The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023

[Prinsara]

Sorry but he does have defenders. It is true that even his worst behaviour like the mocking of his matron, has been defended by some people. However largely speaking, the Book Spare seems to have shown a picutre of him that most people felt they did not like.

Since Pat the Matron continues to attract so much interest, there is further text about her that I'm not sure has been publicized:

Only the newest and stupidest boys would go to Pat with a problem. Or worse, a cut. She wouldn't bandage it: she'd poke it with a finger or squirt it with something that hurt twice as much. She wasn't a sadist, she just seemed "empathy-challenged".

Pat has probably not been identified and Harry's account and adolescent response has not been challenged because she seems to have treated everyone equally poorly, and Ludgrove probably doesn't want to admit they employed someone who could not do the job and provide a proper standard of care for children.

I don't recall Eugenie or anyone else with a similar condition treating minors in their care poorly or simply failing to do their jobs, not due to a physical condition but by choice.

 

[Moran]

No one challenged much of what Harry said in Spare, though. Overall, it's been treated with derision - not necessarily because it was true.

Personally, I don't believe the part of Pat being this "empathy-challenged". Harry tried to show himself as the angel who wanted to make this cruel being laugh. Oh he was so good... No way any human being would be this eager to make someone like this laugh.

It sounded like a justification on Harry's part, IMO.

What is more important, as someone with a physical problem I don't appreciate anyone being mocked for a problem that mirrors mine. Their personality doesn't matter. You attack their character, OK. You mock their problem - you're mocking me, buddy. Don't act surprised when I am not your bestie anymore.

The squirting something painful over the cut sounds like a normal way of treating one, though. I experienced this more than once as a child because I always found my way to all kind of places and instruments I wasn't supposed to go near.

 

[Ghost]

Since Pat the Matron continues to attract so much interest, there is further text about her that I'm not sure has been publicized:



Pat has probably not been identified and Harry's account and adolescent response has not been challenged because she seems to have treated everyone equally poorly, and Ludgrove probably doesn't want to admit they employed someone who could not do the job and provide a proper standard of care for children.

I don't recall Eugenie or anyone else with a similar condition treating minors in their care poorly or simply failing to do their jobs, not due to a physical condition but by choice.

So you think she “deserved” to be mocked by Harry?

 

[Prinsara]

So you think she “deserved” to be mocked by Harry?

No, but I think it was Ludgrove's job to provide competent staff and this woman's literal terms of employment to understand she had minors in her care and treat them at the level every one of her colleagues seemed to, before it was a thirteen year old boy's not-literal job to be polite to someone who inflicted physical pain on him and everyone he knew.

Harry went to school with dozens if not hundreds of others who could and probably would have contradicted him by now. No one has. Ludgrove, iirc, got faintly embarrassed about the lice detailing but has said nothing about Pat. No defence of their hard-working innocent employee, school sensitivity training, or staff practices.

Perhaps she should stop automatically being used to attack him until the point we ever get more details.

 

[Ghost]

Of course. But on one hand we don’t know how accurate Harry’s description is (remember “so called objective facts”) and on the other hand my problem is with him and his character, that lady or Ludgrove didn’t try to make money selling Harry’s story, it’s the other way around.

 

[Moran]

No, but I think it was Ludgrove's job to provide competent staff and this woman's literal terms of employment to understand she had minors in her care and treat them at the level every one of her colleagues seemed to, before it was a thirteen year old boy's not-literal job to be polite to someone who inflicted physical pain on him and everyone he knew.

Perhaps she should stop automatically being used to attack him until the point we ever get more details.

I'll make sure to tell my grandmother that she inflicted an insufferable physical pain on me each time she doused me in disinfectants without bandaging me because the cuts weren't this deep.

Perhaps he should not automatically be believed each time he cried he was a victim when there is another, simpler explanation.

And of course the school wouldn't want to call the King's son a liar. And they shouldn't call more attention to a physically challenged, likely retired employee.

Harry isn't your average Joe so not everyone would contradict him over something that doesn't affect them directly.

 

[JR76]

I'll make sure to tell my grandmother that she inflicted an insufferable physical pain on me each time she doused me in disinfectants without bandaging me because the cuts weren't this deep. [emoji38]

As a kid I feared my mum's spray bottle of disinfectant more than I feared getting hurt in the first place.

 

[Prinsara]

Of course. But on one hand we don’t know how accurate Harry’s description is (remember “so called objective facts”) and on the other hand my problem is with him and his character, that lady or Ludgrove didn’t try to make money selling Harry’s story, it’s the other way around.

But Harry has been rapidly contradicted on a few things at this point: his flight instructor, Air New Zealand, the Xbox and I can't remember what else.

None of the many people who had the same school experiences have said — even anonymously — "she wasn't so bad, Harry was being a prat". Or "we were all prats to that lady, and looking back I'm horrified". Not even Ludgrove, in whose interest it would be, has said "we don't condone students mocking others and encourage a culture of safe, respectful behavior amongst students and all our staff" etc, etc.

That there hasn't been one iota of challenge to one of the more controversial and widely-witnessed stories in Spare seems to suggest that this one has more veracity to it.

I'll make sure to tell my grandmother that she inflicted an insufferable physical pain on me each time she doused me in disinfectants without bandaging me because the cuts weren't this deep.

Perhaps he should not automatically be believed each time he cried he was a victim when there is another, simpler explanation.

And of course the school wouldn't want to call the King's son a liar. And they shouldn't call more attention to a physically challenged, likely retired employee.

Harry isn't your average Joe so not everyone would contradict him over something that doesn't affect them directly.

The fact that Harry said none of the other Matrons treated students or their wounds like that and that everyone rapidly learned to avoid her seems to suggest it was not the only (or standard) method of treatment and only done by Pat.

I don't automatically believe Harry about every— or even many— things but I think there's quite a lot to suggest here that Pat was not a proper employee or suited to be around children at the time Harry interacted with her before we get to how a child was behaving.

 

[Alison H]

Harry's now claiming that "the Institution" (the Royal Family) withheld information from him about phone tapping, because they didn't want him to bring a lawsuit and "open up a can of worms".

He really is obsessed with "the Institution".

 

[Hallo girl]

But Harry has been rapidly contradicted on a few things at this point: his flight instructor, Air New Zealand, the Xbox and I can't remember what else.

None of the many people who had the same school experiences have said — even anonymously — "she wasn't so bad, Harry was being a prat". Or "we were all prats to that lady, and looking back I'm horrified". Not even Ludgrove, in whose interest it would be, has said "we don't condone students mocking others and encourage a culture of safe, respectful behavior amongst students and all our staff" etc, etc.

That there hasn't been one iota of challenge to one of the more controversial and widely-witnessed stories in Spare seems to suggest that this one has more veracity to it.



The fact that Harry said none of the other Matrons treated students or their wounds like that and that everyone rapidly learned to avoid her seems to suggest it was not the only (or standard) method of treatment and only done by Pat.

I don't automatically believe Harry about every— or even many— things but I think there's quite a lot to suggest here that Pat was not a proper employee or suited to be around children at the time Harry interacted with her before we get to how a child was behaving.

We seem to be making really big leaps here regarding a woman not one of us knows other than the comments in SPARE, the rest is conjecture.

This is turning into a witch hunt, not a nice look.

 

[Ghost]

One of the things that has to be argued is why they plantiffs believe the infomation could not have been obtained through other sources.
How can this be argued without revealing the infroamtion and placing it in the press again. This is why most of the celebrities (and I think) royals have frowned on this. Why dig up stuff that happened in the 1990's and 2000's? Just so you can have a moral victory in court?
Harry however is on a crusade against the tabliods. I just think he provide them with more stories to run about him.

And we might have an explanation. It’s always the big bad institution. I hope the link is acceptable.

Prince Harry says Royal Family 'without doubt' withheld information from him on phone hacking

The Duke of Sussex appeared in court for the second day today as he pursues his case against the Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers.

news.sky.com

 

[Claire]

I am afriad that Harry's head is more inflated than the Hindenberg.

In his witness statement, the royal said the British public deserves to know the full extent of what he calls "cover-ups" at the publisher, and said he feels it his "duty to expose it".
"Not only has [Associated] been acting outside the law, but it believes it is above it," he said.
"If the most influential newspaper company can successfully evade justice, then in my opinion the whole country is doomed."
The duke says he is bringing the claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) "because I love my country" and he remains "deeply concerned" by the "unchecked power, influence and criminality" of the publisher.
He added how he feels "unfair is not a big enough word" to describe the fact that ANL is trying through the four-day hearing to have the case dismissed without trial.
"I do not see why Associated should get away with something they have covered up and lied about for however many years," Prince Harry says.

The whole country is doomed if a tabliod that sometimes runs UFO and 3 headed babies on the cover is not brought to the heel of celebrities does make for an interesting arguement. I fail to understand how the institution kept the whole Levison Report from him. Did they hide newspapers? Keep the TV off - only allow him to watch Cartoon Network. The mind does boogle.
Either way - I love the fact that he suggests that the ANL should not be allowed to place a defense. Weird. I am pretty sure that ignorance is not a good reason to prevent him from not bringing the suit earlier. Either way Meghan got away with the forgetfulness excuse before.
Question - was any royal mentioned in the Levison report?

 

[Alison H]

I don't think so, but it mentioned various well-known celebs, was discussed in Parliament, was all over the media and more or less led to the closure of the News of the World, which was a very well-known Sunday tabloid. I'm not sure how "the Institution" could have stopped Harry from finding out about it, or how he suddenly found out about it when he left the UK, 8 years after the Leveson Report was published.

However, I'm sure we're all extremely grateful to know that we can rely on Harry to prevent the entire country from being "doomed". I'm not defending the actions of Associated Newspapers, if they're found guilty, but this is a wide-ranging case involving several claimants. He really does think that the world revolves around him.

 

[Granada]

I'm going to believe that Harry felt it was OK to mock and demean poor Pat. A disabled Matron no less. A generation plus older, that probably didn't coddle the kids too. Just got on with it. In the vein of Princess Anne or Prince Philip's personality.

I don't believe much of what Harry says or writes in Book. He has a mean spirited and arrogant attitude to me. If he doesn't 'like' someone, they are fair game to malign. Whether it be his Great Aunt Margaret or a employee with a challenging disability working at a private School full of rich and entitled Students.

Poor Lady.......

 

[Prinsara]

We seem to be making really big leaps here regarding a woman not one of us knows other than the comments in SPARE, the rest is conjecture.

This is turning into a witch hunt, not a nice look.

It's interesting that you're fine with "Harry mocked a disabled woman; case closed" being brought up at every opportunity in this thread, but calling it a witch hunt when I began by saying "maybe we should wait for more details", okay.

 

[Lilyflo]

I'm going to believe that Harry felt it was OK to mock and demean poor Pat. A disabled Matron no less. A generation plus older, that probably didn't coddle the kids too. Just got on with it. In the vein of Princess Anne or Prince Philip's personality.

I don't believe much of what Harry says or writes in Book. He has a mean spirited and arrogant attitude to me. If he doesn't 'like' someone, they are fair game to malign. Whether it be his Great Aunt Margaret or a employee with a challenging disability working at a private School full of rich and entitled Students.

Poor Lady.......

Harry didn't like Pat because "Unlike the other Matrons, Pat wasn't hot. Pat was cold. Pat was small, mousy, frazzled and her hair fell greasily into her always tired eyes."

He then has the gall to say that SHE was empathy challenged!

 

[Hallo girl]

It's interesting that you're fine with "Harry mocked a disabled woman; case closed" being brought up at every opportunity in this thread, but calling it a witch hunt when I began by saying "maybe we should wait for more details", okay.

I didnt say at any time that I was fine with "Harry mocked a disabled woman; case closed". If you could show me where I said that I will withdraw my post.

My post was in relation to comments being made about the womans suitability for the post of matron on this forum based on absolutely no evidence other than conjecture. I am not turning this into an argument, I have said my thoughts and will leave it at that.

 

[Claire]

I didnt say at any time that I was fine with "Harry mocked a disabled woman; case closed". If you could show me where I said that I will withdraw my post.

My post was in relation to comments being made about the womans suitability for the post of matron on this forum based on absolutely no evidence other than conjecture. I am not turning this into an argument, I have said my thoughts and will leave it at that.

It is interesting to note that despite the fact that Pat was well described in Spare. The press and other interested parties have not been able to identify her. I personal believe that she is made up. Now why would you make up a disabled person to show your contempt to them?

 

[Granada]

Arrogant Harry even has a go at his fellow Students too ! He just, made things in my eyes ....even worse.
"Only the newest AND STUPIDEST STUDENTS would go to Pat with a problem".....STUPIDEST students ? Wow.

Really Harry ? Maybe, just maybe they weren't as judgemental as you and all your "issues". Maybe they saw a side of Pat that comforted them. That eluded your snobby personality. And weren't put off, UNLIKE YOU, by her disability, OR SUPPOSED greasy hair or TIRED eyes".

What a rotten comment about an older, poorer, disabled and disadvantaged Woman !

Again, that poor woman and his fellow " STUPIDEST " Students.
He really is something......

"Pride cometh before the fall" Harry. Keep that in mind.

 

[Lee-Z]

While i'm certainly not a fan of the way Harry has been treating his family in his series, book, interviews etc, maybe some of the above is not really something for the 'news' thread?

 

[Lilyflo]

It is interesting to note that despite the fact that Pat was well described in Spare. The press and other interested parties have not been able to identify her. I personal believe that she is made up. Now why would you make up a disabled person to show your contempt to them?

I'm sure her family and previous colleagues have identified her but they aren't going to go to the press with it and bring more unwanted publicity to a disabled (and by now probably elderly) lady.

 

[Denville]

I'm sure her family and previous colleagues have identified her but they aren't going to go to the press with it and bring more unwanted publicity to a disabled (and by now probably elderly) lady.

Or possibley the woman's dead and they dont want to dredge things up from the past.

 

[yukari]

I am afriad that Harry's head is more inflated than the Hindenberg.

In his witness statement, the royal said the British public deserves to know the full extent of what he calls "cover-ups" at the publisher, and said he feels it his "duty to expose it".
"Not only has [Associated] been acting outside the law, but it believes it is above it," he said.
"If the most influential newspaper company can successfully evade justice, then in my opinion the whole country is doomed."
The duke says he is bringing the claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) "because I love my country" and he remains "deeply concerned" by the "unchecked power, influence and criminality" of the publisher.
He added how he feels "unfair is not a big enough word" to describe the fact that ANL is trying through the four-day hearing to have the case dismissed without trial.
"I do not see why Associated should get away with something they have covered up and lied about for however many years," Prince Harry says.

The whole country is doomed if a tabliod that sometimes runs UFO and 3 headed babies on the cover is not brought to the heel of celebrities does make for an interesting arguement. I fail to understand how the institution kept the whole Levison Report from him. Did they hide newspapers? Keep the TV off - only allow him to watch Cartoon Network. The mind does boogle.
Either way - I love the fact that he suggests that the ANL should not be allowed to place a defense. Weird. I am pretty sure that ignorance is not a good reason to prevent him from not bringing the suit earlier. Either way Meghan got away with the forgetfulness excuse before.
Question - was any royal mentioned in the Levison report?

I'm not sure about the Leveson Report 2012), but this BBC article from 2014 mentioned it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27413632

The phone-hacking trial was told Mr Goodman first hacked the now-Duchess of Cambridge's voicemail in December 2005.

He also hacked Prince William 35 times and Prince Harry on nine occasions.

This is the first time the jury has heard of William's phone being hacked. Mr Goodman, who denies conspiring to commit misconduct in public office, previously said he only hacked aides.

(...)

From Victoria Ward's (of the Telegraph) Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1640353763708862465

Court docs claim that Harry and his associates were targeted by PI Gavin Burrows, who is said to have “placed a hardwire tap” on friend Guy Pelly’s phone and unlawfully gathered information about his then girlfriend Chelsy Davy. He is also said to have targeted Carole Middleton.

So the question is whether Guy Pelly, Chelsey, and Carole were also included in the past inquiry/trial. But if not, why it's Harry suing and not the said person? Can you sue someone on someone else's behalf (and possibly without their consent since we hear nothing from those three)?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1640735466281369600

Harry says lawyers kept info about phone hacking at the NoTW from him and William “The Institution made clear we did not need to know anything about hacking & 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.”

More in The Times:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...al-family-of-phone-hacking-cover-up-z27p7ssl5
Archive


So does this means that this is the same hacking as the NotW's one?
Note: the BBC article from 2014 mentions Clive Goodman NotW editor) and Glenn Mulcaire (PI) while yesterday Harry's team pointed Gavin Burrows (PI). Interestingly, ANL's team claims that Burrows 'has provided a signed witness statement denying that he was commissioned or instructed by Associated to carry out any unlawful activity'.

Harry mentioned Rebekah Brooks in Spare so I think he's aware about the hacking scandal, but considering what he spewed in that book and how went for Meghan in her copyright lawsuit I can understand the RF's concern about opening a can of worms.

As for doing it for his country, I wonder would he start the same crusade in the US with their ridiculous tabloids and all their conspiracy theories (I mean no offence to American posters).

 

[Moran]

Once again presenting William and himself as a team. Still following the plan of 2023 being their year of reconciliation with the RF after they had thrown all the bombs their hearts desire, I see.

It's just poor form. Once you've distanced yourself from your family in such a way, you don't get to draw legitimacy for your claims from them.

 

[Alison H]

He's certainly referred to Chelsy's phone allegedly being hacked, and it sounds as if he means by Associated Newspapers. What I'm not getting is how "The Institution" supposedly kept information from him. He must surely have known that phone tapping went on, because the Leveson Report was all over everywhere. How would "the Institution" have known that his phone or Chelsy's had allegedly been hacked, if he didn't? And how could he not have known that he could take legal action about it - why didn't he just find out?!

 

[FigTree]

He's certainly referred to Chelsy's phone allegedly being hacked, and it sounds as if he means by Associated Newspapers. What I'm not getting is how "The Institution" supposedly kept information from him. He must surely have known that phone tapping went on, because the Leveson Report was all over everywhere. How would "the Institution" have known that his phone or Chelsy's had allegedly been hacked, if he didn't? And how could he not have known that he could take legal action about it - why didn't he just find out?!

Why does everything have to be the institutions fault? Why not the simple fault of the abhorrent practice of hacking. Why do they have anything to do with it. He is so angry he is blaring red. Learn some appropriate ways to deal with it.

You wanted your own way and they let you go and got on with their life. Where is the heroism. When Helen left Medulaus he started a war. When Paris left Oenone she got on with her.

They kept things from you? Maybe they were trying to protect you and as we all know he was one of the most cosseted people alive.

 

[Erin9]

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

Once again presenting William and himself as a team. Still following the plan of 2023 being their year of reconciliation with the RF after they had thrown all the bombs their hearts desire, I see.

It's just poor form. Once you've distanced yourself from your family in such a way, you don't get to draw legitimacy for your claims from them.

Totally agree with this. Harry should not be bringing William into this. IA- he is using William to bring legitimacy to this. Very inappropriate in my mind after everything he has said.

I see Harry felt the need to complain about “the institution” again.

Still rolling my eyes on Harry’s definition of what spells “doom” for his country.

 

[Moran]

Totally agree with this. Harry should not be bringing William into this. IA- he is using William to bring legitimacy to this. Very inappropriate in my mind after everything he has said.

I see Harry felt the need to complain about “the institution” again.

Still rolling my eyes on Harry’s definition of what spells “doom” for his country.

He complains about "the institution" but he's sure desperate to remind everyone what an integral part of the RF he is, how close he was to William, how royal he is.

It couldn't be that he doesn't have much else going for them, is it? He couldn't possibly need this sprinkle of royalty? Mummy Diana's memory not enough to keep him and his new mummy, the Diana reborn in the style they feel they deserve for the rest of their lives?

 

[Toledo]

Meanwhile back to the Court case...

Article from 12 mins ago from AsiaOne News
Prince Harry says tabloid's journalists are 'criminals'

Excerpt
"In his statement, released to the media on Tuesday (March 28), he said he wanted to hold Associated accountable for "everyone's sake".

"The British public deserve to know the full extent of this cover up and I feel it is my duty to expose it", he said..."

My opinion - a bit of grandiosity but considering the agitated visit to the UK he is still not thinking before speaking such strong words.

Article from Cinema Blend - 8 hrs ago

Prince Harry ... Claims It ‘Largely Deprived’ Him of His Youth

Excerpt:

"...Phone-tapping is among the unlawful methods that Prince Harry, Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and others are accusing ANL of employing in order to obtain information about them. King Charles III’s younger son said he was led to believe that people close to him were selling him out, which caused him to end friendships over suspicions about who was betraying him..."

My opinion and then I leave for the night:
He had a troubled childhood full of trauma and the man he is today is a consequence of that life and the reactions and rebellions against his family. Scars run deep and even if he and the other celebrities win the case, I have the feeling he still won't find peace in his mind.

I don't think after the coronation he should even consider returning to the UK. He needs to move on and reinvent himself in the USA, it's a big place and in time he'll find peace in his Montecito chicken farm.

 

[MARG]

Personally I think that the show of support was to place it in the press and to bring attention of the other celebrities that are not joining the law suit. I understand that it is still to be determined if the suit which is historical can be allowed to continue.
It might be interesting to find out why they have not previously sued. What has prevented them for 15 years?
I agree that the press should not be tapping phones and trying to get hold of your hospital records. But should that agreement be used entirely to stop the media.

Exuse me? Phone tapping is illegal. It was then and it still is now. As to why he and the others did not sue earlier, I would think it lies in the Levinson Report. The actual details of many detailed instances were not released nor published in an endeavor to avoid a riot I assume. However, those terms have been leaked which is why someone like Harry has found out personal invasions into his phone, etc, that he had not previously been aware of. In his case I believe that the Palace, once again in it's primary role to protecting the throne and direct line was more worried about the throne than the people. Finding out that pertinent information was kept from you from those you should be able to trust is a betrayal of trust.

Imo he (and other famous people) were there to bring attention to the court hearing. The date that was planned by the court and had nothing to do with Charles, William or anyone in the BRF. It would be ridiculous if Harry can't go to a court hearing he is a part of because it might conflict with the schedule of someone in the BRF (which would be every bloody day).

I .am sure that thought is furthest in his mind as he deals with the court. The fact that he is here, now, is the fault of what he has decided to refer to as The Institution!

I presume he has his own security men and he may have discreet RPOs in attendance. I dont see why he's being attacked about this. He si bound to occasionallly come to England. Is he supposed to refuse to come?

There are those that would banish him from the shores of the UK forever and have been snarling about every other little thing they can think of from his book as a reason that he should not have come, not be in the UK and certainly not part of a Class Action because according to them, he has no rights whatsoever because he did this or that or he's trying to upset his father and stepmother or William and Catherine. It is clear to me that as far as many posters on this thread are concerned he has absolutely no rights in general and no right to sue because more truth may inadvertantly be exposed that is not to the credit of those in BP or KP.