Prince Harry Took a Brutal Dig at Royal Family 'Within Minutes' of Taking the Stand
Prince Harry’s latest courtroom appearance has once again put his long-running battle with the British press under the spotlight — and this time, the Duke of Sussex is arguing that the years of silence were not a choice, but a condition of the 'institution' he came from. As his case against Associated Newspapers moves forward in London, over a course of nine weeks, Harry elaborated on a sustained invasion of his private world.
The lawsuit, which is being heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, targets Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
Within minutes of taking the stand, Harry took a brutal dig at his estranged family. That dig came as Harry explained why he did not challenge several of the articles now at the centre of his claim when they were first published. Speaking in court, the Duke said he would not have been able to complain at the time “because of the institution [he] was in.” The remark was a clear reference to the royal family’s long-held media strategy; one that, Harry argues, left him powerless as false narratives piled up.
In his witness statement, Harry expanded on that tension, describing what he called an 'uneasy relationship' with the press that dates back to childhood. “Following the death of my mother in 1997, when I was 12 years old and her treatment at the hands of the press, I have always had an uneasy relationship with them,” he said. Yet, as a working royal, he felt bound by the Palace’s approach. “As a member of the Institution I was in, the policy was to ‘never complain, never explain.’ There was no alternative; I was conditioned to accept it.”
Harry told the court that, for a long time, he accepted press interest as part of public duty. “For the most part, I accepted the interest in performing my public functions,” he said, explaining that there is a distinction between scrutiny tied to official work and what he now claims crossed into unlawful intrusion. That distinction became a key point during his cross-examination by Antony White KC, representing ANL. White suggested that some of the information published about Harry may have come from people within his own social circle. The Duke pushed back, saying it was 'pretty convincing' that journalists had relied on questionable methods. “That was the way the articles had been written, a source said this, an insider said this,” Harry told the court.
White acknowledged that “people did sometimes provide information,” but Harry argued that context mattered. “It’s probably helpful to put some context,” he replied. “When you are in a situation like this, the moment something private is out, your circle of trust and knowledge decreases over time.” He stressed, “The stuff in these articles is not the kind of stuff I would talk about openly.”
Harry is not alone in the case. The group action against ANL includes a diverse list of claimants, among them actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes, and campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence. Lawrence’s son, Stephen Lawrence, was murdered in a racist attack in London in 1993. The claimants accuse ANL of committing 'grave breaches of privacy' over a period of 20 years — allegations the newspaper group has consistently denied. On January 19, Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, laid out the case, alleging a “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” by ANL.