Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, has made serious allegations against the tabloid newspaper publisher of the Daily Mirror as a witness before the London High Court. He is said to have obtained information about the prince and his family using illegal methods.

Johannes Leithäuser

Political correspondent for the United Kingdom and Ireland.

  • Follow I follow

Harry said Tuesday that his decision to move to California with his wife, Meghan, was "in large part caused by the constant invasion of privacy, the creation of hatred and abuse by the tabloids"; this had a "devastating effect on our health and mental state". In addition, both were increasingly concerned about the safety of their eldest child Archie.

Press had driven Harry into a "downward spiral"

In his testimony, Harry also accused the tabloid press of pushing him into a certain role. Stereotypes were attached to him, which he even complied with in the end. In a "downward spiral", he was also constantly lured and challenged by the press to do "something stupid" that would then make a good story that could be sold brilliantly.

In testimony by his own lawyers and the lawyers of the Mirror publishing house, the Duke of Sussex said he had often suspected that his voice messages had been intercepted; sometimes new messages were no longer marked as new when he noticed them. In addition, messages had apparently also been deleted. The Duke's lawsuit is about more than 200 articles that appeared between 1991 and 2011.

Harry's lawsuit against the Mirror and other newspaper publishers represents a fundamental break with the British royal family's attitude towards the press and possible false reports in the media. For decades, the royal family has followed the principle of "do not explain, do not complain", i.e. neither comment on nor argue against reports about themselves.

An extraordinary step

The Duke of Sussex, who withdrew from the circle of active members of the royal family with his wife Meghan three and a half years ago, no longer feels bound by it. How extraordinary his move is to actively denounce illegal ways of media research, such as listening to voice messages on telephones, can be seen in the historical comparisons circulating in English newspapers.

The last royal member of the family to give testimony was the future King Edward VII. 132 years ago, in his capacity as heir to the throne, he did not appear as a prosecutor, but was cited in court to help clarify allegations of fraud in an illegal gambling in which he had participated.

More than 20 years ago, a case against the former butler of the late Princess Diana, Harry's mother, ended in an abortion. The butler had been accused of stealing personal belongings. Queen Elizabeth II surprisingly let it be known during the trial that Burrell had informed her that he had taken some of Diana's papers. As a result, the trial, in which otherwise the demand to hear the queen as a witness might have been raised, collapsed. In Great Britain, however, this is considered constitutionally impossible, since the monarch cannot submit himself to the interrogations of "his" court (His or Her Majesty's Court).