Prince Harry makes a stand over media coverage of Meghan
Privacy or control? Prince claims malice in lawsuit against tabloid.
When Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, walked Meghan Markle down the aisle of St George’s Chapel — instead of her own father — on the day of her wedding to Prince Harry, the world knew it was a moment of some sadness, as well as joy.
In the turbulent days leading up to the wedding, tense relations between the American former actress and her family dominated the headlines. The real-life soap opera, particularly in relation to Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, had the public on both sides of the Atlantic, and here in Australia, riveted.
In February, Britain’s Mail on Sunday tabloid published an account of a letter Meghan wrote to her father three months after the wedding, apparently lamenting his decision to speak with the “tabloids”. “You have broken my heart into a million pieces,” she reportedly wrote.
On Wednesday another chapter in the saga opened as the couple announced they had launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday for copyright infringement and breach of privacy.
The move has been branded “bizarre” by some — occurring during a royal tour wrapped in positive publicity for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. But PR strategy aside, the case, which Harry stresses is privately funded by the couple, could have ramifications for not only how the media covers the family but far more broadly for how journalists do their job.
In the unprecedented action, the couple allege “malice” against the Mail, saying the publication “purposely misled” readers by “omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to make the lies they had perpetuated”.
This is not the first time the royal family has sued the media.
When paparazzi photographed newly married Kate Middleton sunbathing topless in a private back yard in France in 2012, the response from her husband, Prince William, was remarkable for its outrage and ferocious legal nature.
The Duke of Cambridge launched action for breach of privacy in France against magazine Closer, and the images of the duchess in her bikini bottom cost the Silvio Berlusconi-owned magazine $150,000 when the decision was returned five years later.
Britain’s royal family had previously made threats and in some cases taken action against media outlets but the images captured by the French photographer had crossed a line, William said at the time.
The incident was said to mark the lowest point in relations between the media and the royals since Diana, Princess of Wales, died during a pursuit by paparazzi in Paris in 1997.
In a stinging statement accompanying the legal action, published on the Sussex official website on Wednesday, Harry directly references the media’s treatment of his mother.
“I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person,” Harry wrote. “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.
“We believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world — on every level — we have never needed responsible media more. There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face — as so many of you can relate to — I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe.”
Litigation expert Patrick George, a senior partner at Kennedys in Australia, says the case will turn on the motives behind the Mail’s report.
The allegations include misuse of private information, breach of copyright and data protection.
“The question is on what basis can they publish something which is private, and the usual defence that’s put up is that it’s in the public interest that that material be published,” George says.
He says the action is “fairly straightforward” if the letters were taken and published without her consent.
Regarding the allegation of “intentional malice” by the media, George says: “The thing that sticks out to me is that they are alleging that there’s malice and deliberate conduct by the media and that will be based on what they say is a deliberate alteration or editing of the letters to show Meghan in a bad light and to damage her. The basic factual question is what is the comparison between the original letter … and the excerpts that were published.
“If she can show that there were particular aspects of the letter which were either included or not included, then she would be able to establish that malice. If, on the other hand … that didn’t happen and it was in fact a fair report effectively of what’s in the letter, then the question of public interest will determine the outcome.”
The Mail on Sunday is standing by the story and says it will defend its case “vigorously”.
“Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning,” the publication says in a statement.
Harry’s comments prompted a mixed reaction in Britain.
Former tabloid news editor and Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan accused the royal couple of double standards and attempting to control coverage of their activities. “I’ve never read a more savage attack on the press than this one by Harry or Meghan,” Piers Morgan wrote on Twitter as the news broke.
“Nor a more disingenuous one. They’ve had the praise & criticism their behaviour has warranted. They talk of bullying but this is their attempt to bully the press into fawning sycophancy.”
Australian commentator Chris Kenny, who hosts the Kenny Report as well as a media watchdog program on Sky News, says those who feel their privacy has been invaded are entitled to “take action”, “but (the royals) live by the media; she edits Vogue, he goes out and publicly lectures people about climate change. If they’re going to create media personas, they’re going to have to get used to blowback.
“If they don’t want media attention they should stop going hunting for it.”
Indeed, there has been growing scrutiny and criticism of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, most recently concerning their use of a private jet to travel in the summer and the expensive renovation of their home, Frogmore Cottage.
Some are more sympathetic to the couple and the young princes who have spent most of their lives in front of the media — and now have young families of their own.
Australian legal academic and head of the Australian Constitutional Monarchy David Flint says the couple have every right to sue and should be judged the same way others are judged.
“Harry and Meghan have a legitimate claim to be unfairly treated,” Flint says.
“I can see why Prince Harry is upset because he blames the British tabloids, particularly the paparazzi in relation to his mother, and that is something that has been with him for a long period of time.
“It’s an attempt by Harry and Meghan to draw a line, and they have — on legal advice — chosen an issue where they can or they no doubt are thought to have a better chance of some success.”
-
‘Breach of privacy’ an oldie but a goodie for royals
The case against The Mail on Sunday isn’t the first of its kind. One of Meghan Markle’s claims, “breach of privacy”, has been used by the royal family for centuries. It was 1884 when royal reporter Jasper Tomsett Judge got hold of 60 unauthorised etchings by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, which created a major legal scandal that led to an injunction over their publication.
More than 100 years later Prince Charles sued the Mail on Sunday for publishing extracts from a journal concerning the handover to Hong Kong, where he described the Chinese communist leadership as “appalling old waxworks”.
But it was the successful action taken by Kate Middleton and husband Prince William in France in 2012, on the grounds of breach of privacy for the publication of topless photographs, that heightened the climate of threats and complaints about the tabloids.
Prince Harry went on to take the Daily Mail and Mail Online to the British press regulator in 2016 over coverage of his love life, after they suggested Pippa Middleton and he were engaging in a “secret romance”, a ruling he lost.
Later that year, on announcing that he was dating Markle, Harry issued a strongly worded statement condemning the “racist” and “sexist abuse” of Markle by the media.
And in April this year Prince William threatened the UK press with legal action over cheating rumours after US title In Touch published allegations about an affair.