Editing Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (section)

====Other cases====
In October 2013, [[Jo Brand]] appeared on ''[[Have I Got News for You]]'' and while talking about [[Prince George of Wales|Prince George]]'s christening she said: "George's godparents include [[Hugh van Cutsem]] ... I presume that's a nickname as in Hugh van cuts 'em and Harry then snorts 'em."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/TV/2013/11/01/BBC-apologizes-for-error-made-in-Prince-Harry-cocaine-joke/43021383325851/|title=BBC apologizes for error made in Prince Harry cocaine joke|work=UPI|date=1 November 2013|access-date=26 January 2023}}</ref> Representatives of Kensington Palace contacted the BBC after the programme aired, pointing out the error and the implications of the joke.<ref name="BBC-christening">{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10418969/BBC-apologises-for-factual-inaccuracy-of-Prince-Harry-drug-joke.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103165545/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10418969/BBC-apologises-for-factual-inaccuracy-of-Prince-Harry-drug-joke.html|title=BBC apologises for 'factual inaccuracy' of Prince Harry drug joke|work=The Telegraph|first=Hannah|last=Furness|date=1 November 2013|archive-date=3 November 2013|access-date=26 January 2023|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> The BBC wrote to Kensington Palace apologising for the "factual inaccuracy" as George's godfather was William van Cutsem, but it did not apologise for the comment itself as it was part of the show's "irreverent humor".<ref name="BBC-christening"/>

In February 2014, a judge sentenced the convicted criminal Ashraf Islam to three years in prison, as he had plotted to murder Harry and had given it "considerable thought" due to his belief that Harry had "a moral guilt" since he was in the army.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-death-plot-ashraf-islam-jailed-10417878|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220116220532/https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-death-plot-ashraf-islam-jailed-10417878|title=Prince Harry Death Plot: Ashraf Islam Jailed|work=Sky News|date=10 February 2014|archive-date=16 January 2022|access-date=16 January 2022|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/10628964/Prince-Harry-death-plot-criminal-jailed-for-three-years.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110819/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/10628964/Prince-Harry-death-plot-criminal-jailed-for-three-years.html|title=Prince Harry death plot criminal jailed for three years|work=The Telegraph|date=10 February 2014|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=16 January 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> In June 2019, two members of the neo-Nazi group [[Sonnenkrieg Division]] were jailed for eighteen months and four years, respectively, for sharing propaganda posters among which was one that labelled Harry as a "race traitor" with a gun pointed at his head.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48672929|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190618122627/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48672929|title=Teenage neo-Nazis jailed over terror offences|work=BBC News|date=18 June 2019|archive-date=18 June 2019|access-date=29 September 2021|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 2019, [[Splash News]] issued a formal apology to the Sussexes for sending photographers to their [[Cotswolds]] residence, which put their privacy at risk. The agency also agreed to pay damages and legal costs associated with the case.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48296202|title=Prince Harry accepts damages over Splash News Agency photos|work=BBC News|date=16 May 2019|access-date=16 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190522060329/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48296202|archive-date=22 May 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/europe/prince-harry-meghan-helicopter-pictures-gbr-intl-scli/index.html|title=Prince Harry accepts 'substantial' damages after helicopter photos forced royal couple from their home|work=CNN|first1=Rob|last1=Picheta|first2=Max|last2=Foster|date=16 May 2019|access-date=16 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200127061122/https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/europe/prince-harry-meghan-helicopter-pictures-gbr-intl-scli/index.html|archive-date=27 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In December 2019, [[PA Media]] retracted the publishing of a [[Christmas card]] photograph of Harry, Meghan, and their son Archie. The agency said that the photo was retracted because they had been advised that the photograph was "not representative of the Christmas card sent by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex".<ref>{{cite news|last=Saad|first=Nardine|date=24 December 2019|title=Prince Harry and Meghan let Archie take over family Christmas card |url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-12-24/prince-harry-meghan-archie-christmas-card-canada|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231222115155/https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-12-24/prince-harry-meghan-archie-christmas-card-canada|archive-date=22 December 2023|access-date=11 March 2024|work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> In January 2020, lawyers issued a legal warning to the press after paparazzi photographs were published in the media.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/21/harry-and-meghan-legal-warning-latest-twist-in-royal-paparazzi-feud|title=Harry and Meghan legal warning latest twist in royal paparazzi feud|work=The Guardian|first=Ben|last=Quinn|date=21 January 2020|access-date=21 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200121170458/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/21/harry-and-meghan-legal-warning-latest-twist-in-royal-paparazzi-feud|archive-date=21 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In March 2020, the couple took Splash UK to court after the Duchess and their son were photographed without permission during a "private family outing" while staying in Canada. The case was settled later that year with Splash UK agreeing to no longer take unauthorised photos of the family.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55363316|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240214135046/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55363316|title=Meghan settles case over Archie photos with Splash UK agency|work=BBC News|date=18 December 2020|archive-date=14 February 2024|access-date=31 December 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In April 2020, the Duke and Duchess announced that they would no longer cooperate with the ''Daily Mail'', the ''Sun'', the ''Mirror'' and the ''Express''.<ref>{{cite news |title=Meghan and Harry tell four British tabloids they can expect 'zero engagement'|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/media/meghan-harry-tabloids-uk/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200420130842/https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/media/meghan-harry-tabloids-uk/index.html|work=CNN|first=Hada|last=Gold|date=20 April 2020|archive-date=20 April 2020|access-date=31 December 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> They won an apology in October that year from American news agency X17 for taking photographs of their son at their home using drones.<ref>{{cite news|date=8 October 2020|archive-date=9 October 2020|title=Harry and Meghan: News agency apology over 'drone photos' of son|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54472714|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201009040102/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54472714|access-date=22 October 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>

In June 2020, it was reported that Harry's lawyers had issued a 'letter before action', threatening to sue the ''Sun'' and [[Dan Wootton]], based on the allegations that they had paid money to associates of palace officials to secure their stories.<ref name="Byline-NewsUK">{{cite news|url=https://bylineinvestigates.com/2020/06/05/royal-exclusive-prince-harrys-legal-move-over-cash-for-briefings-claims-at-the-sun-the-story-murdoch-tried-to-bury/|title=ROYAL EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry's legal move over 'cash-for-briefings' claims at The Sun – The story Murdoch tried to bury|work=Byline Investigates|first=Dan|last=Evans|date=5 June 2020|access-date=4 January 2023}}</ref> It was alleged that the ''Sun'' had made two payments amounting to £4,000 to the partner of a royal official in relation to stories published in June and July 2019 which detailed the nannying and god-parenting arrangements for Harry and Meghan's son Archie.<ref name="Byline-NewsUK"/> News Group Newspapers, publisher of the ''Sun'', emphasised that they had done nothing "unlawful" in sourcing the stories and no illegal payments were made.<ref name="Byline-NewsUK"/> Wootton's lawyers denied that any payments were made unlawfully to a public official or a proxy and described the claims as "a smear campaign by unknown bad actors."<ref name="Byline-NewsUK"/> Wootton has been credited with breaking the story about [[Megxit]] and Harry and Meghan's initial plans for moving to Canada in the ''Sun'' on 8 January 2020, which prompted the couple to issue an announcement within hours, confirming their plans for stepping back from their royal duties.<ref name="Press-Sussex">{{cite news|url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/harry-and-meghan-are-professional-victims-says-sun-journalist-who-broke-royal-split-story/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230104230025/https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/harry-and-meghan-are-professional-victims-says-sun-journalist-who-broke-royal-split-story/|title=Harry and Meghan are 'professional victims' says Sun journalist who broke royal split story|work=Press Gazette|first=Freddy|last=Mayhew|date=30 September 2022|archive-date=4 January 2023|access-date=4 January 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> Sources close to the couple later spoke to ''[[The New York Times]]'', stating that they "felt forced to disclose their plans prematurely" as they learned about the ''Sun''{{'}}s intentions to publish the story.<ref name="Press-Sussex"/> Wootton disputed the claim as "They released the statement after we had published the story and had so much notice."<ref name="Press-Sussex"/>

A September 2020 article by ''[[The Times]]'' claiming an Invictus Games fundraiser had been cancelled due to its affiliation with a competitor of Netflix, Harry's business partner, became the subject of a legal complaint issued by the Duke.<ref>{{cite news|last=Nikkah|first=Roya|title=Harry and Meghan's Netflix deal scuppers Invictus bash|url=https://www.thetimes.com/article/harry-and-meghans-netflix-deal-scuppers-invictus-bash-38kt5k6sc|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110810/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghans-netflix-deal-scuppers-invictus-bash-38kt5k6sc|access-date=12 December 2020|work=[[The Times]]|date=6 September 2020|archive-date=21 September 2023|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> In January 2022, the couple mutually filed a legal complaint against ''The Times'' for an article reporting on Archewell raising less than $50,000 in 2020.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/archewells-50-000-slow-start-and-the-truth-about-celebrity-fundraising-2rp2pp003|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117045414/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/archewells-50-000-slow-start-and-the-truth-about-celebrity-fundraising-2rp2pp003|title=Archewell's $50,000 slow start, and the truth about celebrity fundraising|work=[[The Times]]|first=Damian|last=Whitworth|date=6 January 2022|archive-date=17 January 2023|access-date=10 January 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref>

Despite the palace congratulating the Duke and Duchess on the birth of their daughter Lilibet in June 2021, a few days later the BBC reported that Harry and Meghan had not sought the permission of the Queen before naming their daughter with her personal family nickname.<ref>{{cite news|title=Harry and Meghan reject claim Queen not consulted on Lilibet name|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/09/harry-and-meghan-push-back-at-claim-queen-not-consulted-on-lilibet-name|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240117220014/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/09/harry-and-meghan-push-back-at-claim-queen-not-consulted-on-lilibet-name|work=The Guardian|date=9 June 2021|archive-date=17 January 2024|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Meghan Markle & Prince Harry Bristle At "False & Defamatory" BBC Report On Daughter Lilibet's Name|url=https://deadline.com/2021/06/meghan-markle-prince-harry-bbc-lilibet-1234772079/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110809/https://deadline.com/2021/06/meghan-markle-prince-harry-bbc-lilibet-1234772079/|website=Deadline|date=9 June 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live}}</ref> Lawyers for the couple subsequently accused the BBC of defamation and sent letters out to various media organisations saying the report was false and defamatory, and the allegations should not be repeated as Harry had spoken to the Queen before announcing their daughter's name.<ref>{{cite news |title=What's in a name? An angry spat between Harry, Meghan and the BBC|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/whats-name-an-angry-spat-between-harry-meghan-bbc-2021-06-09/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110811/https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/whats-name-an-angry-spat-between-harry-meghan-bbc-2021-06-09/|work=Reuters|date=10 June 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="telegraph2121">{{cite news |last=Tominey |first=Camilla |title=Palace frustration over Lilibet name choice is part of wider annoyance over Sussexes' departure|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/06/09/palace-frustration-name-choice-part-wider-annoyance-sussexes/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110808/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/06/09/palace-frustration-name-choice-part-wider-annoyance-sussexes/|work=The Telegraph|date=9 June 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

In January 2024, two neo-Nazis, Christopher Gibbons and Tyrone Patten-Walsh, were given prison sentences between 8 and 11 years for terrorism, which included calling for the deaths of Harry and his son Archie on their podcast.<ref>{{cite news|title=Neo-Nazi podcasters sent to prison on terror charges for targeting Prince Harry and his young son|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/neo-nazi-podcasters-sent-prison-terror-charges-targeting-prince-harry-rcna132425|access-date=11 January 2024|work=NBC News|date=5 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229073434/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/neo-nazi-podcasters-sent-prison-terror-charges-targeting-prince-harry-rcna132425 |archive-date=29 February 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Moody|first=Jasmine|title=Two white supremacists jailed for terrorism offences after targeting Harry and Meghan's son in neo-Nazi podcast |url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/white-supremacists-jailed-terrorism-prince-harry-meghan-markle-neo-nazi-podcast/|work=LBC|date=4 January 2024|access-date=11 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240117191015/https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/white-supremacists-jailed-terrorism-prince-harry-meghan-markle-neo-nazi-podcast/|archive-date=17 January 2024}}</ref>