---

Prince Harry’s Legal Victory: A Win for Justice, Not Hypocrisy

Carole Malone’s scathing attack on Prince Harry for settling his lawsuit against The Sun is riddled with contradictions and conveniently ignores the significance of his legal triumph. She paints Harry as a “spoiled brat” and a “man-child” for accepting a settlement, but in doing so, she entirely disregards the fact that his case successfully forced a public apology from News Group Newspapers (NGN)—something many victims of tabloid misconduct have never received.

Malone’s primary criticism is that Harry settled rather than pushing for a full court trial. But settlements are not losses; they are strategic victories. The legal battle was always about accountability, and accountability was delivered: NGN admitted wrongdoing, apologized for their unethical practices, and paid damages. That is a win by any legal or moral standard. The fact that Harry was compensated for the harm done to him does not undermine the principles of his case—it reinforces them.

Moreover, Malone mocks Harry’s claim of fighting for “truth and accountability” while profiting from the case. But what exactly does she expect? Should he have walked away with nothing after proving his allegations? Holding a media conglomerate responsible does not mean one must suffer financial ruin in the process. If Harry had lost, Malone would likely be the first to mock him for “wasting money” on legal fees. Instead, he wins, and she derides him for receiving damages. The hypocrisy here is not Harry’s—it’s hers.

She also claims he is obsessed with lawsuits, portraying his legal battles as a petty personal vendetta rather than a legitimate fight for press reform. Yet, this lawsuit was about far more than Prince Harry alone. It was about exposing how the British tabloids have operated with impunity for decades. His legal action wasn’t just about his privacy but about setting a precedent for others who have been victimized by the same unethical tactics.

Malone further attempts to discredit Harry by drawing a false equivalence between his controlled disclosures about his family and the illegal surveillance tactics used by the tabloids. Choosing to tell your own story—on your own terms—is vastly different from having your private life illegally surveilled, your voicemails hacked, or your personal information stolen. Prince Harry has never objected to media scrutiny; he has objected to unlawful and unethical invasions of privacy. That distinction seems lost on critics like Malone.

As for Meghan Markle, Malone’s “almost” sympathy for her feels insincere at best. She implies that Meghan encouraged Harry to settle because their financial prospects have declined, as if their decision was purely a desperate cash grab rather than a well-reasoned legal move. This ignores the broader reality: The Sun and its affiliates have long avoided accountability through quiet settlements and backdoor deals. By forcing a public admission of wrongdoing, Harry’s case breaks that cycle.

In truth, Prince Harry’s victory against The Sun is a landmark moment in the fight against media abuse. It is not an act of hypocrisy but of perseverance. He has done what few public figures have dared to do—taken on the powerful tabloid industry and won. Critics like Malone may try to belittle his efforts, but the facts speak for themselves: Prince Harry stood up to an institution that has historically destroyed lives with impunity, and he walked away with the truth on his side.

That is not the mark of a spoiled brat—it is the mark of someone willing to challenge the status quo, no matter the cost.