pre-action' letters to the Home Office, suggesting he expected British taxpayers to cover it.

The revelations are a crushing rebuttal to Harry's initial public statement that implied he had always been willing to foot the bill.

Nor did he offer to pay when he visited the UK last June to unveil a statue to his mother, Princess Diana.

Home Office lawyers state that it was only in later correspondence that the offer was made.

Yet his initial bid to get the decision overturned did not mention he would pay anything. Court papers say: 'The offer [to pay] is now advanced in the Claimant's witness statement...but notably was not advanced to RAVEC in June 2021 or in any of the pre-action correspondence which followed.'
​

 

[UglyAmerican]

Well, it should be really easy for a court to look up his security case and check whether 1) he sought a confidentiality order, and 2) any pre-action letter included an offer to foot the bill. Ordinarily, I’d expect anyone commencing a defamation suit to have verified those obvious things first. But it’s Harry, so perhaps not.

Even if he’s right, I suspect this will go the way of their last lawsuit. A technical victory, but so many bad things coming out in discovery that they lost in practical terms. I wonder what they’ll “forget” to tell the court this time?

 

[iceflower]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will accept the NAACP President’s Award during the 53rd annual Image Awards on February 26:


** Pic ** naacpimageawards.net **


** naacpimageawards: PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN, THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX **

 

[AC21091968]

I don't get it... Those news orgs are reporting the same info as the Telegraph, The Times, etc, right?

By reading through the Mail article link as posted by Tatiana Maria, I think Harry is really digging a hole out of a mole hill and splitting hair at this point. The Telegraph is reporting the findings in the court case, particularly on the application to RAVEC in June 2021.

In a statement released on behalf of the Duke in January, it was claimed that he first offered to “pay personally for UK police protection” for himself and his family in January 2020 at Sandringham, but the offer was refused. The Duke did not state who the offer was made to.

However, the Government said that the offer - which is now in his witness statement - is “irrelevant”, as it “was notably not advanced to Ravec” when he visited in June 2021 or in any of the immediate correspondence which followed.

In any event, the court documents note, “personal protective security is not available on a privately financed basis” and Ravec does not make decisions on security on the basis of payment.

And the Mail is only picking that story up as in Harry did not offer to pay for Met Police protection when they stood back as working royals and as of June 2021. The only difference to The Telegraph article is that The Mail implied that The Sussexes lied about offering to pay for Met Police protection and his PR team briefing journalists on his offer (to pay for protection) being denied. The Telegraph however only showed the discrepancy between Sussexes' legal team statement in January 2022 and what The Home Office have claimed in June 2021. It was later revealed that the Home Office only received the payment offer later in events.

Home Office lawyers state that it was only in later correspondence that the offer was made.

The confidentiality topic was mentioned in both The Telegraph and The Mail article, but this time the wordings were almost identical. To me, Harry is really grasping for straws on this occasion. The Mail has become The Sussexes punching bag at this point, but it's The Telegraph and The Times (Valentine Low's article on the bully allegation) that are pulling the punches in damaging The Sussexes' reputation.

From reading The Guardian article, Harry is also launching legal action against News Group Newspapers (including The Sun and The Mirror) on privacy. I'm also very puzzled as of why The Sussexes aren't suing the Telegraph or even Home Office for "defamation" or even "misinformation"

 

[Somebody]

One of the effects of another lawsuit is that we apparently may assume that everything that is written about them is true unless they sue (in that case some minor detail might differ). I wonder if that truly is what they are looking for.

I don't assume it's their business model (for earning money).

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

One of the effects of another lawsuit is that we apparently may assume that everything that is written about them is true unless they sue (in that case some minor detail might differ). I wonder if that truly is what they are looking for.

I don't assume it's their business model (for earning money).

Yes, I came here to say exactly this.

 

[Osipi]

[...]

Are we really going to witness crocodile tears and clutching at pearls should Harry decide not to return to the UK? He keeps stressing that he can't step foot in the UK without the constant surveillance of RPOs on the job (whether he pays for them or not).

I think he's heading to seriously lose this case against the Home Office. One person's assessment of what they're "entitled" to and the reckoning of the Home Office and those that *do* assess security needs is like a chihuahua taking on a grizzly bear in a battle. We know who stands the best chance of winning this. Sorry, Harry.