Why did Prince Harry back down? Did he fear Trump would ban him from the US?

A Witty Sarcastic Reply to Camilla Tominey Of The Telegraph

Dear Camilla Tominey,

After reading your article, "Why did Prince Harry back down? Did he fear Trump would ban him from the US?", I must applaud your creativity. It’s not every day one stumbles upon an opinion piece that so thoroughly blends tabloid-level conjecture with a plotline that wouldn’t look out of place in a daytime soap opera. If only you applied that imagination to real investigative journalism.

Imagine Living Harry’s Life for a Day

Let’s start with some perspective. Imagine waking up to find every private moment of your life—your phone calls, emails, even your most personal thoughts—mined for tabloid gold by journalists whose ethics were last seen making a swift exit stage left. Imagine learning that private investigators had spent years following you, surveilling your loved ones, and rummaging through the proverbial bin of your existence.

Now imagine someone, safe from that level of scrutiny, dismissing your fight for privacy as “publicity hungry.” That’s the level of empathy your article offers. Spoiler alert: it’s none.

Prince Harry has spent years battling against one of the most systemic abuses of press power in modern history. News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, has reportedly settled over 1,300 claims of unlawful information gathering—including phone hacking—over a 15-year period. The total cost of these settlements, including damages and legal fees, has surpassed £1 billion.

That’s not just a few bad apples, Camilla. That’s an orchard of rot. Yet your article reduces Harry’s campaign against this kind of misconduct to little more than a vanity project.

Trump and Harry: The Plot Twist Nobody Needed

Now, let’s dive into the pièce de résistance of your article: the idea that Harry’s settlement wasn’t about protecting his privacy, holding a media giant accountable, or avoiding the financial risks of litigation, but about fear of deportation under Donald Trump’s influence.

This is a theory so far-fetched it could be filed under speculative fiction. Never mind the lack of evidence—why let facts get in the way of a juicy headline? Yes, Harry’s visa status has been questioned by a conservative think tank, but to suggest this had any bearing on his decision to settle with NGN is a leap even Evel Knievel would have second thoughts about attempting.

Had you bothered to focus on the actual case, you might have discovered some far more compelling details:

The Scale of NGN’s Misconduct: Prince Harry’s settlement is part of a broader pattern by NGN to manage the fallout of its phone hacking scandal. By settling cases out of court, NGN has avoided prolonged trials that could reveal even more damaging details.

The Cost of Litigation: Under the UK’s “loser pays” principle, Harry faced significant financial risks had the case gone to trial. The decision to settle wasn’t capitulation—it was pragmatism.

The Apology: Let’s not forget NGN issued a full and unequivocal apology for “serious intrusions.” That alone is a significant victory in a world where media corporations often dodge accountability altogether.

But instead of addressing these substantial points, you veered into a Trump-inspired subplot that belongs in the discount DVD bin of political thrillers.

The Tabloid Playbook: Distract, Discredit, Dismiss

Your portrayal of Harry as “publicity hungry” is not only lazy, it’s hypocritical. Let’s be honest, Camilla—this wasn’t an article about holding Harry accountable. It was about cashing in on his name for clicks. The same outlets you seem to defend have made a cottage industry of covering every aspect of Harry’s life while mocking him for daring to call them out.

And what about your snide remark about a “victory lap” around the High Court? I hate to break it to you, but this wasn’t a football match. Harry’s fight against NGN wasn’t about personal glory; it was about challenging an industry that has inflicted untold harm on countless individuals.

A Masterclass in Missed Opportunities

Let’s imagine, for a moment, what your article could have been. You could have used your platform to discuss:

The systemic abuse of power by media corporations: Over £1 billion paid out by NGN, and yet there are still calls for renewed police investigations to uncover the full extent of their wrongdoing.

The broader implications of Harry’s settlement: What does this mean for the future of privacy law and media accountability?

The human cost of press misconduct: Beyond Harry and other high-profile victims like Hugh Grant, what about those without the resources to fight back?

Instead, you went for the low-hanging fruit of mocking Harry’s motives, while conveniently ignoring the mountain of evidence against NGN.

Why Journalism Matters (And Why This Isn’t It)

Camilla, journalism is meant to inform and challenge. It’s meant to uncover truths, even when inconvenient. Your article does none of these things. Instead, it trades nuance for sensationalism, complexity for cynicism, and accountability for a cheap laugh.

Harry’s legal battles are about more than one man’s privacy—they’re about holding media giants accountable in a way that’s long overdue. To reduce this fight to a headline-grabbing sideshow isn’t just bad journalism, it’s irresponsible.

A Final Thought (With a Touch of Hope)

You’re in a position of influence, Camilla—a position that carries with it a responsibility to inform and elevate. Articles like this squander that responsibility, prioritising snark over substance. You don’t need to agree with Harry’s choices, but at the very least, engage with the facts. If you can’t, might I suggest a career in fiction? Your Trump-Harry plotline could make for an excellent beach read.

Yours sarcastically (but with a flicker of optimism),

SPN

PS: Subscribe for Better Journalism

Tired of clickbait headlines and sensationalist drivel? Subscribe to outlets that prioritise truth, nuance, and integrity over manufactured outrage. Journalism should challenge power, inform minds, and hold institutions accountable—not trade in wild speculation and petty snipes.

Let’s demand better. Because if we keep consuming fluff like Camilla’s article, we’re not just feeding the problem—we’re the buffet.

Choose better. Subscribe better. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll all get the journalism we deserve.