Opinion

The case that Prince Harry brought against the publisher of the Daily Mail had the unusual and unintended effect of making one feel sympathy for a Daily Mail journalist.

This is a difficult feat – we journalists know our profession is not held in high regard by the public, and this probably goes double for tabloid journalists.

The 436-page judgment in the case Harry brought, along with six other claimants, including actress Elizabeth Hurley and singer Elton John, read almost like a vindication of the trade.

Harry and his fellow plaintiffs had alleged gross breaches of privacy by the Daily Mail in the form of information obtained by illegal means. But the presiding judge, the High Court’s Justice Matthew Nicklin, rejected as “unconvincing” and “inconsistent” all the “evidence” the claimants brought of this alleged illegality.

Turns out the Daily Mail’s journalists had (probably) just practised old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism to obtain private information about the prince, albeit shoe-leather reporting propped up by the Daily Mail chequebook.

Harry had asserted that his social circles were not “leaky” and that he had no social contact with journalists. But evidence, including private messages, was produced showing that he had an affectionate acquaintance with Daily Mail journalist Katie Nicholl, with whom he had partied at some posh chum’s residence over a weekend.

Nicholl’s journalism was a particular target of the lawsuit.

“For many years now, I’ve had the accusations levelled against me with not a shred of evidence,” she said this week. “I do feel vindicated.”

It is not often a Daily Mail journalist can claim the high moral ground – but Harry handed it to her.

An invasion of privacy is always an outrage – and Harry has endured more than his fair share. He had good reason to be suspicious, even paranoid. He has either won or settled previous cases brought against Mirror Group Newspapers and News Corporation tabloids, the latter being the most egregious perpetrator of the illegal practice of phone hacking. But in this case, Harry seems to have confused his own feelings with facts, and his hunches with the truth.

So much so that his statement following the judgment, which he labelled a “whitewash”, seemed to imply the judge in the case was compromised, as he had appeared as a barrister acting for Daily Mirror in the previous case Harry brought against that outlet about a decade ago.

Just because you are outraged and upset, doesn’t mean you have legal cause. And to impugn the integrity of a judge in a court bearing your family’s insignia is quite a thing. Harry seems to think he should be able to control outcomes that he can’t, which is probably one of the best tests for entitlement.

The outcome of the court case happened to coincide with Harry’s visit to the United Kingdom for various charity engagements. Harry’s wife, Meghan Markle, and their children were going to accompany him, and then they weren’t. In the end, Harry was joined by his family. They even reportedly visited King Charles and Queen Camilla.

This uncertainty was linked to whether Harry and his family would be given security protection paid for by the British state, an ongoing source of irritation between the prince and his family of origin. The decision to supply this security is made by a committee at arm’s length from the King. As it usually applies to working royals, it has never been clear why Harry and Meghan didn’t anticipate this security being cut off when they left the royal family.

It has also never been clear why the King, who has vast personal wealth, hasn’t offered to help with paying for it privately, considering it’s his own son’s safety at stake.

King Charles reportedly forked out up to £2 million of his own cash towards the settlement money for the suit brought by Virginia Giuffre against his brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, for alleged sexual abuse. His own son’s personal security seems like a better cause.

King Charles and his heir, Prince William, are no doubt deeply hurt and angry, still, over Harry’s incontinent post-Megxit publicity spree, which included the rancorous Oprah interview and the indiscreet revelations of Harry’s autobiography, Spare.

As many commentators, including the Daily Mail’s editor-in-chief Paul Dacre, have pointed out, Harry has done a better job of invading his own privacy than any media outlet could ever hope to. The autobiography contained details about Harry getting frostbite on his nethers, and even an account of when he lost his virginity.

The tell-all to Oprah contained accusations of racism against the royal family that were, in true Sussex style, global and vague, but which still managed to impugn the whole clan.

In a rare breach of royal discretion following the interview, William tersely told a reporter that “we are very much not a racist family”, which is not a sentence that ever sounds good, no matter who is saying it.

The contemporary era values consent, and the concept of sharing one’s own truth on one’s own terms. These are laudable ideals, but surely any mature adult realises that very little in life occurs entirely on your own terms.

Still, it seemed particularly cold that King Charles reportedly extended, and later revoked, an invitation for Harry to stay at Buckingham Palace during his trip. Harry apparently didn’t respond to an invitation within the deadline set out by King Charles. These people are so strange – who issues generosity with a deadline attached?

Buck-Pal is not even Charles’ home, and it is also the subject of an expensive, taxpayer-funded renovation. Surely, they could have found a fold-out couch for Harry among its 775 rooms?

According to The Times, “Harry was effectively cast out by his father for attempting to treat Buckingham Palace like a last-minute hotel booking”.

For most families, the concept of hospitality is exactly that – you can turn up at late notice, with your plans in disarray, knowing a bed will always be made up for you. But if we know anything by now, it’s that the Windsors are not like most families.

They are the kind of family that gives full meaning to Tolstoy’s famous pronouncement about every unhappy family being “unhappy in its own way”.