It’s been a minute since Prince Harry hit the headlines, which is probably exactly as his communications team (and any summer vacations they’ve got booked) would want it.
Alas for those Fourth of July time-off requests! It seems like the Outrage Generation Machine was not sleeping; it was turbo-charging — and repaid the duke for his quiet stretch in the public eye with not one but two less than ideal headlines hitting the news cycle, perfectly timed to land in the summer celebrity-news slump.
First up, we have what should have been a classic softball bit of feel-good PR to keep the Invictus story warm until the next games are held in British Columbia in 2025, but has instead generated backlash. (Which, to be fair, anyone who’s seen the negative reaction to any of the awards or honours Harry and Meghan have received since no longer being working members of the Royal Family really should have seen this coming; when you’re as vulnerable as Meghan and Harry are to being accused of only being there for the photo opp, these kinds of sycophantic-seeming optics don’t play well in certain comments sections.)
For once, however, the furor around Prince Harry getting nominated for an ESPY award for his work with the Invictus Games has nothing do with the usual “He’s just getting an award because he’s famous and the organization wants the attention he brings” and everything to do with a mother who doesn’t believe that the duke is worthy of the award that’s named in her son’s honour.
“I am shocked as to why they would select such a controversial and divisive individual to receive the award,” Mary Tillman, mother of Pat, the NFL player who died while serving in Afghanistan and for whom this service award is named, to the Daily Mail. “There are recipients that are far more fitting. There are individuals working in the veteran community that are doing tremendous things to assist veterans.”
She went on to say that these people, who “don’t have the money, resources, connections or privilege Prince Harry has” should be honoured instead.
It’s worth noting that Mary Tillman’s comments appear in the Daily Mail — a tabloid that is notoriously, uh, unsympathetic to the duke in its coverage. Her views, it quickly became clear, don’t reflect that of the actual foundation that supports the award in Pat Tillman’s name.
For starters, Mary’s claim that she wasn’t consulted about choosing Prince Harry is less powerful when you learn that she hasn’t been consulted about any recipients of the Pat Tillman Award for Service, ever.
She is also not on the leadership team at the Pat Tillman Foundation, which is led by Tillman’s widow, and which ESPN made clear was part of the decision to honour Prince Harry.
“ESPN, with the support of the Tillman Foundation, is honoring Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, specifically for the work of The Invictus Games Foundation as it celebrates its 10th year promoting healing through the power of sport for military service members and veterans around the world,” the sports broadcaster said in a statement. “While we understand not everyone will agree with all honorees selected for any award, the Invictus Games Foundation does incredible work, and ESPN believes this is a cause worth celebrating.”
There’s been no comment from Harry’s camp, which seems to indicate we’ll be seeing Harry at the ESPY awards broadcast on July 11, hosted by close friend of Meghan Serena Williams.
The second controversy Harry finds himself embroiled in is related to his ongoing legal action against various tabloid newspapers — and given that it involves a judge ordering him to explain himself is a little harder to dismiss as manufactured controversy.
There’s a question about whether Harry has destroyed evidence that might contradict claims he’s making in his suit against the publisher of the Sun newspaper, whom he and 40 other people accuse of “illegal information gathering” in its quest to find and publish stories.
The trial is only set to start in 2025, but the tabloid’s lawyers recently came before the judge in the case to request access to some of the evidence Harry and his team are using. This led to the judge concluding that there was “evidence a large number of potentially relevant documents” and “confidential messages” between Harry and the ghostwriter behind “Spare” had been deleted.
This matters because these messages, which seem to have been sent using the encrypted Signal app, might pertain to the unlawful information gathering Harry is suing the tabloid over. The reason the tabloid’s lawyers — who accuse Harry of “obfuscation” — might want to see them is because they could potentially tell a different story than the one he’s bringing before the court.
Specifically, they’re trying to get the case thrown out by demonstrating that Harry knew he had a claim long before he says he did — crucial when there is a limitation on how long you have to file a claim once you’re made aware of any potential illegal activity.
The prince, through his lawyers, claims he can’t share these messages because they have been “wiped.” It also turns out that all drafts of “Spare” have also been destroyed.
The judge, who says it is “not transparently clear what happened” has authorized a “wider search” of Harry’s computer, text messages and Whatsapp between 2005 and 2023, and asked him to write a witness statement laying out why the messages with his ghostwriter are missing.
Harry’s lawyers, for their part, say the tabloid is “engaging in a classic fishing expedition.” They’ve responded by accusing Harry’s team of creating “an obstacle course” and that they’ve had to drag any disclosure of documents out of him “kicking and screaming.”
To that point, the tabloid publisher has actually been awarded about $230,000 in legal costs — payable by Prince Harry, which he’s fighting — to cover the work they’ve had to do for these searches of Harry’s laptop, texts and other social apps in search of evidence that could help their case.
This is all before the case actually goes to trial in January next year.
