Harry's court blow leaves California dream in tatters The article argues that Harry's own actions have fuelled many of the difficulties he now faces. It says that despite campaigning for personal privacy, he has revealed more about himself through television interviews, his Netflix series and his memoir Spare than newspapers ever exposed. Among the memoir's most talked-about disclosures was Harry's account of suffering frostbite, which became one of its defining headlines. The article contends that these personal revelations weakened his long-running privacy campaign. Harry's legal fight also drew several high-profile figures into the case. The article notes that Doreen Lawrence, Elton John and Simon Hughes became associated with the proceedings, placing them alongside Harry in litigation that ultimately failed. Mr Justice Nicklin's 436-page judgment concluded that inference and hearsay were insufficient and that hard evidence was required to support the allegations. According to the article, the case was significantly weakened after key witness Gavin Burrows withdrew earlier claims that he had been paid to hack celebrity phones more than two decades ago. The article suggests Harry or his legal advisers should have recognised the challenge of taking on a national newspaper with substantial legal resources. It argues the Daily Mail could not afford to lose such a high-profile case and fought it relentlessly. Following the judgment, former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre reportedly celebrated the outcome as the newspaper devoted extensive coverage to the victory. The article says the ruling could also push wider press regulation efforts further into the background. Attention is now turning to the financial consequences. A hearing scheduled for 29 July will consider reported legal costs of around £50 million, a figure the article says would be far beyond Harry's means alone and could also have serious financial implications for others connected to the case, including Elton John, Doreen Lawrence and Simon Hughes. The article notes that Dacre was said to have been particularly disappointed by Lawrence's involvement because the Daily Mail had strongly supported the Lawrence family following the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. Although there was discussion of a possible appeal, the article argues that overturning the judgment would be difficult after the judge dismissed all 97 allegations against the newspaper. The article also questions whether King Charles would provide financial assistance if legal costs become payable. It contrasts the situation with the late Queen's reported financial support for Prince Andrew following the Virginia Giuffre case, while suggesting such help for Harry appears unlikely. The article also highlights Harry's reported decision not to stay in one of Buckingham Palace's 52 state bedrooms during his visit, suggesting the move is unlikely to attract widespread understanding. Looking ahead, the article paints a bleak picture of Harry's future in California. It suggests his wife Meghan and their children, Archie and Lilibet, may not return to Britain for some time, while speculating that the children could eventually visit as students many years from now. After losing to the Mail, Prince Harry seems doomed to a sad life in California and he did it to himself
