My takeaways from this episode in the life of Prince Harry:
1. Granted that Meghan might not have wanted to be in court because she wouldn't have wanted (certainly) to take attention away from this important occasion, why isn't she in a hotel room in London, waiting to wrap her arms around him as he staggers back? They've had no compunction about leaving their children before, why wouldn't she have gone? It's strange to me. Zoom calls can't comfort a man who's just been clobbered on the stand.
2. If the main reason that Chelsy left Harry was because of illegal intrusion, with the implication being that it was a major watershed in her life, one that she hasn't been able to move on from . . . why hasn't she publicly backed his claim? Were she to have added her voice to all of his mentions of her, this would have been powerful because, after all, it was her privacy that was invaded as well. Chelsy gave an interview to the Tatler in 2020. The author, Sacha Forbes mentions that prior to that interview Chelsy had admitted at another time that she found press intrusion in her relationship with Harry "scary and uncomfortable." But that's in the past, the rest of the article talks about how Chelsy has gone on to different pursuits and was, at the time of writing, bouncy and happy. And, Forbes says, wisely reticent about Harry's then-current life: "But when I ask what she thinks about the intense level of scrutiny that the couple have been under, she pauses and tells me firmly: ‘I would really rather not say anything about Harry and Meghan.’" Would that Harry had respected Chelsy in return!
I wouldn't be surprised if Harry wins his case because, as many journalists have pointed out, the bar in civil cases is notoriously low for "hard evidence". The newly coined (by Harry and his team) term "hard evidence of suspiciousness" might just sway the judge. I hope not.
I also thought it strange Meghan wasn't here, what with salt and pepper move together, and he sees this as such an important moment. I can't see a victory for Harry here, but I'm no expert!
Very few of the people who posted extensively on the flaws in Harry's testimony have posted anything about Jane Kerr's (the Mirror journalist) testimony that followed. So I looked at other Twitter accounts--non hateful ones--and had to agree with their questioning why that was. It sounds, from what they quoted, that she avoided questions every bit as much as Harry did. I try really hard to get to "the" truth rather than my or anyone else's so I am just wondering why no one has reported on Jane Kerr to say that her testimony wasn't detrimental to the Mirror's defense. I don't "want" Harry to win mainly because it's all about HIM and not really about the tabloids; the Press has been paying and paying for years and as, social media as shown, the Press are simply feeding into our own appetite for glimpses into the lives of the privileged. If Harry wins he will continue to moan and I just want him and Meghan and the other privileged people who want attention/don't want attention to just go away and live their privileged lives.
I thought her quite credible actually and think she's very different from Harry. I know myself the frenetic pace writers and reporters have to keep most times, and it's very difficult to go back a few months let alone years! JJ Anisiøbi, a journalist who has written numerous stories about Harry defended her quite well on Jeremy Vine - and worth noting he usually defends Harry!
He said he's personally had 10,000 plus tips about the royals over the years, loads about Harry in particular, emails or phone calls "oh Harry's been out here I saw him..." and there's his story. He said it would be impossible for any journalist, even the best journalist, to remember details of something 15 years ago. (none of this was considered controversial at time, just another story, you didn't think anything of it) You get tips, investigate, write a story, file it and move on, it's a very quick process. I know that myself with the freelance writing I do!
I'm going to see if I can post his comments here with a twitter link
thanks for always reading and commenting Valerie! great chats!
Yes after I posted that I saw the interview with him and was happy that he backed her up even though he said that often he was sympathetic to Harry. So glad to hear from someone like that too! I hope that the judge feels the same way!!
also - just want to add that people hear 'investigator' and think something sinister.
today, we can all look up anyone (far too easily in my opinion!) right at home on our computers or phone. 20-30 years ago, so if you wanted a name and address you had to use an investigator. sounds barmy but it was just basic, "get me contact info on this person" all the news orgs did it all the time, even the most reputable, it's how they find the people at the centre of any big story.
so admitting they used private investigators, all of them did for basic research because the online world was in its infancy
That’s so true! Even on old police shows like Law & Order you can see how much things have changed. From the New York cops using public telephones to make their calls when out on the street to the big clunky cellphones…. Or the phones that were wired into police cars. Do you know if each side does a final summing up because I think Green should point that ou.
Harry previously led a sheltered life, protected by his royal family. I think he’s probably in shock by what’s going on for him. He and Meghan have been relentless in their negativity. It’s time to reevaluate and do some quiet introspection.
Well said. Harry needs therapy, real supportive therapy, and he need to get far away from the internet, emails, texting, and most of all social media. He needs to go back to landlines and letter writing. Go on walks, read books, do puzzles, and slowly restore his relationship with those that actually do love him, his family.
I definitely wasn't expecting such a thin approach.
I do wonder if they thought his fame and profile would be enough - and didn't see his popularity and reputation cratering quite the way it has these past few months.
I just watched Robert Jobson and Jack Royston on True Royalty; they implied that Harry will probably win the case because the bar is so low for what he had to “prove”. I felt their discussion and reasons were well laid out. I know I mentioned that others have said he could win despite our impressions and, again, I wish he wouldn’t win because it will only embolden him to pursue his negativity.
They're right the bar is low, but I do think Harry's side need more than "suspicion" - as Green pointed out several times, past complaints included extensive phone data. Harry's case seems to be "because they were doing it to others, safe bet they were doing it to me as well" and I'm not sure that's enough even with low bar.
The best lines in an altogether excellent analysis: "This is the life Harry has chosen? He walked away from his Royal platform to live in chaos and courtrooms?"
How can anyone persist with this unrelenting and self-created turmoil? What does that do to your family life, your relationships, your well-being?
I could almost feel sympathy for Harry except that his true purpose is entirely clear and base: what he really wants is to control all negative press coverage of himself and Meghan. In other words, censorship.
My takeaways from this episode in the life of Prince Harry:
1. Granted that Meghan might not have wanted to be in court because she wouldn't have wanted (certainly) to take attention away from this important occasion, why isn't she in a hotel room in London, waiting to wrap her arms around him as he staggers back? They've had no compunction about leaving their children before, why wouldn't she have gone? It's strange to me. Zoom calls can't comfort a man who's just been clobbered on the stand.
2. If the main reason that Chelsy left Harry was because of illegal intrusion, with the implication being that it was a major watershed in her life, one that she hasn't been able to move on from . . . why hasn't she publicly backed his claim? Were she to have added her voice to all of his mentions of her, this would have been powerful because, after all, it was her privacy that was invaded as well. Chelsy gave an interview to the Tatler in 2020. The author, Sacha Forbes mentions that prior to that interview Chelsy had admitted at another time that she found press intrusion in her relationship with Harry "scary and uncomfortable." But that's in the past, the rest of the article talks about how Chelsy has gone on to different pursuits and was, at the time of writing, bouncy and happy. And, Forbes says, wisely reticent about Harry's then-current life: "But when I ask what she thinks about the intense level of scrutiny that the couple have been under, she pauses and tells me firmly: ‘I would really rather not say anything about Harry and Meghan.’" Would that Harry had respected Chelsy in return!
I wouldn't be surprised if Harry wins his case because, as many journalists have pointed out, the bar in civil cases is notoriously low for "hard evidence". The newly coined (by Harry and his team) term "hard evidence of suspiciousness" might just sway the judge. I hope not.
I also thought it strange Meghan wasn't here, what with salt and pepper move together, and he sees this as such an important moment. I can't see a victory for Harry here, but I'm no expert!
Very few of the people who posted extensively on the flaws in Harry's testimony have posted anything about Jane Kerr's (the Mirror journalist) testimony that followed. So I looked at other Twitter accounts--non hateful ones--and had to agree with their questioning why that was. It sounds, from what they quoted, that she avoided questions every bit as much as Harry did. I try really hard to get to "the" truth rather than my or anyone else's so I am just wondering why no one has reported on Jane Kerr to say that her testimony wasn't detrimental to the Mirror's defense. I don't "want" Harry to win mainly because it's all about HIM and not really about the tabloids; the Press has been paying and paying for years and as, social media as shown, the Press are simply feeding into our own appetite for glimpses into the lives of the privileged. If Harry wins he will continue to moan and I just want him and Meghan and the other privileged people who want attention/don't want attention to just go away and live their privileged lives.
I thought her quite credible actually and think she's very different from Harry. I know myself the frenetic pace writers and reporters have to keep most times, and it's very difficult to go back a few months let alone years! JJ Anisiøbi, a journalist who has written numerous stories about Harry defended her quite well on Jeremy Vine - and worth noting he usually defends Harry!
He said he's personally had 10,000 plus tips about the royals over the years, loads about Harry in particular, emails or phone calls "oh Harry's been out here I saw him..." and there's his story. He said it would be impossible for any journalist, even the best journalist, to remember details of something 15 years ago. (none of this was considered controversial at time, just another story, you didn't think anything of it) You get tips, investigate, write a story, file it and move on, it's a very quick process. I know that myself with the freelance writing I do!
I'm going to see if I can post his comments here with a twitter link
thanks for always reading and commenting Valerie! great chats!
https://twitter.com/JeremyVineOn5/status/1666756853563367424?s=20
Yes after I posted that I saw the interview with him and was happy that he backed her up even though he said that often he was sympathetic to Harry. So glad to hear from someone like that too! I hope that the judge feels the same way!!
also - just want to add that people hear 'investigator' and think something sinister.
today, we can all look up anyone (far too easily in my opinion!) right at home on our computers or phone. 20-30 years ago, so if you wanted a name and address you had to use an investigator. sounds barmy but it was just basic, "get me contact info on this person" all the news orgs did it all the time, even the most reputable, it's how they find the people at the centre of any big story.
so admitting they used private investigators, all of them did for basic research because the online world was in its infancy
That’s so true! Even on old police shows like Law & Order you can see how much things have changed. From the New York cops using public telephones to make their calls when out on the street to the big clunky cellphones…. Or the phones that were wired into police cars. Do you know if each side does a final summing up because I think Green should point that ou.
Well written, and I agree with it 100%.
Harry previously led a sheltered life, protected by his royal family. I think he’s probably in shock by what’s going on for him. He and Meghan have been relentless in their negativity. It’s time to reevaluate and do some quiet introspection.
thank you Nancy! And I agree, they need a massive reset.
Well said. Harry needs therapy, real supportive therapy, and he need to get far away from the internet, emails, texting, and most of all social media. He needs to go back to landlines and letter writing. Go on walks, read books, do puzzles, and slowly restore his relationship with those that actually do love him, his family.
That's first step isn't it - turn the phone and social media off! thanks for reading and commenting Andrea!
I don't know how UK courts work, but it seems to me that in the US system, his attorneys would risk being sanctioned for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
I definitely wasn't expecting such a thin approach.
I do wonder if they thought his fame and profile would be enough - and didn't see his popularity and reputation cratering quite the way it has these past few months.
Thanks Cath!
I just watched Robert Jobson and Jack Royston on True Royalty; they implied that Harry will probably win the case because the bar is so low for what he had to “prove”. I felt their discussion and reasons were well laid out. I know I mentioned that others have said he could win despite our impressions and, again, I wish he wouldn’t win because it will only embolden him to pursue his negativity.
They're right the bar is low, but I do think Harry's side need more than "suspicion" - as Green pointed out several times, past complaints included extensive phone data. Harry's case seems to be "because they were doing it to others, safe bet they were doing it to me as well" and I'm not sure that's enough even with low bar.
We'll see!
The best lines in an altogether excellent analysis: "This is the life Harry has chosen? He walked away from his Royal platform to live in chaos and courtrooms?"
How can anyone persist with this unrelenting and self-created turmoil? What does that do to your family life, your relationships, your well-being?
I could almost feel sympathy for Harry except that his true purpose is entirely clear and base: what he really wants is to control all negative press coverage of himself and Meghan. In other words, censorship.
It's a strange life choice isn't it? They have money, a gorgeous home, healthy children, yet dwell in constant negativity. So unhealthy.
thanks for reading Iris!