Harry and Meghan have chosen not to include a picture with their children on their annual Christmas greeting.
The virtual message includes a message reading: “On behalf of the office of Prince Harry & Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Archewell Productions and Archewell Foundation, we wish you a very happy holiday season.”
This year they chose not to include their children, Archie and Lilibet, who featured in last year’s card.
Instead Meghan, 42, and Harry, 39, chose a photo from the closing ceremony of the 2023 Invictus Games, which took place in September in Dusseldorf, Germany.
Read more:
Coogan praises ‘brave’ Prince Harry for bringing phone hacking case
The articles at the centre of the hacking trial
What are the main findings of the case?
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
Harry wore a black suit with a black dress shirt, while Meghan wore a green strapless dress with floral details as they smiled and clapped.
Last year’s card was the first time the couple revealed a picture of their second child, Lilibet, now aged two, who was held in the air by her smiling mother.
Omid Scobie appears to admit early draft of book did name King and Kate, Princess of Wales, as royals in race row
Prince Harry says he and Meghan ‘felt forced’ to leave Royal Family and his children can’t ‘feel at home’ in UK
Omid Scobie says he ‘never submitted’ book with names of royals who ‘questioned’ Archie’s skin colour
Harry and Meghan revealed this year’s card on the day of the Duke of Sussex’s partial victory in a High Court phone-hacking claim.
The judge ruled his phone was probably hacked “to a modest extent” by the publisher Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The conclusion of the case prompted a salvo from Piers Morgan, former editor of the Daily Mirror between 1995 and 2003, who accused Harry of wanting to “destroy the British monarchy”.
In the tirade, which Morgan delivered outside his London home, he insisted he had “zero knowledge” of an article about the duke published during his time as editor of the paper, which may have involved unlawful information gathering and denied ever having hacked a phone or telling anyone else to.
