In a recent court testimony, Mail on Sunday editor Charlotte Griffiths revealed that she learned of Kate Middleton’s pregnancy before the official announcement from Buckingham Palace but chose not to publish the information. Griffiths asserted that she had received this knowledge in a social setting, highlighting her commitment to maintaining the boundaries between her professional duties and personal relationships.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/prince-william-catherine-duchess-of-cambridge-the-lindo-wing-031126-1-2fd87128628d4f8994a1d8aacb0540d6.jpg)
Griffiths provided her statement while testifying in Prince Harry’s lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which owns the Mail on Sunday. The claimants, including Prince Harry and other prominent figures, allege that the publisher engaged in unlawful information gathering. Griffiths firmly maintained that she had never used private investigators or engaged in phone tapping throughout her journalistic career.
The revelation from Griffiths pertains to the pregnancy of Princess Kate, who is now the mother of Prince George, aged 12. During her testimony, she recounted attending a country weekend gathering in late 2012, where Prince William informed her that Kate was unwell due to morning sickness, which was an indication of her pregnancy. “William arrived alone that Friday and explained that Kate was suffering with morning sickness,” she stated. This private conversation preceded the palace’s official announcement, which was made on December 3, 2012, when Kate was admitted to hospital due to hyperemesis gravidarum.
In reflecting on her decision to withhold the information, Griffiths expressed that she prioritised her friendships over breaking a significant news story. At the time, she worked on the Mail’s Diary column and soon faced displeasure from her editor, Geordie Greig, who was evidently frustrated by her decision to keep the scoop to herself. Subsequent to the admission, Kate remained hospitalised for four days before giving birth to Prince George in July 2013.
Throughout her testimony, Griffiths elaborated on her ethos of maintaining a clear division between her professional and personal lives. She noted, “If I am at an event working and chatting in a social context, I make it clear that I am asking questions as a journalist. If I’m attending a private dinner with friends and am told something in confidence, then I treat it as such.” This principle, she claims, is one she has adhered to consistently throughout her career.
In addition to her comments about Kate Middleton, Griffiths also shared insights into her connections with the younger royals, mentioning her attendance at a party hosted by Prince Harry in 2012. She maintained her stance regarding ethical journalism, stating, “I have never hacked or tapped a phone,” and dismissed claims that her private communications were related to any story she was working on at the time.
In the backdrop of her testimony, Prince Harry himself has refuted suggestions that Griffiths was part of his inner circle. The Duke of Sussex clarified that he never used a Facebook profile named “Mr. Mischief,” a name allegedly associated with communications between him and Griffiths. He emphasised that his acquaintanceship with her was minimal and only linked to a party hosted by his friend, Arthur Landon, denying any alleged casual connection.
The ongoing case against ANL is part of Prince Harry’s wider legal battle against British tabloids, with this current lawsuit only one of several against the media in relation to alleged unlawful practices. ANL has denied all accusations, maintaining that their reporting is substantiated by legitimate sources.
As the trial draws to a conclusion, both the details of Griffiths’ testimony and Prince Harry’s responses raise questions about the nature of journalistic ethics, the obligations of reporters to their subjects, and the complexities of personal relationships in the media landscape. The hearings have certainly captured public interest, highlighting the often fraught relationship between the media and the monarchy.
This significant testimony from Griffiths places a spotlight on the delicate balance journalists must negotiate between their professional responsibilities and personal integrity. As the legal proceedings continue, it remains to be seen how the court will address the allegations of misconduct in this high-profile case.