The author, an attorney specializing in media law and free speech, argues that the British royal family’s recent shift from their decades-old policy of avoiding litigation to actively suing media outlets marks a fundamental change in the monarchy-press relationship that could reshape both journalistic ethics and the future relevance of the institution itself.

For the 70+ years of her reign, Queen Elizabeth II reportedly stuck to the adage of “never complain, never explain” when it came to addressing the public and the press. It remained a motto of true meaning, particularly when it came to initiating legal action against outside entities. In fact for many decades, the amount of times members of the British royal family went to court remained few and far between… until recently. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Prince and Princess of Wales (also colloquially referred to as Prince William and Kate Middleton) won an action against the publication “Paris Match Magazine” for posting details and photos of them on vacation in the French Alps. It is clear the couple hope this will set a precedent for the future, particularly when it comes to their family, as their spokesperson released a lengthy statement after the verdict, which partially stated: “The Prince and Princess of Wales are committed to protecting their private family time and ensuring that their children can grow up without undue scrutiny and interference. They will not hesitate to take such action as is necessary to enforce those boundaries.” It was also reported that the two could have received monetary damages and compensation for the case, yet in lieu of that, they asked for a publication of a judicial notice in the magazine, which occurred. Prince Harry is continuing a lawsuit against Associated Newspaper for alleged unlawful information gathering, with a trial expected to take place in early 2026. Just last year, in a separate lawsuit, Prince Harry became the first British royal to testify in court in more than a century, being awarded over $170,000 in damages in a phone hacking case against News Group Newspapers. Similarly, in 2024, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, scored a legal victory when the federal Florida defamation lawsuit that her half-sister Samantha Markle filed against her was tossed out by the presiding judge. The younger generation of royals filing suit to protect their rights goes back even over a decade, with the Princess of Wales receiving over $50,000 and a verdict that photos of her on a holiday in France from 2012 amounted to an invasion of privacy. The nexus between the royal family utilizing the law to protect themselves against the press and other entities has always been a difficult one, as the media is described as paramount to the monarchy’s survival. So is the family’s new modus operandi of filing suit when they deem necessary here to stay, and even if legal victories are secured in the process, what impact does that have on the overall state of the monarchy?

For decades, it has been the habit of reigning monarchs to tread carefully with the press, as many report that a symbiotic relationship exists between the royal family and the media, with both relying on one another to flourish. In 2021, Prince Harry referred to this connection as the “invisible contract”, with many royals refraining from pursuing legal action against and cultivating a positive relationship with journalists and publications, in exchange for more favorable coverage. Up until recently, the number of times that royals have taken legal action were sparse, with only a handful being filed in the 1990’s: in 1993, Queen Elizabeth II sued the newspaper The Sun for publishing leaked portions of her then-Christmas broadcast; in the same year, Princess Diana sued and secured a settlement over photos of her exercising at a private gym published by The Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mirror; and finally, in 1995, the then-Prince Charles scored a High Court order barring his former housekeeper from publishing her memoirs in a public forum or with the press. Since this tumultuous time and after Princess Diana’s death, the family and the media seemed to arrive at a more harmonious place, and until recently, the royal family kept any suits against the press to a minimum, with Prince Harry even claiming his father tried to dissuade him from filing his phone hacking suit in 2019. So what has changed and why?

Slew of Suits

For many years since the 1990’s, the royal family has refrained from pursuing actions against the press, partially due to the changing nature of the relationship between the two since the death of Princess Diana in 1997. After that, photographers and reporters were given new guidelines to abide by in which they promised to refrain from physically chasing members of the family for a photo, using long-lens cameras to take photos in residential homes/surrounding areas, and protecting the privacy of school-age children. Given that the press was adhering to these stricter boundaries, the need for members of the family to initiate legal action to protect their rights considerably lessened… until the last few years.

Now, various members of the British royal family have initiated cases in all areas of the law, including copyright infringement, privacy rights, and even security. In 2021, Meghan Markle prevailed in her initial case and the subsequent appeal in which she sued the UK tabloid The Mail on Sunday, alleging misuse of private information, copyright infringement, and violation of privacy, after the paper published a letter she wrote to her father. The same year, Prince Harry accepted an apology and significant damages from The Daily Mail after its affiliates stated he “turned his back” on his fellow military members after stepping away as a senior member of the royal family. Further, in early 2024, he settled a phone hacking lawsuit against The Mirror, being awarded over $170,000 in damages after being the first British royal to testify in a court in over 130 years. As mentioned, even those next in line to the throne have initiated legal action when necessary, including the recent victory the Prince and Princess of Wales scored; Kate Middleton’s win pertaining to the photos taken from a long-lens photographer while she was on a private holiday in France in 2012; and in 2020, Prince William reportedly received a substantial settlement from the British newspaper arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire for phone hacking. Yet recent royal lawsuits haven’t always been so successful – in the same month he scored a victory regarding his phone hacking lawsuit, Prince Harry simultaneously suffered a legal loss when a UK judge ruled that it was not improper for his publicly funded security to be removed after he stepped back as a working member of the royal family. As any good attorney will tell their client, there is no way a successful outcome can be absolutely guaranteed when filing a lawsuit, even in the most advantageous circumstances. Pursuing legal action is always a gamble for anyone, but even more so for the royal family, which is why these recent slew of cases have become so noteworthy.

The hesitations behind royal legal actions

There are numerous reasons as to why royals have been so reluctant to sue in previous years. Firstly, (aside from the general fear of plaintiffs that they might lose their case, as Prince Harry did earlier this year in his action to regain UK government-funded security in May 2025) whenever such suits do occur, often times they are in the context of privacy issues and many times, more information is released to the public as a legal case unfolds, through the process of discovery, testimony, and ultimately, a trial. Even if someone sues for invasion of privacy, many times the very type of personal aspects they are seeking to protect are ultimately revealed through the legal process itself. In fact, even Prince Harry stated himself in the couple’s 2022 Netflix documentary: “The press, they will never settle. They will always push, because they will use a privacy litigation to further invade your privacy.” In another one of Prince Harry’s lawsuits (specifically, an unlawful information gathering action against Mirror Group Newspapers which settled in February 2024), he was victorious in the end and was awarded £140,600 in damages, yet in the process was forced to testify on the details of his personal and intimate relationships. Secondly, some members of the family have attempted to dissuade others from suing in the past, for fear of setting a tricky precedent – the idea being that if one family member sues, it will encourage others to do the same. Lastly and most importantly, one of the most reported concerns is that continuing to sue the press would result in unfavorable coverage and those outlets would only publish more damaging stories about the litigants in question.

Impacts of the monarchy’s changing attitudes towards the press

It is clear how the press impacts the law (when royals initiate lawsuits based on claims of improper conduct by outlets), but how do those lawsuits affect the coverage moving forward? The law and media have had a reciprocal relationship well outside of the royal realm for centuries, but there are few entities outside of the British monarchy which rely so heavily on positive press coverage in order to maintain relevancy. The most senior members of the royal family are not elected by the public and reign over their citizens for as long as they are alive, whereas most American politicians, government officials, and other public figures serve for specific terms and are not as dependent on favorable headlines in order to keep their jobs. With the law and the media grouped together so intimately in the UK, it is easy to see how easily the press could change based on the outcomes of these recent suits. One potential effect is that reporters will now be forced to abide by stricter guidelines, in order to prevent being the subject of a legal action themselves – in 2020, for instance, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sued a news agency over drone photos of their young son in their private backyard. The agency issued an apology and agreed to stop distributing the images and destroy any copies it had – since then, the public has rarely seen photos of the couple’s young children unless they were released by them directly. While some outlets are likely to be prompted to scale back in their excessive coverage, some might go exactly the other way and pursue even more aggressive tactics. Such a reroute in ethical standards was seen in the decade after Princess Diana’s death – for the first few years, the press toned down their extreme tendencies, yet seemed to amp them up once her two sons became adults and their lives were therefore deemed more “newsworthy”. On the other hand, some reporters might be more prone to implement a favoritism of sorts in their coverage, meaning they might be more likely to provide positive stories about a royal family member who has not sued them versus giving a tougher take on those who have. Yet if this were the case, is that the type of news that the interested public wants, or even deserves? And even if the target audience is not as invested in the royal family as it once was, what would those changing dynamics mean for the wider state of journalism already? We are now in an era where people are no longer reliant on only certain newspapers and only a handful of television channels in order to be apprised of what is going on in the world – now, people can easily filter the type of media sources they want to hear from, via online, on their phones, or through social media. Yet by doing that, people are purposefully narrowing all of that information down to only content they want to learn about and from only reporters who they agree with, limiting their exposure to alternative points of view, research, or journalism. Is a potentially shifting British press not far behind various facets of social media that impact how people now consume the news?

No matter the outcome, all of these possible instances undoubtedly would leave the state of certain parts of the media and those who follow it in a vulnerable position. Ideally, press outlets should not be swayed by any legal actions that come their way, but should maintain a code of ethics and objectivity, in order to provide the most accurate and unbiased forms of news to its deserving readers and viewers. While we may not have seen the last of these litigations against the media, one can only hope that its members will not be unfairly prejudiced or biased to change its coverage in response.

Elizabeth Vulaj is a New York-based attorney specializing in media law, First Amendment issues, and intellectual property litigation. She has been published in Law360, Bloomberg Law, Thomson Reuters, and the New York State Bar Association Journal.