Prince Harry’s friends have long pointed out his brash nature.
They will tell you that Harry really is a type of guy who starts with acting and thinks later.
His wife Meghan Markle, without being impatient, is a woman who enjoys quick, decisive action, as the book Find freedom clearly. The incremental nature of royal committee decision-making was always likely to be a difficult task for the Sussexes.
Prince William, on the other hand, appeared to come to terms with the slow and steady creed that is winning the race of the royal establishment. He and his wife Kate Middleton are now following the traditional royal strategy of doing nothing to scare the horse; they appreciate caution when making waves.
The two couples’ contrasting personalities have fueled many aspects of their lives, but are currently most publicly visible in their ongoing wars against the media.
The Sussexes and the Cambridges hate the media as much as they do, but they lead the conflict in very different ways.
On Wednesday this week, by a coincident timing oddity, the contrasting strategies were carefully presented for all to see.
Prince William issued a measured statement endorsing the BBC’s decision to commission a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Martin Bashir’s interview with Princess Diana 25 years ago.
In a statement issued by Kensington Palace, the Duke said: “The independent investigation is a step in the right direction. This should help establish the truth behind the actions that led to the Panorama interview and subsequent decisions made by members of the BBC at the time.
It later emerged that he was liaising with the BBC on the best way forward over the previous two weeks.
Meanwhile, hours earlier, on the Sussex side, Meghan was forced to embarrassingly admit that yes, she had in fact provided personal and private information to a friend and told him they could use it to let Omid know Scobie and Carolyn Durand, the authors of the book Find freedom.
In new documents filed with the High Court in its privacy and copyright case against the publishers of the Mail on SundayMeghan’s lawyers have revealed that she worries the ‘her father’s story’ – that she had abandoned him and cut off contact – could be repeated, prompting her to intervene.
Meghan says she gave her version of events to someone else for her to pass on, so that “the real position … can be communicated to the authors to avoid any further misrepresentation.”
The idea that Meghan and Harry or their surrogates had no entry in the book Find freedom has long been considered by most observers to be completely laughable.
Yet as recently as September, the Duchess’s legal team were in court documents vigorously denying allegations that she collaborated on the book, as being ‘fake’, ‘fantastic’ and ‘conspiracy theory’.
They argued that instead of obtaining information from confidential sources, the authors had only “put together a great deal of information”.
the Mail responded with a small gathering: A long list of details from the book, such as his innermost thoughts, which they believed could only have come from Meghan and Harry, or sources authorized by them. And if these stories were all made up, they asked, then why didn’t Harry and Meghan object to their publication?
However, the amended court documents reveal that the Duchess did in fact allow a contact to notify the authors of the book so they can convey “the real position.”
Meghan continues to insist in the new documents that she has not told Scobie or Durand about the book, has never met them, or been interviewed formally or informally.
Sadly, however, an acknowledgment in the book itself reads: “We spoke with close friends of Harry and Meghan, royal assistants and palace staff (past and present), charities and organizations with which they have built lasting relationships and, when appropriate, the couple themselves.
The overall impression is of William and Kate acting with calm poise, as Harry and Meghan shoot from the hip, then have to mark the i’s and cross the t’s afterwards. (Representatives for both families declined to comment on this article to The Daily Beast.)
Indeed, that Harry and Meghan rushed into the action with excessive haste has been suggested by many observers since the time of October last year, when, while concluding a tour of Southern Africa, Harry has dramatically announced that Meghan is suing Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the hated Daily mail and Mail on Sunday, on an article published in the Mail on Sunday reproducing parts of a private letter Meghan wrote to her father.
The extraordinary declaration of all-out war on the press stunned observers, not least because it completely overshadowed their tour.
At first glance, it looked like Meghan had a waterproof case; the copyright of a letter belongs to the author, not the recipient, so the fact that Meghan’s father gave it to the Mail and asked them to publish it was irrelevant. And whatever the copyright, how could posting a private letter be anything other than an invasion of privacy?
the Mail, however, have consistently landed this defense, alleging that the letter was not a true private communication if, as they claim, Meghan herself disclosed parts of it to the press (which she still denies) and l ‘wrote with help from her press (Meghan admitted in the new material that her press secretary had read it and offered ideas, but denies writing it.)
“The Mail must be seriously mistaken before giving in.“
– David hooper
Retired star defamation lawyer David Hooper, author of the founding books Public scandal, odium and contempt and Reputation under fire told the Daily Beast he thought Meghan and Harry may have “miscalculated” by “thinking that they could, through muscle exercise, overwhelm the Mail on Sunday. the Mail must be seriously mistaken before giving in.
Hooper predicts that while a trial “might not be as bad for them as it is for Johnny Depp,” they should prepare for a “ridiculous” trial in the courtroom in which they are likely to be described as ” second-rate celebrities rather than popular celebrities. members of the royal family that they were.
Hooper says that, in his opinion, the legal arguments are finely balanced, and it is difficult to confidently predict a convincing victory, a desirable position from which to proceed when considering the costly activity of legal action. .
Interestingly, there was a development in Harry’s phone hacking case this week as well. Harry is claiming damages in excess of $ 260,000, saying he was targeted as early as 12 and ended up questioning his relationships with close friends and family before having a complete breakdown of confidence as a result of the articles.
This is the kind of case that Harry is right to pursue, says Hooper. “While it is true that his phones were hacked and the facts are not in dispute, if it has been done since he was a schoolboy and he was dating girls, and people were taking messages on his answering machine, a lot of damage. “
#Prince #William #Prince #Harry #wage #media #wars