A Mail on Sunday journalist was aware that the Princess of Wales was expecting her first child before the official announcement was made public, but deliberately chose not to report the sensitive information to avoid crossing ethical boundaries, the High Court heard on Tuesday.
Private Party Revelation
Charlotte Griffiths, who served as the diary editor for The Mail on Sunday at the time, testified that Prince William personally informed guests at a country house gathering in Wiltshire during 2012 that his wife would not be attending due to morning sickness. This revelation occurred before any public announcement and before the prince had shared the news with other members of the Royal Family, including Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, or Prince Harry.
Decision Not to Publish
In a detailed written witness statement submitted to the High Court as part of Prince Harry's ongoing privacy lawsuit, Ms Griffiths explained her conscious decision to withhold this significant scoop from her newspaper. She emphasized that she had learned this information while attending the private event in a personal capacity, not as a working journalist, and therefore treated it with appropriate discretion.
"I missed a scoop to maintain my friendships and because I knew where the line was and decided not to cross it," Ms Griffiths stated clearly during her testimony.
Editorial Reaction
When St James's Palace officially confirmed the pregnancy three days later, Ms Griffiths' then-editor, Geordie Greig, expressed considerable frustration upon discovering she had possessed this exclusive information beforehand. "Geordie found out that I had known and was quite annoyed that I hadn't reported it to him as we would have scooped the rest of the press," she acknowledged in her statement.
Legal Context
This testimony forms part of a broader legal action in which Prince Harry and six other prominent public figures are pursuing claims against Associated Newspapers, publisher of both the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. The claimants allege they were subjected to unlawful information gathering practices by journalists working for these publications.
Associated Newspapers has firmly denied all allegations that its journalists engaged in commissioning private detectives to hack voicemails, intercept landline communications, or obtain private information through deceptive means known as "blagging."
Defense Against Allegations
During cross-examination, Ms Griffiths specifically denied using any illicit methods to obtain information about the royal family. She maintained that she relied exclusively on a legitimate network of social contacts within aristocratic circles, including friends of both Prince William and Prince Harry who regularly invited her to various events and gatherings.
David Sherborne, representing the claimants, challenged Ms Griffiths' account of the Wiltshire party revelation, suggesting she might have fabricated the story. He questioned why Prince William would share such significant news with party guests before informing his immediate family members.
Social Connections Detailed
Ms Griffiths provided additional context about her social interactions with Prince Harry, revealing that:
- She attended two separate parties where Prince Harry was present, including an extended overnight gathering in London
- Telephone records showed one phone call and three text messages exchanged between them
- Prince Harry had added her as a Facebook friend in 2011 after she began working at The Mail on Sunday
- The prince had personally provided her with his contact number
She explained that the communication on the night of the London party was necessary because the music volume prevented her from hearing the doorbell when she arrived at the venue.
Relationship Dynamics
Ms Griffiths testified that she initially met some of Prince Harry's friends during her teenage years, establishing social connections that predated her journalism career. However, Mr Sherborne asserted that Prince Harry deliberately severed contact with her once he became aware of her professional role as a journalist.
During his own evidence presented earlier in the proceedings, the Duke of Sussex stated unequivocally that neither he nor his close associates engage in conversations with members of the press. The comprehensive privacy trial continues to unfold with further testimony expected in the coming days.
