Prince William’s Lawyer Tries to Suppress Rumors of Affair

[Anonymous]

The Daily Beast generally sucks. It is just regurgitating the In Touch story -- I agree PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we assuming Willis chested? There is 0 evidence.

Hmm, let's see:

- Because he's been sending out threats left and right to newspapers
- Called in his legal team when he hasn't done that in nearly a decade and couldn't have cared less when anything else was written about him
- He has a history of dropping Kate and dating multiple women
- His marriage is...problematic
- Two reporters have outright said the cheating rumors were accurate
- He's threatening legal action based on his privacy rights NOT libel
- Oh, and Rose is his type

I just need citations on the above. Some of your bullet points are hearsay or exaggerated. (Or opinions, which I’ll let ride)

DP. Another report today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-affair-rumors-summon-the-long-shadow-of-prince-charles-adultery?ref=home

Also re-upping the story from yesterday and earlier:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-lawyer-tries-to-suppress-rumors-of-affair?ref=home

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kate-middletons-alleged-feud-with-former-model-is-the-weirdest-royal-story-of-the-year

It’s so tempting to go with that, but you have to lol at each individual sentence of those stories. They make it seem so official but in a lawyerly way, they know exactly what they are doing.

Most of the sentence in the three daily beast links are sourcing back to the InTouch article. Why didn’t you just link to that?

It’s because once one publication puts something out there, the the other pubs can just link back to that. They become this (non-) journalistic chain of rumors. Keep tracing and keep tracing.

The in touch article at best relies on “sources,” but 1) again, they only quote the source twice. The other sentences make it seem like they’re quoting he source because it’s in between the source quotes. But really, that’s just conjecture from InTouch. Read carefully.

And 2) who is the source? Really doubt someone who was there for Kate confronting will (if it happened) would be talking.

When I say cite your bullets, I mean give me a link per bullet. And concrete ones too.

The limited press coverage is the point. It hasn't been a story except for the first oblique Sun coverage of the "falling out" between Kate and Rose, and the Richard Kay's seriously weird piece in the Daily Mail. William bringing out big gun lawyers and alleging violation of his "human rights"(!) is a bizarre move that just elevates unsubstantiated Norfolk gossip into a story with legs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we assuming Willis chested? There is 0 evidence.

Hmm, let's see:

- Because he's been sending out threats left and right to newspapers
- Called in his legal team when he hasn't done that in nearly a decade and couldn't have cared less when anything else was written about him
- He has a history of dropping Kate and dating multiple women
- His marriage is...problematic
- Two reporters have outright said the cheating rumors were accurate
- He's threatening legal action based on his privacy rights NOT libel
- Oh, and Rose is his type

I just need citations on the above. Some of your bullet points are hearsay or exaggerated. (Or opinions, which I’ll let ride)

DP. Another report today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-affair-rumors-summon-the-long-shadow-of-prince-charles-adultery?ref=home

Also re-upping the story from yesterday and earlier:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-lawyer-tries-to-suppress-rumors-of-affair?ref=home

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kate-middletons-alleged-feud-with-former-model-is-the-weirdest-royal-story-of-the-year

It’s so tempting to go with that, but you have to lol at each individual sentence of those stories. They make it seem so official but in a lawyerly way, they know exactly what they are doing.

Most of the sentence in the three daily beast links are sourcing back to the InTouch article. Why didn’t you just link to that?

It’s because once one publication puts something out there, the the other pubs can just link back to that. They become this (non-) journalistic chain of rumors. Keep tracing and keep tracing.

The in touch article at best relies on “sources,” but 1) again, they only quote the source twice. The other sentences make it seem like they’re quoting he source because it’s in between the source quotes. But really, that’s just conjecture from InTouch. Read carefully.

And 2) who is the source? Really doubt someone who was there for Kate confronting will (if it happened) would be talking.

When I say cite your bullets, I mean give me a link per bullet. And concrete ones too.

The limited press coverage is the point. It hasn't been a story except for the first oblique Sun coverage of the "falling out" between Kate and Rose, and the Richard Kay's seriously weird piece in the Daily Mail. William bringing out big gun lawyers and alleging violation of his "human rights"(!) is a bizarre move that just elevates unsubstantiated Norfolk gossip into a story with legs.

I’ve brought this up before.

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

[Anonymous]

Afford = affair

[Anonymous]

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

I think what you are saying is actually a bit backward. There is a group of royal fans who think that the BRF mantra is never-complain/never-explain. William's taking this action seems to bring way more oxygen to the story than an idle rumor without much sourcing deserves. That is what is baffling about this latest move. It's perceived as unusual from the BRF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

I think what you are saying is actually a bit backward. There is a group of royal fans who think that the BRF mantra is never-complain/never-explain. William's taking this action seems to bring way more oxygen to the story than an idle rumor without much sourcing deserves. That is what is baffling about this latest move. It's perceived as unusual from the BRF.

The younger royals (William and Harry) are doing things differently. They aren’t letting the press get away with crap like the older royals did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we assuming Willis chested? There is 0 evidence.

Hmm, let's see:

- Because he's been sending out threats left and right to newspapers
- Called in his legal team when he hasn't done that in nearly a decade and couldn't have cared less when anything else was written about him
- He has a history of dropping Kate and dating multiple women
- His marriage is...problematic
- Two reporters have outright said the cheating rumors were accurate
- He's threatening legal action based on his privacy rights NOT libel
- Oh, and Rose is his type

I just need citations on the above. Some of your bullet points are hearsay or exaggerated. (Or opinions, which I’ll let ride)

DP. Another report today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-affair-rumors-summon-the-long-shadow-of-prince-charles-adultery?ref=home

Also re-upping the story from yesterday and earlier:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-lawyer-tries-to-suppress-rumors-of-affair?ref=home

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kate-middletons-alleged-feud-with-former-model-is-the-weirdest-royal-story-of-the-year

It’s so tempting to go with that, but you have to lol at each individual sentence of those stories. They make it seem so official but in a lawyerly way, they know exactly what they are doing.

Most of the sentence in the three daily beast links are sourcing back to the InTouch article. Why didn’t you just link to that?

It’s because once one publication puts something out there, the the other pubs can just link back to that. They become this (non-) journalistic chain of rumors. Keep tracing and keep tracing.

The in touch article at best relies on “sources,” but 1) again, they only quote the source twice. The other sentences make it seem like they’re quoting he source because it’s in between the source quotes. But really, that’s just conjecture from InTouch. Read carefully.

And 2) who is the source? Really doubt someone who was there for Kate confronting will (if it happened) would be talking.

When I say cite your bullets, I mean give me a link per bullet. And concrete ones too.

The limited press coverage is the point. It hasn't been a story except for the first oblique Sun coverage of the "falling out" between Kate and Rose, and the Richard Kay's seriously weird piece in the Daily Mail. William bringing out big gun lawyers and alleging violation of his "human rights"(!) is a bizarre move that just elevates unsubstantiated Norfolk gossip into a story with legs.

I’ve brought this up before.

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

That’s the point - the royals never respond. Never complain, never explain is not just a mantra, it’s an existence. William fully knows that but for some reason he’s desperate this time and did. Why? What could scare him to threaten legal action based on violation of ‘his human right to privacy’? Maybe reporters printing the truth - all of it.

Also why not file for LIBEL? Because if he did, knowing the affairs were fact, and they proved it - well, that would be a can of worms the BRF would not be able to handle.

[Anonymous]

So accuse (mildly) a royal of doing anything, and you can get away with it, apparently.

Because they can’t complain or explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

I think what you are saying is actually a bit backward. There is a group of royal fans who think that the BRF mantra is never-complain/never-explain. William's taking this action seems to bring way more oxygen to the story than an idle rumor without much sourcing deserves. That is what is baffling about this latest move. It's perceived as unusual from the BRF.

The younger royals (William and Harry) are doing things differently. They aren’t letting the press get away with crap like the older royals did.

This seems like a really stupid hill on which William would die. It wasn't more than a loose rumor that got some momentary twitter play until he blew it up. Now he's suing to stop it when it would have died on the vine if he had ignored it. Its' not the same as the nude pictures of Kate or Harry's press release about the racist coverage of Meghan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So accuse (mildly) a royal of doing anything, and you can get away with it, apparently.

Because they can’t complain or explain.

Considering we just watched a newlywed, pregnant royal go through this exact thing for a year...YES.

The rule was Kensington Palace wasn’t saying anything in defense because well that’s what royals do - they take it.

Meanwhile William gets caught in a rosebush - immediate threats and yelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

I think what you are saying is actually a bit backward. There is a group of royal fans who think that the BRF mantra is never-complain/never-explain. William's taking this action seems to bring way more oxygen to the story than an idle rumor without much sourcing deserves. That is what is baffling about this latest move. It's perceived as unusual from the BRF.

This. And it’s also contrary to how he’s treated rumors about him and Jecca Craig- those have been around for years and he never did anything about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So accuse (mildly) a royal of doing anything, and you can get away with it, apparently.

Because they can’t complain or explain.

Considering we just watched a newlywed, pregnant royal go through this exact thing for a year...YES.

The rule was Kensington Palace wasn’t saying anything in defense because well that’s what royals do - they take it.

Meanwhile William gets caught in a rosebush - immediate threats and yelling.

Even Kensington Palace realized that waiting for the trolls and haters to stop was the wrong way to handle things.

Times change. Responses change too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we assuming Willis chested? There is 0 evidence.

Hmm, let's see:

- Because he's been sending out threats left and right to newspapers
- Called in his legal team when he hasn't done that in nearly a decade and couldn't have cared less when anything else was written about him
- He has a history of dropping Kate and dating multiple women
- His marriage is...problematic
- Two reporters have outright said the cheating rumors were accurate
- He's threatening legal action based on his privacy rights NOT libel
- Oh, and Rose is his type

I just need citations on the above. Some of your bullet points are hearsay or exaggerated. (Or opinions, which I’ll let ride)

DP. Another report today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-affair-rumors-summon-the-long-shadow-of-prince-charles-adultery?ref=home

Also re-upping the story from yesterday and earlier:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-lawyer-tries-to-suppress-rumors-of-affair?ref=home

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kate-middletons-alleged-feud-with-former-model-is-the-weirdest-royal-story-of-the-year

It’s so tempting to go with that, but you have to lol at each individual sentence of those stories. They make it seem so official but in a lawyerly way, they know exactly what they are doing.

Most of the sentence in the three daily beast links are sourcing back to the InTouch article. Why didn’t you just link to that?

It’s because once one publication puts something out there, the the other pubs can just link back to that. They become this (non-) journalistic chain of rumors. Keep tracing and keep tracing.

The in touch article at best relies on “sources,” but 1) again, they only quote the source twice. The other sentences make it seem like they’re quoting he source because it’s in between the source quotes. But really, that’s just conjecture from InTouch. Read carefully.

And 2) who is the source? Really doubt someone who was there for Kate confronting will (if it happened) would be talking.

When I say cite your bullets, I mean give me a link per bullet. And concrete ones too.

The limited press coverage is the point. It hasn't been a story except for the first oblique Sun coverage of the "falling out" between Kate and Rose, and the Richard Kay's seriously weird piece in the Daily Mail. William bringing out big gun lawyers and alleging violation of his "human rights"(!) is a bizarre move that just elevates unsubstantiated Norfolk gossip into a story with legs.

I’ve brought this up before.

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

That’s the point - the royals never respond. Never complain, never explain is not just a mantra, it’s an existence. William fully knows that but for some reason he’s desperate this time and did. Why? What could scare him to threaten legal action based on violation of ‘his human right to privacy’? Maybe reporters printing the truth - all of it.

Also why not file for LIBEL? Because if he did, knowing the affairs were fact, and they proved it - well, that would be a can of worms the BRF would not be able to handle.

Because then there would be a trial about whether or not it happened, since the defence would be truth. And so even if it didn't happen, there would have to be pleadings and evidence about it - and the royal family would never allow that. On the other hand, if the press had genuinely incontrovertible evidence that it happened, they would publish it. Unlikely that a judge would grant an injunction preventing this publication, and there would be ways around it anyway. Signed, British person who used to work for a well-known British newspaper.

[Anonymous]

I still think it’s possible he didn’t do it.

If he did no biggie, they’ll handle it. But honestly I think a hater planted crap.

My other theory is: if it’s true... it was Rose who purposely got the rumors going. A spurned mistress would do that. Kate forces them to break it off. Rose says “I dare you.” Kate does anyway... and this is what you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we assuming Willis chested? There is 0 evidence.

Hmm, let's see:

- Because he's been sending out threats left and right to newspapers
- Called in his legal team when he hasn't done that in nearly a decade and couldn't have cared less when anything else was written about him
- He has a history of dropping Kate and dating multiple women
- His marriage is...problematic
- Two reporters have outright said the cheating rumors were accurate
- He's threatening legal action based on his privacy rights NOT libel
- Oh, and Rose is his type

I just need citations on the above. Some of your bullet points are hearsay or exaggerated. (Or opinions, which I’ll let ride)

DP. Another report today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-affair-rumors-summon-the-long-shadow-of-prince-charles-adultery?ref=home

Also re-upping the story from yesterday and earlier:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-williams-lawyer-tries-to-suppress-rumors-of-affair?ref=home

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kate-middletons-alleged-feud-with-former-model-is-the-weirdest-royal-story-of-the-year

It’s so tempting to go with that, but you have to lol at each individual sentence of those stories. They make it seem so official but in a lawyerly way, they know exactly what they are doing.

Most of the sentence in the three daily beast links are sourcing back to the InTouch article. Why didn’t you just link to that?

It’s because once one publication puts something out there, the the other pubs can just link back to that. They become this (non-) journalistic chain of rumors. Keep tracing and keep tracing.

The in touch article at best relies on “sources,” but 1) again, they only quote the source twice. The other sentences make it seem like they’re quoting he source because it’s in between the source quotes. But really, that’s just conjecture from InTouch. Read carefully.

And 2) who is the source? Really doubt someone who was there for Kate confronting will (if it happened) would be talking.

When I say cite your bullets, I mean give me a link per bullet. And concrete ones too.

The limited press coverage is the point. It hasn't been a story except for the first oblique Sun coverage of the "falling out" between Kate and Rose, and the Richard Kay's seriously weird piece in the Daily Mail. William bringing out big gun lawyers and alleging violation of his "human rights"(!) is a bizarre move that just elevates unsubstantiated Norfolk gossip into a story with legs.

I’ve brought this up before.

It’s witch trial-esque (I’m not using witch trial to mean “witch hunt.”) to say that a response to an accusation means it’s true.

If true, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.
If untrue, and there’s an accusation, they can choose to respond or not respond.

I don’t know, if someone started publishing hints about your marriage, and you hadn’t done anything...you wouldn’t try to defend yourself?

Surely the royals know the game theory. They’re not going to get caught (if the afford is true) in such an easy trap as “IF you respond, it must be true.”

That’s the point - the royals never respond. Never complain, never explain is not just a mantra, it’s an existence. William fully knows that but for some reason he’s desperate this time and did. Why? What could scare him to threaten legal action based on violation of ‘his human right to privacy’? Maybe reporters printing the truth - all of it.

Also why not file for LIBEL? Because if he did, knowing the affairs were fact, and they proved it - well, that would be a can of worms the BRF would not be able to handle.

Because then there would be a trial about whether or not it happened, since the defence would be truth. And so even if it didn't happen, there would have to be pleadings and evidence about it - and the royal family would never allow that. On the other hand, if the press had genuinely incontrovertible evidence that it happened, they would publish it. Unlikely that a judge would grant an injunction preventing this publication, and there would be ways around it anyway. Signed, British person who used to work for a well-known British newspaper.

By that logic, the British press would have published the proof they had on Charles and Camilla. They didn't though. He had been seriously 'dating' Camilla since 1980 - flying her on British taxpayer funds along with him on tours to different countries too.

So tell me - not a single photo of Camilla boarding Charles' plane, them canoodling at the houses everyone knew they were going to for their affair, or kissing in 30 years. PLEASE.

The British press doesn't give a flying fig about legitimacy and because of them Charles was able to lie with a straight face all the way through the early 2000s. Even in 1992 with his separation from Diana a direct quote from his office said 'his close friendship with Ms. Camilla Parker-Bowles had nothing to do with his deteriorating marriage'. That's some bullshit and everyone knows it. The British newspapers are usually in the back pocket of the BRF to protect the heirs. William is just mad that someone somewhere stopped covering for him.