Prince Harry appeared in London’s High Court on January 21, 2026, delivering emotional testimony in his ongoing privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The Duke of Sussex, one of several high-profile claimants including Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, accused the outlet of systematic unlawful information gathering over decades, including phone hacking, surveillance, and privacy invasions that made his life—and especially his wife Meghan Markle’s—”an absolute misery.”

In a 23-page witness statement read aloud and referenced during proceedings, Harry detailed how relentless media intrusion left him “paranoid beyond belief” from an early age. He described becoming increasingly troubled after his relationship with Meghan became public in late 2016, facing “vicious persistent attacks,” harassment, and sometimes racist articles. The pressure intensified during her pregnancy and after Archie’s birth, prompting him to break from the royal family’s longstanding “never complain, never explain” policy toward the press.

To bolster his claims that sensitive personal details could only have been obtained illegally—since his social circle was “not leaky”—Harry provided a list of 10 individuals he was in regular contact with during the relevant period. Strikingly, this included his estranged brother, “HRH The Prince of Wales, my brother William,” and sister-in-law, “HRH The Princess of Wales, my brother’s wife,” Kate Middleton. Harry explained that as brothers, they naturally shared highly sensitive information about private, family, and professional lives, trusting each other implicitly. He noted William’s position made him a constant press target, underscoring the risks of any leaks.

The inclusion of William and Kate’s names stands out amid the well-documented rift between the brothers. Since Harry’s 2020 departure from royal duties and move to California with Meghan, tensions have simmered publicly through interviews, his memoir Spare, and legal battles. Reconciliation efforts have stalled, with no reported meetings during Harry’s UK visits for court appearances. Yet by naming them in this legal context, Harry highlighted a time when family communication remained intact, perhaps to illustrate how private conversations were compromised or to counter defense arguments about sources.

Harry appeared visibly emotional on the stand, choking back tears as he described the toll on Meghan: “They continue to come after me, they have made my wife’s life an absolute misery, my Lord.” He rejected suggestions of cozy relationships with journalists or friends leaking stories, insisting he would cut contact with anyone suspected of betrayal. The testimony painted a picture of a royal family member trapped by protocol, unable to challenge intrusions openly until now.

The trial, expected to last nine weeks, stems from allegations of “clear, systematic and sustained” unlawful tactics by Associated Newspapers for 20 years. Harry’s legal team argues that details in articles could only stem from eavesdropping or private investigators. The publisher disputes the claims, and cross-examination has focused on Harry’s defensive tone and past interactions with the press.

This mention of William and Kate adds a poignant layer to the proceedings. It subtly underscores that despite current estrangement—exacerbated by public disclosures and differing approaches to media—the brothers once shared trust and closeness. Harry has previously spoken of disagreements with William, including over handling media matters and family dynamics, but this court reference reaffirms a historical bond now fractured.

The broader royal family has remained distant during Harry’s London stay. King Charles and William, with Kate, have scheduled engagements far from the capital, signaling no family reunions amid the legal focus. Critics view Harry’s lawsuits as prolonging conflict, while supporters see them as necessary accountability for press excesses that contributed to family divisions.

As testimony continues, the naming of William and Kate resonates beyond legal strategy. It evokes a lost era of sibling solidarity, contrasting sharply with today’s headlines of separation and silence. For Harry, the courtroom has become a platform to reclaim narrative control, exposing how media intrusion eroded not just privacy but familial ties. Whether this reference prompts reflection from Kensington Palace or deepens the divide remains uncertain, but it has reignited public fascination with the enduring complexities of royal relationships in the digital age.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between celebrity, privacy, and journalism ethics. Harry’s emotional stand—tears near the surface, voice steady on principle—serves as a reminder of personal costs behind the headlines. As proceedings unfold, the world watches for verdicts on unlawful practices and, perhaps, subtle signals on whether fractured family bonds can mend.