Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

Harry and Meghan in 2018.

How an Empire ends U.K. Politics

God Save the King?

Tory Political parties of the United Kingdom English Shieldwall Lee Ingram United Kingdom Independence Party Walter Walker Ratepayers Democratic Unionist Party Stephen Crabb Gregory Lauder-Frost 1992 United Kingdom general election Jeanette Winterson Jeff Wyatt v - t - e

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, better known as Prince Harry (1984–) and Meghan Markle (1981–), are a married couple who are members of the British Royal Family. Born to (then-)Prince Charles and Princess Diana, Prince Harry is fifth in line of succession to the throne (at birth he was third in line). They are popular tabloid clickbait as part of the wider media-manufactured 'culture war'.

Agreeable undertakings

Harry at the 2018 Invictus Games.

Among the public statements made by the Sussexes, their valid points include on topics of;

• The importance of good mental health. (Invictus Games, The Me You Can't See (2021), BetterUp)
• Privacy and press intrusion in which the High Court found in the Sussexes favour in legal actions in 2022.
• The state of the news media generally (e.g., bias, Daily Mail and other tabloids, Facebook, Leveson Inquiry, Piers Morgan and phone hacking).
• Bullying (Jeremy Clarkson has dreamt of Meghan being made to parade naked through the streets with faeces being flung at her)
• Discrimination and diversity.
• Charitable causes (Invictus Games, Archewell Foundation, Sentebale)
• The environment (Travalyst)
• Meditation: Prince Harry is a daily practitioner of meditation and advocates for it as part of treatment for burnout.

Impact on the media

Bias in the Daily Mail

They resigned from royal duties and moved to settle in California. Despite not being working royals, they maintain a public profile in the media. With the institution of royalty and rule by monarchy being based on fealty and deference (and not much else e.g. ability, popularity etc.), Harry and Meghan's similarities to working royals, and differences can be used to reliably mine stories on the barest of threads. Typical stories can be any of the following (indicative of the importance of royalty in Britain:

• Who wore what clothing
• The King/Queen
• Royal expert speculation
• Titles disputes
• Wealth and money
• Anonymous staff/palace source speculation
• Official statements, tweets, comments, events or occasions
• Royal protocol
• Media or TV engagement, interviews

Reader engagement in a 'culture war' story can be personalised with Harry and Meghan as figureheads. Manufactured controversy for ad revenue can be maximised further by contrasting the smallest of differences with Prince Harry's brother Prince William and sister-in-law, Kate. This false dilemma appeals to those with simple reasoning abilities.

Studies

Bias in The Daily Telegraph. What did happen to manners, grace, and sensitivity?

In 2020, The Guardian analysed 843 articles in the British press over a year and a half, finding it statistically proven that Meghan received more negative press. Twice as many headlines were negative as compared to positive and the Kate received more favourable and less unfavourable press. In 2021, the first of three reports into abuse of Harry and Meghan online made by Twitter analytics provider Bot Sentinel analysed 114,000 tweets and concluded, similarly, that a hate campaign had been organised from a small number of accounts. Bot Sentinel's further reports found journalists followed and interacted with the troll accounts and amplified their conspiracies on TV and that the troll accounts have turned the coordinated hate campaign "into a lucrative hate-for-profit enterprise."

Wider societal significance

Harry shares a joke with some old codger.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have no constitutional role apart from the Duke's position as a Counsellor of State. In accruing wealth and power whilst preaching (sometimes the vaguest) of progressive (or New Age) messages, Harry and Meghan are no more grifters than the rest of the House of Windsor are descendants of grifters, and grifters who were prepared to practise violence to exercise their right of conquest. National differences between Britain and the United States and the long tradition of monarchical rule in Britain can be drawn upon for stories too. As with most modern portrayals of public figures, Harry and Meghan have supporters, just as they have opponents. These opponents are more consistently and explicitly aligned with conservatism, or more covertly with anti-Americanism and racism. When triggered by the press stories about the couple, they help drive traffic to websites and inadvertently help maintain the public interest in the couple and the drama in whose interest it is for the media to maintain. Many celebrities take advantage of this sort of mutually beneficial arrangement, and modern royals are also celebrities too.

Crank ideas about them

“”She had to wear a coat to cover the lines of the back "moonbump" never in my life have I seen anything like this ,this reaks of desperation,and with all.that flicking ,no one sees the PRODUCT ,what's there to Hide #MeghanMarkleIsAConArtist

—@ELostear

Crank ideas about Meghan and Harry include:

• That Meghan faked her pregnancies and used a surrogate mother or, variably, that her children do not exist at all. This often involves nutty photo breakdowns à la Moon landings hoax, Flat Earth, and transvestigations. They even came up with the catchy name #Moonbump.
• She's a lying, opportunistic, manipulating social climber, and therefore is, of course, completely unlike everyone else in and around the Royal Family
• She controls Prince Harry in public and can silence him on command, according to "body language experts"
• They control the media and/or plant stories on other members of the Royal Family, despite good evidence the opposite was happening and their well-documented issues with said media
• The one you already know about. Harry's real dad is James Hewitt, despite Diana meeting him in 1986, two years after Harry was born. No, they're still not bored of that one yet
• Meghan lied about having a mental health crisis brought on by the way the media treated her
• They're both secretly transgender
• Meghan was "a yacht girl" and prostitute working for Jeffrey Epstein
• Meghan is a slut
• Meghan is a recruiter for the WEF or something
• They faked a dangerous car chase in which they were pursued by the paparazzi
• They misuse charity funds from the Invictus Games on luxury items like expensive hotels, private jets, and designer clothes, for themselves
• Meghan is a paedophile who preys upon school children

Key shit stirrers and grifters

Sorry.

• Dan Wootton (or is it Martin Branning?), of notoriety via GB News and The Sun, who broke the 'Megxit' story and reportedly paid palace officials for stories about the couple
• Georgia Ziadie, defender of Jeffrey Epstein, who seems to make a living villifying Meghan on YouTube and GBeebies
• Piers Morgan, who definitely knew nothing about the rampant phonehacking at the newspaper he edited, and whose obsession with Meghan led to Ofcom receiving ~57,000 complaints about his comments and his subsequent departure from ITV
• Griftluencers like Meghan’s Mole, The Royal Rogue, and Murky Meg whose constant attacks on the couple have been deemed a cottage industry and "a lucrative hate-for-profit enterprise"
• Meghan's (half-)sister, Samantha Markle, who operated multiple prominent Twitter accounts that trolled Meghan and spread conspiracy theories about her, including Moonbump (see above)
• Meghan's dad, Thomas Wayne Markle Sr., who staged paparazzi photos with Samantha to manipulate Meghan before her wedding and then, after being caught, reportedly pretended he was in hospital after having a heart attack
• The usual fair and balanced news outlets such as GB News, TalkTV, and Sky News Australia who want clicks, viewtime, and ad revenue, and are happy to create an anti-Meghan mob and then tell them what they consequently want to hear - all the deliciously enraging new ways she and Harry are the Devil incarnate - in order to get it
• Various news agencies who have invaded the privacy of the couple and presumably froth at the mouth at the idea of getting to do another Diana now they're disavowed from the family

See also

• Media racism

External links

• Harry and Meghan's official website