Prince Harry Has a Major Fight on His Hands

Prince Harry's claim that a series of British tabloid articles were the product of phone hacking looks set to come under major pressure after the publisher named previously anonymous sources, including a rumored past flame and Kensington Palace.

The Duke of Sussex is suing the Daily Mail and its sister title, The Mail on Sunday, over allegations that they hacked voicemails, tapped phones and breached his privacy to get stories.

He recently won a similar case against Mirror Group Newspapers, but already the Mail appears to be gearing up to fight the case much harder.

A court filing, seen by Newsweek, shows the Mail's publisher has named some anonymous sources in relation to articles that Harry's lawyers argue must have been gathered unlawfully.

Among the stories was a December 2002 Mail on Sunday article headlined "Harry's older woman," which the lawyers acknowledged "revealed information as to [Prince Harry's] relationship with Natalie Pinkham, the sports television presenter who was then a researcher, including as to his feelings and plans."

The story had suggested that "she was rumored to be the recipient of a thong that [Prince Harry] was seen buying last Christmas, and that since then he had bombarded her with text messages and emails, and that two weeks ago he was so keen to see her that he invited himself to a private party at her West London home."

Meanwhile, a source had said Harry "had a wonderful time" and "anyone can see [Harry] is smitten by [her]."

The court filing reads: "Ms Pinkham herself told [The Mail on Sunday] in or around January 2002" that "she and [Prince Harry] were close friends and that they spoke
regularly on the phone."

The filing continues: "When [The Mail on Sunday] asked Ms Pinkham in January 2002 whether she was the recipient of a feathered thong, which [Prince Harry] had previously been seen buying at Selfridges in December 2001 and had reportedly joked with the
shop assistant that he was buying it for a 'governess,' Ms Pinkham had laughed and refused to comment on whether she had received the underwear."

She did, however, confirm "that she had invited [Prince Harry] to the party and that 'it was fun,' that they 'get on well and have a lot of fun' but that they were not an item."

There is no suggestion that Pinkham sold her story or that her disclosure was in any way a betrayal of the prince—not least because she denied being in a relationship with him. And this was many years before he met his future wife, Meghan Markle, in 2016.

However, it is highly unusual for a news organization to name anonymous sources, and this demonstrates the publisher's commitment to defending the case.

Other potential sources were cited, including a member of Prince Harry's "inner circle" and "a socialite and acquaintance of [Prince Harry], a club promoter for Boujis nightclub (a nightclub that both [Prince Harry] and Ms Pinkham frequented) and a freelance journalist who was a friend of Ms Pinkham."

In the case Harry won against Mirror Group Newspapers, much was made of the fact that most of the journalists named in the allegations did not give evidence. However, Mail reporters named in this case have already begun supplying the publisher's lawyers with information about where their stories came from.

Another of the prince's allegations relates to a 2006 Daily Mail story about a statement the two princes released following the publication in Italy of a photograph of their mother, Princess Diana, as she lay dying.

According to the court filing, a source said "that Prince William took charge and phoned [Prince Harry] to discuss what they should do; an account attributed to a source close to them that it was a 'highly emotional call for both' and that they had not seen the photographs but 'they honestly believe it simply couldn't get much worse.'"

The details may sound ripe for an allegation of phone hacking, but the Mail named its source—Kensington Palace.

The court filing said the Mail "spoke to a press officer at Kensington Palace who provided the information" and then "asked the press officer whether Prince William was directing the response and was briefed by the press officer that Prince William had taken charge of the situation and phoned [Prince Harry], that the Princes had spoken on the phone to discuss what they should do, were of the same mind and that it was a 'highly emotional call for both.'"

This all means Harry may have far more of an uphill battle in this case than the Mirror Group Newspapers case he won and against a high-stakes backdrop.

Harry and Meghan have sued the Mail titles four times. And during an interview for their 2022 Netflix documentary, Harry & Meghan, the prince accused The Mail on Sunday of causing Meghan's miscarriage in the summer of 2020.

It is a grudge match if there ever was one, but with a huge potential price tag attached to it if the case goes as far as a full trial and ends in defeat for the prince, who would have to pay substantial legal costs.

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.