Harry and Meghan now availed themselves of the opportunity to demean their opponents and present themselves as victims. They accused reputable organs of the British press of being hypocritical liars and cheats who were maliciously twisting and turning their actions. They declared that it was ‘their wish to reshape and broaden access to their work’ and that they would ‘invite specialist media to specific events/engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities, widening the spectrum of news coverage.’ To the British press this was hypocritical cant, for they were restricting access, banning all mainstream reporters, choosing instead only tame journalists who would report their activities in ways that pleased them. Or, as Harry and Meghan put it, ‘credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events.’ Which really meant, North American style coverage, in which we inform you, you faithfully repeat our words, puff us up, or you’re out on your ear.
It is hardly surprising that the mainstream press were incensed by this ploy to deny them the access which till then they had had as a right by long-established practice. But Meghan is bright, and she had come up with a way of thwarting her opponents such as no other royal had ever done. To people who want to control their publicity, she had turned herself into something of a heroine overnight.
I am reliably informed that Meghan and Harry feared, with good reason, that the British press could otherwise sabotage their well thought-out strategies for boosting themselves financially as well as reputationally. They were worried that the media might point out the potentially adverse effects their commercial activities could have upon the welfare of the monarchy. This might lessen their prestige in the US, weaken their brand, and scupper business opportunities. They therefore needed to defuse the power of such comments before they were even made. The most effective way would be if they could present themselves as victims of a vicious and unjust media. They also needed to take total control of the narrative. Stories must not emanate from independent and uncontrollable sources, but from themselves solely. Only then could they control the outflow of information while creating a hiatus between the breaking of news and commentary on their initiatives.
This was pure media management. Doubtless Sunshine Sachs was behind it. None of this was new of course, as any student of history knows the shaping of public opinion is as old as the hills. The two acknowledged geniuses in the twentieth century were Hitler’s brilliant Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, and Diana, Princess of Wales. It therefore came as no surprise that her son Harry and his media savvy wife would display an aptitude. What was surprising, however, was the total lack of boundaries. They were not only being innovative, being real ‘forces for change’ to use Sussex-speak, but were behaving with a vigour and ruthlessness that was truly astonishing, not only to the press and public, but to the palace as well. Undoubtedly, they were being well advised by real experts. Unless the press were very careful, or Meghan and Harry miscalculated terribly and did something which was so offensive that the general public would lose all sympathy with them, their tactics were intended to keep the British press on the back foot. In doing so, they would negate the media’s ability to scrutinise, thereby weakening criticism of them because the press would no longer be fashioning the narrative but trailing it.
What Meghan and Harry had set out to do was turn the tables on the press, so that the public would end up thinking that valid press criticism was simply carping, even when the press was really fulfilling its responsibility to the nation by fairly and accurately commenting upon their desire to alter treasured national customs and institutions which the vast majority of the British public did not want changed.
Having come up with such effective exclusionary tactics, Meghan and Harry also made it clear in their announcement what sort of press commentary they would hereafter regard as acceptable. They required ‘objective’ reporting. They also looked ‘forward to continuing their use of social media and believe that their updated media approach will enable them to share more, with you, directly.’ This struck the British media as yet more hypocritical cant, and every journalist I spoke to believed that their policy will always be to control access so tightly, and to impart information so guardedly, that the only picture the public will ever see is a heavily curated one.
Nevertheless, Harry and Meghan’s promulgations received support in the United States, where there was the perception that they were the victims of the British press rather than vice versa. Those positive reactions showed that there was indeed both a real cultural and a generational divide. Despite Americans treasuring their First Amendment rights, they did not recognise the dangers the Sussexes were posing to free speech in Britain. The British, which in this instance includes the Canadians, did. The young on both sides of the Atlantic took Meghan and Harry’s two announcements at face value. They felt that the couple should have a chance to lead their own lives as and how they saw fit. If they wanted to chuck the royal way of life and make money, let them. This sentiment was not shared by the more mature segment of the population, who felt that the royal couple was being greedy, selfish and self-indulgent. Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall had stumped up the better part of a million pounds for Meghan’s clothing since she had married his son. Their large house on the Queen’s Windsor Estate had cost
