In the ongoing saga of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a significant development has emerged, placing Prince Harry under intense scrutiny on social media for alleged falsehoods.
This situation has sparked widespread discussion and a sense of vindication among his critics. The controversy began with a statement Prince Harry made in an ITV documentary, suggesting that it would have been beneficial if the royal family had united with him to confront the media. This statement was promoted by the Daily Telegraph in a tweet that many perceived as overly favorable, leading to a wave of critical responses.
Contrary to Harry's assertion, historical actions by the royal family paint a different picture. Prince William, in particular, has been proactive in challenging unethical media practices. He played a crucial role in exposing the phone hacking scandal that led to the Leveson Inquiry. Chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, this comprehensive investigation into the practices and ethics of the British press was initiated in July 2011 following the News International phone hacking scandal. The inquiry resulted in significant reforms in British media law and the prosecution of those responsible for illegal activities. Prince William's involvement in alerting law enforcement about phone hacking underscored the royal family's commitment to media accountability, contradicting Harry's claim of inaction.
Prince Harry received a settlement of £140,000 after a High Court judge ruled that unlawful methods had been used to collect evidence on him for tabloid stories. It was determined that 15 out of 30 stories about him by MGN Newspapers were the result of invasions into his privacy. Despite this legal victory, viewers grew weary of Harry's complaints about being under constant surveillance during his younger years, as expressed in the ITV documentary "Harry: The Troubled Prince."
Public sympathy for Harry and Meghan appears to be waning. Many viewers admitted to switching off the documentary, expressing fatigue with Harry's narrative. Social media reactions ranged from frustration to outright refusal to watch the interview. "I couldn't stand it, complete switch off," one person tweeted, while another echoed, "Shouldn't watch it." As Harry continued to attribute his rift with the royal family to his battles with the press, more viewers tuned out. "Wouldn't dream of watching ITV," declared a critic, with others sharing similar sentiments of disinterest.
Critics argue that Harry and Meghan's strategy involves attempting to rewrite history by presenting their preferred narrative, assuming the public has a short memory. This tactic, however, faces growing resistance. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are now actively debunking false claims, providing a counter-narrative to the couple's statements. A source told Express UK that Harry's desire to repeatedly air his grievances in public will damage his reputation and cause the rift with the royal family to persist. "Never complain, never explain has been the royal family's motto for over 100 years now," said the source.
Although some of what Harry says might be valid, the family does not want to be dragged into any more public media storms. "If there was some kind of media blackout and trust built between Harry and the family, it could lead to a better relationship," the source suggested. However, as long as Harry continues to speak out or make comments about the royal family, reconciliation is unlikely. "He just needs to learn to keep quiet. The royal family doesn't want to be dragged into any more public spats or negative press stories," the source concluded.
