Prince Harry rallied behind Elizabeth Hurley on Thursday as she tearfully broke down in court during their battle over alleged privacy violations.
The British royal and the model are among seven claimants — including Elton John — suing Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. They allege the U.K. tabloids engaged in the “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” over two decades, according to attorney David Sherborne.
The 60-year-old model and actress wept as she alleged her landlines and home had been bugged in what she called a “brutal invasion of privacy” to produce tabloid stories at London’s High Court.
Hurley paused several times to compose herself as she described being targeted by “deeply hurtful and damaging” articles, The Guardian reported. She accused the publisher of bugging her windowsill and using information from tapped landlines.
During questioning, Hurley was asked why she hadn’t complained about the 15 articles published between 2002 and 2011 sooner, People reported. She replied that she hadn’t lodged complaints because “they were, in essence, true.”
“I believe it’s because people were listening to me speak,” she said.
WATCH: KING CHARLES CAN’T GET INVOLVED IN PRINCE HARRY’S SECURITY WOES: AUTHOR
Royal expert Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital it was a no-brainer that Harry was present at the trial on Thursday even though he wasn’t testifying.
“Harry was pleased to support Liz Hurley,” he said. “She felt that, allegedly, her home had been bugged, which caused her tremendous upset and worries that unknown people had illegally invaded her privacy.”
“Prince Harry was originally supposed to testify today, so it’s nice to see him in court after an emotional day to support another claimant,” royal commentator Meredith Constant told Fox News Digital.
“It’s a visual reminder that this case isn’t just about Prince Harry. It’s powerful. It’s not a case of whinging and giving the British royal family a massive headache, as some U.K. outlets have tried to frame it.”
The Guardian reported that in a witness statement submitted to the court, Hurley said that unlawful acts against her involved “landline tapping my phones and recording my live telephone conversations, placing surreptitious mics on my home windows, stealing my medical information when I was pregnant … and other monstrous, staggering things.”
“Above all, it was the discovery that the Mail had tapped the landlines of my home phones and tape-recorded my live telephone conversations that devastated me,” she said. “I felt crushed.”
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
Hurley said she often wondered whether people close to her were leaking private conversations or if someone nearby could overhear them.
Associated Newspapers has strongly denied the allegations made by the claimants, calling them “preposterous.” The publisher said the roughly 50 articles in question were based on legitimate sources, including acquaintances who had volunteered information about their famous friends.
Lead barrister Anthony White argued that the information published about Hurley had come from lawful means and sources who willingly spoke about their celebrity friends.
A visibly emotional Hurley said she aimed to protect her son and would not say anything publicly she wouldn’t want him to read. She added that any quotes from named friends had been approved and were uncontroversial, and that her own remarks were benign and did not reveal private information.
At one point, Hurley was offered a break but declined. Her voice cracked as she said, “It was a pretty traumatic time,” People reported.
Hurley’s testimony came a day after Harry was on the witness stand for two and a half hours on Wednesday. That day, he released a witness statement that named his brother, Prince William, and sister-in-law, Kate Middleton.
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
People reported that the list was part of Harry’s argument describing the circle of people he was in “regular contact” with between 1996 and 2014.
The 41-year-old alleged that private details published by the tabloids could only have come from unlawfully obtained information shared within trusted circles.
“It makes complete sense that Harry named William and Kate,” said Constant. “It serves as a reminder that alleged illegal information gathering and invasive tactics to get information don’t occur in a bubble.
“The jarring difference between the brothers and how they’ve decided to handle the tabloids is fully on display. One can’t discount the idea that, not only the tabloid coverage, but how William and Harry have decided to deal with the U.K. press, has contributed to their yearslong rift.”
British royals expert Hilary Fordwich criticized the decision.
“Harry rather ironically stated in court on the record regarding Prince William, ‘We trusted each other with the highly sensitive information we shared about our private, family and professional lives,’” Fordwich told Fox News Digital. “And now it’s hypocritical Harry who has betrayed that highly sacred trust.”
“He is dragging the monarchy back into the uncouth world of celebrity victimhood while the other royals are focused on duty and service,” Fordwich claimed. “The judge had to keep reminding Harry that the allegations aren’t proof.”
Harry also appeared emotional as he told the court that the Daily Mail had made his wife Meghan Markle’s life “an absolute misery.” Harry said the idea that he isn’t entitled to privacy is “disgusting,” adding that the legal battle has been another “horrible experience” for his family.
“Associated Newspapers was the outlet that published Meghan’s letter to her father, Thomas Markle, in 2019,” Constant previously told Fox News Digital.
“It was somewhat rich for the defense to suggest that Prince Harry should have gone to the palace’s preferred law firm, given how Meghan and Harry claimed they were ignored when they asked for legal action against the Mail on Sunday that year.”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back as senior royals in 2020, citing intense media scrutiny and a lack of support from the palace. They relocated to California.
