The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 -

[yukari]

Duke of Sussex argued he could not pay for private security until he had a job

Archive

(...)

Prince Harry sent an email to Sir Edward Young, the late Queen’s private secretary, in April 2020 in which he says he “made it clear we couldn’t afford private security until we were able to earn”.

The *message was disclosed in legal documents relating to the Duke’s*libel claim against the Mail on Sunday, which hinges on a “false claim” concerning his willingness to pay for his own police protection in the UK.

(...)

Live tweeting of the hearing for more details (several threads):

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...71778884911106

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...29605666086912

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...40427599495174

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...50139506192386

Points I find interesting in that live tweeting:
- that solicitors for Harry did ask the Mail by email about the story, after being tipped off about it and the leak came from someone in Home Office.

- the argument about "Honest Opinion" (ANL's defence) while Harry's team argued that there's factual allegation and it failed "honesty test". And I quote the tweets:

(...)

Counsel quotes a statement from a background briefing that Harry's safety was more at risk in the UK than the USA.

Says that Harry taking the decision to call for a judicial review of the decision to remove his security detail in the UK did not mean he had withdrawn his offer to pay for it. Says articles saying that were an "illegitimate leap."

Counsel says that the Press Association too had "got the wrong end of the stick," over the judicial review, but this did not justify the Mail on Sunday's articles.

Judge asks if this was not lying, but just "spinning the facts."?

Counsel says the facts show it was more than this as it accused Harry of "attempting to mislead the public."

Judge says the issue is "Could an honest person have drawn that conclusion given the facts?"

Points to the fact a reporter from the Press Association had drawn the same conclusion.

(...)

And this is my biggest question since the beginning of this lawsuit: Why he only sue ANL? IIRC, ANL isn't the only and not even the first to come out with that story (inferring that Harry misled the public about his offer to pay). And now there's even email proof that initially he insisted he can't afford to pay (post Sandringham Summit), but there's offer to pay around the time of judicial review ... Is it just me, why this sounds like someone is being semantic/pedantic?

[EllieCat]

From Granada:

So here we are, two "rogue Royals". One an Actress, the other a Prince, who feel entitled and empowered to lecture People on complicated and controversial topics on matters from mental self healing to hot button social issues like Racism. All the while trading on, invoking their Royal connections AND usually blaming the Royal Family for personal complaints and perceived slights too. Constantly.

How long a shelf life can that possibly have ? They are quickly becoming boring, tedious and repetitive in their allegations.

It's been three years since the duo took off overseas to do their own thing - and yet here we are, although we all (mostly) agree their 'appeal' is wearing off, we are still talking incessantly about them. This thread has multiple postings every day. YouTube has a small group of people making a bit of a living talking about them (and yes, I do watch some of them). The couple are interesting. Not particularly nice people IMO but interesting. We're fascinated. Why? Is it because we are waiting for this very... slow... train wreck... to come to its inevitable conclusion? It just can't end well.... but is it going to drag on forever? Like the D&D of Windsor.

I haven't got a leg to stand on myself; personally I agree with just about nothing they've done and said almost since they got married (I was one of those millions who watched the wedding and wished them nothing but happiness and believed in their 'love story'.) And yet I read and watch a lot of content about them (except for 'Spare', no way I'm buying that.) Now I'm much more cynical. They're after money and fame but not putting in much effort (beyond effortless trashing the Royal family). But I'm still reading about them. If they're as publicity-hungry as they appear to be, then apathy would be the last thing they would want, because negativity still gets them column inches.

I had no problem with them leaving and starting a new life. I was surprised Harry (at least) ended up in California, considering their desire for privacy. They could have left with dignity and made a lovely life for themselves, and still have been invited to every major Royal occasion and treated well if they had been loyal and discreet. Actually, come to think of it, they're still being treated well even though they have NOT been loyal and discreet. Invitation to the Coronation after all they've put the family through. And the titles for the American children (who have no need of them and are probably going to be mercilessly teased during their school years, I would imagine). The RF have taken the moral high ground IMO.

And after all this, we still haven't lost our fascination with this couple... yet.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Asteria12

I'm sure they have been told very politely what arrangements have been made for them should they choose to attend this historic occasion, along with many other far more important people!

Whilst I am sure that certain arrangements will already have been made it is undeniable fact that he is the son of the King. Our new king, Charles III, has always been a kind man and, it is worth noting that many decisions regarding his life and those of both his wives and both of his sons were shaped by who he is and how long his mother reigned. Many decisions were made by his mother in consultation with her advisors.

Those decisions did not always work for good for Charles and his family and we would all be fools to think they did. Her late Majesty was an incredibly pragmatic woman with the only real wobble being Andrew. Charles probably doesn't like his youngest son very much at the moment, but I believe he really does love his "darling boy" and wants him to share in his coronation.
Needless to say, he is being pulled hither and yon by those with differing agenda's but, if Harry is not there, he and by inference the UK Government will be thought less of by many internationally, because it does not inspire international admiration if, in the grand scheme of things, petty family quarrels are allowed to override the good of the nation.

We have to remember that while it is Charles that is being Crowned, it is an official "State" occasion which will hopefully facilitate an increase trade and tourism with a side of discreet meetings and discussions between the good and the great to mutual advantage.

[Moran]

I really can't see how Harry's presence contributes to the good of the nation. It isn't as if he contained his attacks on a personal level only. He thrashed the UK and its past as a whole, basically accusing everyone of not tormenting his angelic Meghan.

It isn't as if the nation is clamouring for him to return while Charles puts his own good ahead of his people's. In fact, everything points out at the nation generally wants Harry for the coronation as much as about his family. I can't see how this is good for the nation.

It doesn't exactly inspire admiration that after all the cheap shots Harry and his new mummy fired at the King, the RF, the monarchy, the past of the UK, Charles is still seen as giving up to him.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by MARG

Whilst I am sure that certain arrangements will already have been made it is undeniable fact that he is the son of the King. Our new king, Charles III, has always been a kind man and, it is worth noting that many decisions regarding his life and those of both his wives and both of his sons were shaped by who he is and how long his mother reigned. Many decisions were made by his mother in consultation with her advisors.

Those decisions did not always work for good for Charles and his family and we would all be fools to think they did. Her late Majesty was an incredibly pragmatic woman with the only real wobble being Andrew. Charles probably doesn't like his youngest son very much at the moment, but I believe he really does love his "darling boy" and wants him to share in his coronation.
Needless to say, he is being pulled hither and yon by those with differing agenda's but, if Harry is not there, he and by inference the UK Government will be thought less of by many internationally, because it does not inspire international admiration if, in the grand scheme of things, petty family quarrels are allowed to override the good of the nation.

We have to remember that while it is Charles that is being Crowned, it is an official "State" occasion which will hopefully facilitate an increase trade and tourism with a side of discreet meetings and discussions between the good and the great to mutual advantage.

It doesn’t reflect badly on the royal family. They are still a united family. If they had fallen apart maybe. But they haven’t.

They have been invited. All the family can do. Duke of Windsor was never invited.

Time moves on faster than we think, and the family will just seal up the hole he has left. In fact really they already have. It’s his father and brother this hits hardest and it will be a scar.

If they come, I have a feeling this will be the last time for years, unless we do have a mending. Hoping for Charles a good innings yet, so the next events, as with all families, is probably weddings and that may be years in the future and none of them have to invite Harry…they probably by that stage hardly know him.

The Wales children don’t know him. There is no chat between the parents.
So not even FaceTime chats and Louis doesn’t know him at all.

Even Eugenie will drift. It’s just life.

Families drift when parental units die anyway. The royals don’t seem to have done that, with the exception of Harry.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Moran

I really can't see how Harry's presence contributes to the good of the nation. It isn't as if he contained his attacks on a personal level only. He thrashed the UK and its past as a whole, basically accusing everyone of not tormenting his angelic Meghan.

It isn't as if the nation is clamouring for him to return while Charles puts his own good ahead of his people's. In fact, everything points out at the nation generally wants Harry for the coronation as much as about his family. I can't see how this is good for the nation.

It doesn't exactly inspire admiration that after all the cheap shots Harry and his new mummy fired at the King, the RF, the monarchy, the past of the UK, Charles is still seen as giving up to him.

I just believe that the King does not want to totally give up on his son.

He is as another poster pointed out ' his darling boy'.
The only tightrope I see the King walking is between his two sons, I understand why he would want his youngest son to attend, but his oldest son and heir must be really hurt by Harrys words and deeds.

The general public do not appear to want the couple to attend, they offended a lot of people , not just the royal family. Having said that I don't think they would see Charles as weak by inviting them but more a loving father.

A balcony appearance might be a different matter .
We do not know as yet if they are attending, although they might have already sent their RSVP just not announced it.

[Denville]

Of course he doesnt wnat to give up on his son. Even if Harry is unpleasant and selfsih, he is also damaged and Charles must wonder how much of it is due to him and his bad marriage to Diana. He will always hold out a hand to hsi son, and yes He must feel that WIlliam is very hurt and he has to support his older son as well.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I just believe that the King does not want to totally give up on his son.

He is as another poster pointed out ' his darling boy'.
The only tightrope I see the King walking is between his two sons, I understand why he would want his youngest son to attend, but his oldest son and heir must be really hurt by Harrys words and deeds.

The general public do not appear to want the couple to attend, they offended a lot of people , not just the royal family. Having said that I don't think they would see Charles as weak by inviting them but more a loving father.

A balcony appearance might be a different matter .
We do not know as yet if they are attending, although they might have already sent their RSVP just not announced it.

I agree. The public will likely understand Charles' desire to have his son, daughter-in-law and brother Andrew at the coronation as his family members. However the public will likely be unhappy if they were to all appear on the balcony.

[Toledo]

The troubled threesome (sorry for the pun, I was watching old episodes of classic Batman and Robin just now and the way they describe things using the first letter is now in my head ) Andrew, Meghan and Harry have to stay off the balcony. They will be booed and no one wants King Charles' big moment to be taken away by negativity toward the troubled threesome.

[HRHHermione]

Originally Posted by yukari

Duke of Sussex argued he could not pay for private security until he had a job

Archive



Live tweeting of the hearing for more details (several threads):

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...71778884911106

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...29605666086912

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...40427599495174

https://www.twitter.com/jamesdoleman...50139506192386

Points I find interesting in that live tweeting:
- that solicitors for Harry did ask the Mail by email about the story, after being tipped off about it and the leak came from someone in Home Office.

- the argument about "Honest Opinion" (ANL's defence) while Harry's team argued that there's factual allegation and it failed "honesty test". And I quote the tweets:

And this is my biggest question since the beginning of this lawsuit: Why he only sue ANL? IIRC, ANL isn't the only and not even the first to come out with that story (inferring that Harry misled the public about his offer to pay). And now there's even email proof that initially he insisted he can't afford to pay (post Sandringham Summit), but there's offer to pay around the time of judicial review ... Is it just me, why this sounds like someone is being semantic/pedantic?

I’m also very baffled by this lawsuit and curious to how it goes, because it doesn’t appear to me that Harry has a strong case. Additionally, information like Harry not agreeing to notify the home office a month in advance of return trips to the U.K. so security can be arranged just make him look petulant and entitled. He seems to only want the exact same security he had as a senior working royal and nothing else will do.

[SirGyamfi1]

I came across a video of them celebrating the birthday of their daughter. Wonder how that video got out? Plus his Spencer aunts came for Lili’s christening.

[yukari]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

I’m also very baffled by this lawsuit and curious to how it goes, because it doesn’t appear to me that Harry has a strong case. Additionally, information like Harry not agreeing to notify the home office a month in advance of return trips to the U.K. so security can be arranged just make him look petulant and entitled. He seems to only want the exact same security he had as a senior working royal and nothing else will do.

Well, according to this:
Prince Harry was asked to give a month's notice before making a trip to the UK

Archive

(...)

The Duke’s lawyers say that the requirement to give 28 days notice of a visit, during which a case by case decision would be made by RAVEC whether to provide him with security, creates uncertainty and could threaten his safety.

They state: “It hinders their ability to plan for and manage his security arrangements; may lead to [the Duke’s] actual arrangements being inadequate and compromise his ultimate security.”

Prince Harry’s legal team cite as an example the Diana memorial events visit, claiming that his security team did not have time to strengthen the proposed security plan.

They say that during a WellChild Awards charity event on July 3, 2021, following the Diana memorial visit, Prince Harry’s car was “interdicted by paparazzi . . . needlessly placing the Duke of Sussex in a dangerous situation”.

(...)

You would think that 28 days notice means having enough time to arrange things so I also honestly don't understand what he means by "creates uncertainty and could threaten his safety" because "hinders their ability to plan for and manage his security arrangements". So does it mean he no longer want Met security and everything would be covered by his privately hired security? What's the point of judicial review then? Or, just like how HO should know about his offer to pay without him informing them, somehow they should also know about his every visit to the UK then make proper arrangement without any information from him? Not just petulant, but sounds like he has communication problem. Communication is two way, but it's like he expects people around him to be mind readers catering whatever he wants.

And again, his example of security "threats" is basically couple of photographers. Since when people need armed officers to "protect" them from photographers. Are British photographers really that dangerous now?

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I came across a video of them celebrating the birthday of their daughter. Wonder how that video got out? Plus his Spencer aunts came for Lili’s christening.

Well it's good to hear he's keeping in touch with his Spencer aunts, sometimes i worry that H&M are alienating everyone from their past, but fortunately that seems to be not the case

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by yukari

...
And again, his example of security "threats" is basically couple of photographers. Since when people need armed officers to "protect" them from photographers. Are British photographers really that dangerous now?

My take from H&M's utterings over the past years, they indeed seem to put 'British paparazzi' on the same level as 'terrorists'.
I'd hope that with therapy, Harry will get a more balanced view of the world, but until now he doesn't seem to be there yet.

I would also hope H&M would get staff to help them forward, and not just affirm their current worldview

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Well it's good to hear he's keeping in touch with his Spencer aunts, sometimes i worry that H&M are alienating everyone from their past, but fortunately that seems to be not the case

But I wonder who put the video out? I wonder how they feel about all this?

[Lori138]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

But I wonder who put the video out? I wonder how they feel about all this?

Do you have a link to this video?

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Lori138

Do you have a link to this video?

I unfortunately forgot to save the post but but if you have instagram just type Prince Harry and maybe you will find it

[Alison H]

Harry claimed in the interview about the book that he and Meghan fled "in fear of our lives" ... presumably meaning from photographers. As Lee-Z said, he really hasn't got a very balanced view of the world.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I came across a video of them celebrating the birthday of their daughter. Wonder how that video got out? Plus his Spencer aunts came for Lili’s christening.

You mean... the clips that were featured in their Netflix documentary?

[MARG]

I seem to remember that his security was removed as he was no longer a working royal, What a crock, the Protective Service, when pressed, admitted that there had been no lessening of the threat level to the Sussexes when the PO's were removed as they were still receiving threats.

Some threats were:

1. Threats to Harry's life accusing him of being a race traitor.
2. Threats to Meghan's life because she had seduced him away from this duty
3. Threats to Archies life as he was a racial abomination.

I can only assume Lilibet is or will be in the same boat. Worse, if there is one thing that you can rely on it is that fanatics do not mellow with age.