The Duke of Sussex appeared at the High Court, as a four-day hearing in a privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail began on Monday.
Just hours before, a photo circulating on social media showed Prince Harry as he flew to London, looking low-key in a polo top and a baseball cap, emblazoned with Coop Hair, Don't Care.
It marks the first time the Duke has been in the UK since his grandmother, the late Queen's funeral last September and since the release of his explosive tell-all memoir, Spare, which was published in January. Harry's trip also comes just weeks before his father, the King's coronation on 6 May, and it's not yet known if the Sussexes will be in attendance. See what the Duke had to say as he arrived at the court in London...
Also appearing in-person at Monday's hearing were actress Sadie Frost and Sir Elton John.
ANL commissioned the "breaking and entry into private property", illegally intercepted voicemail messages and obtained medical records, lawyers for Harry and the rest of the claimants told the High Court.
David Sherborne, acting for the claimants, said in written submissions: "The claimants each claim that in different ways they were the victim of numerous unlawful acts carried out by the defendant, or by those acting on the instructions of its newspapers, The Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday."
NEWS: Prince Harry will not reunite with Prince William during UK visit
Mr Sherborne said the alleged unlawful activity included "illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening into live landline calls, obtaining private information, such as itemised phone bills or medical records, by deception or 'blagging', using private investigators to commit these unlawful information gathering acts on their behalf and even commissioning the breaking and entry into private property".
"They range through a period from 1993 to 2011, even continuing beyond until 2018," the barrister added.
Lawyers for ANL have said that privacy claims are "stale" and should be dismissed without a trial.
Adrian Beltrami KC, in written submissions, argued that the legal actions have been brought too late.
The barrister said that the individuals have to prove they did not know earlier, or could not have discovered earlier, they might have had a claim against ANL for alleged misuse of their private information.
"Those claims, which relate to matters said to have taken place as early as 1993, and for the most part in the first decade of this century, are undeniably prima facie time barred," he said.
Mr Beltrami said that more than a decade after the Leveson Inquiry and several criminal and civil proceedings over phone hacking, "it would be surprising indeed for any reasonably informed member of the public, let alone a figure in the public eye, to have been unaware of these matters".
He continued: "The claimants have failed to show that they have a real prospect of discharging their burden at trial and the court should not hesitate to dismiss these stale claims at an early stage, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a considerable waste of time, costs and the court’s resources."
LISTEN: Why Charles is being strict with the coronation guest list
Make sure you never miss a ROYAL story! Sign up to The Royal Explainer newsletter to receive your weekly dose of royal features and other exclusive content straight to your inbox.