The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 11: 7 May - 31 Dec 2025

[Tatiana Maria]

It’s interesting that they were so quick to officially respond to this particular leak. So why didn’t they react just as quickly to all those previous tabloid stories, from “friends of the prince,” “close aides of the duchess,” or “a source close to the Sussexes”?

Does this imply that the tabloid stories their fans urged us not to believe or not to take seriously, were actually true all along?

On a related note: Even if what a source said really was untrue, that does not automatically make the tabloid story untrue. For example:

Suppose Tabloid Z runs a story saying “According to a source close to John Doe, John thinks rocks walk and talk.”

It seems many people jump to blame Tabloid Z for “printing a false story” and accuse Tabloid Z of inventing a nonexistent source.

But that is not the only possible explanation for the tabloid story. And normally, it is not the likeliest explanation, because inventing a nonexistent source would involve what is viewed by both the legal profession and the news industry as a brazen act of fraud.

In fact, there exist other, more likely explanations for the tabloid story:

1. John Doe really is ignorant enough to think rocks walk and talk.

2. John Doe does not think rocks walk and talk. However, an individual who has met John Doe at least once (and thus can be referred to as a “source close to John Doe”) dislikes John and would like people to believe John is stupid. This person told Tabloid X that John Doe thinks rocks walk and talk, even though this person was lying.

In explanation #2, what Tabloid X wrote was true. The source genuinely did say that John Doe thinks rocks walk and talk, and Tabloid X accurately reported what the source said. It was the source who told a lie.

 

[yukari]

Rebecca English (Daily Mail) reported that while in London, Maines also met several British business and charitable partners as well as a host of London-based press and television journalists. I assume it was to personally inform them about British press ban on Harry's activity (and by the way, Harry will visit Angola so expect to get photos from that trip wink-wink).

The Times also wrote about this.
A secret meeting, a photo, next a reunion for King Charles and Harry?

Archive

(...)

The Times has learnt that there was no instruction from Harry for her to contact the Prince of Wales’s office. Buckingham Palace, however, was contacted and agreed to a meeting. When the King’s spokesman arrived at the club, Harry’s aides were already waiting inside.

(...)

On Saturday night the mystery of the photographer in the bushes was revealed when Andreae had a call from the Mail on Sunday alerting him to the story. He duly informed Harry’s team. So, how did they know? And who does it suit?

(...)

So, why was a meeting granted now? From the King’s perspective, it helps that Harry’s court case against His Majesty’s government has come to an end. Charles cannot be co-opted into saying anything about a case where his son is using his father’s courts to sue his father’s government about a security decision. With that out of the way, the King is more open to hearing what his younger son has to say.

There’s another reason too. When Harry’s book Spare was published, the duke told Tom Bradby in a television interview that he wanted an apology from the royal family for all the hurt they had caused him and his wife. This repeated demand meant that any possible meeting with the Palace was doomed to fail and promptly rejected.

A source described the negotiations as including “untenable demands from the American side”. The King couldn’t possibly be left open to a tirade of abuse from his younger son, particularly after his cancer diagnosis.

But now it appears that Harry has changed his objective. He is no longer publicly demanding an apology. A source who has known Harry well for several decades said: “He appears to be softening on his demand for an apology now. There seems to be a realisation that this is not going to be granted. The meeting may have been a chance to put it all behind them and move on.”

This concession on Harry’s part appears to have opened a channel whereby the Palace is prepared to meet him. “Harry has made no secret of the fact that he wants to be reconciled,” says a well-placed source. “And he knows that talking and communication is by far the best way to go ahead.”

In other words, the damaging accusations — and threats of more to come — are now in the past. Or so they say. Perhaps he is finally growing up, knowing that the door is likely to be permanently shut to him when his brother, Prince William, becomes king.

(...)

And there, we have the baseline for the narative of father and his darling son reconciliation and evil older brother gets in the way.

You have to wonder with such detail itinerary of both sides, was it actually really leaks or direct briefing (intentional leak) or those journalists just have good imagination to write that scenario

 

[Ghost]

Rebecca English (Daily Mail) reported that while in London, Maines also met several British business and charitable partners as well as a host of London-based press and television journalists. I assume it was to personally inform them about British press ban on Harry's activity (and by the way, Harry will visit Angola so expect to get photos from that trip wink-wink).

The Times also wrote about this.
A secret meeting, a photo, next a reunion for King Charles and Harry?

Archive



And there, we have the baseline for the narative of father and his darling son reconciliation and evil older brother gets in the way.

You have to wonder with such detail itinerary of both sides, was it actually really leaks or direct briefing (intentional leak) or those journalists just have good imagination to write that scenario

No! Do you think? None of the two would neve… Wait!

 

[An Ard Ri]

A little more on the Duke's visit to Angola
Harry follows in Diana's footsteps - and returns to Angola to back landmine clearing charity
Prince Harry takes unexpected overseas trip without wife Meghan Markle

 

[Hallo girl]

The British media should honour his wishes and not report on the trip. Having said that, how does the charity feel about the ban on British media. Charities depend on publicity to enhance donations, in what way does banning the British media support the charity. The story becomes British media banned not the charity and its work.

 

[shady lady]

The British media should honour his wishes and not report on the trip. Having said that, how does the charity feel about the ban on British media. Charities depend on publicity to enhance donations, in what way does banning the British media support the charity. The story becomes British media banned not the charity and its work.

This is why IMO PH is not a good choice to represent charities, because his personal vendettas and poor choices overshadow the good causes they represent. It's also two-faced because we know how he uses the press when it suits him.

ETA Of course he is not the only person who does this (use the press when it suits them) but obviously this thread is specific to him.

 

[moby]

This is why IMO PH is not a good choice to represent charities, because he allows his personal vendettas to overshadow the good causes they represent. It's also two-faced because we know how he uses the press when it suits him.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) he's the only British Prince for Hire out there. If these charities want a semblance of royal patronage but can't get the actual working ones, he's the next best thing.

 

[shady lady]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) he's the only British Prince for Hire out there. If these charities want a semblance of royal patronage but can't get the actual working ones, he's the next best thing.

That is true (fortunately) although I think there are many other more worthy candidates who would make better representatives; but I do see your point. I guess if Harrods ain't available then Marks & Spencers it is...or Tesco's

 

[muriel]

The British media should honour his wishes and not report on the trip. Having said that, how does the charity feel about the ban on British media. Charities depend on publicity to enhance donations, in what way does banning the British media support the charity. The story becomes British media banned not the charity and its work.

Harry is hardly an effective fund raiser for his charities these days. Have any stats been released of funds the he has helped raised, either through Archewell or otherwise?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On a related note: Even if what a source said really was untrue, that does not automatically make the tabloid story untrue. For example:

Suppose Tabloid Z runs a story saying “According to a source close to John Doe, John thinks rocks walk and talk.”

It seems many people jump to blame Tabloid Z for “printing a false story” and accuse Tabloid Z of inventing a nonexistent source.

But that is not the only possible explanation for the tabloid story. And normally, it is not the likeliest explanation, because inventing a nonexistent source would involve what is viewed by both the legal profession and the news industry as a brazen act of fraud.

In fact, there exist other, more likely explanations for the tabloid story:

1. John Doe really is ignorant enough to think rocks walk and talk.

2. John Doe does not think rocks walk and talk. However, an individual who has met John Doe at least once (and thus can be referred to as a “source close to John Doe”) dislikes John and would like people to believe John is stupid. This person told Tabloid X that John Doe thinks rocks walk and talk, even though this person was lying.

In explanation #2, what Tabloid X wrote was true. The source genuinely did say that John Doe thinks rocks walk and talk, and Tabloid X accurately reported what the source said. It was the source who told a lie.

Just to be clear: I am not saying that Tabloid Z would necessarily be blameless in Example #2.

For example, Tabloid Z should have attempted to check whether the source’s allegation was true before publishing it. At the very least, the tabloid should have contacted John Doe and given him a chance to refute the source’s claim. If they did not take those steps, then Tabloid Z did behave badly – but that is not the same as “making things up”.

 

[OwlBranch]

NY Post is a tabloid newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Daily Fail. They are hardly friendly publications to H&M, unlike People magazine. Nevertheless, they published a article that Meghan's wine won a blind tasting test.

Wine experts reveal which celeb rosé — from Meghan Markle, Cameron Diaz, Jon Bon Jovi and Brad Pitt — is the best

Meghan Markle has entered the crowded celebrity vino market.

nypost.com

 

[muriel]

​

In relation to the picture of the PR people at the Royal Overseas League, I should flag that these pictures were not taken from the street, or any other public area. The ROL is housed in a large "home" in St James' that backs on to Green Park. This balcony, where the PR people sat, overlooks the gardens of the ROL, and can only be accessed from the main club building. The gardens are not large by any stretch of imagination. IMO, those being photographed would have known the photographers were there.

 

[Durham]

A discussion from two old pros of the pr, spin & media world. Long story short, Harry's fingerprints everywhere :

BBC Radio 4 - When It Hits the Fan, A Right Royal Whodunnit

David Yelland and Simon Lewis examine the fallout from a very public secret royal meeting.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[iceflower]

The Duke of Sussex during his Angola visit:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1945532844572356845

https://twitter.com/x/status/1945532901145104533

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Another walk through a cleared minefield, living off his mothers name to stay relevant. At least Diana was authentic in what she was doing. Harry doesnt represent anything but himself and not in a good way.

 

[Somebody]

A discussion from two old pros of the pr, spin & media world. Long story short, Harry's fingerprints everywhere :

BBC Radio 4 - When It Hits the Fan, A Right Royal Whodunnit

David Yelland and Simon Lewis examine the fallout from a very public secret royal meeting.

www.bbc.co.uk

Interesting. Especially the comment on why it would be beneficial for Harry to ensure publicity, i.e., to make it harder for his father to walk back on attempts to reconcile as it is now public knowledge that they are on a path to reconciliation because of this publicized meeting (for which the DM was clearly very specifically briefed).

It also mentioned how other outlets had very specific references that could only come from Harry's camp.

 

[Erin9]

Interesting. Especially the comment on why it would be beneficial for Harry to ensure publicity, i.e., to make it harder for his father to walk back on attempts to reconcile as it is now public knowledge that they are on a path to reconciliation because of this publicized meeting (for which the DM was clearly very specifically briefed).

It also mentioned how other outlets had very specific references that could only come from Harry's camp.

I see their point- and I tend to think the Sussexes leaked this. (They also need positive PR.)

However- if it doesn’t work out- it wouldn’t be surprising imo nor would it change anyone’s mind.

 

[caethi]

If a reconciliation has happened between HM The King and HRH The Duke of Sussex, then it was private and earlier than this meeting.

This meeting? Between their aides in broad daylight on a balcony? This seems like both sides are sending a message to the public: we are making amends. Otherwise, they would have done it behind closed doors or refused the meeting if the other side insisted. But why would both sides want the public to know they’re making amends?

Exactly.
The fact that a photographer just happened to catch three relatively non-descript people in a meeting on a balcony tells me that the fact of the meeting was leaked. If so, you have to ask yourself, who would benefit most from having this meeting made public? One can only speculate....

 

[tommy100]

I hadn't thought about out how until now - seeing Harry on a few webpages about his Angola trip - that the leaking of the meeting may have helped get Harry more exposure and media coverage for the trip as it now provides the perfect picture to go alongside all those analysis articles and gives the media more reasons to run the pictures of Harry on his trip.

In relation to the picture of the PR people at the Royal Overseas League, I should flag that these pictures were not taken from the street, or any other public area. The ROL is housed in a large "home" in St James' that backs on to Green Park. This balcony, where the PR people sat, overlooks the gardens of the ROL, and can only be accessed from the main club building. The gardens are not large by any stretch of imagination. IMO, those being photographed would have known the photographers were there.

The balcony they were on is in the small garden which is next to Green Park and quite visible from a public footpath running around the edge of Green Park. Yes the three of them seemingly saw they were being papped but it didn't require inside access - anyone from the footpath in Green Park could likely see the balcony they were sitting on.

Not 100% sure this will work but here is a link (hopefully) to the google maps view from the footpath - the red brick building with two white parasols on is where they were sitting when the picture was taken.

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Curryong]

Prince Harry's strict reason for not taking Meghan on surprise Angola trip

As Prince Harry touched down in Africa to continue his charity work of clearing landmines in the war-torn country, a royal source has revealed why Meghan Markle stayed behind

www.mirror.co.uk

This article explains the very important work of the Halo Trust, of which Harry has been Patron since 2019, in helping to clear land mines in Angola in the decades since they were laid there, and the total that has been removed by the Govt and Halo since then.
Children and others have had limbs blown off due to these awful objects still in the ground even now.

 

[muriel]

Prince Harry's strict reason for not taking Meghan on surprise Angola trip

As Prince Harry touched down in Africa to continue his charity work of clearing landmines in the war-torn country, a royal source has revealed why Meghan Markle stayed behind

www.mirror.co.uk

This article explains the very important work of the Halo Trust, of which Harry has been Patron since 2019, in helping to clear land mines in Angola in the decades since they were laid there, and the total that has been removed by the Govt and Halo since then.
Children and others have had limbs blown off due to these awful objects still in the ground even now.

The Halo Trust does a lot of good.

The question that I have been trying to grapple with is if having somebody like Harry as a Patron adds anything to a charity these days. The toxicity that accompanies Harry and Meghan, entirely down to their own actions in recent years, cannot, IMO, be a positive in terms of helping the charity raise financing to support the good works they do.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Meanwhile, in other news:

Prince Harry ordered to reveal any payments to witnesses in case against Daily Mail

Archive

I hope it is not too late to comment on this ruling concerning the pretrial disclosure process – the ruling is quite long and even cursorily reading it takes time.

Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2025] EWHC 1716 (KB) (11 July 2025)

One noticeable aspect is how Mr. Justice Nicklin’s approach to the case, which he says is grounded in principles of law, is much more particularized than the Claimants’.


For instance: Judges in other court cases found wrongdoing at the Mirror and the Sun. It appears the Claimants wanted to use this as proof there was also wrongdoing at the Mail. The judge refused to allow this:

“38. Mr Sherborne also submitted that the generic case had been "tried and tested and accepted" in litigation against Mirror Group and News Group Newspapers. [...]

39. Finally, in this litigation the Claimants have demonstrated a tendency to seek to rely, as matters of fact, upon findings of the Court in these other proceedings. So that there is no doubt about it, as these claims proceed, as a matter of law, findings made in those other proceedings – between different parties – are not admissible in these proceedings: Hollington -v- F Hewthorn & Co Ltd [1943] KB 587. Therefore, in the absence of admissions by Associated, wrongdoing alleged against other individuals (principally TPIs) will need to be proved by the Claimants in this litigation.”​

For another: The Claimants wanted to prioritize their “generic case” argument that “the use of these Unlawful Acts was both habitual and widespread across Associated's newspapers during the period at least 1993 onwards to 2011 and even continued beyond until 2018” (paragraph 15).

The judge declined to prioritize this argument. His reasons were:

• Even if Journalist A at the Mail tended to use Unlawful Information Gathering (UIG), that cannot prove Journalist B at the Mail also used UIG. Even less is it proof that Journalist B used UIG to write a particular article about the Claimant.
  
  Thus, even if the Claimants proved Unlawful Information Gathering was widespread at the Mail, that “generic case” could not prove the accusations against the specific journalists and the specific investigators involved in Mail articles about the Claimants.
  
  
  “47. […] Showing that journalist A tended to use UIG [Unlawful Information Gathering] cannot prove that journalist B did the same, unless there are very unusual circumstances. Further, Associated is a company, and it can only act through its staff or agents. Even if the Court were to make the finding – urged by the Claimants – that Associated "widely and habitually carried out or commissioned illegal or unlawful information gathering activities for the purposes of obtaining, preparing or furthering the publication of articles in its newspapers" that would not help prove whether UIG happened in any specific case. The focus must be on the specific journalist or TPI [Private Investigator] involved in the Article or incident in question – not others who were not involved. So, the general claims made by the Claimants against Associated – even if they could be substantiated – cannot support their individual cases. That is also why I reject Mr Sherborne's argument that proving the "scale of wrongdoing" is relevant to resolving the Claimants' claims.”​
  
  
• In the court case between the Duke of Sussex and others and the Mirror’s publisher, Judge Fancourt complained the claimants introduced “a mass of individual details, disputes and documents […] in an attempt to maximise the range of possible findings of wrongdoing”, which obscured “the really important issues”. Judge Nicklin did not want this outcome to repeat. (Paragraph 40.)
  
  
• “Courts must strive to avoid allowing a civil case to turn into a public inquiry […] It is not usually the Court's role, in civil litigation, to investigate whether a wrong was done.” (Paragraph 43.)

Given how many members of the public consider all tabloid reporters a monolithic entity, the judge’s paradigm is refreshingly different: In this court case, wrongdoing at the Mirror or Sun is not attributable to the Mail, and wrongdoing by Mail Journalist A is not attributable to Mail Journalist B.

 

[Hallo girl]

I hope it is not too late to comment on this ruling concerning the pretrial disclosure process – the ruling is quite long and even cursorily reading it takes time.

Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2025] EWHC 1716 (KB) (11 July 2025)

One noticeable aspect is how Mr. Justice Nicklin’s approach to the case, which he says is grounded in principles of law, is much more particularized than the Claimants’.


For instance: Judges in other court cases found wrongdoing at the Mirror and the Sun. It appears the Claimants wanted to use this as proof there was also wrongdoing at the Mail. The judge refused to allow this:

“38. Mr Sherborne also submitted that the generic case had been "tried and tested and accepted" in litigation against Mirror Group and News Group Newspapers. [...]​

​

39. Finally, in this litigation the Claimants have demonstrated a tendency to seek to rely, as matters of fact, upon findings of the Court in these other proceedings. So that there is no doubt about it, as these claims proceed, as a matter of law, findings made in those other proceedings – between different parties – are not admissible in these proceedings: Hollington -v- F Hewthorn & Co Ltd [1943] KB 587. Therefore, in the absence of admissions by Associated, wrongdoing alleged against other individuals (principally TPIs) will need to be proved by the Claimants in this litigation.”​

For another: The Claimants wanted to prioritize their “generic case” argument that “the use of these Unlawful Acts was both habitual and widespread across Associated's newspapers during the period at least 1993 onwards to 2011 and even continued beyond until 2018” (paragraph 15).

The judge declined to prioritize this argument. His reasons were:

• Even if Journalist A at the Mail tended to use Unlawful Information Gathering (UIG), that cannot prove Journalist B at the Mail also used UIG. Even less is it proof that Journalist B used UIG to write a particular article about the Claimant.
  
  Thus, even if the Claimants proved Unlawful Information Gathering was widespread at the Mail, that “generic case” could not prove the accusations against the specific journalists and the specific investigators involved in Mail articles about the Claimants.
  
  
  “47. […] Showing that journalist A tended to use UIG [Unlawful Information Gathering] cannot prove that journalist B did the same, unless there are very unusual circumstances. Further, Associated is a company, and it can only act through its staff or agents. Even if the Court were to make the finding – urged by the Claimants – that Associated "widely and habitually carried out or commissioned illegal or unlawful information gathering activities for the purposes of obtaining, preparing or furthering the publication of articles in its newspapers" that would not help prove whether UIG happened in any specific case. The focus must be on the specific journalist or TPI [Private Investigator] involved in the Article or incident in question – not others who were not involved. So, the general claims made by the Claimants against Associated – even if they could be substantiated – cannot support their individual cases. That is also why I reject Mr Sherborne's argument that proving the "scale of wrongdoing" is relevant to resolving the Claimants' claims.”​
  
  
• In the court case between the Duke of Sussex and others and the Mirror’s publisher, Judge Fancourt complained the claimants introduced “a mass of individual details, disputes and documents […] in an attempt to maximise the range of possible findings of wrongdoing”, which obscured “the really important issues”. Judge Nicklin did not want this outcome to repeat. (Paragraph 40.)
  
  
• “Courts must strive to avoid allowing a civil case to turn into a public inquiry […] It is not usually the Court's role, in civil litigation, to investigate whether a wrong was done.” (Paragraph 43.)

Given how many members of the public consider all tabloid reporters a monolithic entity, the judge’s paradigm is refreshingly different: In this court case, wrongdoing at the Mirror or Sun is not attributable to the Mail, and wrongdoing by Mail Journalist A is not attributable to Mail Journalist B.

I thought the cases were all finished, is there still more ongoing?. I thought he had won the case with the Mail,

 

[An Ard Ri]

The duchess of Sussex has shared a social media post with photo and with birthday wishes to "ladies" who live "both near and far" by sending a beautifully packaged box of her rosé wine.
The post did not reveal which ladies were being sent the birthday wishes and the As Ever Rose Wine package.
Meghan Markle sends birthday wishes 'both near and far' amid Queen Camilla's 78th celebrations

 

[shady lady]

The duchess of Sussex has shared a social media post with photo and with birthday wishes to "ladies" who live "both near and far" by sending a beautifully packaged box of her rosé wine.
The post did not reveal which ladies were being sent the birthday wishes and the As Ever Rose Wine package.
Meghan Markle sends birthday wishes 'both near and far' amid Queen Camilla's 78th celebrations

She just can't help herself, can she? If she has friends with birthdays today, she could name them so we know she's on the level, or she could wish them a happy birthday privately; but she just can't resist. I find it rather funny and very predictable - perhaps we could introduce a yawn emoji for comments? (not aimed at the poster, but at the industrious Ms Markle).

 

[Mirabel]

The Halo Trust does a lot of good.

The question that I have been trying to grapple with is if having somebody like Harry as a Patron adds anything to a charity these days. The toxicity that accompanies Harry and Meghan, entirely down to their own actions in recent years, cannot, IMO, be a positive in terms of helping the charity raise financing to support the good works they do.

Supposedly, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Harry's walk through the minefield instantly recalls Diana; while some may find it cringeworthy, it serves to reinforce the message that Harry is Diana's son.

 

[shady lady]

Supposedly, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Harry's walk through the minefield instantly recalls Diana; while some may find it cringeworthy, it serves to reinforce the message that Harry is Diana's son.

Just in case there might be one or two people out there who don't know

IMO it is also PH trying to claim Diana all for himself, which is not funny.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I thought the cases were all finished, is there still more ongoing?. I thought he had won the case with the Mail,

No, only the Duchess of Sussex won a case against the Mail, in 2021, after she sued the Mail for publishing a letter from her to her father without her permission (but with her father's permission).

 

[Hallo girl]

No, only the Duchess of Sussex won a case against the Mail, in 2021, after she sued the Mail for publishing a letter from her to her father without her permission (but with her father's permission).

Is this still the hacking case?

 

[taogg]

No, only the Duchess of Sussex won a case against the Mail, in 2021, after she sued the Mail for publishing a letter from her to her father without her permission (but with her father's permission).

Wow, how many cases have actually been closed, and how many are still ongoing?