[arista]

BBC News Text :
[The Guardian also leads with the Prince Harry case
but opts for the headline that he claimed
Queen Elizabeth II had herself threatened
Rupert Murdoch's media firm with
legal action - but was "undermined" by
the then-Prince Charles.]

[jet]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...liam-rczwz9xms

Prince Harry’s phone-hacking claim has ‘inconsistencies’A judge has questioned why the claim filed in 2020 failed to mention a secret deal that allegedly prevented the duke taking action earlier

The Duke of Sussex appears to have “factual inconsistencies” in his legal claim about being a victim of hacking, a senior judge said.
Mr Justice Fancourt said he has concerns about Harry’s account of an alleged secret deal by the royal family, which he says prevented him bringing legal action earlier.

Harry, 38, has accused the late Queen of being involved in an agreement with the publisher of The Sun and the News of the World. He says his brother secretly accepted a “very large sum” in compensation from the publisher in 2020.
The judge questioned why details of Harry’s legal claim filed in 2020 failed to include the alleged secret deal which the duke now says means the publisher accepted it would not try to block his compensation claim because it was too old.

The judge added: “Another thing that is troubling is what appears to be a factual inconsistency in the current pleaded cases that the Duke of Sussex did not have the knowledge [of the alleged wrongdoing] before 2019 and your proposed amendment seems to say he would have brought the claim in 2012 but for the secret agreement.”
Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, said the claim in 2012 would have been “totally different”. He said there was a “draft” of an amended particulars of claim which contains the alleged secret deal.
The judge replied: “I am talking about the factual inconsistencies in the case as pleaded.”
……….
Harry completely contradicts himself in his usual paranoid state, and once again reveals private information about William settling his own case. He fails to mention that William donated the compensation he received to charity….

[jet]

Originally Posted by arista

BBC News Text :
[The Guardian also leads with the Prince Harry case
but opts for the headline that he claimed
Queen Elizabeth II had herself threatened
Rupert Murdoch's media firm with
legal action - but was "undermined" by
the then-Prince Charles.]

The Palace has categorially denied that there was any 'secret deal' and William had 'settled' (as many others did at the time in the phone hacking scandal), simply to avoid having to appear in court to give evidence.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by jet

The Palace has categorially denied that there was any 'secret deal' and William had 'settled' (as many others did at the time in the phone hacking scandal), simply to avoid having to appear in court to give evidence.

They would say that wouldn’t they.