Prince Harry set to face the Daily Mail in court – but what does this return to the UK mean for his family?

Prince Harry has dominated the news this week, with fractious claims and counter claims in his court case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

He’s expected to take the stand today, and I’m sure what he has to say, alongside Sir Elton John, Liz Hurley and Stephen Lawrence’s mum Baroness Doreen will be blockbuster.

But I wondered what this latest appearance back in the UK meant for the Duke of Sussex.

His various court cases, both against the British press and the British government trying to win back his police security, have cost him much. Millions, yes, in legal fees but also a human cost in the relationship with his father.

Harry had said numerous times publicly that he wanted to make up with his family. But the King essentially said he couldn’t see his younger son while he was suing his government, in his courts over which he has ultimate jurisdiction.

The subtext being that a) he couldn’t risk showing any prejudice and b) it was a bad look. This month was the same.

Buckingham Palace let it be known the King wouldn’t see Harry (after that olive branch meeting at Clarence House last September) while he was in the UK for yet another court salvo. What followed was then a furious round of briefing, presumably - I imagine - by Team Sussex.

Harry getting his taxpayer-funded security back was apparently ‘nailed on’, enabling the potential for Archie, six, and Lilibet, four, to come to the UK in the summer for a reunion with the King. (The small matter of the Home Office saying Harry’s risk assessment hadn’t yet been completed was presumably overlooked…).

Then it was briefed Harry would ‘love’ his father to open the Invictus Games, for injured and veteran armed forces personnel, in Birmingham next year. And that the Duchess of Sussex was hoping to come to the UK for the first time in three years this summer for the Invictus ‘one year to go’ engagement.

This puts a lot of pressure on Buckingham Palace (and indeed an invidious position for the King). If, as Head of the Armed Forces, he turns down Harry’s public invitation it’s not a great look.

Yet if he goes - and let’s remember the Queen didn’t go to the inaugural Invictus Games in 2014 - he’s caving in to Harry’s emotion-laden request. Not to mention the last six years of Sussex drama.

Having declined to attend a 10-year anniversary service for Invictus in London in 2024 (he was hosting a garden party at Buckingham Palace instead), the King and his advisors will have to mull whether to accept the 2027 invitation and all the headlines about royal rifts and reconciliations that will come with it.

Prince William takes a more absolutist position. He has cut off all contact with his brother and is quietly getting on with his own charity work and family.

The Invictus Games are brilliant; the competitors love it, the families hugely benefit from it, the spectators marvel at the triumph of the human spirit. What they absolutely should not be is a stick with which to beat the King. Or indeed, another way for Harry to get back his taxpayer-funded security.

Let’s hope it remains Invictus not Invidious. We shall see…