The client is now expressing outrage over being named in the Diddy scandal documents. What's particularly ironic is how he speaks as though his name was never actually mentioned, despite the fact that many of us, myself included, combed through the documents in detail.
I remember covering it all on my channel—though I’m not sure if that video is still available or if it was taken down during last year’s content purge. Regardless, his name was clearly listed. The documents even referenced how attending Diddy’s parties might lead to encounters with celebrities like Prince Harry. So why all the dramatics now?
According to court records, the client claims that the headline story and related coverage about the Diddy case had a profoundly negative impact on his mental health. Seriously? Everything seems to impact Harry’s mental health. If his morning coffee isn’t prepared just right, it’s a crisis. It’s no secret that this guy, his controversial wife, and their children are always in the middle of some emotional storm. Yes, the documents refer to his wife and kids—not with any inflammatory labels, but the implication is always there, as if their very existence is now up for debate.
He’s also accusing The Sun of acting out of revenge. Honestly, I wish I could say this to him directly: the only reason you assume others are motivated by revenge is because that’s how you operate. You’re the one constantly acting out of spite—against your family, your brother, your father. Everything you do seems to stem from resentment, whether it’s over not becoming king or the wild narrative you’ve constructed around Princess Diana’s death.
So when he accuses The Sun of seeking revenge by publishing a front-page story, it’s absurd. The documents exist. They named him. That’s not revenge—it’s reporting. And the idea that this was one of many “false and highly derogatory” articles from Rupert Murdoch’s outlets? Please. Is he also going to sue the Daily Mail, the New York Post, The Hollywood Reporter, or any of the dozens of websites that covered the same story? Of course not. This is clearly a legal tactic being played for next year’s court case. And once again, he’s likely to lose.
The claim continues by stating that these stories placed so much stress on his royal relationships that he had no choice but to leave the institution and move to North America, abandoning everything he once cherished. Wait—what? He’s really trying to say that coverage of the Diddy scandal, which broke recently, somehow forced him to leave the royal family five years ago in 2020? That’s just nonsensical. Is he actually serious right now?
A spokesperson for News Group Newspapers (NGN) stood by their coverage, particularly the story involving Combs. And honestly, they didn’t even need to explain—it’s obvious. His name appeared in legal documents. That’s public information. NGN made it clear that they strive to report accurately and reflect public debate. And let’s not forget, this client has given interviews, published a controversial book, and opened himself up to scrutiny. That’s what public figures do—they get scrutinized.
