← DealBook Summit
DealBook Summit
Prince Harry on His Murdoch Tabloid Fight and Big Tech
00:36:08
The Duke of Sussex said his lawsuit against the tabloids for hacking his phone was about “accountability.” He also discussed mental health, the lack of regulations around social media and the decision to withdraw from royal duties in 2020.
Loading summary
Transcript114 lines
- [00:00]
A
Even though severe cases can be rare, respiratory syncytial virus, or rsv, is still the leading cause of hospitalization in babies under one. RSV often begins like a cold or the flu, but can quickly spread to your baby's lungs. Ask your doctor about preventative antibodies for your baby this season and visit protect againstrsv.com the information presented is for general educational purposes only. Please ask your healthcare provider about any questions regarding your health or your baby's health.
- [00:33]
B
But I do really find myself even more so now wondering why people trust the information that they're given, how they trust it and where they're getting it from, and how any form of accountability can actually happen.
- [00:54]
C
This is Andrew Ross Sorkin with the New York Times, and you're listening to interviews from our annual Dealbook Summit Live event, recorded on December 4th in New York City. You know, I wanted to have Prince Harry here today because we've all been inundated. We've been talking about it actually all day in many ways about the media, about information and misinformation, disinformation, the role of social media in all of this and how it really ties in to our mental health. And the truth is that the gentleman to my left, the prince, has more personal experience this than just about anybody I know. And he grew up in the spotlight as a child. His nearly every moment has been captured by photographers and journalists who have written about him endlessly, often with stories that have strayed far from the truth. And he's been harassed in person and online, and it's taken a toll. It's also led him to examine these issues in a way that I think many people have not. And he's about to make headlines all over again because next month he's got a major lawsuit that he's brought that's going to trial in the UK against Rupert Murdoch's tabloids. It focuses on the phone hacking scandal that began more than a decade ago. And so we're going to talk about that and so much more. Prince Harry, I want to thank you.
- [02:21]
B
Thanks for the intro for being here.
- [02:24]
C
You didn't need an intro, really.
- [02:27]
B
Well, all the things that you just described. I now find myself sitting here under the spotlight in front of all these incredible people. So it's sort of going back over the same things. By the way, it's a very nice carpeted stage.
- [02:44]
C
Thank you. Let me ask you this, though, and I just, maybe you could start at the beginning for us because I think many of us have had these battles with the media and social media and all of this. But take me back, if you could, if you go there, to your childhood, because I think that was a really formative experience in terms of how that really led you to connect all of the dots in terms of how you think today about these issues.
- [03:17]
B
As you've touched on that. I've had a lived experience since I was a kid. I've seen stories written about myself that aren't exactly based on reality. I've seen stories written about members of my family, friends, strangers, all sorts of people. And I think when you grow up within that environment, you do find yourself questioning the validity of the information, but also what other people are thinking of that as well, and how dangerous it can be over the course of time. But I do really find myself even more so now, wondering how or why people trust the information that they're given, how they trust it and where they're getting it from, and how any form of accountability can actually. Can. Can actually happen. And I'm talking about mainstream media, social media. It's a very broad scope, but as a kid, social media didn't exist.
- [04:14]
C
You know, I was rereading Spare and. And you said the war for me with, I think the media unknowingly began in August of 1997. And you said I was fighting myself. What do you mean by that?
- [04:31]
B
I think again, when you. When you're kind of trapped within this bubble, it kind of feels like there's no way out. And what happened to my mum and the fact that I was a kid and I felt helpless, there becomes the inner turmoil, the inner battle of. Especially at a young age, there was clearly nothing that I could do. I felt helpless. One of my biggest weaknesses is feeling helpless. I don't know, maybe people can relate in the room. And it was something that I knew that I couldn't fix. And it was also a situation that I knew I couldn't get out of. And the thing that worried me the most was what's happened to her? Is that going to happen to me or is that going to happen to my wife or is that going to happen to my kids?
- [05:18]
C
And the helplessness was about. Was it about reading about it and about reading people saying things that just weren't true?
- [05:25]
B
Well, I think suddenly throughout my life, there have been moments when I have read a lot and there have been moments when I've read nothing. And I highly recommend the latter because once you stop reading the stuff about yourself, you've automatically removed the power from their hands. Because with that level of fear comes an element of control. And one of the reasons why I probably didn't, I guess, remove myself from the situation sooner was because of that very fear, that fear of, well, they control the narrative. So whatever I do, whatever I say, they can choose their version of reality to be able to effectively control me and keep me in that space.
- [06:15]
C
You've talked a lot about going to therapy. Has that helped you?
- [06:19]
B
It's helped me massively. I highly encourage it.
- [06:23]
C
How so?
- [06:25]
B
For me, it bursts a few bubbles. For me, I think, again, living within the. Being brought up within an institution, because I think a lot of people may say. May think that I fit in a certain box. I actually don't. I kind of straddle many different worlds. I wear different hats, and I'm involved in so many different organizations, charitable business and such like. But. And again, you know, on these subjects that you're bringing up, not therapy specifically, but I'm certainly by no means an expert. However, I do have a lot of experience, as you said, from childhood, growing up, therapy was really the thing for me that, again, bearing in mind the circumstances, being brought up in an institution, I hunted. I was 10 years in the military. There's a very clear side of the road that one might say that he's clearly on that. And then obviously, as we know, my life changed a lot. So I do. I am sort of, dare I say it, straddling two very different sides in this case. But no, therapy for me was a blessing because it was really what I would describe as cleaning the windshield.
- [07:45]
C
But what was the lesson for you about dealing with both this idea of your own life that you knew that was factual, and this other life which you would read about?
- [07:56]
B
One might say I could never say I made peace with it. This is starting to feel a little bit like therapy, actually, and now group therapy. But I think from. Yeah, I think in my situation, one would hope to be able to make peace with it. And to a certain degree, I made peace with some of the past. But what it really did was open my eyes and open my perspective on how to be able to resolve the inner war, the inner turmoil for myself. And a large part of that, and I think I've spoken about this before, was I was always convinced that I needed to be angry or frustrated towards the press because of what they did to my mum. And through therapy and a few other bits and pieces, I. What really helped me to open my eyes was the reality that actually there's no point in being depressed, sad, or specifically angry at the press because it's not gonna change Anything. It's certainly not what my mum wanted.
- [08:56]
C
So you were saying you don't read about yourself at all now?
- [09:00]
B
I do when I need to.
- [09:02]
C
How do you know when you need to?
- [09:04]
B
Because there are people in my team who come to me with certain things and say, would you like us to deal with this? Would you not? But I would say 97, 98% of the utter nonsense that is written I either don't know about or I just have to ignore because there's actually nothing that one can do about it.
- [09:21]
C
So you do not have a Google alert on your name?
- [09:23]
B
I don't. Never Google yourself.
- [09:26]
C
Are you on social media?
- [09:27]
B
I'm not on social media.
- [09:28]
C
Like a burner account or something?
- [09:30]
B
No. Why do you want to follow me? Is that what's going on?
- [09:33]
C
I was just. Just wanted to find out. You know, as you just mentioned, the press has been this reoccurring issue in your life. And one of the things that I was struck by, and I want to talk about this suit that's about to take place or the trial that's going to take place in the uk, because you've described the British press as lawbreakers, not just liars. And I'm curious if this is how you think about all the press, if this is just the UK press, if this is the tabloid press, how you think about this construct. Because here we are at the New York Times journalistic operation. We like to think that we're trying to get at the truth and how you sort of make sense of folks you think that are not doing it right and then folks that maybe are.
- [10:23]
B
First of all, I wouldn't be here if I thought that you were one of them.
- [10:28]
C
Well, thank you.
- [10:29]
B
Just so we're absolutely clear, but we've still got about 20 minutes left, so at any point, if I either leave or fall on the floor in a fetal position, you'll know why. Again, it's quite a bizarre upbringing to have what is known as a royal rotor covering your every moves. People that were given special access to your work that would also write complete nonsense about you and during the rest of your life and having to basically dance for them, quite literally on engagements and work. So when I talk about lawbreakers, it's very, very specific to a group of British newspapers rather than any form of broadcast media. And that was then, what I see more on a larger scale across mainstream media, or what I think people have seen more lately, not even seen what they perhaps feel is perhaps a hidden agenda in some mainstream media and also social media. It's almost like a competition who can sort of hide the truth or lie or mislead us more. But I think that one of the reasons why I brought the claim, and I can't talk much about it because as you say, it starts in less than a month, is specifically for truth and accountability. What I've worried about for most of my life, actually I didn't worry about it that much because I wasn't aware of it. But when I became aware of it, what I really, really don't like and what I find hard to make peace with, is that there are some people on one end of the spectrum who are sitting behind their keyboards writing dangerous or defamatory headlines. Knowing that it's going to work as clickbait because it's any context in the rest of the article protects them and there's nothing you can do about it. And then the other end of the spectrum you have Nobel Prize winners like Maria Ressa who is literally putting her life on the line, and war correspondents who again are putting their lives on the line to bring us the truth. So that to me is the spectrum and my life has been covered by this end of the spectrum, which I will be damned if those journalists are going to ruin journalism for everybody else because we depend on it so much.
- [12:54]
C
Without getting too far into the details of the trial, because I know it is coming in, I don't know what you can cannot say. You did say in your book, you said, I began to think at some point that Murdoch was evil. You've had very strong words about Rupert Murdoch and what you think he did in this phone hacking scandal. What is the goal of this lawsuit which has been ongoing now for, for a very, very long time?
- [13:16]
B
The goal is accountability. It's really that simple.
- [13:19]
C
What does that mean?
- [13:20]
B
That means that unfortunately the scale of the COVID up is so large that people need to see it for themselves. And the legal system within the UK is very different to the. I don't know how different it is to here, but there is a system which is set up where if you are offered more, more money as a settlement than you would ever get in court, then you're forced to have to settle. So actually there's no justice for any of these claimants of which now stands at about 1300 claimants.
- [13:52]
C
That's what I was going to ask you. I was going to say 1300 people, from what I've read, have settled with the Murdoch folks. And of the 40 claims that originally joined with you in this action, it's down to now.
- [14:05]
B
Two.
- [14:07]
C
There are some reports that suggest that even if you win in court, the amount that would be awarded to you would be less than what you could have gotten by settling.
- [14:17]
B
Oh, I mean, 100 times over.
- [14:19]
C
100 times over.
- [14:21]
B
Even if or when we win, I'm still liable for the legal costs of both sides.
- [14:27]
C
And so you think that everybody's just settled because it just doesn't make any economic sense to continue.
- [14:32]
B
No, I, I, I know why people have settled. They, they've settled because they've had to settle. So therefore one of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability because I'm the last person that can actually achieve that. And also closure for these 1300 people.
- [14:46]
C
And families in terms of that accountability. Just so I understand it, do you.
- [14:51]
B
Remember when I said I couldn't talk about it?
- [14:52]
C
Yeah. Let me ask you a related but different question, which is how much of that is an old fight versus what I imagine is a new fight in terms of this is all move now to social media, meaning it's all now not just classic social media, but probably the dark web, if you will.
- [15:20]
B
Yeah, no, I do. This claim the hacking stuff is almost 15 years old. The COVID up of the hacking and everything else in between is actually relatively new. And I think that will be the piece that really shocks the world. But I do, I scratch my head thinking, wow, is this already a moment that has passed? And that's certainly what they would like to believe. I think they would say, oh, this is historical. Well, I've had to wait five years, five years for my claim and in those five years the retaliation and the intimidation for me as a witness has been quite extraordinary, especially with the attacks towards my wife and children. So yeah, I do think to myself, is this passed? And there will be a point when it's like who's next and who is next?
- [16:11]
C
I mean when you see what's happening now with a whole level of different type of misinformation, who is next and who do you, how do you think we should reconstruct things if this, if the lesson that you're learning through the sort of tabloid or classic media in the UK is, was an example that you lived through, how do you connect that to where we are going?
- [16:30]
B
Well, I think the, our need for credible information is so important, more important now than probably ever. And I think the experience that I had as a kid growing up and again with all these other claimants, specifically with the tabloids, because I guess a lot of people in this room may think, well they're tabloids, of course they're going to behave like this. Of course they're going to say and make up complete nonsense. But our print media is very different than it is over here because the majority, if not all of our, if not almost all of our newspapers are tabloid related. But the biggest problem within the UK is that what might seem trivial or small or just a blatant lie in a newspaper then gets carried over onto news channels, radio channels and breakfast shows. And so it amplifies everything. So you're talking about social media. Social media amplifies all of that stuff as well. So even though the sun newspaper has now less than a million readers, it doesn't take much to amplify a story that you probably should or could perhaps push to the side or ignore.
- [17:38]
C
We'll be right back.
- [17:40]
D
Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands Just getting started. Get started with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com NYT go to shopify.com NYT shopify.com NYT.
- [18:13]
E
A Sapphire Reserve story from Ella Langley.
- [18:16]
F
I kind of say my first concert ever was for cows. I would climb up to the top of the barn and just perform. Now I still do that listening to Apple music, which I get through my Sapphire reserve card. And when moo can sound very close to boo, it toughens a girl up.
- [18:30]
E
Sapphire Reserve now comes with Apple music. Chase Sapphire Reserve now even more rewarding. See more rewards@chase.com Reserve IT cards issued by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply. Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc. Registered in the US and other countries.
- [18:44]
G
Hey, it's Vaughn Vreeland from New York Times Cooking. And if I could hit a whistle tone, I would do a Mariah. It's time because Cookie Week is here. It is the best time all year when we unveil seven days of new cookie recipes from some of your favorite bakers.
- [19:00]
C
This looks like a little pink poodle. They look huggable. What if I took Vietnamese coffee and.
- [19:04]
B
Made that into a cookie?
- [19:06]
C
These are deluxe cookies. The sour candy is crazy.
- [19:10]
B
What?
- [19:11]
C
It's absolutely unhinged but completely delicious. It smells so good.
- [19:17]
D
Find all the Cookie week recipes@nytcooking.com subscribe now for a limited time offer.
- [19:32]
C
Your wife Megan came here, we spoke in 2021, and one of the things that she said was, do you have.
- [19:39]
B
This, as did you have this carpet?
- [19:40]
C
I don't know if we had this carpet. This is good carpet.
- [19:43]
B
Things, things, things.
- [19:44]
C
I think we've upgraded. We might have upgraded on the carpet.
- [19:46]
B
That's good.
- [19:48]
C
But one of the things that she said was she thought there should be a cigarette warning on social media then. And then, since then, the Surgeon General has effectively come out and said the same thing. Do you think there should be some kind of shift in terms of how we deal with social media writ large?
- [20:04]
B
Well, I think we've quite a few people, including the Surgeon general, have called it a public safety issue, public health issue, and, you know, I guess, are we allowed crowd participation?
- [20:16]
C
Yeah.
- [20:17]
B
Can I, can I ask a question to those of you, bearing in mind I'm in a room here full of leaders of which I respect and admire. How many people in this room, by a show of hands, think that it is bizarre that this industry, the social media industry, is able to have pretty much zero accountability and transparency and yet are able to make billions upon billions, over a billion a week, I believe, without someone, somewhere or a group of people being able to actually change that as a sort of a long winded answer, but by a show of hands, you yourselves are industry leaders and yet here we are talking about an industry that is making billions off of all of us, and yet there's no transparency and no accountability. So by raise of hands, who thinks that they should, or they should be held accountable and there should be transparency for the social media industry. That's wonderful. Phew.
- [21:16]
C
Almost everybody. So here's the thing. Clearly very popular. And yet doesn't happen.
- [21:21]
B
It doesn't happen. And one needs to question why. You know, I'm not here to give. I'm not. I'm an immigrant. I am by no means here telling anyone what they should do. But it does seem very, very odd, especially when we know what happens when a small group of people make billions for themselves or for their shareholders without any accountability. The Flint water crisis, the financial crisis. In fact, you wrote a book about it and then you turned it into a movie, did you not? Yes, precisely. So we already know what's going to happen. We're actually in it. It's happening. And I try to look at these things through the lens of a dad, and that's one of the Reasons why we're so focused on the Parents Network through our foundation and being able to hear parents, American parents, Canadian parents, British parents, and larger, more across the globe as well. Because no one's asking for looking for a ban, but what they do want is safety at the heart of it, safety at the heart of design. Right.
- [22:30]
C
Let me ask you this though. I don't know if you saw in Australia they passed a ban for children under 16. Social media across the board. That makes sense to you?
- [22:39]
B
As I just said, I don't think it necessarily makes sense. But I'm not going to sit here and tell Australia, unlike some people who own these platforms, telling other countries what they should or shouldn't do. But from the experiences that I've had and the conversations that we have had, myself, my wife and our foundation, through insight sessions around the world, kids, it's already been intentionally created to be addictive. So by banning it and removing it creates all sorts of problems just as much as any advice to parents to say, well, just don't let them on social media. Do you know what happens when that happens? There's a massive falling out between the parents and the child, or then the child goes to school and guess what happens? They're probably the only person or maybe 1 or 5% in the class that isn't on social media and they get bullied.
- [23:29]
C
Okay, I'm going to make it a little more complicated because I actually think this is more complicated. It's become complicated by the following. There was an effort, you could argue, and maybe this is somewhat political, but there was an effort by some of the social media companies to quote, unquote, censor or maybe protect us, the public from certain types of information. During COVID and other things like that, where there was information that we were not seen, it was downranked in the algorithm, you remember, and Sundar Pichai is going to be here. And there was lots of commotion about what people were able to see and what they couldn't see. And in some ways that became a central tenant in an odd way of what's happened here in this even last election cycle in the US where people said, oh no, no, no, no, actually that wasn't misinformation. What we thought was misinformation was actually real information and we should have been able to see all of it and we shouldn't be telling these folks what they can do or what they can't do. Even Mark Zuckerberg came out and publicly apologized for some of the down rankings and algorithmic things that they were doing. I just wonder, because right now we're in this very unique moment where people are screaming from the rooftops that they want even more transparency. They actually. It's not. They want us to be shielded from things. They say, give. Give us everything and we'll sort it out ourselves.
- [24:54]
B
Well, I think transparency. Asking transparency or demanding transparency for the companies is very different to just let us see everything online. Is that what you see?
- [25:04]
C
Yeah, Well, I think that's the big question about the transparency, which is, I think, should we all be able to get at everything? And it's. It's on us as citizens to kind of figure out what's real and what's not. And, you know, if people want to lie, if you want to make stuff up, and it's. I think that's a little bit what people. I mean, I don't want to suggest this is where the country has moved, but I feel like there is a growing movement, at least more towards that than that's almost a backlash to any effort to say, actually, you know what, this stuff should be policed. Even though I think everyone in this room just agreed that these companies should be held liable. At the same time, there's other people, and maybe they're outside of this room or other places. Maybe if we re ask the question, they'd say, no, no, give me everything. Just feels like something's happening in this country around that, maybe around the world, too.
- [25:54]
B
Yeah, each country is. Each country is different.
- [25:57]
C
Right.
- [25:58]
B
It's not a coincidence that the world has become more volatile, more divided since social media has been around for 20 years. I think we can. Hopefully we can all agree on that. So I think there's certainly a culture, an atmosphere of intimidation. Right. Right now, that's certainly what I feel. And I don't believe that everybody is saying, just give us everything. I believe that the majority of people want to know that they're not being. That the information isn't being censored, but that safeguards are absolutely necessary. And I believe that, you know, protecting speech and safeguards come hand in hand. And any argument to say that they don't, I think, is, you know, this idea that someone's taking away free speech, that to me is a complete distraction.
- [26:53]
C
When you talk to, and I'm sure you have sometimes the leaders of these, either social media companies or media companies, what is the reaction they. They give you?
- [27:02]
B
Well, first of all, most of them haven't really. We haven't sat down and spoken with most of them. I'd love to, but I would also, I would, you know, until we can find a proper solution here, a long term solution that every. I can't say everyone's going to be happy with because clearly not everyone's going to be happy with. But I would welcome the chance to sit down not necessarily with the, with the CEOs, but more the shareholders, because the shareholders are the ones that really are in control and I'm sure their parents, and I'm sure hopefully they would agree that kids need to be kept safe. But again, one of the things that I guess has always puzzled me is that we live in an age now or we have done. And this goes back to the tabloid era. Tabloid era, specifically with the conversation we were having about tabloids that you guys all heard that we have elements of the mainstream media, legacy media elements, not all elements, trying to redefine public interest for their own personal interest. And at the same time we have social media companies trying to redefine free speech for their own personal interests. And what shocks me or what fascinates me is the fact that that's not a conflict of interest because it's so clearly the loudest voices are the people who are really deeply bought into making sure that things move the way that they want them to move. And the cost is what they make. They make hundreds of millions.
- [28:34]
C
That's interesting. So I'm a professional journalist and I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. The First Amendment goes much farther from, for example, than the rules in the UK in terms of protecting people. Right? What do you mean? You live here now. What do you think of the First Amendment?
- [28:49]
B
There's no way I'm going to talk about that. What I will say to that is actually I will, I'll plug her book. Dr. Mary Anne Franks, do you know what I mean?
- [29:00]
C
I don't.
- [29:01]
B
So. Dr. Mary Ann Franks has just written a book called Fearless Speech, Chapter four. I highly recommend it for you. You guys more than welcome to read it as well. But I'm in the process of reading that at the moment and I think it really encapsulates and explains the current situation with regard free speech and how in chapter four, specifically how social media has done a very good job in defining reckless speech.
- [29:30]
C
Defining reckless speech. And what is that definition?
- [29:33]
B
Read the book. Read the books, man.
- [29:39]
C
How much do you blame what we'll call reckless speech for the direction of your existence, your life? When you look back on all the things that have happened to you and not just happened to you, but decisions you've made, how much does the media and all of this play into that?
- [30:00]
B
Yeah, of course, A lot. Without question. We were running from something. Quite a few things, actually. But just jumping back a little bit, the speech point, in my understanding, is to allow and encourage people to participate speech in democracies, to allow people to participate in the democracy. But the moment that you start normalizing hate speech, aren't you taking away free speech from so many other people?
- [30:35]
C
It's very complicated.
- [30:37]
B
It's complicated. And which is why, again, one of the reasons why I applaud you for doing these kind of things, not by inviting me, whatever, but being able to do these things, because again, on social media, every conversation and every complicated topic, Right. Is squashed into a box. Limited characters. And the moment you strip away context from anything, it just becomes a shouting match. You said that a minute ago. A shouting match. Whereas here in these conversations, there is actually added context. I don't know whether people agree or disagree, but at least there's context. It's conversation. We as human beings, that's what we're designed to do. What I'm going to suggest to you is rather than doing this once a year, you should probably do that every day.
- [31:25]
C
We've got a newspaper for that.
- [31:28]
B
Yes, but that is still back to the same point, which is some people don't trust what they read. Some people question it. I wish sometimes more people would question what they read. That critical thinking piece for all of us is such a critical element to us being able to survive. And for me, what is most important from this moment, looking forward, is that we don't become disinterested. We have to remain interested. Because the moment we become disinterested, that's when we no longer get a vote.
- [31:58]
C
Here's a complicated one that I was thinking about that I imagine you must wrestle with, which is it's very important, I would imagine, for there to be a tension around you in that people need to be interested in what you're doing because you have lots of interesting and important and fundamentally fabulous causes that you're trying to pursue. But at the same time, I assume you don't want the attention. And I'm curious how you wrestle with that idea. I mean, I was looking even as we were in the race coming up to this day, I Googled news you. And there were people who are fascinated by everything you're doing. All the time. They're fascinated by. Megan is in California right now and you're here, and there's articles left and right about why are you doing independent events why aren't you doing them together?
- [32:48]
B
Because you invited me. You should have known.
- [32:50]
C
This is true.
- [32:51]
B
You should have known that was going to happen.
- [32:53]
C
But do you know, like, is that normal for you, that there's. The second. There's an article that says, she's in California, you're in New York. They say, well, what is happening with these two? Right. So is that a good thing for you in a way that there's so much interest in you?
- [33:06]
B
There's definitely not a good thing because apparently we've bought or moved house maybe 10, 12 times. We've apparently divorced maybe 10, 12 times as well. So everyone's just like, what? So, yeah, it's hard to. It's hard to keep up with, but that's why you just sort of ignore it. The people I feel most sorry about are the trolls who. Their hopes are just built and built and built and it's like, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. And then it doesn't happen. So I feel sorry for them, generally. I do. I mean that. But yes. I have no doubt that everything that we've spoken about today, today in the Last clock's on 0, 25 minutes, will be spun or twisted somehow against me. And maybe you yourself, it's possible, will be trolled relentlessly. And for that I can only apologize. But you did invite me, so it's not.
- [33:59]
C
I know we're almost out of time, but let me just ask you two other related things, which is you have a case in the uk, so that you can go back there and hopefully have better security when you're there and wanted to understand sort of where that whole thing stands, and also just whether you plan to remain here with us in the us.
- [34:20]
B
I do. I very much enjoy living here and bringing my kids up here. It's a part of my life that I never thought I was. That I was going to live. And I feel as though it's the life that my mum wanted for me and to be able to do the things that I am able to do with my kids that I undoubtedly wouldn't be able to do in the UK is huge. And that's a fantastic opportunity. I'm hugely grateful for that. You bring up another case, one that I can't talk about, and you should know that. But what I would say in that is. He's talking about security. Yeah. I never should have had security removed in the first place. It's amazing when you go through these litigation, which I have become a professional at, of which I aim to retire fairly soon in that regard, I certainly don't want to be starting. I'm not starting them right. I'm just trying to, again, find truth and accountability and ultimately reconciliation. But I never should have it removed. But the disclosure, I think you guys call it, discovery process has been troubling and enlightening. And I just have to now sit and wait until April.
- [35:32]
C
If we have this conversation 30 years from now, what do you want to be known for?
- [35:36]
B
Why 30?
- [35:39]
C
Can you do maybe 5, 10? What would you like to.
- [35:43]
B
I'm saying, what are we known for?
- [35:45]
C
When this is all said and done, what is Prince Harry going to be known for?
- [35:51]
B
I don't want to put my finger on anything specific. I think I know what you're trying to get at is some sort of like, you know, like he's going to take on the media.
- [35:58]
F
No, no, no, no.
- [35:59]
C
I'm not trying to go anywhere. I honestly, I say it. It was a completely just open question for me. I actually was. I genuinely was curious and I'm very curious. When you look at your life and everything that's happened to your life and everything that you've gone through and, and everything you want to accomplish from here, what that feels like, what that looks like to you, I think the world.
- [36:21]
B
Is moving so fast, it would be naive of me to put my finger on anything specific. But the main goal for me at the moment is being the best husband and the best dad that I can be. And one of the reasons why I am not so much stuck in litigation, but the reason why these things have happened and any of the other moves and everything else, and what I believe to be fair and justified criticism towards institutions, perhaps government, media and the like, is because of my 10 years military and the values and principles that I live by. And that's. It's not something that I want to ever shrug off. It is becoming increasingly hard for, I think, for people who, who are valued, not valued, but have values and certain principles to. To stick to those as the world starts to, whatever you want to call it, change. But that. That to me is the. The thing that means the most to me and the thing I want to be known for is that no matter what was happening around him, me, that he. That he stuck to his. Stuck to his values. And you always stay true to that.
- [37:34]
C
Prince Harry, everybody. Thank you for a fabulous conversation. Thank you so very, very much. Thank you. Dealbook summit is a production of the new york times. This episode was produced by evan roberts and edited by sarah kessler. Mixing by kelly piclo original music by daniel powell. The rest of the dealbook events team includes julie zahn, hilary kuhn, angela austin, haley hess, dana perkowski, matt kaiser and yen wei liu. Special thanks to sam dolnick, nina lassom, ravi mattu, beth weinstein, kate carrington and melissa tripoli. Thanks for listening. Talk to you.