Discover Top Posts Tagged with #toxic press

His Kids love you as much as he does VI (season finale)

Paring: Bruce Wayne x Fem!Reader

Warnings: toxic press

Featuring: the bats, Clark Kent (as reporter), Kori (Starfire), Jim Gordon

Mentioning of: Lois Lane

A/N: I will start with Season 2 in September, but the important question is if I should make daily but short episodes like this season or take more time (2-4 days) and make more detailed and longer chapters?

Length of Season 2?

Short but daily

Long and detailed but every couple of days

Voting ended onSep 1, 2025

A warning to all media organisations’: Prince Harry’s statement on Mirror Group ruling

Duke of Sussex describes slow and painful road to justice as judge rules extensive hacking took place

Prince Harry has landed a significant blow in his battle with the British tabloid press after winning a substantial part of his phone-hacking case and damages against the Daily Mirror. This is the statement read outside the court by his lawyer:

“Today is a great day for truth as well as accountability. The court has ruled that unlawful and criminal activities were carried out at all three of Mirror Group’s newspaper titles (the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the People) on a habitual and widespread basis for more than a decade.

“I’d like to thank my legal team for so successfully dismantling the sworn testimony of Mirror Group Newspapers’ senior executives, legal department and journalists, who at least turned up to court, unlike their colleagues, who were perhaps too afraid to do so.

“This case is not just about hacking: it is about a systemic practice of unlawful and appalling behaviour, followed by coverups and destruction of evidence, the shocking scale of which can only be revealed through these proceedings.

“The court has found that Mirror Group’s principal board directors, their legal department, senior executives and editors, such as Piers Morgan, clearly knew about, or were involved in, these illegal activities. Between them, they even went as far as lying under oath to parliament, during the Leveson inquiry, to the stock exchange, and to us all ever since.

David Sherborne reads out Harry’s statement after the ruling. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA

“The journey to justice can be a slow and painful one, and since bringing my claim almost five years ago, defamatory stories and intimidating tactics have been deployed against me and at my family’s expense. And so, as I too have learned through this process, patience is in fact a virtue – especially in the face of vendetta journalism.

“I hope that the court’s findings will serve as a warning to all media organisations who have employed these practices and similarly lied about them. Mirror Group’s actions were so calculated and misleading that their pattern of destroying evidence and concealing their unlawful behaviour continued into the litigation itself and, as the judge has ruled, even to this day.

“I am happy to have won the case, especially given that this trial only looked at a quarter of my entire claim. Even on just that, it is clear Mirror Group’s persistent attempts to suggest that my claim was, to quote their counsel, ‘fantastical’ and was in the ‘realms of total speculation’ and that there was ‘simply no evidence at all’ to suggest I was hacked – ‘zilch, zero, nil, nada, niente, absolutely nothing’ – were total nonsense and were used maliciously to attack my character and credibility.

“However, as Mirror Group intended, these hollow soundbites were blasted across front pages and across online platforms, and into the next day’s morning television shows. The court has in fact confirmed that all four claimants were subjected to voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering. But no one would have believed that was the case given how this trial has been covered in the UK.

“My commitment to seeing this case through is based on my belief in our need and collective right to a free and honest press, and one which is properly accountable when necessary. That is what we need in Britain and across the globe. Anything else is poisoning the well for a profession we all depend on. The acts listed in this judgment are prime examples of what happens when the power of the press is abused.

“I respectfully call upon the authorities – the financial regulator; the stock market who were deliberately deceived by Mirror Group; and indeed the Metropolitan police and prosecuting authorities – to do their duty for the British public and investigate bringing charges against the company and those who have broken the law.

“Today’s ruling is vindicating and affirming. I’ve been told that slaying dragons will get you burned. But in light of today’s victory and the importance of doing what is needed for a free and honest press – it’s a worthwhile price to pay. The mission continues.”

Duke of Sussex describes slow and painful road to justice as judge rules extensive hacking took place

Thats one hell of a quote

#prince harry #duke of sussex #phone hacking #toxic press #uk tabloids

For Meghan Markle, leaving Britain must seem more and more like the right choice

Afua Hirsch

The Duchess of Sussex, a woman of colour, has faced relentless media attacks – and had no protection from the palace

Published: 17:54 Friday, 05 March 2021

‘The media has used Meghan’s private life for a feeding frenzy.’ Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Racism is a lucrative business. When it comes to Meghan Markle, the media’s strategy is transparent. Tabloids pillory her with a range of mostly ludicrous allegations – her baby bump is too prominent, her avocados are not “woke”, her earrings are drenched in blood – and then networks double up with manufactured debates in which anti-racist commentators try to push back on those narratives.

It’s no wonder that, in the teaser for his forthcoming interview with Oprah Winfrey, Prince Harry referred to history repeating itself. We saw a similar strategy of obsession and vilification play out with his mother. The genius of it then and now – from a tabloid perspective – is that they as perpetrators are also the major beneficiaries, as their endless coverage racks up clicks and newspaper sales.

Knowing this, and being aware that this discourse is rarely designed to achieve progress or change, has made me reluctant to continue entering the fray. I have not answered the literally hundreds of calls I’ve received recently from broadcast networks, asking me to comment first on the state of Meghan’s womb (presumably the entire nation feels entitled to have a view), and then on her decision to speak to Winfrey.

There is the general obsession with celebrities and royals, and then there is the particular shape this obsession takes when the object in question is a woman of colour.

It’s hardly breaking news that the British media is often driven by deeply racist instincts. You never have to look far to illustrate the point. “Do you look at [Meghan] and see a black woman? Cause I don’t,” said LBC host Andrew Pierce. “I see a very attractive woman. It’s never occurred to me.”

The idea that being attractive and being black are mutually exclusive has a long history in Britain. The very first time I was interviewed by a newspaper, aged 18, I was asked to comment on Jeffrey Archer’s view that, in the past, “your head did not turn in the road if a black woman passed you because they were badly dressed, they were probably overweight and they probably had a lousy job”. (At the time Archer was the Conservative candidate for mayor of London.)

Pierce simply offered us an up-to-date example of how, confronted with Meghan – a black woman he does consider attractive – commentators reconcile this apparent anomaly by reclassifying her as not black at all. And so that cycle continues.

So does the one involving the character assassination of women of colour as a kind of sport. The Mail on Sunday was willing to break the law – as a recent high court summary judgment established – and to take its attack on Meghan to a new low. Having obtained and published a distressing handwritten letter from Meghan to her estranged father, the tabloid deployed a handwriting expert to reveal that her penmanship shows her to be, “a showman and a narcissist”, “self-aware” and “self-oriented”, someone who suffers from “anxiety”. It would be strange not to suffer from anxiety, wouldn’t it, when the media is using your private life for a feeding frenzy, and the institution capable of shielding you – in this case, Buckingham Palace – has decided to sit back and watch?

Indeed, the palace has decided that this precise moment – days before the Sussex’s highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey is broadcast – is the right time to launch an investigation into allegations of bullying made by former royal aides against Meghan three years ago.

Bullying allegations must be taken seriously. That should have been the case for home secretary Priti Patel, who was found culpable of abusing senior civil servants and has just paid out £340,000 to one of her accusers. Yet despite being accountable to the electorate, her political career seems unscathed by this. Clearly she plays a useful role for Boris Johnson, who has consistently protected her, even when she was found by his independent adviser to have broken the ministerial code, which is normally a resigning offence.

It’s richly ironic therefore that the media – which has relentlessly bullied Meghan, including most intensely during two periods when she has been pregnant – is now consumed with these latest allegations that she herself is a bully. It’s also not without context because – as numerous black women have attested of their experiences in white spaces – we are frequently perceived as threatening.

I have my own painful memories of how, as a teenager, younger children at my school said they found me “terrifying”, and how I was dubbed “Scary Spice”. Being biracial did not exempt me from being perceived as frightening simply because of my physical appearance.

It’s difficult to compare these personal experiences to those facing Meghan, because she has become a fixation of the global news media in ways few of us can imagine. She is in this position because of her relationship to the palace – a unique institution that creates global superstars who are not elected, not accountable to the electorate. In her case, she no longer even lives at the taxpayers’ expense.

And yet there is so much the palace could have done to provide Meghan with the same shielding that other senior members of the royal family enjoy. For Prince Andrew, who has faced allegations of involvement in sexual abuse, a palace spin doctor even tried to enlist the help of an online troll to discredit the prince’s accuser.

I would condemn the idea of discrediting Meghan’s sex abuse accusers; except she doesn’t have any. I would criticise Meghan for visiting Saudi Arabia, as other members of the royal family have on many occasions; except she has never set foot there.

Instead, she reportedly wore a pair of earrings gifted by Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whose track record of extreme human rights abuses, including authorising the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the dismal war in Yemen, has not prevented our nation from selling him arms. I doubt the royal family will open an investigation into this particular allegation anyway, since doing so would offer an inconvenient reminder to countries in the former empire – now its Commonwealth friends – of how much of royal treasure was stolen from them.

I would criticise Meghan for furthering Prince Philip’s current state of ill health, except – contrary to the suggestion of one royal commentator – it has nothing to do with her whatsoever. If Meghan can be linked to murder for wearing jewellery, I dread to think what she’d be blamed for were his condition to get worse.

The greatest irony in all this, of course, is that Meghan left Britain – as I suspect we will discover with some clarity when her Oprah interview is broadcast – to get away from the toxic and racially motivated media obsession with her. And yet even in its remarkable track record of denying her the basic human expectations of privacy, the media are outdoing themselves all over again in proving that her judgment was right.

Afua Hirsch is a Guardian columnist

The Duchess of Sussex, a woman of colour, has faced relentless media attacks – and had no protection from the palace, says Guardian columnis

#royals #meghan markle #duchess of sussex #smear campaign #prince harry #duke of sussex #british royal family #oprah with meghan and harry #brf #racism #toxic press

The Sun Denies Illegally Monitoring Prince Harry’s Text Traffic to Meghan Markle – Two Days After Private Investigator Danno Hanks Unlawfully ‘Blagged’ Her Mobile Number

Apr 1, 2021

A SUSPICIOUS SUN STORY contains three references to secret text messages between the couple

THE MURDOCH PAPER claims an anonymous ‘friend’ told reporters about the private communication

BUT THIS VERSION of events has been called into question

BECAUSE THE ARTICLE contains signs of unlawful information gathering, according to lawyers with experience of the ‘phone hacking’ cases currently running through the High Court

BASED ON SIMILAR evidence, a top British privacy judge has previously found that newspapers illegally obtained itemised phone bills to find out times and dates of messages

THE JUDGE found that using unnamed sources can be a way inserting illicit info into copy

HOWEVER, The Sun – and reporters James Beal and Emily Andrews – deny doing anything unlawful in relation to Meghan’s phone number, or her telephone records

THERE is no suggestion that any voicemails were intercepted

IN PART 1 of this special investigation, we revealed how LA-based PI Dan ‘Danno’ Hanks was commissioned by The Sun to spy on the Markle family

IN PART 2, we reported the response of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex who condemned The Sun’s predatory practices

IN PART 3 below, Byline Investigates raises questions about how The Sun got that information about text messages

By Graham Johnson

Editor, Byline Investigates

THE SUN has denied illegally obtaining the private phone records of Meghan Markle or Prince Harry – despite knowing the details about when and how often he texted her.

Byline Investigates told last week how a private detective had obtained the Duchess’ mobile number after carrying out illegal searches of US databases.

In response, the Murdoch paper has not suggested that what the PI did was legal.

However, publisher News UK denied asking him to do anything unlawful on their behalf.

But we can reveal that further questions have been raised – this time, about even more serious allegations.

The focus, of this ongoing investigation, is now on a story published in The Sun two days after Dan ‘Danno’ Hanks handed-over Meghan’s mobile number to an editor.

A double-page spread – billed as an exclusive – ran on 1st November 2016, detailing how Meghan had received text messages from Prince Harry.

The Sun story: ‘Smitten Harry bombarded Meghan with texts until he got date’, published 1st November 2016

The news copy contained three references to texting.

The journalists who wrote the story seemed to know that Harry had sent Meghan a lot of text messages, and the approximate timings of them.

One way this kind of information could be gleaned, is by examining their phones, or by seeing their itemised phone bills.

But, in this case, the source of the of the story line was an anonymous ‘friend,’ who was quoted in The Sun.

Lawyers, who are currently suing the paper for Prince Harry, regard this as suspicious – and have relied on similar references to SMS, or call ‘traffic’, to allege unlawful information gathering.

As Byline Investigates exclusively revealed, the Duke of Sussex, and scores of other claimants, are suing News UK – and the rival Mirror Group – for phone-hacking, itemised bill blagging, and other unlawful intrusions.

The first mention of texts came in the headline, inside on page 14, which stated: ‘Smitten Harry bombarded Meghan with texts until he got date.’

The official response from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex two weeks ago to Danno Hanks’ revelations

The second mention came in the opening line of the story – known as the ‘intro’ – which read, ‘PRINCE HARRY inundated a sexy actress with texts until she agreed to go out with him.’

The third mention is in the fifth paragraph, which is a quote from a so-called unnamed ‘friend,’ who claimed: ‘He definitely pursued her and besieged her with texts until she agreed to a date.’

However, James Beal – The Sun’s US Editor who initially tasked the private investigator – denies asking him to do anything illegal.

His co-author Emily Andrews also denies doing anything unlawful, and says the information came from legal sources, including insights from contacts who wanted to remain nameless.

In addition to the mentions of texts, the article contains a total of SIX references to anonymous confidantes, including:

Two mentions of ‘friends.’

One mention of a ‘friend.’

One mention of a ‘source.’

Two mentions of a ‘pal.’

Lawyers say that these are often euphemisms to mask unlawful information gathering.

Only one ‘on-the-record’, named source appears in the story – and she does not refer to the texts.

Over the last ten years, the High Court has heard that multiple references to unidentified speakers in a story, are no more than a device to disguise unlawfully gathered data, so as to cover the tracks of how it was got.

Emma Jones – an ex-Sun reporter and columnist – explained to Byline Investigates how it’s done.

Jones, who is now a board member of press reform group Hacked Off, said: ‘Most of the time, the quotes do not actually come from a real source, but are often fabricated by the journalist.

‘You can spot a spoofed-up quote, because they tend to say, “a pal said”, or “a friend said” or “a well-placed source said.”

Sometimes, it means that the paper has “blagged” a phone bill, and needs to disguise the fact that that is an illegal method, but at the same time it needs to get the “evidence” into the story, somehow.

‘So, the “contraband” facts are effectively “washed” by attributing them to an unnamed “friend” or “insider” – instead of stating that these facts were from unlawful newsgathering techniques, like obtaining an itemised bill.

‘Which would obviously ring alarm bells.

‘I worked at The Sun as a showbiz reporter, so I saw and heard what goes on – so, in that sense I’m genuine “insider” who knows the truth. And you can quote me on that.’

A photograph taken when Emma Jones was a Sun reporter and columnist. Now, she is a board member of Hacked Off

In 2015, Britain’s top privacy judge Justice Mann agreed in principle that this was the case.

News Group Newspapers and James Beal deny tasking Danno Hanks to do anything illegal

He ruled, in the ground-breaking Gulati Judgement, that the use of phrases such as ‘a friend said’ or ‘a pal said’ in stories, was done to disguise hacked information.

Though the findings in this case were against the Mirror Group – and though he was referring to voicemail interception much of the time – the general principles are regarded as being applicable to other newspapers, and other forms of illegal information gathering, such as billing data.

Justice Mann stated: ‘Information that was obtained from hacking would, if published, have its source disguised by attributing the source to a “friend” or “pal”.’

However, The Sun denies doing anything unlawful.

More follows in Part 4 of this series.

The Sun Denies Illegally Monitoring Prince Harry’s Text Traffic to Meghan Markle – Two Days After Private Investigator Danno Hanks Unlawfull

#meghan markle #prince harry #duchess of sussex #duke of sussex #royals #byline investigates #the sun #emily andrews #james beal #emma jones #royal reporters #toxic press #hacked off

Meghan: A Target of Press Abuse and Harassment Strikes Back - COMMENT

February 11, 2021 Byline Investigates

BY BRIAN CATHCART

THE BIG British newspapers, and especially the papers of the Mail group, want control. They want to make people behave in ways of which they approve and they will stop at nothing to ensure they do.

If necessary, they are prepared to destroy lives, to vilify and hound their targets into abject misery by publishing a relentless torrent of articles that are not just hostile but very often dishonest. They seek to punish these targets by making the public hate them.

That is what happened to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The Mail papers (and others in the rightwing press) did not like her and she would not obey their orders, so they went for her.

Week after week and month after month they attacked. They said she snubbed and mistreated her own mother, They said her private secretary quit because she (the Duchess) was ‘difficult’. They said she spent extravagantly on luxury fittings for her Windsor home, including ‘splashing out’ £5,000 on a copper bath. All denied.

Nothing was too trivial or too dark to be exploited. One story was headlined: ‘How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder’. Another, steeped in racist overtones, declared: ‘Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang-scarred home of her mother revealed…’

They dish this stuff out – monstering, it is called – because they can. They have no meaningful regulation to stop them and while the laws of libel and privacy may look fine on paper only the rich can count on being able to uphold their rights. Better still, from the papers’ point of view, members of the royal family don’t sue, so the Duchess was – or so it appeared – a defenceless target.

Not any more.

In fact in the space of a fortnight she and her husband, Prince Harry have both won resounding victories over the Mail papers. On 1 February a London court heard that the Mail on Sunday had admitted publishing a ‘baseless, false and defamatory’ article alleging that Prince Harry had neglected his duties towards the Royal Marines.

And now we have the Duchess’s resounding victory. She took action only when the paper did something utterly outrageous, publishing long extracts from a very private letter she wrote to her father. And that action has been comprehensively vindicated. Without even having to go to trail she has secured an unequivocal verdict that the Mail on Sunday is guilty of unlawfully breaching her privacy.

If we lived in a halfway honourable world, the Mail on Sunday’s editor, Ted Verity, would have resigned by now. Twice in two weeks his decision-making has been faulted before the law. But the Mail is not like that. He and his employers at Associated Newspapers were vindictive, mean-spirited, vain people before this case began and they remain so now it is over.

They must be wondering, however, what to do next, so comprehensive is their defeat. The judge not only found for the Duchess on privacy but he effectively gave her the victory in her second claim, on breach of copyright. There was one minor, technical aspect of that issue on which he found himself unable to provide a ‘summary judgment’ – whether the Duchess shared copyright ownership with anyone else – but that is not a matter that Associated can exploit.

Will Associated seek leave to appeal? If they possibly can, they surely will – that is their standard operating procedure – but legal experts say that in this sort of case, after this sort of judgment, their options will be limited.

So the Sussexes have bitten back, and they have drawn blood. They have successfully defied the controllers and the destroyers. What difference will it make?

The most important is that it reminds the world what the Mail papers really are. They are exposed as cruel, intrusive and reckless with the lives of others – and they break the law. Next time you scroll down the MailOnline ‘sidebar of shame’ remember what is the kind of journalism underpins it.

The Duchess’s victory will also temper the behaviour of papers towards her, though it will not alter their hostility. These papers don’t care about paying damages – English courts award victims relatively paltry sums – but they prefer not to be exposed as lawbreakers. They will be more careful, and they will concentrate on kinds of abuse that are not actionable.

This is also an important moment for the women who are so often the targets of press monstering in Britain. A year ago the television presenter Caroline Flack took her own life after enduring months of hostile treatment from papers fully aware that her mental health was fragile.

The actor Sienna Miller and the singer Charlotte Church told the Leveson Inquiry of their experiences at the hands of newspapers that were determined to incite hatred towards them.

Another actor, Caroline Quentin, recently described how she has still not fully recovered from the effects of newspaper harassment and intrusion 20 years after the event. It damaged her relationships with her father, her mother and a sister, she said. ‘And it’s vile, actually. It’s vile to know that some shitty little man in a dirty raincoat knows all your medical history, your private stuff, whether or not you are going to have a baby or miscarry a baby.’

It is extremely rare for a woman target to hold her attackers to account, not least because very few can afford to. By defeating the Mail papers the Duchess of Sussex may not have opened a path towards wider justice, but she has at least altered the terms of the debate.

Meghan: A Target of Press Abuse and Harassment Strikes Back - COMMENT

#meghan markle #duchess of sussex #prince harry #duke of sussex #duke and duchess of sussex #uk tabloids #royals #byline investigates #daily fail #toxic press

& continued:

This makes it extra sad to see the Queens support for the press today.

http://therantmistress.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-real-purpose-of-royal-weddings.html

Now the bunting has come down and the prosecco bottles are consigned to the recycling, it has become abundantly clear what royal weddi

#meghan markle #prince harry #duke of sussex #duchess of sussex #toxic press #uk tabloids #royals

British Media AND British Royal Family

#royals #brf #meghan markle #british royal family #royal rota #uk tabloids #toxic press #blm #black lives matter

imho a better read then Finding Freedom

(too many pics to include, click on the link to see them’

The British Royal Family, The Media and ‘SussExit’ – Part 2

Zanye Linda August 13, 2020 18 Comments

At the end of part one, I posed a few questions: Was the spare and his wife outshining the heir? Also what is the connection between ITV and the Markle family? Why does this mainstream channel consistently give them a platform? And what about the Royal Rota – they exist to sell the Monarchy to the public while also subjecting them to the appropriate scrutiny. Did they not think the negative coverage surrounding Meghan would have a negative impact on the Monarchy? Where was the Royal Family in all this? When Diana and Sophie were faced with negative media coverage, the Queen and the palace asked the editors to ease up on them. Even Kate was given a grace period to settle into her role as a Royal. Why were they not offering Meghan the same protections?

Winter 2018

By now it was clear Meghan was under attack by the UK media and each story was picked up and amplified across the entire world. It had been earlier reported that the Queen had invited Doria Ragland, Meghan’s mother to spend Christmas at Sandringham. Shortly after that story made the rounds, Thomas Markle Sr. would once again feature in the Daily Mail courtesy of Caroline Graham. He revealed the heartfelt notes his daughter once sent him and makes another attempt to ‘tell his side of the story’ and present evidence that he did indeed have a heart attack and that is why he missed the wedding. But he would go on to claim that he had been frozen out by Harry and Meghan, and any attempts he had made to get in touch with them had gone unanswered, and that he was living in fear of never seeing his daughter again.

Thomas would once again appear on ITV’s GMB with Piers Morgan, who has now switched his tone of commentary on Meghan Markle. The brilliant young woman – his words – was now a conniving ruthless social climber who had ‘ghosted’ her father just as she ‘ghosted’ him after she met Prince Harry. Interestingly, Thomas Markle is now using the same term ‘ghosting/ghosted’.

Harry and Meghan press forward with their royal duties and in early January 2019, the palace announced Meghan’s patronages – a total of 4 that include two – the Association of Commonwealth Universities and the National Theater – that she took over from the Queen. Around this time, they suffered a major violation of their privacy. Emily Andrews of the Sun (currently mail on Sunday royal editor), revealed the location of their country home in the Cotswolds, and the Times actually published pictures of the house taken via a paparazzi helicopter. This was a residence that they privately leased, not one gifted by the Queen or some taxpayer funded whatever, and there was absolutely no justification for breaching their privacy in that manner. It later came to light that Prince harry sued and received “substantial damages” for the invasion of privacy. It was revealed that the couple surrendered the lease early because of security concerns once the location of the home had been revealed.

With the media onslaught carrying on into the new year and new recruits like Piers Morgan aboard the anti-Meghan train, five of Meghan’s friends in an anonymous interview expressed their concern for Meghan and called out the global bullying by the media and the stress it was putting on 7-month pregnant Meghan. The article also mentioned, contrary to existing narratives, that Meghan did not ignore her father and had made attempts to reach out to him, begging him to stop attacking her via the media so they could repair their relationship. In a rebuttal to this article, the Mail on Sunday published parts of a private letter Meghan had written to her father. The excerpts revealed her anguish and confirmed the lengths she went to to keep in touch with her father. On the other side, under the charge of Piers the press was putting pressure on Meghan to call her father.

Kensington Palace welcomed a new communications secretary, Christian Jones to the Royal Household. Following his appointment we begun to see even more leaks. Firstly, pictures of Meghan and Christian leaving lunch were published in the UK papers, a highly unusual move because according to the Royal Rota, there is an agreement with the palace not to publish paparazzi pictures of the royal family. Meghan being pictured was significant in that, we know from multiple reports that she paid several private visits to her patronages( before becoming patron). They, as well as the women of the Hubb Community kitchen but not a single picture was ever seen, until they were ready to publicize the visit.

In mid February, Meghan quietly traveled to New York and for 3 days had gone undetected, that is, until the Daily Mail published paparazzi pictures. With her location revealed she was forced to move out of her friends residence into a hotel, where the media created a spectacle of themselves to the extent that back-up security had to be provided by US officials.

Then, ever so eager to break “exclusives”, Emily Andrews wrote a story about the events at Meghan’s baby shower, that appeared on the front pages of the Sun. Only problem was that, the story, complete with details of guests in attendance and games that were played, was published a day too early. The baby shower hadn’t taken place yet. According to Emily, she was told by her source at Kensington Palace was to blame for the mix-up and had apologized to her for getting the dates wrong. Interestingly, all of Emily’s tweets between 1st February 2019 and 23rd February 2019 have disappeared from her Twitter timeline. The baby shower was on February 20th, and we know she tweeted about it.

The baby shower attracted a lot of criticism from royal reporters and experts with claims it was ‘unroyal”, ‘lavish and distasteful”. And as if that wasn’t enough Kensington Palace in covering an engagement William was undertaking published UK poverty statistics, prompting Piers Morgan to weigh in accusing Meghan of living the high life while the Queen’s subject languish in poverty. The Daily Mail even went as far as criticising her for not inviting her mother in favour of her ‘New A-List Celebrity friends’.

Shortly after returning to London, Meghan was on a plane with Harry headed to Morocco to carry out another Royal visit at the request of the UK government. As for the royal press, on the one hand, they continued to complain about lack of access to Meghan – continuing a narrative they created at the time of the cookbook launch – while hopping on planes to go cover their events. According to the likes of Arthur Edwards, since Harry met Meghan he had changed and was no longer “one of the lads” who used to hang out with them in the pub. So what if the press had written a few unflattering pieces about Meghan – it was all a part of the game and the two needed to loosen up.

Spring 2019

Expectation is building up for the Royal baby and the royal reporters are trying to close in on a due date. The only thing they know came by way of a chat during a visit to Bristol, when Meghan told a lady during a walkabout the baby was due late April early May. Besides waiting for the arrival of their baby, Harry and Meghan were forced to leave their Oxfordshire home(as stated earlier) after the media published pictures of their house. In the same month, Buckingham Palace finally announced the split in the royal household commonly known as Kensington Palace and the creation of a new household for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex based at Buckingham palace, with Sarah Latham as their head of communications.

While the focus was on Harry and Meghan, it seems other royals were up to the usual royal shenanigans. The Sun’s Dan Wootton run a story on Kate’s fall out with a local rival, Rose but just like the “Meghan made Kate cry” story no reason was given. The story did not generate much interest until in an attempt to bury the story, Richard Kay in a Daily Mail article downplayed the fall out and instead tried to use it as another opportunity to slag off Meghan and Harry. The story gained momentum on social media and of particular interest were tweets from people within the Norfolk set, stating that the affair between William and Rose is well known but nobody talks about it. These tweets would very quickly disappear over the following days but never off the internet.

A royal affair is not surprising considering 3 of the Queen’s 4 children are divorced in part due to infidelity. The surprise was nobody in the UK press was covering this story. No follow up articles, no TV debates, not even a tweet from the Royal Rota who claim to be journalists covering the royals without fear or favour. The same reporters who had spent the past months giving us behind the scenes stories about Meghan, where no story was too big or too small or too nonsensical to be written about. Subsequent media reports indicated that Prince William lawyers threatened the media with legal action if they covered the story. And just like that, the story was buried. We witnessed the full strength of the palace unleashed to protect William from the media, while the same press continued to attack Meghan. The so-called royal family mantra “never complain, never explain” was applied to Harry and Meghan but the rest had the freedom to complain.

In early April 2019, Harry and Meghan finally moved away from Kensington Palace to Frogmore Cottage. Harry and Meghan had strong social media support where people worked hard to highlight media lies, challenge narratives and call out the racism, sexism, classism Meghan was subjected to. Given the nature of stories that were being written about the couple, the volume of leaks coming out of the palace, the petty displays of jealousy and double standards applied by the royal family and the media, there was a sense the two were working together to bully and harass this young couple and to undermine their achievements so they do not outshine or outperform the heirs, specifically William. This was mainly social media chatter as people attempted to connect the dots around everything that was happening, each circling back to Kensington Palace.

A few weeks later suspicions would be confirmed via an article by political journalist Tim Shipman that appeared in the Sunday Times titled, “Revealed: Palace’s Africa plan for Harry and Meghan”. In the article he mentioned how the palace was struggling to harness the popularity of Harry and Meghan. That their popularity was a source of concern for William, whom courtiers had to assure, telling him the current situation was “peak Harry, and the popularity would fade”. He also confirmed William’s displeasure at Harry’s appointment as Commonwealth Youth Ambassador the year before. The palace was therefore considering creating a position for them somewhere in Africa. Other continents had been considered but even Australia was not far enough given the internet age, and Canada was too close to the US, Meghan’s home country. The article went on to reveal efforts William was undertaking in preparation to be King after the death of his grandmother and then his father. Part of this involved reaching out to the very same editors that had been harassing his brother and sister-in-law for the past year, a move that the palace supported, and one which saw the media side with William and the palace, and advancing the most negative coverage of Meghan’s father.

The portrayal of Africa in the article as this backward, out of the way continent where Harry and Meghan could be “banished” to, attracted the ire of social media and forced the palace to issue a denial and the online version of the article was re-framed with the contribution of royal correspondent Roya Nikkah. Another area of interest within the original article were the lengths the palace was willing to go to make William (and Kate) more comfortable, which is understandable considering William will one day be king. But it begs the question, why an institution that was looking to modernise as they had boldly claimed to the world would suddenly find problems with the modern ways of Harry and Meghan, who in a short amount of time had brought attention to the royal family and were quickly attracting a demographic of the UK population and the world, that had until now felt disconnected from them? It seemed counterproductive that a move like this would be in the works.

About two weeks later, Meghan delivered the couple’s baby on May 06 2019. Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor was introduced to the world two days later in a photo call at Windsor Castle. That they were able to travel to the hospital, have the baby and be back home without so much as a peep, underscores what a tight inner circle they had and most importantly, what the distance from other households had done to stem the leaks.

The day after the photo call Harry traveled to Netherlands to launch the Invictus Games 2020. Initially, A day or two before the IG 2020 launch, Harry was scheduled to undertake an engagement in Amsterdam. The Amsterdam engagement happened to be on the same day William and Kate were to travel to Wales, and Charles was concluding a tour of Germany. In a move that was reminiscent of the Winter of 2017 where the media informed us of William’s fury at a scheduling conflict with Harry and Meghan, the Amsterdam event was cancelled, citing logistical difficulties for reporters covering all three events. Charles’ and William’s went ahead as planned with no scheduling complaints.

Summer 2019

Another summer as a royal brings another round of attacks on Meghan by the media. Her crime this time; while less than a month post-partum and on maternity leave, the Duchess did not participate in any events during Donald Trump’s visit to the UK. The scheduled events would see appearances from the Queen, her two heirs in-waiting and a brief appearance by Harry at a luncheon hosted by the queen. Somehow, it was the absence of Harry and particularly Meghan that the press was focused on. They accused the Duchess of absconding from her Royal duties, while on maternity leave.

On the work front, Emily Andrews would “exclusively reveal” that Meghan was working on a project with vogue and went on to speculate on the details. As far as their charitable endeavours were concerned it was announced that, Harry and Meghan would step down as, joint patrons of the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and work towards creating their own charitable vehicle. While the royal reporters feigned shock at this news and and wondered why this was happening, a review of the recently released financial reports of the Foundation told a story. Most of the income and successful impactful projects were attributed to the efforts of Harry and Meghan, plus the financial health of the foundation was found to be lacking.

Around the same time, 2019 financial reports, revealed the impact of The Sussexes’ wedding on the royal family. The Royal Collection Trust, which oversees visitors to the palace and other royal exhibitions reported “a bumper year of royal celebrations”. Retail sales increased by 19%, the Queen’s official residence enjoyed a record 3.3 million more visitors mainly driven by Windsor, and admission income grew by £7.5 million. Contrary to earlier media reports that Meghan’s wardrobe budget estimated at about £1 million (suggesting she cost the RF a lot), the Royal household expenditure only increased by £85,000. From the looks of things, Meghan joining the Royal family had been good ‘for business’.

This did not matter one bit to the UK media when the review of capital expenditure of under the Sovereign Grant showed that £2.4 million was spent to renovate Frogmore Cottage – a building that had been already been earmarked for renovation( regardless of the Sussexes’ occupancy) for the year ending April 2019. The media used this as an opportunity to demand access to Meghan, evoking the taxpayer/publicly funded argument and accusing her of having unrealistic privacy expectations. This criticism reached fever pitch when it was revealed that Archie’s baptism would be a private affair, with portraits to follow. Piers Morgan used his TV platform to tell Meghan “Go Back to America”. The media however didn’t appear to care that £1 million was spent to refurbish a Kensington Palace driveway. Harry and Meghan had obtained consent from the Queen to use her private chapel and keep details of their son’s godparents private. So desperate were the media to get details of the event that, Richard Palmer went as far as accusing the Queen of breaking the law. No matter how the media felt about this decision, the fact is both Harry and Meghan made this decision jointly with consent from the Queen but it was Meghan who bore the brunt of the criticism.

In July 2019, Jeffrey Epstein a New York financier accused of molesting dozens of minor girls was arrested and charged with sex trafficking by federal prosecutors. Jeffrey Epstein was a friend to Prince Andrew and the two had been pictured together in London, on a boat with topless women in Thailand, walking together in Central Park shortly after Jeffrey’s release from an earlier prison sentence for similar charges. Once again Prince Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein was generating international media interest. When the Royal Rota were asked why they were not covering this story, their response was he has not been accused of anything. Nobody was asking them to accuse Andrew of anything and the public was pointing out a story that deserved their attention. Rather than address this growing concern, the palace instead threw a bone to the media by announcing that Meghan was to guest-edit of the prestigious September.

About a month later Jeffrey Epstein died in his prison cell and the following day the UK tabloids that had by and large ignored this story published pictures of a smiling Prince Andrew riding in a car with the Queen on their way to Sunday service at Balmoral. Royal experts tell us the royal family uses a lot of symbolism. The pictures themselves were taken at such close range, which could only have happened with palace approval. In allowing these pictures to be published, the message from the royal family was loud and clear – Prince Andrew had the full support of the Monarch herself. When Richard Palmer accused the Queen of breaking the law, the palace communications did not feel it necessary to respond but here was a whole Prince with credible rape allegations receiving a public showing of support from the Queen, the royal family and the media.

Still reeling from being left out of the baptism celebrations and choosing to ignore the Jeffrey Epstein – Prince Andrew association in light of Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest, the media would once again turn their attention to Meghan and Harry. This time round accusing them of hypocrisy for going on holiday using a private jet while advocating for climate change and environmental conservation. This is a common criticism of the rich and famous by the UK media. But in this instance it was problematic because as usual the bulk of the criticism fell on Meghan accusing her of “lecturing” the British public about climate change, never mind that never once has she spoken publicly on climate change which is her husband’s area of focus. Secondly, Princes Charles and William use private jets all the time but are not subjected to this level of criticism. The double standard was exhausting, the attacks equally tiring. Elton John was compelled to address them publicly, posting on his Instagram that he had paid for their private jet and its carbon emissions and called out the media for their relentless attacks on the couple. He was one in a list of public figures to come out and defend Harry and Meghan, while the Royal Family sat back and watched this happen.

Not to be outdone by the media and in what appeared to be a calculated move to capitalize on the negative reporting on Harry and Meghan for the Cambridges’ benefit, Kensington Palace under the leadership of Simon Case made last minute arrangements for William and is wife fly a budget airline to Balmoral to visit the Queen. Of course, they just “happened” to be pictured carrying their own bags as the walked across the tarmac. On cue, the media went into phase 2 of slag Harry and Meghan off. This was clearly a publicity stunt and as much as Royal Rota attempted to defend the situation it was comical when a Scottish paper broke the backstory of this very conveniently timed flight. Two planes were flown empty for hundreds of miles so as to position an aircraft for The Cambridges’ flight to “maximise publicity”. Their expertise in carbon emissions were suddenly non-existent. The Royal Rota were so far up that Kensington tree that they continued to make ridiculous excuses for the stunt. They were squirming.

The release of Meghan’s Vogue issue provided the media with the perfect segue to get away from flights and stunts to resume their attacks on Meghan. All manner of criticism were thrown her way. She was being political, woke and all that nonsense. So-called journalists, were provided platforms by TV networks to lie about commonly known facts. It was a manufactured hysteria, that was designed probably to sabotage the issue. All the dry heaving did very little to dissuade the public and Vogue September 2019 issue “Forces for Change” went on to become fastest-selling issue in the history of British Vogue, selling out in 10 days and the biggest-selling issue of the past decade.

The ridiculous display by the British media had now attracted global attention and the media received a lot of push-back. The racism, misogyny, sexism and classism was rightfully called out and so was their double standards and hypocrisy criticising Meghan for doing everything every Royal had done in the past. The British media pushed back. Dan Wootton who happened to attend University with Jason Knauf, a senior official in William’s court and had a mutual friend with Christian Jones, Communications Secretary at Kensington palace accused Harry and Meghan of playing the victim card when in fact it was the family and their courtiers that had been briefing different parts of the media about them. His colleague at the time Emily Andrews eagerly informed the public that, the palace had been angered by Harry and Meghan’s actions and nobody was supporting them.

It wasn’t the Prince hanging out with the convicted paedophile; or another Prince allegedly having an affair with his wife’s friend; nor was it the fact that in 7 years of marriage said wife had not done anything meaningful in her royal role that had angered the palace. It was Meghan’s admirable qualities of feistiness, can-do attitude and work ethic that had angered the family and the household.

Autumn 2019

In spite of all the media criticism and angry family members briefing the media against them, Harry and Meghan pressed forward with their royal duties and each day they had to come into contact with the very same people who constantly bullied and harassed them. Meghan gave the public a glimpse of a project she had been working on with SmartWorks Charity– one of her patronages -while Harry traveled to Amsterdam to finally launch Travalyst a sustainable travel project whose earlier launch had been postponed due to scheduling conflicts within the royal households. For the media this was another opportunity to undermine Harry’s work like they have done with his achievements in the past. Not being one to shy away from tough situations, Harry stood up in front of the world media and acknowledged the criticism surrounding his use of a private jet stating majority of the time he traveled commercial but occasionally it was necessary to travel via private in order to ensure the safety of his family – as simple as that.

Almost a year after the successful launch of the cookbook that raised more than £500,000 for the ladies of the Hubb Community kitchen, Meghan in partnership with John Lewis and Partners, Marks and Spencer, Jigsaw and her friend Misha Nonoo launched the Smart Set Collection; a 5-piece capsule collection using the 1:1 model with the aim of providing SmartWorks Charity with enough units to dress the women the they support for a full year. It came as no surprise when some of the items sold out within an hour of launching and in only 8 days the target was realised with only 4 days left to the end of the sales period.

Another successful project under her belt, together with Harry they would embark on their fourth foreign visit in a little over a year. This time traveling to South Africa as representatives of her Majesty the Queen and her government at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Over the summer period the UK media had gone to even greater lengths to deny what was a clearly racist agenda against Meghan. It was racist because Meghan was being relentlessly criticised for doing the very same things that all other royals did; guest editing a magazine, using a private jet, not making a public appearance immediately after birthing her child (the public didn’t see Prince Charles until 3 months after his birth), addressing issues such as feminism, climate change, sustainability, mental health. The critics called for the palace to fire their PR team led by Sara Latham because according to them, Harry and Meghan had fallen out of favour with the public. In the words of Eamonn Holmes, “Harry and Meghan needed to consult with media types like them” to get their PR straightened out.

That narrative was difficult to square with the fact that, the press pack that would accompany the “out-favour couple” consisted of 80 accredited traveling media and 300 local media. It was even more shocking to see the number of people that turned up to the events. Interestingly though, there was a slight change in tone of coverage with Meghan gracing most front pages back at home (but then she always did), but missing was the scathing words and the name calling we had become accustomed to over the past year. The media finally had a public appearance by 5-month old Archie prompting the likes of Sarah Vine to claim that in doing so, the couple had turned things around.

On the penultimate day of the tour, in the presence of a global audience, Prince Harry released a statement in which he called out the UK media for launching a smear campaign against his wife and informing the world that his wife was taking legal action against the Mail on Sunday and Associated Newspapers for the publication of a private letter she had written to her father. The UK media was livid to say the least. While the rest of the world media covered the last day of the tour declaring it a success, their UK counterparts wallowed in self-pity choosing to make themselves the victims and questioning the timing of this announcement. As they went on and on about the action of Harry, they failed to mention to the public that a week prior to this latest announcement, Harry had filed a lawsuit against the Sun and Mirror group for phone hacking. Although the media called this a highly unusual move and warned Harry and Meghan “would draw the ire of editors”, this was not the first time the royal family had sued the press. In July 2019 Harry was paid substantial damages after suing Splash News and Picture Agency for invading his privacy when they flew a helicopter over the Oxfordshire property. William and Kate, Prince Charles and the Queen have all filed privacy suits before. Just Meghan apparently doesn’t deserve or have privacy rights.

Across the pond another Duke and Duchess were preparing to embark on a tour to Pakistan, their “most complicated tour to date”. In keeping with royal family requirements not to overshadow other working members, Harry and Meghan kept a low profile throughout the month of October. Tom Bradby a journalist and friend to Harry & William, had been traveling with the couple and making a documentary about their Southern Africa tour. Naturally he covered the new legal action as well as the behind the scenes goings on. When ITV’s release of the promo for the documentary coincided with the last day of the Pakistan tour, William and his army of reporters turn their ire towards Harry and Meghan, instead of the media company, The Royal Rota accused them of intentionally overshadowing a very important tour by the future king and his consort, as if they are responsible for programming at ITV. Unsurprisingly, the royal press pack in Pakistan told of William’s displeasure; a comment that by now, we’ve come to expect. Protocols were invented for this specific occasion with Rhiannon Mills claiming “There is an unwritten rule in the royal family that you don’t do anything too high profile when other members of the family are on tour”. And yet only 5 months ago, while Prince Charles was on tour in Germany, William himself held high profile engagements. The sky didn’t fall out and neither of them lost their place in the line of succession. Also, remember that Princess Beatrice announced her engagement during Harry and Meghan’s Southern Africa tour. It wasn’t a problem and shouldn’t be. But oh that Harry and his wife Meghan.

The UK media reviews of the documentary were scathing but globally, Meghan’s authenticity was welcomed. The hashtag #WeLoveYouMeghan trended for two days with many calling out the UK media for their blatant racism and refusal to take accountability. On the part of the royal family, customary silence as far as Harry and Meghan are concerned. When social media users pointed out that the palace was quick to put out statements in support of Prince Andrew, there were leaked reports mentioning William’s apparent “concern” for his brother. So concerned was he that he had apparently not reached out to his brother(see Finding Freedom) but was able to reach out to the media with this information using unnamed sources. When the documentary finally aired, Harry made it categorically clear that “he would not be bullied into playing the game that killed his mother”, the third time he would reference “the game” – meaning the relationship that exists between the royal family and the media.

The British establishment were unwilling to acknowledge the blatant racism Meghan had been subjected to over the past year, but we were starting to hear outcry that the media scrutiny had been relentless. 72 cross-party members of parliament wrote a public letter of support to the Duchess. Rather than take accountability for their actions, they once again blamed Meghan. In November 2018 it was announced that Harry and Meghan would be taking a 6-week break and would not be spending the upcoming Christmas holiday with the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family. A decision that was roundly and dishonestly criticised by the media.

Again, why is it that other members of the royal family can do things – anything – but Harry and Meghan dare not? What is the basis of the blatant discrimination? It certainly isn’t seniority because Andrew and Beatrice, who are 8th and 9th in line behind Archie and his father get a pass. And so did Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips when they spent Christmas away from the Queen. WHY?