The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: April - August 2023

[Sunnystar]

Harry doesn’t have to “prove” that he had voicemails and didn’t receive notifications, per se.

The judge can consider the sum of his testimony and decide— you know, if it was just that he didn’t recall getting some notifications, or that some things showed up that came from unlikely sources, or some photographers always knew where he was, each of those things wouldn’t convince me, but the convergence of all of these things indeed makes it more likely than not that the defendants did what they are accused of.

Frankly, I think this is a likely outcome.

See, now, I think that the opposite is true, because Harry has admitted, during questioning by Green, that his memory is inaccurate - did he or did he not want a meeting with Paul Burrell? He says "oh, no, definitely not" but that was contradicted by what he wrote in Spare. So, how can he be entirely certain that he didn't receive VM notifications? He can't, and just because he says so now doesn't mean that is what happened. By admitting that his memory is faulty on the Burrell meeting, as well as some of the other inconsistencies, I'm inclined to believe the defense has cast enough probable doubt on any of Harry's assertions about missing VM notifications.

 

[camelot23ca]

Here is an article in The New York Times if you’re interested. Some interesting info about the history of tabloid journalism in the UK.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

I thought the article did a good job of describing two relevant points, as illustrated by the following quotes:

“What Prince Harry is doing by appearing in court against Mirror Group Newspapers,” he added, “is essentially to dredge up behavior which was largely conducted — if at all — before the Leveson inquiry had its impact.”

and also:

“If you continually go for them, then they will go for you,” Mr. Yelland said. “The problem with the British press for Harry and Meghan is not invasion of privacy; it’s comment, it’s the way their coverage is configured.

“And if you have a generation of editors that hate them, they can do what they like on a day-to-day basis — even if Harry and Meghan win the case.”


Harry is provoking the press, and he’s doing so in order to fight yesterday’s battle, one that the British tabloid press lost decisively. As they said in the article, the press has moved on to different problematic behaviour, but there’s no evidence that it continues to obtain information by illegal methods.

 

[kalnel]

Is Harry the only witness they're calling in this case?

 

[Iluvbertie]

No. There are four 'test' witnesses of the about 100 who are bringing this case. Three more will testify.

 

[yukari]

If the evidences are all based on everyone's recollections, I think it would down to statute of limitation. Both Harry and MGN journalist gave "I don't/can't remember" when answering questions and honestly, how could anyone expect someone to remember everything that happened over one or even two decades ago? Harry needs to have more solid evidence than his assumption/feeling/suspicions to win this, particularly when MGN managed to provide one. He can't just use the "it's the journalists' job to show evidences, not me" (I'm paraphrasing) then dismissed it as fake when he's being presented one, e.g the email about Chelsey. I don't think MGN is that stupid to try winning this case by committing perjury.

I agree. Unless Harry flew the plane himself with no ground staff, baggage handlers or cabin crew, there would always be the possibility of somebody giving a tip off to reporters/photographers.

I agree. There's a lot of people involved that there's other possibility of leaks other than hacking. This reminds me of what happened during the Waleses' Jordan trip few days ago. An aviation watcher on twitter (?) noted a RAF flight to airport near Sandringham and suspect it's for royals, a royal watcher saw the tweet and deducted it's for the Waleses to Jordan, the tweet went viral then there's a whole day of plane-stalking on twitter happening real time. Then there's a story of plane-switching involving the Cambridge during their summer trip to Scotland in 2019. How did the tabloids get a hold of that story? Did they hack into the airlines' communication?

Is Harry the only witness they're calling in this case?

I recall reading about Scobie testifying about his apprenticeship in some newspaper and he claimed to have been asked to listen/monitor hacked phone-calls. Not sure which it was, this Mirror case or The Sun or DM.

 

[Erin9]

From the BBC.
Summary

Prince Harry has given evidence for a second day at the High Court, as part of his hacking case against the Daily Mirror publisher
He says he took the case against Mirror Group Newspapers to stop "hate" towards his wife Meghan
Earlier, he told the court he once found a tracking device on the car of his ex-girlfriend, Chelsy Davy
And he questioned how photographers knew he was meeting the late TV star Caroline Flack for dinner in 2009
The Mirror's ex-royal editor was also questioned - she said she can't recall her sources for four of her 10 stories featured in this case
The Mirror denies unlawful methods - and says the stories were obtained through legitimate sources.

Harry has 33 shots - and only one must hit the back of the net

Dominic Casciani
Legal correspondent, reporting from court
‘While so much of Prince Harry's case comes down to circumstantial evidence (because he alleges direct proof was destroyed) there's a very simple way to look at his chances: he's got 33 of them.

That's the number of sample newspaper articles he's linking to unlawful intrusion into his life.

Think of them as 33 balls at the penalty spot. The Mirror has to save them all.

If just one makes the back of the net, the prince can declare he was a proven victim and he wins at least part of the case.’

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65767193

I don’t get this part: Harry says that one of the reasons for bringing this case is to stop the “hate” against his wife. How is this case, no matter how it ends, going to accomplish that?

It’s about hacking. It’s pre-Meghan. And pre-Levenson.

There are people/media who don’t like him and Meghan. That is what it is. He can’t force people to change their minds about them. This case won’t change that.

This case has further cemented opinions I already had about him. And not in a good way. But, it has nothing at all to do with Meghan.

 

[Curryong]

I don’t think Harry expects that the British media will stop hating his wife. However, I do believe that any verdict in Court against the tabloid media would be regarded by him as a moral victory that tabloids for instance wouldn’t be able to deny.
Apart from feeling wounded by attacks on his wife since 2016, in my view Harry absolutely sincerely believes that the media followed a certain narrative against him from his childhood, disrupted at least one serious romantic relationship of his and caused him a great deal of anguish as he grew up in the public eye, as well as during his adult life.

 

[Leopoldine]

In my view, his legal counsel was sub-par. No one should hire a lawyer because they were "charming" at a party at Elton's house in France. It's only been week one of a long trial, so I'll wait until it ends before commenting further.

BTW That Mr. Sherborne looks like the late William Tallon.

 

[MARG]

This isn't going to convince the judge that Harry was phone-hacked:


People who could have informed photographers:

• Passers by seeing him arrive;
• Staff at the club;
• Club members.

It is worth remembering the timeline in these cases. The ubiquitous Iphone and Androids had yet to make their presence known as anything other than rich geeks toys. I know its hard to imagine, but the massive leaps in technology every decade are mind-blowing. Basically, I am trying to imagine the concept of a separate machine that recorded the messages, and yet I used one once upon a time.

There are three other test cases, and over 100 people involved in all,

It's hard to believe that over 100 people are all being paranoid/imagining things, but I don't know how you can actually prove that voicemails were hacked.

It'll be interesting to see what the others have to say. There are always going to be reports about senior royals swirling round, but is someone going to be rushing to tip the press off about a story concerning a soap opera actor?

It was a given that the Defense would go after Harry first just as it was a given that they would publish a forest worth of adverse articles about Harry in a bid to sour everyone's perception of the cases so that as other victims are cross examined the court of public opinion was even more anti-Harry and dismissive of all the cases. Poisoning the well so to speak.

I don’t think Harry expects that the British media will stop hating his wife. However, I do believe that any verdict in Court against the tabloid media would be regarded by him as a moral victory that tabloids for instance wouldn’t be able to deny.
Apart from feeling wounded by attacks on his wife since 2016, in my view Harry absolutely sincerely believes that the media followed a certain narrative against him from his childhood, disrupted at least one serious romantic relationship of his and caused him a great deal of anguish as he grew up in the public eye, as well as during his adult life.

There was a lot of publicity when the phone hacking was exposed and anyone who has every watched or read about it were genuinely horrified at the illegal breaches into the privacy of all the media victims. Now there a lot of snipey trolls that insist that that the it's the least the royals can do for the privilege of being who they are and for the rich and famous, well you chased fame, and you got what you deserve.

It is obvious from the vast majority of posts here that Prince Harry is held in contempt and people are surprised that the first time he gave evidence he didn't throw a childish tantrum. They are even commenting that that was their expectation. Well done the media that sowed the seeds and tended them well. Low expectations are now the norm.

 

[Lilyflo]

This is the best summary and analysis I've read so far about this case:
"Prince Harry is not wrong to feel injustice, but he won’t find vindication in a court of law."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/prince-harry-court-royals-tabloid-culture

 

[tihkon2]

This King is back in the UK - he had an engagement in London on Monday night.

The King just got back in the past 24 hours. He was in Romania for the past 4 days.

 

[shady lady]

It is obvious from the vast majority of posts here that Prince Harry is held in contempt and people are surprised that the first time he gave evidence he didn't throw a childish tantrum. They are even commenting that that was their expectation. Well done the media that sowed the seeds and tended them well. Low expectations are now the norm.

Hi Marg, I for one certainly did have that expectation and yes, I did comment upon it, but I can assure you that I was not influenced by the media in my thinking. If anything, I had that expectation from Harry's own words and actions.

When promoting Spare he chose "safe" interviews with people who he knew would give him an easy ride. In the book itself, he told us how he physically assaulted one of his own security guards:

"I tried to pick a fight with him" Harry told us, before slapping the man twice. "I loved him but was determined to hurt him. He’d seen me like this before."

This was without provocation, to someone he cared about. So whilst undergoing hours of intensive cross examination from a Kings Counsel who was representing the enemy he hates, the press, I was expecting him to lose his temper big time; but he didn't, and i gave him credit for that in my post.

I always enjoy reading your posts but feel it is important to point out that many people who have a negative opinion of Harry have drawn that conclusion based on fact and Harry's own words and deeds. Not because of media brainwashing.

 

[moby]

Hi Marg, I for one certainly did have that expectation and yes, I did comment upon it, but I can assure you that I was not influenced by the media in my thinking. If anything, I had that expectation from Harry's own words and actions.

When promoting Spare he chose "safe" interviews with people who he knew would give him an easy ride. In the book itself, he told us how he physically assaulted one of his own security guards:

"I tried to pick a fight with him" Harry told us, before slapping the man twice. "I loved him but was determined to hurt him. He’d seen me like this before."

This was without provocation, to someone he cared about. So whilst undergoing hours of intensive cross examination from a Kings Counsel who was representing the enemy he hates, the press, I was expecting him to lose his temper big time; but he didn't, and i gave him credit for that in my post.

I always enjoy reading your posts but feel it is important to point out that many people who have a negative opinion of Harry have drawn that conclusion based on fact and Harry's own words and deeds. Not because of media brainwashing.

If anything, I'd admit to buying into "Harry the lad" image crafted by PR and the media. Then post exit from Royal life, following that "collaborate with the Queen" statement, it felt frustrating that the media I consumed (outside the UK), championed them as positive disruptors against an archaic institution. There was a time when media coverage of him and them was overwhelmingly positive but this seems to be forgotten these days.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The King just got back in the past 24 hours. He was in Romania for the past 4 days.

And he had an engagement in London on Tuesday night. He attended a church event at which music from the coronation was played.

Court Circular for the 6th June:

June
6th
COURT CIRCULAR
Buckingham Palace
The King this evening attended a performance of George Frideric Handel’s Coronation Anthems and “Dettingen Te Deum” given by the Royal Philharmonic Society and Wigmore Hall to celebrate the Coronation in St James’s Roman Catholic Church, Spanish Place, 22 George Street, London W1, and was received by His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London (Sir Kenneth Olisa), the Chairman of Royal Philharmonic Society and Director of Wigmore Hall (Mr John Gilhooly) and the Rector (Monsignor Philip Whitmore).

Court Circular for the 7th June:

7th
COURT CIRCULAR
Buckingham Palace
The King this morning presented Honours at Buckingham Palace to members of the Army who were involved in the State Funeral of The late Queen Elizabeth II.

His Majesty received the Bishop of Blackburn (the Right Reverend Philip North) today who did homage upon his appointment.

The Rt Hon Alexander Chalk MP (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice) administered the Oath.

The Bishop of Carlisle (Clerk of the Closet) was in attendance.

The Lord Patten of Barnes was received by The King this afternoon when His Majesty invested him with the Insignia of a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

The Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP (Secretary of State for Defence) was received by The King.
Admiral Sir Benjamin Key (First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff) was received by His Majesty.

Clearly he was back in London on Tuesday. Whether he returned earlier isn't known as, unlike back in the 50s, royals leaving and returning from private visits aren't recorded in the CC.

 

[shady lady]

If anything, I'd admit to buying into "Harry the lad" image crafted by PR and the media. Then post exit from Royal life, following that "collaborate with the Queen" statement, it felt frustrating that the media I consumed (outside the UK), championed them as positive disruptors against an archaic institution. There was a time when media coverage of him and them was overwhelmingly positive but this seems to be forgotten these days.

That's a great point! We were given the impression of lovable scamp who got himself into scrapes from time but was essentially harmless, and he was doted on by the people of the UK and beyond. The reality was clearly very different, and yes, Harry has indeed it seems forgotten all the positive coverage he had, and he and MM as a couple, before and after their marriage. Ultimately it was their own negative behaviour that brought the changes.

 

[Curryong]

Without rehashing old stuff Meghan was getting negative articles in the tabloid Press and on SM from the time she came to live in England before the engagement, so it certainly wasn’t all roses and compliments. Harry was also criticised in the Press as a teenager.

 

[RandyDrx]

Without rehashing old stuff Meghan was getting negative articles in the tabloid Press and on SM from the time she came to live in England before the engagement, so it certainly wasn’t all roses and compliments. Harry was also criticised in the Press as a teenager.

But that's not exclusive to Meghan though, every women who got into a relationship with a royal pretty much got at least one negative article written about them. Remember "The Duchess of Pork" and "Waity Katie"?

As for social media, name me one person who is so universally loved that there are no negative stuff written about them.

 

[tihkon2]

Then majority of real life press for Meghan was favorable when they got married.

 

[Curryong]

Negative articles and social media against Meghan has gone on since 2016 in one way or another. Diana and Sarah were pre Internet days (and tabloid journalists are known to trawl the Internet for ideas/stories) and Katherine received notably good media overall after her engagement. Type in ‘Meghan Markle’ today and you will see hundreds of sites and tabloid articles all over the Internet, 99% overwhelmingly negative.

 

[Ghost]

Negative articles and social media against Meghan has gone on since 2016 in one way or another. Diana and Sarah were pre Internet days (and tabloid journalists are known to trawl the Internet for ideas/stories) and Katherine received notably good media overall after her engagement. Type in ‘Meghan Markle’ today and you will see hundreds of sites and tabloid articles all over the Internet, 99% overwhelmingly negative.

On one hand, I wouldn’t put media AND social media in the same category. On the other hand, the fact that there were negative articles about Meghan doesn’t mean there weren’t positive articles, too. It’s very healthy to have both kind.
My question from this idea of him that he initiated this claim to do something about the negative press Meghan was receiving is: how a suit about facts that happened up to 2011 would help? Why not go after the articles about Meghan that bothered him? And it has to be counted that at the time he met the counselor, summer 2018, there was mainly positive media about them. But as I understand it they wanted ONLY positive media. Censorship.

 

[Curryong]

Harry did complain about the Press going after Meghan from the beginning when there were articles about her home in LA and her being biracial. There was a formal statement in Nov 2016 issued by Jason Knauf at KP about Press harassment.

https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

It goes into her treatment by the tabloid media.

‘But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public - the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public - the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers;….’

 

[tihkon2]

Doesn't change the fact that THE MAJORITY of her press coverage was positive in the lead up to and the first year after her wedding. Anyhow, this is off topic for this thread and I am done.

 

[Alison H]

This is the best summary and analysis I've read so far about this case:
"Prince Harry is not wrong to feel injustice, but he won’t find vindication in a court of law."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/prince-harry-court-royals-tabloid-culture

As much as I dislike The Guardian, that sums it up very well. No-one is denying that the press intrude into the lives of famous people and that this causes a lot of distress. It undoubtedly contributed towards Caroline Flack's suicide.
However, causing people distress is not in itself illegal.

 

[Ghost]

Harry did complain about the Press going after Meghan from the beginning when there were articles about her home in LA and her being biracial. There was a formal statement in Nov 2016 issued by Jason Knauf at KP about Press harassment.

https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

It goes into her treatment by the tabloid media.

‘But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public - the smear on the front page of a national tatemennewspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public - the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers;….’

Then why not make a formal complaint about that? And we know the answer: because the articles themselves didn’t write anything illegal. (That was the first time I’ve heard of her. Whatever he’s speaking about in that hotheaded statement didn’t appear in the “big guns” press. But that’s off topic.)

 

[Queen Claude]

Without rehashing old stuff Meghan was getting negative articles in the tabloid Press and on SM from the time she came to live in England before the engagement, so it certainly wasn’t all roses and compliments. Harry was also criticised in the Press as a teenager.

Yes Meghan got negative press and obviously she and Harry found that unpleasant, but the negative press did not impact their respective popularity with the public. The hits to their popularity, which yes was reported by the media, was due to their own actions.

On a recent podcast, I hope I heard it and am recalling it correctly, Jack Royston, who is considered, if not pro-Sussex, then fairly balanced in his Sussex reporting and commentary, stated that Meghan's popularity was the same on her wedding day as it was on a later date that I don't recall, but it was well after the point where Meghan was "targeted" by the media and the coverage of her was mostly negative

I find it interesting that Harry stated that the ball got rolling when he met David Sherbourne in France in 2018. I assume that he met Sherbourne at Elton John's home in the south of France, which I would further assume would have happened in summer / early fall. So if my assumptions are correct, then Sherbourne was able to loop Harry into pursuing legal action when the media coverage of Meghan was mostly positive with some negative articles mixed in (which is par for the course for many public figures). The wall to wall negative stories started in November 2018.

It is Harry and Meghan's prerogative to be frustrated, upset and angry because they, and especially Meghan, were targeted by the media. However, it has been claimed that negative stories, that were false and/or distorted, led to the negative perceptions of them, even to the degree that they feel physically at risk, and that does not seem to be the case. The Sussexes fell out of favor with the UK, and likely now the U.S., public due to their own actions.

 

[Granada]

Another part of The Sussex's problems, in my opinion is that they are over - exposed. I guess surprisingly for a child of Hollywood, Meghan never heard of the mantra....."Always leave them wanting more".

It is just SO VERY much of them "out there". In public, but seemingly more of the same.....they are usually negative, usually complaining, usually controversial.

The Oprah Interview. Daily Mail legal actions, The Cut Interview, The Podcasts, Netflix-Docuseries, Spare and accompanying Interviews. Catastrophic *car chases*. Now this Trial. And the Court case still time come.

It seems to be so tiresome and repetitive now. Exhausting. I'm a victim, or We are victims. My life ( one that was of extraordinary privilege AND popularity in Harry's case) was according to Harry in this Trial.....a misery.

Cry me a river.....

I thought The Sussex's were going for a modern, relaxed, progressive ' new approach'. Lightness and uplifting. Invictus like projects. Yet Harry actually instructed The Attorney to refer to him in Court.... as Your RH, Prince Harry. I found that curious. His Royal identity OBVIOUSLY matters greatly, still.

Harry's seems to be living in the past agonizing over old grievances. Stuck, almost lost..... it can't be good for him to live like that. Literally suing over events decades old. I feel bad for Chelsea Davy too. What must She be thinking ?

Now because of his ridiculous bragging about Drugs, his Visa application is being reviewed. More scrutiny that Harry brought on himself.

I just find him and his situation getting sadder. Very Don Quixote.....tilting at Windmills..... Imaginary "Enemies"..... that Harry can't let go of.

 

[Muhler]

I can still remember the bad press Fergie, later her daughters, not to mention Kate got. They all got a pretty rough treatment by the press!
And the treatment for example Queen Letizia got by the Spanish press was even worse! I don't think any members of the BRF have been likened to a prostitute.
So Harry and Meghan are hardly exceptional.

 

[Frelinghighness]

The New York Times has written BRF articles very rarely but certainly came in on an anti monarchy bias during mexit with commenters largely in the Sussex camp. What a huge turnaround! The comments on an analysis piece were 95 % scathing in their denunciation of the pair. Many referred to the irony of the situation that harry has stolen the privacy of his family members through his income generating book and media such as revealing private occasions of he and Williams, Kate’s private text messages etc, etc. the rest remarked at his need for attention creating even more media coverage. The ridiculing of the couple has created a bonanza for the tabs

 

[suztav]

Another part of The Sussex's problems, in my opinion is that they are over - exposed. I guess surprisingly for a child of Hollywood, Meghan never heard of the mantra....."Always leave them wanting more".

It is just SO VERY much of them "out there". In public, but seemingly more of the same.....they are usually negative, usually complaining, usually controversial.

The Oprah Interview. Daily Mail legal actions, The Cut Interview, The Podcasts, Netflix-Docuseries, Spare and accompanying Interviews. Catastrophic *car chases*. Now this Trial. And the Court case still time come.

It seems to be so tiresome and repetitive now. Exhausting. I'm a victim, or We are victims. My life ( one that was of extraordinary privilege AND popularity in Harry's case) was according to Harry in this Trial.....a misery.

Cry me a river.....

I thought The Sussex's were going for a modern, relaxed, progressive ' new approach'. Lightness and uplifting. Invictus like projects. Yet Harry actually instructed The Attorney to refer to him in Court.... as Your HRH, Prince Harry. I found that curious. His Royal identity OBVIOUSLY matters greatly, still.

Harry's seems to be living in the past agonizing over old grievances. Stuck, almost lost..... it can't be good for him to live like that. Literally suing over events decades old. I feel bad for Chelsea Davy too. What must She be thinking ?

Now because of his ridiculous bragging about Drugs, his Visa application is being reviewed. More scrutiny that Harry brought on himself.

I just find him and his situation getting sadder. Very Don Quixote.....tilting at Windmills..... Imaginary "Enemies"..... that Harry can't let go of.

I think he's having a very difficult time admitting to himself that he is NOTHING without his titles.

 

[Queen Claude]

No. There are four 'test' witnesses of the about 100 who are bringing this case. Three more will testify.

So it is Harry's testimony plus the other three witnesses plus the cross-examination of witnesses put forth by MGN that will determine the outcome, right? Presumably, if the preponderance of evidence supports that MGN engaged in phone hacking, then the judge will likely rule in their favor and the 100 or so people who are bringing the claim will be considered as winning their cases, is that correct?

I don't think that Harry was a good witness but on the other hand the person who reported the story could also not recall her sources for the stories she ran. MGN has already stated that they ran one story about Harry with illegally obtained information and are willing to compensate for that act.

My general view is that what the tabloids did back in the 1990s / early 2000s was abhorrent and I have no problem with it still coming back to bite them 20-30 years later. The argument about memories being faulty because so much time has passed is valid, but I don't think that some form of statute of limitations should apply here because the original plan was for the Levenson inquiry to take place in phases. IIRC acts by the now defunct News of the World (NOTW) were reviewed as part of Levenson and/or other proceedings but there were also allegations involving other media organizations like The Sun, Daily Mail and The Mirror and they were to be examined in a later phase. IIRC over 200 people, celebrities and non-celebrities, were alleged to have been possible victims of phone hacking / illegal gathering of information. The media groups lobbied hard to not have subsequent phases of Levenson happen, and if IIRC, the six year rule that's been referred to, also came about from the media groups lobbying in their self-interest. If I am correct, the six year rule is not established law, rather it stems from media organizations' successful effort to not have allegations against them adjudicated via the Levenson Inquiry and to limit the time that their accusers have to bring action against them, despite the fact that some of their victims may not know at all, or not know the extent that information reported about them was obtained illegally.

When it comes to Harry and his role in being a victim phone hacking and / or illegal information gathering, I have mixed feelings. I don't think that he has been an honest broker, specifically what he knew and when he knew it. There was a royal NOTW phone hacking scandal that was kicked off in late 2005 by William and Tom Bradby, one of Harry's favored journalists. People were arrested, imprisoned and there were resignations. So phone hacking and illegal gathering of information has been on the radar for this generation of royals for almost 20 years, not to mention that both of Harry's parents had phone conversations hacked, the actual audio was published and is still accessible to this day. Where he is being honest is in sharing that his motivation to join this legal action stems from his anger and frustration regarding the media coverage of his wife who entered his life years after the media stories that are suspected of coming about from hacking / illegal activity happened.

I would not be surprised if Harry prevailed in one or more of his hacking related law suits. But to me it will be added to his list of Pyrrhic victories, what I am referring to are victories like his book and the Netflix, both of which broke records, but in both cases Harry took a reputational hit. Now while I cannot say for sure that Harry cares about losing popularity, both projects generated negative publicity, and Harry has made it abundantly clear that he cares very much about what the media writes / reports about him and his wife.