Kate is back. So can we finally ask: What was Christian Jones doing in that car?
While British media celebrate the Princess of Wales’s return, not one outlet has asked why William was seen with a former aide implicated in the Sussex leaks. I’m still asking.
This piece follows my earlier article Now That Kate Is Back – Can We Finally Talk About Kensington Palace's Credibility? which examined the unanswered questions surrounding her six-month absence.
During Princess Kate's illness, criticizing Kensington Palace was heavily sanctioned. Any criticism was reinterpreted as criticism of Kate. But now that she's healthy and back on her "royal duties," one unresolved question remains the most troubling:
Why was Christian Jones – the former aide implicated in key revelations about the Sussexes’ exile – photographed in Prince William’s convoy?
Not in 2020. Not before the scandal.
But in January 2024, after the world learned just how central he may have been.
The trigger for my questions
On January 18, 2024, Prince William was photographed arriving at the London Clinic, the hospital where his wife Catherine, Princess of Wales, was reportedly recovering from abdominal surgery. William sat in the first car of the convoy. In the vehicle directly behind him, to the surprise of some observers, was Christian Jones.
This was more than just a curious sighting. Jones, once William’s private secretary and formerly one of the most influential aides inside Kensington Palace, had officially left royal service in 2021 to work in private equity. And yet, here he was—three years later—at what appeared to be a highly private family hospital visit. Why?
The photo, largely overlooked by mainstream media, opens up a web of questions -questions that touch on loyalty, political influence, and the dark symbiosis between the Royal Family and sections of the British tabloid press. Because Christian Jones is not just a former palace aide. He is also a friend of Dan Wootton - one of the most aggressive media voices against Harry and Meghan. And this connection takes us directly into the heart of the “Megxit” drama.
Christian Jones: From Treasury to Palace Power Broker
Started as an economist at the UK Treasury under George Osborne.
Moved to the Brexit Department, then the Cabinet Office’s Europe Unit.
Joined Kensington Palace in 2018 as Deputy Communications Secretary advising both the Cambridges and Sussexes.
Within months, shifted to serve only William and Kate.
Became William’s private secretary and head of household after Simon Case left for Downing Street.
Left official royal duty in 2021, joining Bridgepoint, a private equity firm.
Despite stepping down, continued to "advise" the Cambridges.
Dan Wootton: From Editor to Attack Dog
originally from New Zealand,
rose to fame as executive editor at The Sun and
left The Sun in January 2021, for becoming an anchor on GB News and writing columns for MailOnline.
While not a royal reporter by trade, he became one of the fiercest haters of Harry and Meghan after 2019. On his GB News show, he daily aired multiple segments dedicated solely to attacking the couple.
From Indifference to Obsession: How Wootton Turned on Harry and Meghan
Dan Wootton’s sudden rise as the tabloid attack dog against the Sussexes was not an organic evolution of editorial interest—it was a pivot. And it came just months after a failed foray into reporting on William’s private life.
On 13 March 2019, Wootton published an article in The Sun reporting on an alleged falling out between Prince William and Kate and their Norfolk neighbours David Rocksavage and Rose Hanbury, whom the paper called Kate’s “rural rival.” The story suggested an affair - but it was swiftly and quietly removed from The Sun’s website. No explanation was given. However, the article had already circulated widely and triggered speculation that put William in a deeply uncomfortable spotlight.
According to a former friend of Wootton’s, quoted by Byline Times:
“Dan hated Prince William until around May 2019. Behind closed doors, he didn’t have a good word for him. He was always talking about his attitude. But Dan never criticised Harry, really. He never seemed to have much interest at all. Then, suddenly in the summer of 2019, he switched. Basically, he was hating on Harry and Meghan. He had previously been obsessed with Prince William. And then he switched to the Sussexes.” - Former friend (Byline Times)
That letter - meant to be private - ended up in Dan Wootton’s hands.
🟨 Byline Times reports that information about Harry and Meghan was sold to Wootton by an associate of Christian Jones, Prince William’s then-private secretary.
Suddenly, Wootton had direct access to privileged information, and the tone of his coverage turned relentlessly hostile. His show on GB News would later feature multiple anti-Sussex segments per night, often recycling the same narratives with minor variations—portraying Harry as ungrateful, Meghan as manipulative, and the couple as a destabilizing force within the monarchy.
This shift was not accidental and its consequences were far-reaching.
Megxit: Leaks, Sabotage, and the Collapse of Trust
By mid-2019, the atmosphere inside the Royal Household had become toxic for Harry and Meghan. After their wildly successful tour of Australia and the Pacific, the couple were increasingly seen—within palace circles—as a threat to the status quo. Not only were they modern, biracial, and charismatic; they were popular on a scale that eclipsed Charles, Camilla, William, and Kate.
As Endgame and Harry & Meghan (Netflix) reveal, that popularity came at a price.
They were welcomed warmly by the people, but treated coldly behind the scenes, Meghan later said.
Back in the UK, palace briefings to the press intensified. Meghan, then pregnant, faced a wave of brutal media coverage. Already in the winter of 2018/19 she was suicidal.
In search of relief, Harry and Meghan began quietly exploring the idea of relocating, with the Queen tentatively agreeing to a potential commonwealth posting in South Africa. But that plan was leaked and killed off. By the end of the year, they were on Vancouver Island, trying to regroup.
The Leak That Changed Everything
During this time, Harry wrote to his father Charles. The letter contained a confidential proposal: the Sussexes wished to step back from senior royal duties and establish a new working model, partly based in Canada.
But the letter leaked—and not just anywhere, but to Dan Wootton.
Byline Times reports:
“Information about Harry and Meghan had been sold to Dan Wootton (The Sun) by an associate of Christian Jones, Prince William’s then-aide.”
The timing of the leak forced the Sussexes’ hand. On January 8, 2020, before palace negotiations could be concluded, they posted their own announcement on Instagram, outlining their intention to leave their roles.
A legal source said to Byline Investigates in 2020:
“Moving to Canada, with all the ramifications that was going to have constitutionally and for the Royal family, was one of the biggest decisions of Prince Harry’s life, so the giving of this information to a tabloid, which then got to dictate the manner and timing of its announcement, is a serious breach of privacy.
“He has every right to feel aggrieved if there has been a betrayal of confidence.”
The response was swift and punishing.
The Sandringham Agreement: A One-Sided Exit Deal
Following the leak to The Sun and the Sussexes’ unexpected public announcement on January 8, 2020, the palace scrambled to take back control of the narrative. On January 13, senior royals—including the Queen, Charles, William, and Harry—met at Sandringham House for a so-called "crisis summit".
What emerged was the Sandringham Agreement: a rigid and punitive deal that imposed harsh limitations on Harry and Meghan in exchange for their departure.
The Sussexes:
Had to step back from all royal duties;
Were forbidden from using the title “HRH” (though they retained it legally);
Had to repay the Sovereign Grant funds spent on Frogmore Cottage;
Lost public funding and security protection;
Were stripped of Harry’s honorary military titles, which had been a key part of his identity and service;
Were offered a "transition year": a 12-month period after which the arrangement would be reviewed and potentially renegotiated.
But the deal was not based on mutual understanding. It was dictated.
Harry later described it in his memoir and interviews as a "take it or leave it" ultimatum, made under emotional and institutional pressure, while he and Meghan were already under extreme public scrutiny and private distress.
The one glimmer of compromise was the transition year—a safety net that would allow for a future return, if things won’t work. But this clause, too, was soon undermined.
The Threat, the Leak, and the Breach of Trust
Harry had uncovered the source of the leak that triggered the crisis:
Information from his private letter to Charles—the one outlining the Canada plan—had been passed to Dan Wootton via the partner of Christian Jones, Prince William’s private secretary.
Two whistleblowers who, as employees of The Sun, had access to the payment system contacted Nick Davis, the then already retired journalist who uncovered the phone hacking scandal at The Guardian in the early 10s. Among other things, they sent him an email stating:
“If a journalist is using someone’s [partner] to pay Prince William’s PR for information about his own brother and sister-in-law, that shouldn’t happen.”
Davies found the material so credible that he passed it on to Prince Harry’s lawyers. They not only passed it on to Neil Basu, the counterterrorism chief, but also prepared a lawsuit against The Sun, including Christian Jones’s name - and implicitly draw attention to William’s team.
Harry in Spare:
A legal expert said in 2020 to Byline Investigates:
“These whistle-blower claims have caused panic at The Sun. It is obviously a highly sensitive topic for The Sun and the Palace for different reasons.
The emails the whistleblowers gave to Davis also stated:
“Someone in editorial started questioning why stories that weren’t on the front page were getting thousands of pounds in fees. My friend says someone saw a string of payments within a few weeks to [the publicist, Jones’ partner] about royals and then asked who this person was. They couldn’t understand why a showbiz PR would have that kind of knowledge.”
Another Email of one of the whistlebowers to Davies said:
“Everyone there now has to undergo strict training to avoid corrupt payments, but at The Sun they are circumventing this. I know this because there is one case involving one of the top editors, Dan Wootton, that has been hushed up.”
“The impression my friend gave is that only a few people within The Sun know about it. They’ve told me before that when the connection was made between [Christian Jones’ partner, the publicist] and Jones there was a real sense of panic because Wootton is so powerful within that office.
“He deals directly with [chief executive] Rebekah Brooks on stories sometimes, he has his own radio show, and he’s forced out a lot of people as he’s moved up through the organisation. He’s tried and succeeded to get people sacked. He’s that powerful.”
A legal expert said in 2020 to Byline Investigates:
“The new legal development will be particularly unwelcome for publisher News UK, mired as it is in litigation over supposedly “historical” unlawful information gathering activities which, as recently as last month in the High Court in London, it insisted ended in 2010.
Prince Harry is already suing subsidiary News Group Newspapers (NGN) for alleged phone hacking and misuse of private information, as revealed last year by Byline Investigates, with a trial of the facts scheduled for the High Court in London in October 2020, where board-level allegations of wholesale destruction and concealment of evidence will be heard.
That’s when the palace intervened.
According to Endgame and Byline Times, Harry received a formal letter on Buckingham Palace stationery, signed by the Lord Chamberlain, Earl William Peel—an official closely aligned with Charles.
The Byline Times stated:
”Two well-placed sources have conrmed to this newspaper that Prince Charles’ private secretary Sir Clive Alderton and the then Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, a close friend of Prince Charles, strongly urged Prince Harry to have Jones’ name stripped from the record.”
According to Omid Scobie’s book Endgame:
“There on Buckingham Palace–headed paper, was a reply from the Lord Chamberlain at the time, Earl William Peel, who had a particularly close relationship with Charles. The letter included some of the most strong language seen on official household stationery, aimed at Harry, not Jones. ‘It was a threat,’ said a source… [The Lord Chamberlain] said either drop the charges or face severe consequences in twenty-four hours. A message from a lawyer for Jones, arranged by the Palace, soon followed. The decree: stand down from legal action against Prince William’s aide”
Harry refused.
What followed appeared to be retaliation.
One well-placed source with knowledge of the matter told Byline Times:
“They threatened the removal of the funding to try and protect the royal household from a potential court-room scandal with Jones and Wootton very publicly at the centre. The actual removal of the funding weeks later was about control, and designed to force Harry and Meghan to come back to the senior royal family in the UK where their security would be assured.”
All information comes from the following sources:
Byline Investigates: ROYAL EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry’s legal move over ‘cash-for-briefings’ claims at The Sun – The story Murdoch tried to bury
Byline Times: Revealed: The Emails Behind the Royal ‘Cash-For-Leaks’ Affair
Byline Times: In Plain Sight: The Picture the Palace Probe Missed
Byline Times: Exploding ‘Megxit’: How Dan Wootton and a Cash-for-Leaks Scandal Split the Monarchy
Byline Times: The Truth About Megxit: How Dan Wootton and a ‘Cash-For-Leaks’ Scandal Split the Royal Family
Breach of the Sandringham Agreement
Just weeks after the threat:
In March 2020, the Sussexes’ security was withdrawn—despite known, ongoing death threats.
In June 2020, financial support was cut off entirely.
Both actions violated the transition-year arrangement, which had guaranteed certain protections while the couple established their new life.
It was clear: the palace viewed Harry’s defiance not just as personal rebellion, but as a threat to the system itself.
And Christian Jones - by now officially in the private sector - remained protected, his relationship to the palace and to Dan Wootton left unexamined by both the press and legal authorities.
Dan Wootton: A Scandal in Three Acts
Catfishing – Misogyny – Connections to Power
I. Catfishing Allegations and Investigations
In July and August 2023, the Byline Times published an eight-part investigation revealing that Dan Wootton allegedly ran a years-long catfishing operation using false identities—including “Martin Branning” and “Maria Joseph”—to obtain sexually explicit content.
Allegations include:
Use of fake identities to lure men into compromising sexual acts
Offering up to £30,000 in cash, allegedly tax-free, in exchange for explicit content
Non-consensual sharing of private material and at least one reported case of blackmail
Evidence presented by Byline Times:
Matching passwords used across Wootton's real and pseudonymous accounts
Email addresses linked to Wootton’s personal domain
Victim testimony describing similar manipulation and coercion tactics
Byline Times:
“We have identified five co-conspirators, along with a representative group of around a dozen victims. However, sources suggest the true figure extends to many, many more men.”
Following publication:
MailOnline suspended Wootton’s column
News UK initiated an internal review
Wootton denied wrongdoing, claiming only “errors of judgment”
II. Police Inaction and Public Doubts
In February 2024, the Metropolitan Police closed the investigation, citing lack of evidence—despite the detailed materials provided by Byline Times. Many observers questioned this outcome.
Why does this matter?
Critics point out a pattern of law enforcement hesitation when cases might reach into elite circles.
Notably, Prince Andrew faced no UK charges in relation to the Epstein scandal, despite international scrutiny.
In August 2023, the “cash-for-honours” probe into King Charles's charity was also quietly dropped—despite documented evidence and whistleblower statements.
III. Misogyny on Air: The Fox–Wootton Incident
On September 26, 2023, actor Laurence Fox appeared on Dan Wootton Tonight and publicly mocked journalist Ava Evans, asking live on air:
“Would you shag that?”
Wootton laughed. He did not interrupt. He did not object.
The moment sparked:
8,867 complaints to Ofcom—the UK’s most complained-about broadcast of 2023
A swift suspension of both Fox and Wootton by GB News
In March 2024, Ofcom ruled the segment had been:
“Degrading and demeaning both to Ms. Evans and women generally”
Wootton was permanently dismissed from GB News.
He then announced plans to launch an independent media channel, outside of regulatory oversight.
IV. Kevin Sutherland’s Testimony and Disappearance
In July 2023, abuse survivor Kevin Sutherland publicly accused Wootton of drugging and raping him in 2014, after the MTV Europe Music Awards in Glasgow.
Sutherland, who had worked in the escort industry, described:
Being approached unexpectedly by Wootton, who had “done his homework” on him
A violent assault, during which Wootton allegedly called him:
“a worthless, nameless piece of shit”
A threatening call the next day, allegedly from someone acting on Wootton’s behalf
He reported the assault to police in 2021. No charges followed.
In December 2024, Kevin posted a “final announcement” on X (formerly Twitter), declaring his intent to end his life. He was later reported missing.
His last message read:
“Please ensure that people get to hear my story because I am not being listened to by this inquiry.”
Authorities searched the River Forth near Edinburgh. His disappearance raised serious concerns about how survivors are treated—and ignored.
Four Years of Silence – Then the Story Changed
For nearly four years, the story of “Megxit” as told above was unknown to the public. The official version of events surrounding "Megxit" remained largely unchallenged in mainstream British media. Harry and Meghan were portrayed as impulsive, disloyal, and self-absorbed. Their exit from the Royal Family was framed as a personal drama -not the result of a hostile environment or systemic dysfunction.
Byline Investigates had already published in June 2020 that information from Christian Jones' partner had been leaked to Dan Wootton and that Prince Harry intended to sue The Sun as a result. What Byline Investigates did not know at the time were details about the evidence, how this information had reached Prince Harry, and also nothing about the blackmailing by Buckingham Palace. And the information of Byline Investigates article hadn't made it into the mainstream press.
But in late 2023, that narrative began to unravel.
With the publication of Omid Scobie’s Endgame in December, and serveral publications by Byline Times in October, November and December, key facts finally entered the public record - facts that had never been confirmed or even discussed before.
These revelations didn’t just corroborate what Harry and Meghan had described in their Netflix series or in Harry’s memoir Spare.
They went far beyond what either of them had publicly disclosed.
Most notably:
The explicit threat issued by Buckingham Palace—demanding that Harry drop the matter or face severe consequences within 24 hours.
The immediate retaliation: the withdrawal of the couple’s security and financial support, in direct breach of the Sandringham Agreement.
Harry has never spoken publicly about this sequence of events.
Now, for the first time, it was laid out—not by the Sussexes, but by journalists with sources inside the palace and media world.
Together, Endgame and Byline Times revealed that the Sussexes’ departure was not simply a personal decision, but the culmination of a calculated campaign of pressure, betrayal, and institutional preservation.
However, the Bynline Times publications once again failed to make it into the mainstream media. While Scobie's book was widely discussed, the focus of the coverage was on the fact that the Dutch translation mentioned the names of the two people who had expressed concern about the primary color of Harry and Meghan's children: Charles and Catherine. The pressure exerted by Buckingham Palace, however, was not discussed.
April 2025: Dan Wootton Faces Civil Court Case Over Catfishing Allegations
On April 8, 2025, Dan Wootton was once again back in the headlines - this time as the defendant in a civil case at the Royal Courts of Justice. This is the first formal legal case to emerge from the Byline Times’ 2023 investigation, which exposed:
The Allegations
A former colleague, anonymized as YXN, has accused Wootton of:
Posing as a fictional woman named "Maria Joseph"
Sending him explicit photos and sex videos under this false identity
Deceiving him into sharing intimate images and an explicit video of himself
Causing him psychological harm through deceit and breach of privacy
The barrister Justin Levinson argued Wootton used a pattern of deception identical to that exposed by the Byline Times in 2023.
“The Claimant now brings this claim for damages for personal injuries and losses... consequent on the Defendant’s intentional infliction of harm, misuse of confidential information, infringement of privacy and deceit.”
- Justin Levinson, court submission
What We Know from YXN's Testimony
In court and to Byline Times, YXN described:
Receiving flirtatious messages from "Maria Joseph"
Recognizing inconsistencies in the story and eventually tracing the account back to Dan Wootton
Feeling embarrassed, manipulated, and emotionally harmed
“I messaged ‘Maria’ to say: ‘Hi Dan, interesting way to get dick pics.’ The next day, the profile was gone. It makes my blood run cold as to how vulnerable I had made myself.”
— YXN, Byline Times interview
The Network: When Power, Media, and Silence Intertwine
Dan Wootton is not just a disgraced presenter or a tabloid provocateur - he is a central figure in a highly toxic ecosystem of British power, media, and institutional protection.
From catfishing scandals to misogynistic on-air behavior, from alleged sexual blackmail to close ties with political and royal insiders, Wootton has long operated in a grey zone - one where accountability fades the closer a story gets to the powerful.
That’s why any link - even indirect - between Dan Wootton and Prince William must raise alarm bells. If Prince William, knowingly or unknowingly, shares proximity with someone like Christian Jones - who maintained personal ties to Wootton, and whose partner allegedly sold information about Harry and Meghan to Wootton - then we must interrogate the implications of such connections.
Because where access meets impunity, truth is endangered.
❓ Questions That Still Deserve Answers
And so, we are left with unresolved questions - questions that those in power might prefer remain unasked:
Why was Christian Jones - no longer on the royal payroll - riding in Prince William’s car convoy on January 18, 2024?
What is William's self-perception when he appears with Jones so soon after the revelations about Megxit and the role of Wootton and Jones?
What is the true nature of the relationship between Prince William and Christian Jones - and is there a relationship between William and Dan Wootton via Christian Jones?
Did Wootton, Jones, and William coordinate or enable the pressure campaign that ultimately forced Meghan to flee the UK?
Could Prince William himself have been one of Wootton’s catfishing victims - and if so, is there material being held that could serve as blackmail?
Why did the police drop the case against Wootton—despite extensive evidence? Did the investigation threaten to reach too far into Britain’s establishment? Perhaps even as far as the heir to the throne?
Christian Jones was more important to Charles than his own son. To protect Christian Jones, he was even prepared to risk the life of his son, Meghan and Archie. What makes Christian Jones so important to the Royal Family?
The Byline Times' explanation that the palace was worried that the close relationship between the palace and the press might be exposed in court is too weak in my opinion. This has long been more than an open secret. The BBC has published entire documentaries about it, particularly about what Marc Bolland did in the 1990s and 2000s to rehabilitate Camilla and Charles.So, what makes Christian Jones and his protection from a court case so important to the Royal Family that they would risk the safety of their own son and his family?
What could have come to light in this court case? And would it have endangered the continued existence of the monarchy?
Previous articles about the Royal Family:
The Institution vs. the Individual: Prince Harry’s Fight For Security Is Bigger Than Himself
Freedom or Security? The Monarchy’s Democratic Dilemma
Now That Kate Is Back – Can We Finally Talk About Kensington Palace’s Credibility?
Her illness paused the conversation. Her return must restart it.
Kate is back. So can we finally ask: What was Christian Jones doing in that car? While British media celebrate the Princess of Wales’s return, not one outlet has asked why William was seen with a former aide implicated in the Sussex leaks. I’m still asking.
House of Cards: The Dysfunction of the British Royal Family
Charles’s Cash-for-Access Scandals: How Royal Charity Masks Corruption
Bad, Mad, Sad – When Dissent Is Pathologized
Diana Wasn’t Crazy - and Neither Is Harry and many others: Tracing the historical and contemporary strategies used to discredit those who challenge authority
Still Unresolved?
Tom Sykes (Daily Beast) Reopens the Debate Over the Princess of Wales’ Death
On youtbe you will find two detailed films that I have compiled, also with the character of structured material collections:
Harry/Meghan: Flight or expulsion? Misogyny, racism, a dysfunctional family and the British Media
Prince Harry’s court cases, their political significance & what the Royal Family has to do with them