Prince Harry's MGN court case: celebrity and press reactions

Prince Harry has made history, becoming the first senior member of the British Royal Family to testify in court for 130 years. We take a clear look as to why he was there and what celebrities and the press have said about the case.

Prince Harry is suing MGN (Mirror Group Newspapers) for hacking his phone on many occasions. He also says the publishers gathered information about him during his life that was obtained in a coercive or unlawful way.

Prince Harry’s 55 page statement includes being followed by photographers and ruining any serious relationships he was in. The Duke of Sussex said that the articles about him would be ‘wrong but interspersed with snippets of truth’ creating an ‘alternative and distorted’ version of himself.

His statement continued saying “any one of the thousands of people that I met or was introduced to on any given day, could easily have gone: ‘You know what, you’re an idiot. I’ve read all the stories about you and now I’m going to stab you.’”

There have been mixed comments about the Duke of Sussex’s case and how he was perceived on the stand, giving evidence and being cross examined by MGN’s lawyers.

Spiked Online editor Tom Slater spoke to Sky News and said that Prince Harry’s court case made him look “entitled” and showed he “doesn’t play” by the same rules.

“If Prince Harry’s intention with this court case was to make him look like an entitled little princeling who doesn’t play by the same rules, then mission accomplished,” Tom Slater explained.

Finally, the Spiked Online editor said, “He struggled to produce any essential evidence for the phone hacking claims… If Harry wanted to make this look like this wasn’t a vendetta against the press it didn’t go particularly well.”

The Washington Post reported that Harry looked happy leaving the courtroom and was all smiles. But that this ‘didn’t mean that he is winning. Or that this case will help in his declared mission to rein in the British tabloids.

Dickie Arbiter, a former spokesman for Queen Elizabeth II, spoke to the Washington Post, saying that Harry’s claims were “forensically dissected” and that he is “obviously very naive about how the press works,” Arbiter said. “They feed off each other.”

The Washington Post quotes media lawyer, Mark Stephens, as saying “I think Harry has given as good as he’s got,” and yet “he’s been resilient on cross-examination” with Harry’s side “winning some and losing some”.

The BBC gave Harry some credit, saying “He'd finished his high-wire act without falling off.”

“He hadn't crumbled or got wound up or tetchy, he hadn't been dragged into too many awkward questions, he'd stuck to his own lines. You couldn't exactly say he'd been an eloquent witness, but he'd not walked into any traps,” the BBC continued.

The British corporation speculated that there would be more to come, writing that “given the number of other legal claims involving Prince Harry, this could be the first of a number of courtroom appearances. From the royal court to the law court.”

CNN also commended the Duke of Sussex on his demeanour in the court room. “Many observers pored over Prince Harry’s courtroom behavior but he kept his cool throughout and failed to reveal any bombshells that might further embarrass his wider family,” their report wrote.

“For Harry, it isn’t just about highlighting the intrusive press coverage he has faced but speaks to his wider years-long mission to reform the media,” CNN summarised.

The Mail had a few scathing things to say about the Duke of Sussex’s appearance in a court of law. Specifically, a reference to Harry’s own revelations in interviews. They said, “He must have longed for the schmaltzy embrace of Oprah.”

The Mirror themselves reported on the case with a headline that didn’t acknowledge it was them being sued. They opted for a simple ‘Harry vs the press’.

Page Six have tried to touch on what the royal family themselves think about Harry’s attack on the press. Of course, there has been no official comment, but the publication states a ‘highly placed palace source’ says they can’t imagine anyone is pleased” and adds that the royals are “privately bracing themselves.”

Harry’s uncle, Earl Spencer, seemed to show support for Harry after rewtweeing Alistair Campbell’s tweets about the case, which said: “Prince Harry makes a very good point re the damage done to trust in your own circle when stories appear and you have no idea where they come from.”

Piers Morgan blasted Harry on his Twitter account for his appearance in court: "BREAKING: Prince Harry, who’s spent the past few years ruthlessly invading the privacy of his family, friends and acquaintances, for huge financial gain, has turned up at court in London to complain about newspapers invading his privacy."

The Guardian commented on the broader message of this court case, explaining that it will always be hard going ‘to war’ against the press. They likened the event to a football game, calling the media ‘both referee and commentator’.

Backing the prince, The Guardian continued to say that Harry is right to feel injustice due to the nature of his role in the royal family where life events are in the spotlight for all to see. The publication even recognised racist ‘dog whistling’ in the media upon marriage to his wife.

But what the most difficult thing for Harry is the long game and what this case stands for. It is more than the 148 articles he is suing MGN for - it is a culture.

The Guardian made an excellent metaphor: “firing-squad rules apply: it is exceedingly difficult to pinpoint the individual gun, let alone find it still smoking. All he’s really been able to show are the exit wounds.“

“I think it doubtful that the tabloids will ever, whether in concert or one at a time, stop trashing his reputation,” The Guardian’s opinion article concluded. “He tried to put this fire out with petrol.”

The Washington Post also summarised with a personal opinion: “As for whether this trial will change the behavior of the tabloid press — Harry’s broader goal — media analysts say not likely.”