Prince Harrys Real Declaration of Independence: From Britains Tabloids – The New York Times

Last fall, Prince Harry seemed to have everything a person could want: A luminous wife, a perfect baby and an extended stay in Africa, a region he has always loved.

And yet, when he spoke to his old friend, the journalist Tom Bradby, he sounded traumatized, as if the events of the previous two years had dragged him back to the hell of his 13th summer, when his mother died in a car crash, speeding away from paparazzi.

Every time I see a camera, every time I hear a click, every time I see a flash, it takes me straight back, he was quoted as saying in Harry & Meghan: An African Journey, a documentary of their time in Africa.

His wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, was also grim about the life she had chosen, telling Mr. Bradby that she should have paid more attention when friends warned her about getting involved with Prince Harry.

My British friends told me, Im sure hes great, but you shouldnt do it, because the British tabloids will destroy your life, she said. I, very navely Im an American, we dont have that there I said, What are you talking about? That doesnt make sense.

Much will be written, in the coming days and months, about rifts between the couple and the royal family, or of a millennial prince rejecting the old-fashioned life offered to him.

But for Prince Harry, the British tabloid press was always the worm in the apple.

Other members of the family have accepted, as part of the bargain they were born into, the tabloid feeding frenzy: zoom lenses poking out of the shrubbery; school friends offered cash to betray their confidence; story lines, some of them invented, casting them as lazy, uncouth and self-indulgent.

But Harrys fury over press coverage became more visceral as his feelings for his wife and child grew. He said it openly: He blamed the media for his mothers death.

My deepest fear is history repeating itself, he wrote in a statement in October. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.

For generations, Britains news outlets have been locked in a power struggle with a family that values its privacy, with the media sometimes ratcheting up negative coverage in response to curtailed access. In private, editors boasted of their ability to damage the approval rating of royals who do not cooperate, as with a drumbeat of reports critical of Prince Williams work habits, branding him Work-Shy Wills.

Stig Abell, who served as the director of Britains Press Complaints Commission, a regulatory body, has described the relationship as a hug that was always threatening to become an assault.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, from the first, made it clear that they did not feel any obligation to abide by that tradition, cherry-picking preferred news outlets and building a direct connection with the public through their Instagram feed.

The gentlemans agreement between the royals and the British media was always based on the fact that they needed each other, Mr. Abell said in an interview. But we are seeing the fragmentation of media, the rise of social media, combined with the fact that they are a brand in and of themselves. They are a global phenomenon. If they dont need the media, the question is, why would they have a relationship with the media?

Wednesdays bombshell announcement, in which the couple said they would step back from their official duties, is the culmination of that logic.

This felt like the natural place it would end up, said Mr. Abell, now the editor of The Times Literary Supplement.

The Sussexes plan to withdraw from the Royal Rota, the dozen or so journalists who make up the royal press pool, and speak instead to journalists from what they term credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting, giving preference for young, up-and-coming reporters and grass roots organizations.

The National Union of Journalists on Thursday blasted this idea, saying the public has the right to scrutinize the family, which is supported by public funds.

Who determines which media is credible or objective? said Michelle Stanistreet, the organizations general secretary. We cannot have a situation where journalists writing about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex can only do so if they have the royal seal of approval.

Emily Andrews, The Suns royal correspondent, told the Press-Gazette, which covers the British media industry, that courtiers in other parts of the royal household had reached out to her to say they appreciate what the tabloids do to promote their charitable work.

We dutifully turn up to royal engagements, at home and abroad, often waiting for hours in the cold, the rain and the boiling sun for them to arrive, she said. The royals do not always like what we write but thats the point.

Prince Harrys relationship with his wife, whom he met on a blind date in the summer of 2016, has been punctuated by conflict with the tabloids from the beginning.

The spiral deepened during the duchesss pregnancy, when The Daily Mail published an emotional, handwritten letter she had written to her father, pleading with him to please stop creating so much pain.

When their son was born, in April of 2019, they announced they would skip the ritual photo opportunity outside the maternity ward, publishing their own photograph of the child on their Instagram feed.

This was not satisfactory, said Arthur Edwards, 79, who spent decades documenting the royal family as a photographer for The Sun.

Well, we saw a picture of the babys fingers? he said in an interview. They were treating us with total disrespect. The taxpayer just forked out three million pounds for state-of-the-art dcor in their home, and you cant put out a good picture of your child?

Mr. Edwards was skeptical about Prince Harrys comparison of his wifes treatment with his mothers.

Listen, it was a sad day when Diana was killed, but thats a long while ago, its 25 years, he said. Youve got to move on.

In October, the duchess filed a lawsuit against The Mail on Sunday, which published the letter from her father, accompanied by an agonized statement from Prince Harry.

There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face as so many of you can relate to I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been, he wrote.

Mr. Edwards acknowledged that some coverage of the duchess had been nasty, especially at the early stage of their relationship, but said the princes relatives had toughed it out, accepting criticism as part of their job.

The Prince of Wales has had way worse than that. He was way down the approval rating, but you know what he did? He put down his head and worked hard, and now he is the most popular member of the family, he said.

Asked how Prince Harry would fare in the British news media, Mr. Edwards was foreboding. He has gone down the approval ladder at a fast rate, Im afraid, he said.

But response on social media told a different story, with many commentators celebrating their move. The couples new website, sussexroyal.com, attracted so much interest that, for long stretches on Wednesday afternoon, it would not load.

The photographs used to illustrate the news showed an exuberant couple on their way out of a visit to Canadas High Commission in London, smiling radiantly, as if they had laid down a heavy burden.

Mr. Abell said it all signaled that this was a considered act.

I think this shows they believe they hold the cards, he said. Play it forward, whats the negative effect of this? A whole bunch of criticism in the press? Is that going to change anyones position? If they dont want to be part of the royal family, they dont need the consent or the good will of the British press.

Originally posted here:
Prince Harrys Real Declaration of Independence: From Britains Tabloids - The New York Times