Prince Harry's Big Project Doomed to Fail Because He Is 'Deeply Unpopular'

Prince Harry's war against the U.K. media is more likely to provoke "sympathy" for the press because he is "deeply, deeply unpopular in the U.K," a PR expert told Newsweek.

The Duke of Sussex is suing three U.K. newspaper publishers over historic allegations of phone hacking, some of which date back as far as the 1990s.

He told ITV in January he views the campaign as his "life's work" though if he loses he could end up with a significant bill for costs, stretching into the millions.

However, he is disliked by 63 percent of Brits and liked by 29 percent, giving him a net approval rating of minus 34, according to data collected by YouGov in April.

Meanwhile, Meghan Markle had a net approval rating of minus 41, with 24 percent liking her and 65 percent disliking her.

Edward Coram James, chief executive of PR agency Go Up, told Newsweek: "If there is a massive nuclear backlash against the U.K. press from the British public then that will have an effect and U.K. politicians will feel like they have to get involved.

"The problem is Harry and Meghan, or specifically Harry, is not the person to achieve change in the media landscape. The reason for that is quite simple, he is deeply, deeply unpopular in the U.K.

"In order to effect change on that scale and against that level of opponent you need to carry the British public with you and he's lost them.

"If anything his actions are more likely to curry a bit of sympathy with the U.K. press. This isn't necessarily right, it's an unfortunate reality and it's morally pretty wrong but the reality is there's a significant amount of people in the U.K. who will see Harry doing something and take the other side.

"That's what happens when you become that unpopular. We saw it in America with Trump."

In a witness statement to the High Court, Prince Harry said alleged phone hacking by journalists at Mirror Group Newspapers caused him to suspect friends were turning against him, leaving him isolated.

"I felt that I couldn't trust anybody, which was an awful feeling for me especially at such a young age," he wrote.

"As I am uncovering the extent of the unlawful activities carried out by MGN's journalist[s] and senior executives towards me, I feel somewhat relieved to know that my paranoia towards my friends and family had, in fact, been misplaced, although [I] feel sad for how much it impacted my adolescence."

While sympathetic, the message is not new and some sections of the 55-page witness statement appear in identical form in a statement he gave in another of his lawsuits, against News Group Newspapers.

The original phone hacking scandal sent shockwaves through the British media, prompting the criminal prosecution of journalists and the closure of Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid the News of the World (NotW).

It all began with a complaint to police by palace staff on behalf of Prince William which led to NotW royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire pleading guilty to voicemail interception in 2006 and ended with the acquittal of Rebekah Brooks, former editor and currently chief executive of Murdoch's News UK.

There was also a major, broad reaching public inquiry into the conduct of the British press, called the Leveson Inquiry, which published recommendations in 2012, though press reform campaigners argue these were not implemented in full.

There was extensive coverage of the scandal at the time, with the inquiry serving up news stories about tabloid exploitation day after day for months.

So far, Harry's lawsuits do not appear to have created the same frenzied atmosphere and public anger around press reform.

The Mirror Group has already been found to have hacked phones and has paid out millions in compensation to victims, so Harry's case is more about ensuring his own name is added to the list, as well as attempting to show collusion within senior management. Among his targets are the likes of Piers Morgan, who has denied ever hacking a phone or instructing any staff to hack phones during his time as editor of The Daily Mirror.

The company, though, says there is no evidence its journalists ever hacked the duke and has admitted just one instance of unlawful information gathering.

Coram James said: "By attacking the press there's just so many people who want to see Harry and Meghan lose these days that he is taking a really important message and a really important cause, which is to prevent these tremendous invasions of privacy and try to define a better balance between what is the public's right to know and what is an individual's right to have a private life, and he's potentially causing that message real damage.

"It shows a degree of naivety as well. He should know this. To me it shows a little bit of the same flagrant disregard for the reality of where they're at with the public and therefore what their actual capacity is that they've been showing for the last six months."

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.