The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 -

[OwlBranch]

The name of Prince Harry appears in papers from the suit against Sean Diddy.

“Record producer Rodney 'Lil Rod' Jones' filed the bombshell lawsuit against Diddy and claims that his 'affiliation' to the Duke of Sussex and other stars gave him and his associates 'legitimacy'.”

Prince Harry dragged into $30m lawsuit against Sean 'Diddy' Combs

Record producer Rodney 'Lil Rod' Jones' filed the bombshell lawsuit against Diddy and claims that his 'affiliation' to the Duke of Sussex and other stars gave him and his associates 'legitimacy'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What a misleading story! Prince William was pictured with Sean Diddy at the same event but the trash tabloid cropped him out! Once again, "They are willing to tell lies to protect [other royals] but won't tell the truth to protect [Harry and Meghan]"

A few days ago, they were trying to accuse Harry and Meghan of altering their photos only for the photographers to issue strong rebuttal. The photographer even released the original photo, but no apologies from the gutter press.

 

[Hallo girl]

William is in the background of the photograph I have seen but we are maybe looking at two different photographs.

Could I just edit that they both look young i.e. late teens. in this photograph.

 

[miss whirley]

The lawsuit where Harry's named is mentioned, says it's relevant to events post-Sept 2022. So either Harry stayed in touch with Diddy for 15+ years or they recently reconnected. I know Diddy is close to Kim Kardasian and Corey Gamble (who Harry recently skied with), so those connections might be fostered that way. It's interesting Meghan isn't listed, nor did she go skiing with Corey Gamble, maybe she was more wary of that connection, while Harry jumped in head first.

 

[Marengo]

If even just some of these stories are true it is shocking that only now the whole story is revealed and Mr. Combs got away with what he did for so long. it seems inconceivable that the US entertainment press did not know about this, considering it seems so wide spread and involving so many people.

So far the Duke has just been mentioned as a contact? That does not necessarily mean anything at this point.

 

[Somebody]

Harry is mentioned as someone you could gain access to (as in be connected to) by attending his parties.

 

[HRHHermione]

I’m inclined to treat this as not being serious for Harry at this point, since nothing is publicly known about any contact they have had since about 2007. It will be interesting to see if more comes out though.

 

[OwlBranch]

If even just some of these stories are true it is shocking that only now the whole story is revealed and Mr. Combs got away with what he did for so long. it seems inconceivable that the US entertainment press did not know about this, considering it seems so wide spread and involving so many people.

So far the Duke has just been mentioned as a contact? That does not necessarily mean anything at this point.

The Telegraph story, which is behind a paywall, so not available to the general public, who will only read the misleading headline states:

"The Duke has only met Combs once, The Telegraph understands, and has never attended any of his parties or concerts." Isn't it convenient that this was not the headline?

[…]

 

[Ghost]

The Telegraph story, which is behind a paywall, so not available to the general public, who will only read the misleading headline states:

"The Duke has only met Combs once, The Telegraph understands, and has never attended any of his parties or concerts." Isn't it convenient that this was not the headline?

[…]

Here’s the archived article from the telegraph.

Prince Harry named in Sean 'Diddy' Combs sexual assault lawsuit

archived 26 Mar 2024 13:40:08 UTC

archive.is

 

[EllieCat]

It does seem unfair to Harry. Royals meet famous people all the time for one reason or another. And none of the Royals have been gifted, to my knowledge, with the ability to look into a person's soul to see if that person should be avoided. And it seems to me, looking on from afar, that many celebrities are extremely clever in hiding their malefactions from the world.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

It basically seems like Diddy was or has name dropped Prince Harry before. Because he did meet him once and he now lives around the corner.

Incredibly disingenious reporting to report this without mentioning that Harry only met him once, it was with Prince William who also met Diddy and at a Diana awards ceremony.

 

[yukari]

Here's the court documents if anyone is interested:

https://t.co/AaVN3XHgoN

 

[Hallo girl]

It basically seems like Diddy was or has name dropped Prince Harry before. Because he did meet him once and he now lives around the corner.

Incredibly disingenious reporting to report this without mentioning that Harry only met him once, it was with Prince William who also met Diddy and at a Diana awards ceremony.

So who is name dropping Harry in the court papers if he only met him once. Could I also ask
How you can be sure that they have only met once.
I find it interesting that you take issue with the newspaper for publishing but not the person who put his name in the court papers in the first place, if they hadn’t done that there wouldn’t be a reason for the media to mention Harry.

 

[Curryong]

Have there been any reports, observations from friends of Combs, let alone photos of Harry and Combs together since 2007? Because, if there has been you can be sure the British tabloids and other media would have picked up on it in the last 24 hours.

Combs’ own comments in 2011 on the Graham Norton show when he was visiting the UK made it clear that he would like to catch up with the brothers, but hadn’t seen them since the Diana Concert four years before.

 

[yukari]

Harry is not the only celebrity mentioned in the court paper. Names like Mariah Carey and Jay-Z are also mentioned there. And his name is only mentioned once (page 63):

Mr. Combs was known for throwing the “best” parties. Affiliation with, and or sponsorship of Mr. Combs sex-trafficking parties garnered legitimacy and access to celebrities such as famous athletes, political figures, artist, musicians, and international dignitaries like British Royal, Prince Harry.

The events covered in this lawsuit are ones that happened between September 2022 to November 2023 in which Harry has already been living in the US, so IF there's any photo proof of their association within that period, the possibility is higher for American media (like TMZ or Page Six) to get it before British media.

The 2011 interview is not the last time P Diddy name-dropping Harry, in 2017 he also bragged about performing for Harry's stag-do in an "exclusive chat" with the Daily Star Sunday. (Note: it's the Daily Star which basically a tabloid. I can't find anything about whether he really performed at the stag-do or any indication that they were even in contact between 2007 to 2017.) But this interview proves that P Diddy did brag about his affiliation with Harry (though, who know whether this affiliation is/was true or just in P Diddy's imagination).

 

[Curryong]

Well, if P Diddy was at Harry’s stag do, it managed to go completely un-noticed by media and friends as William and a pack of other pals gathered at a private house in the English countryside for the do.

Inside Prince Harry's secret stag do: Tennis courts, fireworks & more

The Duke of Sussex's stag do antics also included boxing and a shooting range

www.hellomagazine.com

So, I’d say that even if P Diddy DID give an interview to this tabloid he was doing some baseless boasting.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

He's a Prince. Prince Harry. Princess Diana's son. A plenty of American celebrities and entertainers who have met him even once would likely boast about it and name drop at times.

 

[Erin9]

So who is name dropping Harry in the court papers if he only met him once. Could I also ask
How you can be sure that they have only met once.
I find it interesting that you take issue with the newspaper for publishing but not the person who put his name in the court papers in the first place, if they hadn’t done that there wouldn’t be a reason for the media to mention Harry.

In this case- the Media isn’t picking on Harry. He was mentioned as being used for access in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is based on events from the last few years. The media is just reporting what it said.

The photo, I guess, is the only public evidence that Harry and Combs ever met. It’s a very old photo though- and that William is in it is irrelevant because he is not named in the lawsuit.

 

[OwlBranch]

So who is name dropping Harry in the court papers if he only met him once. Could I also ask
How you can be sure that they have only met once.
I find it interesting that you take issue with the newspaper for publishing but not the person who put his name in the court papers in the first place, if they hadn’t done that there wouldn’t be a reason for the media to mention Harry.

The Telegraph reported that they only met once. Of course, you are free to take that with a grain of salt. They are 100% at fault, because they published a misleading headline and misleading photo, based on nothing. The story and the photo are circulating on the Internet and is perpetuating a false narrative.

The person who drafted the court document is probably some lowly law clerk typing this up late at night. They are American and probably not familiar with royal gossip. How could they anticipate such unhinged and unethical headline from the gutter press?

There are many other celebrities mentioned in the document and this morning Daily Fail is dragging Jennifer Lopez over her history of dating P. Diddy. I feel sorry for JLo.

Why do people find bad news about Harry more believable than good news? Other members of the royal family have been friends with/partied with shady characters, but they don't get nearly as much scrutiny (except maybe Andrew, which is well deserved)

 

[muriel]

He's a Prince. Prince Harry. Princess Diana's son.

I would have thought being the son of the current King of the UK, and the grandson of the longest reigning Queen of the UK would count for more than being the son of the former wife of the then heir to the throne.

 

[HRHHermione]

The person who drafted the court document is probably some lowly law clerk typing this up late at night

The idea that it’s a drafting error seems incredibly far-fetched, as does the idea that this lawsuit was written by anyone but the plaintiff’s lawyer. We can all agree that we do not know or understand why the plaintiff, Rodney Jones Jr., and his lawyer chose to include Prince Harry’s name in this lawsuit, but his inclusion is a fact. It may be frivolous, which we will know based on how the lawsuit resolves.

 

[Marengo]

The Telegraph reported that they only met once. Of course, you are free to take that with a grain of salt. They are 100% at fault, because they published a misleading headline and misleading photo, based on nothing. The story and the photo are circulating on the Internet and is perpetuating a false narrative.

What was misleading about the headline of the Telegraph? The headline says the DoS was named, and his name was indeed in the papers that were made public. And what was misleading about the photo? They probably looked for a photo of the Prince with the American celebrity, as the whole news was about him and that person. And they found one and used it. If the newspaper is misleading, how should we judge their statement that the DoS met Mr. Combs only once?

The person who drafted the court document is probably some lowly law clerk typing this up late at night. They are American and probably not familiar with royal gossip. How could they anticipate such unhinged and unethical headline from the gutter press?

It is not the responsibility of legal clerks to protect celebrities or royals. It would be rather curious if we expect the legal system to treat celebrities differently than other citizens.

Why do people find bad news about Harry more believable than good news? Other members of the royal family have been friends with/partied with shady characters, but they don't get nearly as much scrutiny (except maybe Andrew, which is well deserved)

I am not sure there is anybody on this forum who so far has said they believe this 'bad news' means that the Duke has done anything out of order or even has met Mr. Combs in private. In fact everybody seems to agree that the association does not need to mean anything.

 

[Somebody]

The Telegraph reported that they only met once. Of course, you are free to take that with a grain of salt. They are 100% at fault, because they published a misleading headline and misleading photo, based on nothing. The story and the photo are circulating on the Internet and is perpetuating a false narrative.

The person who drafted the court document is probably some lowly law clerk typing this up late at night. They are American and probably not familiar with royal gossip. How could they anticipate such unhinged and unethical headline from the gutter press?

There are many other celebrities mentioned in the document and this morning Daily Fail is dragging Jennifer Lopez over her history of dating P. Diddy. I feel sorry for JLo.

Why do people find bad news about Harry more believable than good news? Other members of the royal family have been friends with/partied with shady characters, but they don't get nearly as much scrutiny (except maybe Andrew, which is well deserved)

I am quite sure The Telegraph does not know exactly how many times Harry met which person. So there claim is either based on that one picture or on someone in Harry's circle claiming this.

There is evidence of Harry meeting him at least once, whether they have met few or many times since we do not know. Mr. Combs himself stated that he did his stag-do and the plaintiff (Rodney Jones) in this court case claims that mr Coombs provides access to many celebrities, including Harry (as the most famous of them all? Otherwise he wouldn't have been included by name). It could indeed be that mr Combs is only bragging about all his connections or the plaintiff has evidence that mr Combs indeed was able to connect people to Harry.

Among the financial benefits that the Defendants Lucian Charles Grainge, Ethiopia Habtemariam, Motown Records, Love Records, and Universal Music Group received for participating in and facilitating Combs’ sex-trafficking venture were the affiliation and access to Mr. Combs popularity. Mr. Combs was known for throwing the “best” parties. Affiliation with, and or sponsorship of Mr. Combs sex-trafficking parties garnered legitimacy and access to celebrities such as famous athletes, political figures, artist, musicians, and international dignitaries like British Royal, Prince Harry.

It seems that the claims made by the plaintiff about access to celebrities are based on claims made by the defendants:

Defendants benefitted financially from their scheme to defraud Plaintiff, including by making
false representations that claim that loyalty and obedience to Mr. Combs will result in cash
payments ($250,000), Grammy awards, access to future projects, access to famous celebrities,
access to famous athletes, a $20 million home on Star Island in Miami.

So, hopefully, all of this turns out to indeed be mainly about name-dropping; and not about close connections between Harry and mr Combs and his buddies.

 

[OwlBranch]

The idea that it’s a drafting error seems incredibly far-fetched, as does the idea that this lawsuit was written by anyone but the plaintiff’s lawyer. We can all agree that we do not know or understand why the plaintiff, Rodney Jones Jr., and his lawyer chose to include Prince Harry’s name in this lawsuit, but his inclusion is a fact. It may be frivolous, which we will know based on how the lawsuit resolves.

I did not say this is a drafting error. I was trying to say the person who wrote Prince Harry's name is probably not a royal follower and probably does not have any idea the impact this will have.

The Telegraph on the other hand, absolutely knows what they are doing by trying to smear Prince Harry. People see the photo and only see Prince Harry, not realizing that his brother has been cropped out of the picture.

Would the Telegraph dare to publish such headline if Prince William was named in the suit instead?

Harry and Meghan are not perfect, but the double standard of the toxic UK press is just too blatant.

 

[HRHHermione]

I did not say this is a drafting error. I was trying to say the person who wrote Prince Harry's name is probably not a royal follower and probably does not have any idea the impact this will have.

The person who wrote the lawsuit is a lawyer whose only job is representing his or her client. This would never have been a concern of theirs.

 

[Erin9]

I’m

I did not say this is a drafting error. I was trying to say the person who wrote Prince Harry's name is probably not a royal follower and probably does not have any idea the impact this will have.

The Telegraph on the other hand, absolutely knows what they are doing by trying to smear Prince Harry. People see the photo and only see Prince Harry, not realizing that his brother has been cropped out of the picture.

Would the Telegraph dare to publish such headline if Prince William was named in the suit instead?

Harry and Meghan are not perfect, but the double standard of the toxic UK press is just too blatant.

I fail to see anything wrong with William being cropped out of a photo because he’s….not named in the lawsuit. It’s pretty simple. William is irrelevant to this subject.

The lawyer drafting this doesn’t care about the impact of naming ANYONE in this lawsuit. It’s not their job.

Well- William has not been named in a lawsuit of this nature. So- no one can actually state what would happen.

 

[TLLK]

I did not say this is a drafting error. I was trying to say the person who wrote Prince Harry's name is probably not a royal follower and probably does not have any idea the impact this will have.

The Telegraph on the other hand, absolutely knows what they are doing by trying to smear Prince Harry. People see the photo and only see Prince Harry, not realizing that his brother has been cropped out of the picture.

Would the Telegraph dare to publish such headline if Prince William was named in the suit instead?

Harry and Meghan are not perfect, but the double standard of the toxic UK press is just too blatant.

Prince William was not named by Mr. Rodney Jones in the lawsuit. He used Prince Harry as an example of the type of public figures that Mr. Sean Combs had met. Therefore I can understand why The Telegraph as well as other publications chose to crop the photo to focus on Prince Harry.
Now if Prince William had been named and not Prince Harry, then yes I do believe that The Telegraph would have published the same headline and used a cropped photo just showing Prince William with Sean Combs.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I'm sure HRH The Duke of Sussex will be fine. Awkward photos haven't hurt members of the BRF too much.

 

[Alison H]

The lawsuit states that:

“Mr Combs was known for throwing the ‘best’ parties. Affiliation with, and/or sponsorship of Mr Combs’ sex-trafficking parties garnered legitimacy and access to celebrities such as famous athletes, political figures, artists, musicians and international dignitaries like British royal Prince Harry.”

As Harry is the only person, royal or otherwise, specifically named, then logically the newspaper articles focus on him. How exactly is that "toxic" or "double standards". The whole thing's ridiculous because Harry's only met P Diddy once, and that was nearly 20 years ago, but the newspapers are only reporting what's been filed in the lawsuit.

 

[TLLK]

I'm sure HRH The Duke of Sussex will be fine. Awkward photos haven't hurt members of the BRF too much.

Goodness knows that there have been plenty of "Awkward photos" with members of the BRF since the 19th century.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I would have thought being the son of the current King of the UK, and the grandson of the longest reigning Queen of the UK would count for more than being the son of the former wife of the then heir to the throne.

I don't think you understand how popular Diana was in the US, and by extension, her sons. We know who their father and grandmother are, but most people associate them with their mother.