With a sceptical public and hostility from a lot of the press, the Sussexes face quite a challenge. Still, they really could help themselves

They’re back! Harry and Meghan’s quiet return to England this week, via Birmingham airport, was much anticipated but scarcely celebrated – no bunting or street parties.

So far there are many questions but very few answers: not just “why return now?” and “why so suddenly?”, but also questions of security: who pays if not themselves, given that they are not working royals? And where will the money come from to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed?

Steve Bates is a former Guardian royal correspondent

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Plus, views from the Cotswolds of Harry and Meghan’s return, and the embarrassing anachronism that is Ali G

Is there anything sadder than the end of summer? As schools go back next week and parents rely on the boosting effect of a return to routine, we look around for other ways to soften the blow. A few things this year that might make it easier: the need for rain ensures that the advent of autumn is slightly less depressing than usual; people with attic conversions in which you could bake a muffin over the summer will be able to use them again; and if you happen to be a woman of 50 or thereabouts, the fresher weather is ... a relief.

Harry, Meghan and family expected to enjoy ‘extended stay’ with children Archie and Lilibet already enrolled at school

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have arrived back in the UK, landing at Birmingham airport, according to reports.

Prince Harry, Meghan, Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, are expected to enjoy an “extended stay” in Britain, with the children already enrolled at school in the UK and due to start next week.

Spokesperson for Duke of Sussex says he remains an ‘active and avid supporter’ of African Parks’ mission

The Duke of Sussex has stepped down from the board of a major African wildlife charity that had been at the centre of a human rights controversy.

Prince Harry’s spokesperson confirmed he was no longer a trustee of African Parks, which admitted last year that human rights abuses were committed by its rangers in the Republic of the Congo.

The Sussexes are returning to the UK with significantly reduced media deals in an industry where fame alone can no longer guarantee success

Having settled in California in the aftermath of their dramatic decoupling from the royal family in 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced a partnership that appeared to set a clear destination for their new lives outside the House of Windsor.

With every global media stable clamouring for their signature, the couple revealed a deal with Netflix reportedly worth $100m. The ambitions were lofty and broad, including scripted and unscripted projects, shows for all ages and documentaries.

Hard to fathom exactly why Megxit is over and the self-exiled wonder generators are leaving California. Luckily, the internet sleuths are on the case

Wednesday night brought an absolute cloudburst of psychic rain for our parched land, as it emerged that Prince Harry and Meghan were reversing their self-styled “freedom flight” to California and returning to live in the UK. Nature is healing! Is that … is that how the expression goes? Either way, all humans in Britain have taken the announcement brilliantly, while fatted calf prices climbed steeply at the news that the reverse Megxit is imminent, with only an adequate headline soubriquet yet to be found. Megain? Megraine?

Inevitably, thoughts turned swiftly to what it all meant. One of the funniest aspects of Meghan and Harry coverage is how their decisions are always analysed as though we were parsing the 4D chess moves of 19th-century master strategists. We are forever imagining we are dealing with a couple of Bismarcks or Clausewitzes, as opposed to a resting actor and the “chief impact officer” of a firm designed to offer tech-based solutions to men crying in their cars or something.

Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist

What a Time to be Alive! by Marina Hyde (Guardian Faber Publishing, £20) is released in September. To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.

Judge orders payment within seven days towards legal costs in failed case over alleged unlawful information gathering

The Duke of Sussex and six other high-profile claimants must make a £9.54m interim payment within seven days towards the Daily Mail publisher’s legal costs after losing their high court case over allegations of unlawful information gathering, a judge has ruled.

Associated Newspapers Ltd strongly denied the claims made by Prince Harry and co-claimants including Doreen Lawrence and Elton John.

Family relationships remain damaged and there is no clarity on how Sussexes’ security concerns have been resolved

Just as the departure of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’ from the UK six years ago came as a complete surprise, so too is their shock announcement they now intend to return.

Their unilateral decision could fairly be said to have blind-sided the royals. King Charles was only informed on Sunday and is said not to have been involved in the decision making. No mention was made when Harry, Meghan and their two children visited Charles at his private home, Highgrove, last month.

Prime minister wishes couple well in their move back from the US to a non-royal residence outside London

• Harry and Meghan: key moments and controversies since US move

Security arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex while living in the UK are a “private matter”, Andy Burnham has said, after news that Harry and Meghan intend to relocate to Britain from the US this month.

The UK prime minister refused to be drawn on security funding, saying: “This is a private matter. It’s a matter for Harry and Meghan, and we wish them well in the moves that they’re making.”

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are planning to return to live in Britain, six years after leaving for the US: a decision that was subject to intense media scrutiny. The couple and their two children are expected to relocate later in August to a non-royal residence. Nosheen Iqbal speaks to senior national news editor Aaron Sharp

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are planning to return to live in Britain, six years after leaving for the US: a decision that was subject to intense media scrutiny. The couple and their two children are expected to relocate later in August to a non-royal residence.

Nosheen Iqbal speaks to senior national editor Aaron Sharp – watch on YouTube

Duke and Duchess of Sussex intend to relocate from US, with children to start British school in September

• Harry and Meghan: the key moments, conflicts and controversies since their US move

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are planning to return to live in Britain, six years after leaving for the US, it is understood.

The couple and their two children, Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, are expected to relocate later in August to a non-royal residence.

Claimants’ cover might not meet Associated Newspapers’ costs for defending phone-hacking case, high court hears

The Duke of Sussex and his co-claimants could be millions of pounds out of pocket after losing their privacy case against the publishers of the Daily Mail, the high court in London heard.

The seven claimants, who include Prince Harry, Doreen Lawrence and Elton John, sued Associated Newspapers Limited over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

How the celebrity-backed legal action against one of Britain’s most powerful newspapers fell apart

On 26 January 2015, Hugh Grant entertained an unusual guest at an exclusive venue in one of London’s most affluent neighbourhoods. A few weeks earlier, the disgraced former tabloid journalist Graham Johnson had been contemplating starting the year behind bars. Now, he found himself opposite the Hollywood actor in the rather more comfortable surroundings of the KX Gym in Chelsea, which doubles as a private members’ club where fees cost more than £600 a month.

It was on that day, 11 years ago, that one of the seeds of Prince Harry’s doomed court battle with the publisher of the Daily Mail was sown.

Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet believed to have had private reunion with king

King Charles has enjoyed a private reunion with the grandchildren he has not seen for four years, it is understood.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children, Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, were hosted by Charles and Queen Camilla at the king’s private residence, Highgrove House in Gloucestershire, on Friday afternoon.

As the family travails worsen, it’s a wretched time to lose face and maybe millions of pounds to his tabloid tormentor. Epic battle, epic fail

It really hasn’t been a very good week for Harry. The fifth in line to the throne will retire to Montecito, his gated California fastness – not, as seemed at least possible a week ago, having visited his mother country to public sympathy and applause, mending a few broken fences and seeing his old dad again. Now instead it will be a retreat in confusion, not having stayed in a palace, or seeing his busy pater, and worst of all, bested at huge cost by the Daily Mail, the bete noire of all bete noires.

The prince might reflect that he has brought many of his troubles on himself. He will leave with the rightwing press chortling that, for a crusader for personal privacy, he has outed himself much more comprehensively than they ever managed with his rancorous TV interviews about how horrible his family has been to him, his glutinous Netflix series and, most of all, his memoir Spare, with its revelation, among much else, about his frostbitten penis.

It had seemed as if the Duke of Sussex’s visit to London could be a breakthrough in relations with his father. But not any more

Perhaps because it involves kings and princes, we can be forgiven for hoping that they were going to live happily ever after in the end, like in a fairytale. Unfortunately, this is real life.

Bearing in mind that the royal family are strangers, that despite all the whispers and briefings and rumours, we really don’t have any idea of what is going on behind closed palace doors, it’s almost comical how invested we are. And yet, this week, when news emerged that Charles had offered Harry the opportunity to stay at Buckingham Palace during his first trip to London with his wife and children in four years, it felt like a wonderful breakthrough. Finally, a glimmer of possibility that this sorry state of affairs between them could maybe be … if not entirely mended, at least taped over for a while, so they could spend some time together.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

High court dismisses claims by group including Duke of Sussex that Mail publisher used unlawful methods to source stories about them

Prince Harry and six other prominent figures are facing a legal bill of up to £50m after losing their case against the publisher of the Daily Mail over claims it used unlawful methods to source stories.

In an emphatic ruling that is likely to signal an end to new litigation relating to the phone-hacking scandal era, the high court dismissed all the group’s claims, stating that the claimants had not proved that any information had been obtained unlawfully.

Judge says group – including Elton John and Liz Hurley – failed to prove allegations of unlawful information gathering against Associated Newspapers Limited

In his 436-page written judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants failed to prove the allegations of unlawful information gathering (UIG).

As a reminder, the claimants were Prince Harry, Elton John and husband David Furnish, actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes. The judge wrote in his summary:

The court rejected the attempt to prove the claims by broad inference where there remained a legitimate and realistic possible lawful source pathway, or where the article-specific evidence did not prove that the relevant information must have been obtained unlawfully…

The court also held that the parties were bound by the cases they had pleaded. It was not permissible, at trial, to replace a pleaded allegation with a different, and in many instances more serious, allegation of UIG… The claims are therefore dismissed.