One week ago, Prince Harry, Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Doreen Lawrence sued Associated Newspapers, the parent company of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online. The lawsuit alleges that the Mail went a lot further than the Leveson Inquiry uncovered a decade ago. The Leveson Inquiry uncovered a lot of phone hacking and payoffs to police and hospitals. This new lawsuit alleges that the Mail was tapping phone lines and planting recording devices in homes, cars and businesses. There are allegations of bribery of police, government officials, medical professionals and more. There are allegations that the Mail accessed bank accounts, credit histories and more. This has been a long time coming, and many believed that Harry was and is uniquely positioned to take this kind of case all the way. Omid Scobie devoted his Yahoo UK column this week to Harry’s lawsuit. Some highlights:

Filing the lawsuit: The move was the result of many months of evidence preparation and careful coordination. Four other filings were made on the same day, seeing the Duke of Sussex listed as part of a wider group of six high-profile accusers including Elton John, actress Elizabeth Hurley and Dame Doreen Lawrence, campaigner and mother of murdered London teenager Stephen Lawrence. They all claim to be victims of “abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy”.

What the Mail is being accused of doing: The latest list of alleged crimes — shared by Harry’s lawyers at the London-based Hamlins firm — includes the recording of live phone calls, placing listening devices inside people’s cars and homes, and the use of private investigators to obtain information such as medical records. If proven true, the outcome is unknown – but it is worth bearing in mind that the original phone hacking scandal prompted the closure of the News of the World.

Prince Harry is clearly up for a fight. I understand that the fifth-in-line to the throne is “very aware” of how long and arduous this process could be, but is prepared to go the full distance – even if that may include taking to the stand and giving testimony. “There is a risk that this, like previous cases, could see retaliative press attacks against him and his family… but he sees a bigger cause here, one he hopes can bring positive change to the media landscape,” a source tells me. (A Sussex spokesperson and legal representative for the Duke of Sussex declined to comment.)

The Invisible Contract: News of Harry’s filing would have provided uncomfortable reading for King Charles, who recently hired a former Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday editor of 25 years to head up his media team, despite having no public relations experience. While there is no suggestion or allegation that Tobyn Andreae has been involved in any unlawful activities, his long-term stint at the publisher – which potentially covers the time of a number of the alleged crimes – could still prove problematic for the monarch.

Harry has wanted to sue the pants off everybody for a decade: But the prince’s latest legal action won’t have been a surprise to palace courtiers. I can recall several moments in the 2010s when aides actively dissuaded Harry from taking on certain British newspapers due to potential blowback that might be felt by other Royal Family members, including Camilla, now the Queen Consort.

Litigious Harry: Despite the risks, the Duke of Sussex clearly has no plans to slow down in his pursuit. Harry has taken on a number of publications in the past three years, including voicemail hacking cases against The Sun and Mirror owners in 2019, and more recently, libel action against Associated Newspapers relating to a Mail on Sunday article on his security arrangements. And he’s not alone. A group of eight led by actor Hugh Grant, and including David Beckham’s father and a 7/7 London bombings survivor, is currently seeing eight claims of phone hacking against The Sun making their way through the legal system. (A spokesperson says the publisher “has always maintained phone hacking did not take place on The Sun”.)

Harry is actually going to spend more time attacking the media, not his family: While it has long been (inaccurately) reported that a forthcoming Netflix docuseries and memoir will be the source of “attacks” against Royal Family members, the reality of both projects will actually see their harshest aims taken at the British press. Hardly a surprise given the role sections of the media have played throughout his life and relationships. But the fight, I was told earlier this year, extends far beyond Harry’s own experiences. The duke – who has previously spoken about the importance of “media freedom and objective, truthful reporting” – also hopes that his efforts will help the many ordinary people who have been targeted by newspapers over the years, often unknowingly.

[From Yahoo UK]

Scobie also points out that “coverage of the duke’s latest media confrontation has been predictably light,” which is true. It also shows you that there’s something there. If Harry was just throwing out ridiculous, unprovable accusations, we would have already seen a wall-to-wall effort to discredit him swiftly and thoroughly. The Mail is scared because Harry isn’t doing this alone, and because there’s merit to the lawsuits, AND because they don’t know what Harry knows. The Mail’s editors know what they did, but they don’t know if Harry knows the extent of it. Schrodinger’s Hacking (Or Schrodinger’s Bugging).

I appreciate that Scobie is trying to separate the institution of the monarchy from the British media, but the relationship is symbiotic/parasitic – if Harry is trying to fundamentally change the British media’s business-as-usual operations, that is a direct threat to the monarchy (and vice versa). King Charles and Queen Camilla have spent decades carefully nurturing their relationships with the Mail and the Murdoch press. Same with William and Kate. It’s gotten to the point where Harry’s attacks on the British media are seen as an attack on the monarchy. Similarly, Harry’s attacks (“attacks”) on the monarchy are seen as an attack on the media. They act as one and the same because they are, in fact, one and the same.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.