What Harry’s week from hell revealed about the royal family. It’s not good

July 12, 2026 — 3:00am

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

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........

© WA Today