The New York Times published a surprisingly balanced and fair assessment the day after News Group Newspapers settled with Prince Harry in their years-long legal battle. The NYT piece was written by Mark Landler, the paper’s London Bureau chief, not some wannabe royalist. It’s called “What Prince Harry’s Settlement Means for Him and for Britain’s Royal Family,” but really, it’s about how the Windsors and their symbiotic partner, the British press, are grumpy and fuming about Harry’s astounding victory. The biggest tell is the flat refusal by all parties to acknowledge that the Murdochs had to admit partial liability to save themselves from getting reamed in the trial. The British press is trying and failing to make the story into “Harry didn’t want to fight” rather than “The Murdochs blinked and backed down to save their own asses.” Some excerpts from this NYT piece:

How the British press covered Harry’s victory: Prince Harry’s last-minute settlement of a long-running suit with Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids was on the front page of a handful of London papers on Thursday, though conspicuously, not on any owned by Mr. Murdoch. The Sun, which admitted illegal activity by private investigators it hired more than a decade ago to dig up personal information on Harry, didn’t get to the story until Page 6. The Times of London, Mr. Murdoch’s broadsheet, covered it at the bottom of Page 12, next to a report about the failing eyesight of the actress Judi Dench. The Daily Mail, whose publisher, Associated Newspapers, is also being sued by Harry for hacking his cellphone and invading his privacy, reported the news on an inside page, as did The Daily Mirror, whose publisher, Mirror Group Newspapers, lost a phone hacking lawsuit to Harry in 2023.

Dismissive of Harry’s win: Even papers that are not in litigation with Harry, like the right-wing Daily Telegraph, treated the deal dismissively. The Telegraph, in a front-page article, said “Harry climbs down after eight-figure payout,” adding, “His quest to bring down part of the Murdoch empire has ended in a fizzle rather than a bang.” Critics of the press coverage said it played down the significance of what Harry had extracted. Crucially, that included the first admission by News Group Newspapers that unlawful activity had occurred, not just at The News of the World, a tabloid Mr. Murdoch shut down in 2011, but also at The Sun, his flagship British tabloid.

What Harry actually achieved: “If you’re interested in an accountable media, Harry’s was actually an act done in the public interest, at considerable cost to himself,” said Peter Hunt, a former royal correspondent at the BBC. “He’s gotten them to accept something they’ve refused to accept for years. The dispiriting thing for him is that the public don’t appreciate that,” Mr. Hunt added. “A lot of their understanding of what Harry’s up to is through the lens of a media that is implacably hostile to him.”

The years-long smear campaign on the Sussexes: “The blackening of Prince Harry’s name and his wife by large chunks of Fleet Street has been really awful to watch,” Alan Rusbridger, a former editor of The Guardian, said to Channel 4 on Wednesday, referring to London’s traditional thoroughfare for newspaper publishing. “It seems like an almost deliberate tactic to destroy the credibility of somebody who is a threat to them.”

The settlement money: Harry has not said what he plans to do with the money. His legal bills will be formidable, though Daniel Taylor, a media lawyer, said these are usually covered by the party offering the settlement in a separate payment. He has not commented beyond a statement that was read out for him by Mr. Sherborne.

Will the settlement ease Windsor tensions? In one respect, however, Harry’s decision to settle could ease tensions with his family. He said last year that his campaign against the tabloids was a central cause of the rift with his brother, William, and his father, King Charles III. Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, where William has his office, declined to comment on the settlement. By joining his brother in taking a deal, Harry will avoid another embarrassing spectacle for the royal family. But Mr. Hunt and other royal watchers cautioned against concluding that this alone will heal a rift that includes painful issues like the family’s treatment of Meghan and the airing of dirty laundry in his memoir, “Spare.” “The damage runs so deep that one court case is not going to be enough to resolve it,” Mr. Hunt said. “The fissures run wide.”

[From The NY Times]

I’m constantly irritated by the framing of Spare as “Harry airing out the Windsors’ dirty laundry” or “Harry telling his family’s secrets.” Spare was his own story, a memoir of profound grief, sadness, neglect and redemption. These people are not just dismissive of Harry’s legal victories, they’re dismissive of one of the bestselling memoirs of all time. As for the reaction of the Windsors and the British press… the NYT is right to suggest, in a way, that the reactions are connected. I’m not sure if I believe that the Windsors have ordered the press to frame Harry’s victory in this sullen, butthurt way, because I think that reaction is completely organic – they’re mad that the Prince Who Got Away is the one who stood up to them and got one of the most powerful press barons to capitulate. That just happens to scare the sh-t out of the Windsors too. Anyway, the Windsors’ silence is deafening…and hilarious.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.