Why is Prince Harry in London today, and is he really suing Daily Mail?

Prince Harry was spotted in London earlier today at the High Court of Justice in London, where preliminary hearings for his breach of privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publishing body behind Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday, and the Mail Online, is currently underway.

The lawsuit claims that Associated Newspapers engaged in unlawful methods to acquire information for its stories, including the bugging of the plaintiff’s homes and vehicles, wiretapping private telephone conversations, bribing police officials for sensitive information, impersonating individuals to obtain private medical information from hospitals and clinics, and illegally accessing bank accounts and credit histories for further information.

Associated Newspapers has vehemently denied the allegations.

The Duke of Sussex is one of several public figures to have filed a case against the publisher, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and actresses Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley.

Per The Today Show, it’s unclear why Prince Harry has chosen to attend the preliminary hearing, as he doesn’t need to be in attendance while the lawsuit is being reviewed by High Court. Frost and John were also in attendance.

It would be safe to chalk up Prince Harry’s presence as a sign that he’s taking the lawsuit very seriously, which would be entirely unsurprising given the heinous nature of the allegations.

The duke has previously filed two other lawsuits against Associated Newspapers. The first was filed in December 2020 after a Mail on Sunday story falsely claimed that his departure from the royal family harmed his relationship with the Royal Marines, for which the newspaper issued an apology.

The second, which is still ongoing at the time of writing, was a libel lawsuit issued in February 2022 after another Mail on Sunday story claimed that Prince Harry attempted to keep his legal battle with the Home Office a secret from the public, with parts of the article having since been ruled as “potential defamatory.”