In a stunning moment this week at London’s High Court, Prince Harry became visibly emotional as he testified that the Daily Mail had made his wife, Meghan’s, life “an absolute misery.” The Duke of Sussex, 41, broke from centuries of royal tradition by taking the witness stand, the first time a senior British royal has testified in over 130 years.
His testimony is a pivotal moment in a legal battle against Associated Newspapers Limited. What he revealed offers a rare glimpse into the toll of tabloid intrusion, and why he refuses to stop now.
Decades Of Silence Finally Break
Prince Harry, 41, stepped into the High Court on January 21, 2026, becoming the first senior British royal to testify in over 130 years. His testimony broke the royal family’s “never complain, never explain” approach. After months of preparation, he confronted Associated Newspapers Limited directly, signaling a shift in how the Windsors respond to media intrusion. However, institutional silence had already left deep scars.
The Case Against A Tabloid Giant
7 high-profile claimants, including Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley, and Sadie Frost, are suing Associated Newspapers Limited. They allege “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” from 1993 to 2011, including phone hacking, landline tapping, and “blagging.” ANL, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, denies it all. The stakes rise quickly.
Harry’s Specific Fight For Justice
Harry’s claims focus on 14 articles published between 2001 and 2013, many about his relationship with Chelsy Davy. During cross-examination, ANL’s lawyers questioned him on only 2 articles, a tactic that drew attention. In a 23-page witness statement, Harry said alleged unlawful tactics made him “paranoid beyond belief,” isolating him and harming relationships. Then the subject shifted to Meghan.
The Moment His Voice Broke
As Harry concluded his testimony on January 21, 2026, barrister David Sherborne asked how he felt about ANL’s actions. Harry’s voice faltered, and his eyes glistened. “They continue to come after me; they have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my Lord,” he said. He called privacy-rights arguments “disgusting” and described a “recurring traumatic experience.” The courtroom reaction hinted at wider fallout.
A Royal First: 130+ Years Overdue
Harry had already made history testifying in 2023 against Mirror Group Newspapers, winning £140,600 after phone hacking was found “widespread and habitual.” Now, against ANL, he repeated a rare step for royalty. The last senior British royal to testify was King Edward VII in 1891, after a baccarat scandal harmed his reputation. Would Harry’s gamble end differently this time?
Judge Intervenes As Tensions Escalate
Cross-examined by ANL lawyer Antony White, Harry grew defensive when asked if friends leaked information. “My social circles were not leaky,” he said. Judge Mr Justice Nicklin intervened twice, reminding him, “You don’t have to bear the burden of arguing the case today.” White told him, “I am intent on you not having a bad experience with me, but it is my job to ask these questions.” The strain kept building.
Why Meghan Became The Turning Point
Harry repeatedly referenced Meghan Markle, though she is not a claimant in this case. He said “vicious persistent attacks,” harassment, and racist coverage helped push him into litigation. Meghan previously sued ANL after the Mail on Sunday published excerpts of a private letter to her father, winning in 2021. Yet Harry’s emotion suggested those wounds never healed. What happened to him before Meghan entered the picture adds context.
A Pattern Across Major Publishers
This is Harry’s 3rd major legal battle against British publishers. He won against Mirror Group Newspapers in 2023, and News Group Newspapers settled last year, admitting to “serious intrusion” and paying “substantial damages,” with apologies included. Now, ANL is the target, and Harry argues accountability must apply equally. “If Harry wins this case, it will give him a feeling that he wasn’t being paranoid all the time,” said Royah Nikkhah. But what exactly is ANL accused of doing?
Inside The Allegations Against ANL
Claimants say ANL used private investigators for unlawful acts between 1993 and 2011, including phone hacking, phone tapping, “blagging,” and accessing medical records. Investigator Gavin Burrows said he “must have done hundreds of jobs” for the Mail from 2000 to 2005, naming Harry, Hurley, Frost, and John among targets. Another witness, “Detective Danno,” claims payments topping $1 million over 20 years. ANL disputes it, and testimony from others soon sharpened the claims.
Elizabeth Hurley’s Testimony Turns Tearful
On January 23, 2026, Elizabeth Hurley testified that ANL journalists used “surreptitious mics on my home windows” and tapped her landlines to record live calls. She called it a “brutal invasion of privacy” and said she felt “crushed,” becoming tearful but continuing. Her 15 articles from 2002 to 2011 allegedly included pregnancy-related medical details. “Above all, it was the discovery that the Mail had tapped the landlines of my home phones and tape-recorded the live telephone conversations that devastated me,” she wrote. One reporter’s name kept resurfacing.
The Katie Nicholl Connection
Mail on Sunday journalist Katie Nicholl appears in several claimants’ allegations. Investigations say she used detective Steve Whittamore to obtain private phone numbers for at least 20 targets, including the daughters of Sir Paul McCartney and Kate Winslet. Sadie Frost alleges Nicholl drafted an article with ectopic pregnancy and abortion details known only to a few. Whittamore said, “Katie Nicholl used my services on a regular basis… In my view, Ms Nicholl would have been aware of the (illegal) nature of my inquiries.” But how did families experience this?
Elton John’s Family Under Siege
Sir Elton John and David Furnish allege 10 articles between 2002 and 2015 relied on illegal methods and left their family feeling “violated.” They claim ANL obtained their infant son Zachary’s birth certificate and medical details before they “even had a chance to see it ourselves.” Furnish said they were “profoundly affected by the uncertainty” of how often they were targeted. They describe it as “the exploitation of love, connection, trust and bonds” to extract confidential information. How far could this go in a newsroom?
Why Harry Didn’t Fight Back Sooner
ANL’s defense highlights timing, asking why Harry did not sue earlier if coverage was harmful. Harry said royal culture shaped his delay. He told the court, “If you complain, they double down on you, in my experience,” tying it to the institution’s “never complain, never explain” rule. He described an “uneasy relationship” with the press and said the policy was enforced around him, limiting legal action. Yet that same rule becomes central to what the trial exposes.
The ‘Never Complain’ Trap In 2026
The motto “never complain, never explain” traces back to Benjamin Disraeli and was later embraced by the Queen Mother, meant to protect the monarchy’s mystique. Harry argues it left him defenseless in a modern media world driven by social platforms and nonstop coverage. Supporters say Queen Elizabeth II benefited from a more deferential era, while Harry’s generation faces viral narratives that never fade. He testified as if drawing a line: silence was no longer survival. Another claimant showed what that silence can cost.
Prior Settlements Add Pressure On ANL
Harry’s earlier results intensify scrutiny of ANL. In January 2025, News Group Newspapers settled, admitting for the first time that The Sun used unlawful practices, apologizing for “serious intrusion” tied to Diana’s death and its impact on Harry. In 2023, Mirror Group Newspapers was condemned for “widespread and habitual” hacking. With 7 claimants now aligned, experts predict damages could reach millions if ANL is found liable. The bigger issue may be whether ANL holds firm or follows precedent.
Sadie Frost Says Divorce Was Weaponized
Frost’s claims focus on how tabloid intrusion deepened mistrust during her 2003 divorce from Jude Law. She said articles surfaced with private information only her ex-partner and closest circle knew, telling the court, “I know that 100 per cent” it came from hacked voicemails. She also testified, “To have the man you love think you’re leaking stories is awful,” adding their relationship suffered for years, and co-parenting became harder. The allegation is that unlawful reporting did not just observe conflict; it fueled it. Could the entire system change?
The Royal Rota And Press Reform Questions
Beyond damages, the case reopens debates about systemic press reform. The Royal Rota system, which grants select journalists privileged royal access, is facing renewed scrutiny, with Royal Rota Editor Rebecca English named in opening statements. Press reform efforts have largely stalled since the Leveson Inquiry of 2011 to 2012. If ANL is found liable, sourcing methods across British tabloids could be forced into the open, potentially shifting norms for decades. Yet public opinion remains divided, and the verdict could harden those lines.
What Winning Or Losing Would Signal
A claimant win could mean huge damages and reputational harm for ANL, adding a 3rd major publisher setback in 3 years. A loss could be just as significant for Harry, reinforcing ANL’s claim that coverage relied on legitimate sources and leaving him portrayed as misguided. Costs are immense, with tens of millions of dollars at stake across the case. Judge Matthew Nicklin is expected to issue a written verdict months after the trial ends in March 2026. The ruling will not just judge a publisher, it will define where privacy ends for public figures.
Sources
Prince Harry becomes first senior royal in over 130 years to testify in court. BBC News, January 21, 2026
Prince Harry says Daily Mail made Meghan’s life “an absolute misery” at High Court. Associated Press, January 21, 2026
Prince Harry questioned by ANL lawyer as judge intervenes. Sky News, January 21, 2026
Elizabeth Hurley tells High Court her landline calls were tapped. Reuters, January 23, 2026
Various v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWHC 2789 (KB). High Court of Justice, November 10, 2023