A biography of princess diana

Prince Harry won a major apology from Rupert Murdoch's U.K. newspaper division, including for his mother—but the company stopped short of an apology for Meghan Markle.

The Duke of Sussex accused The Sun of using a private investigator to illegally obtaining Meghan's call records and flight details at the start of their relationship in 2016. The claim was a small part of a wider case alleging years of illegality at the daily tabloid and its now defunct Sunday stablemate, the News of the World, both published by News Group Newspapers (NGN).

Harry settled out of court on Wednesday for a mega payout—reportedly upwards of £10 million—along with an apology not only to him, but also to Princess Diana.

A notable absence from the company's statement, however, was any mention of Meghan.

NGN's Apology to Prince Harry and Princess Diana

"NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.

"NGN further apologises to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years.

"We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages."

Not only does the statement not mention Meghan by name, but its admission of unlawful activity ranges from 1996 to 2011, stopping short of 2016, when the stories about Meghan were published.

Prince Harry's Allegation About Meghan's Privacy

In a 2023 witness statement to the court, Prince Harry said The Sun instructed an American private investigator "to obtain private information in the form of a report about my new relationship with Meghan.

"This information, which included highly sensitive information such as her social security number (and other details about her and her family), was unlawfully obtained by [the private investigator] in the full knowledge of the editors of The Sun.

"I understand that this information formed the basis of these two articles and enabled The Sun to obtain the private information contained therein such as my and/or Meghan's call records (to establish how many texts I had sent her), flight details and so on."

NGN's statement suggests it does not accept that allegation is true, and Harry has chosen to let it slide.

The fact Meghan did not make the cut may be a compromise worth making for the duke, however, because the overall deal allows him to achieve some major goals.

Prince Harry's Victory

Firstly, had he gone to trial he would likely have had to pay out around £10 million ($12.4 million) in court costs even if he won, and the damages would likely not have been huge.

When he beat Mirror Group Newspapers in 2023 he was awarded around £140,000 in damages.

If reports that his settlement stretched into eight figures are true then Harry will have simultaneously swerved £10 million costs while gaining a payment of around another £10 million, leaving him up a whopping £20 million.

For context, Harry and Meghan bought their palatial mansion in Montecito for $14.6 million in 2020.

That's not all though—the money was accompanied by a ground breaking admission.

NGN has long accepted criminality took place at the News of the World, but always denied it at The Sun—until Wednesday, when a full apology acknowledged private investigators hired by The Sun broke the law.

And that has allowed Harry and his co-claimant, Tom Watson, a former lawmaker and Labour Party deputy leader, to call on the Metropolitan Police to reopen an investigation into the company.

The Fight Continues

David Sherborne, the attorney for the pair, said in a statement delivered outside court: "The rule of law must now run its full course.

"Prince Harry and Tom Watson join others in calling for the police and Parliament to investigate not only the unlawful activity now finally admitted, but the perjury and cover ups along the way.

"It's clear now this has occurred throughout this process, including through sworn evidence in inquiries and court hearings, and in testimony to Parliament, until today's final collapse of NGN's defence.

"Today the lies are laid bare. Today, the cover-ups are exposed. And today proves that no one stands above the law. The time for accountability has arrived."

NGN clapped back against that narrative in its own statement: "Allegations that were being made publicly pre trial (and indeed post settlement) that News International destroyed evidence in 2010/11 would have been the subject of significant challenge at trial.

"These allegations were and continue to be strongly denied. Extensive evidence would have been called in trial to rebut these allegations from senior staff from technology and legal.

"After we served our skeleton arguments and evidence for trial including witness statements, the Duke has not sought to pursue these allegations further despite his stated intent and no admission or apology has been made in relation to this.

"This is significant. This matter was also investigated fully by the police and [Crown Prosecution Service] between 2012-2015, at the conclusion of which it was found that there was no case to answer."

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: "We are aware of the outcome of the civil proceedings.

"It remains the case that there are no active police investigations into allegations of phone-hacking or related matters.

"We await any correspondence from the parties involved, which we will respond to in due course."

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

Do you have a question about Charles and Camilla, William and Kate, Meghan Markle and Prince 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.