Prince Harry has returned to London for a High Court case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) in which he will allege that the publisher’s behaviour left him “paranoid beyond belief”. The prince’s claims relate to alleged unlawful information gathering used in 14 articles between 2001 and 2013, which ANL “strongly denies”.

‘Highly intrusive’ and ‘damaging’

The prince is one of seven high-profile claimants – including Elton John and Liz Hurley – against ANL, which owns the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, as well as Metro and The i Paper. Other claimants include John’s husband, David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, actor Sadie Frost and Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

ANL journalists are accused of “hacking mobile phone voicemails, tapping landline calls and ‘blagging’ personal information” about subjects without their knowledge or consent, said The Times. The trial is due to last nine weeks, and the total cost is “estimated to be about £40 million”.

On the second day of the trial, the claimants’ barrister, David Sherborne, claimed that the material the company obtained on Harry’s romantic relationships was “highly intrusive”, “damaging” and had “serious security implications”. Sherborne also alleged that ANL illegally obtained information about Hurley’s paternity battle with Stephen Bing, as well as “incredibly private” information about the surrogacy and care arrangements relating to John’s newborn son, said Sky News.

ANL has argued that the claims “should be dismissed”, owing to a six-year statute of limitations on privacy claims, said The Telegraph. The publisher believes the claimants “knew or should have known” about the existence of the articles in question “long before the cut-off date for claims to be brought”. The company denies using illegal means to obtain information, instead telling the court that Harry’s friends were a “good source of leaks” for journalists, divulging information about his private life.

Questions have also arisen over the reliability of witness evidence, said The Times. Private investigator Gavin Burrows, whose evidence is a “key part” of the claimants’ case, now maintains that he was “never instructed or commissioned by anyone at The Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail to conduct unlawful information gathering on their behalf”.

‘Personal crusade’

This case is Prince Harry’s third “major court battle” accusing media groups of “unlawful behaviour”, said the BBC. In December 2023, he won 15 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers for “unlawfully gathering information for stories published about him”. In January 2025, The Sun agreed to pay “substantial damages” and issued an apology to the prince over claims of “unlawful intrusion into his life”.

This could be Harry’s final courtroom confrontation with the British press, but it is also his “biggest”, said Sky News. There are “reputations on the line” and “the stakes for all sides are high”. The duke sees this as his “personal crusade”, once saying that “changing the media landscape would be his life's work. That work is well under way.”

“For now, all parties are standing firm,” said The Guardian. The claimants are not backing down, despite the risk of having to pay ANL’s “enormous legal bill” if they fail to convince the court that the “evidence on which they rely is reliable for the purposes of their case”.

As for the defendant, while the Daily Mail banned the use of private investigators in its reporting in 2007, it still faces the “unedifying prospect of having 30 years of its journalistic practices examined in court”. Whatever the result, “the question is whether there really can be any winners”.

Prince Harry and King Charles shared a private tea in London on Wednesday, marking the first time the pair had met in 19 months.

Although “we know very little” about what transpired during the 54-minute meeting at Clarence House, Harry, “his family and we, the public” are now all left pondering, said Caitlin Moran in The Times. “Have we missed him after all? Now that things have died down a bit, would it be kinda cool to have him back?”

Despite years of friction – from the bombshell Oprah interview and the publication of his memoir “Spare” to a legal battle over the prince’s security – “as long as the royal family aren’t actively firing on Harry, there’s still a way back”.

We’re all aware that “when it comes to real star power” in the royal family, “the only real big-hitters left on active duty are the King, the Queen and William”, said Moran. “And that’s just not enough manpower.” In due course, the prince will “have to come back to the franchise where it all started”.

It will take more than ‘a cup of tea’

Harry’s “brief pseudo-royal tour” is a reminder of the prince’s “instinctive and eye-catching common touch”, which at one time made him one of the most popular royals, said Richard Kay in the Daily Mail.

But it’s likely that “it will take more than an act of philanthropy and a cup of tea” to bury the hatchet. “Overtures are one thing, but a proper thawing of relations is fraught with peril.”

And “while not yet catastrophic”, polling isn’t exactly leaning in the royals’ favour, said Tessa Dunlop in The Independent. In 1983, when the British Social Attitudes survey was first carried out, a “staggering 86% of the population endorsed monarchy”. By 2023, that number had plummeted: just 54% of the population “expressed any commitment to royalty”, and supporters skewed older. Younger generations have “signed out”, and as long as this “unseemly royal impasse persists”, they have little incentive to sign back in.

Harry “retains a reach and appeal in areas where traditional monarchy is at its weakest”, so he may be just what the royal family needs to recover – “after all, William is many things, but cool is not one of them”. Now, it may be up to William to embrace forgiveness – “an important life skill”, especially “essential” for a future monarch.

‘There’s always a reunion’

Despite it being “19 months in the making" and under an hour in duration, the private tea between Harry and the King “marked a first step in the family reconciliation”, said Emily Nash in Hello! magazine.

The meeting was “very much what Harry has been longing for”, but details on what was discussed likely won’t emerge for some time. If the detente is to work, “it’s vital for the King to know that he can trust his youngest son to keep their discussions private” – especially following the publication of “Spare”, the prince’s candid memoir, in 2023.

With the prince looking “happier and more relaxed on home turf than I’ve seen him for a long time”, we can only hope “this marks a fresh start for the King and his son”. After all, “it doesn’t matter how febrile the break-up was”, said Moran. From the Spice Girls to Fleetwood Mac, “in the end, there’s always a reunion”. In general, people are “irrevocably compelled to try to get the band back together”. So, even if this trip doesn’t seal the deal, at some point soon “the healing will begin”.

Soho House has made an "ambitious move" to get its "mojo back", striking a £2 billion takeover deal to take the international members' club private after four years listed on the New York Stock Exchange, said The Telegraph.

The takeover, led by one of the largest hotel operators in the US, could give the company a much needed boost. "Can Soho House become the playground of the rich and famous once again?"

Star appeal

Nick Jones opened the first Soho House three decades ago. Located above his restaurant, Cafe Boheme, on London's Greek Street, it was envisioned as a "networking destination for 'creatives'", as opposed to the corporate clientele that dominated other social clubs, said the Daily Mail.

It soon became a "favourite hangout spot for celebrities"; in 2016, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle chose the club's Dean Street Townhouse as the location for their very first "clandestine rendezvous", said The Telegraph, reflecting the brand's "enticingly exclusive appeal".

Soho House has since turned into a "sprawling global empire" with around 200,000 members in 46 outposts around the world, including Paris, Mexico City and Hong Kong. Membership – which costs around £3,400 for global access – isn't easy to secure; applicants must be nominated by two existing members and provide a biography detailing their career and interests. Kim Kardashian was reportedly denied membership multiple times because the process was "too selective".

After the pandemic, the group relaxed its "stringent" membership requirements and "ballooned" in size. But the rapid expansion brought fresh issues as members began complaining about crowded clubhouses and "lacklustre service".

Soho House's "glamorous star has faded" and the group's share price has plummeted since it was listed back in 2021. Last year, the New York-based short seller GlassHouse published a "damning criticism of the company's 'broken business model and terrible accounting'". The chain, which appointed Andrew Carnie to replace Jones as CEO in 2022, said it "fundamentally rejects" the report.

A return to form?

Soho House has spent decades styling itself as an edgy hangout for creatives seeking to set themselves apart from "boring old City suits", said the Financial Times. But the buy-out means the "finance crowd" has finally managed to "elbow its way in".

While MCR Hotels is leading the takeover, a group of existing shareholders, including Nick Jones, will retain their stakes in the company. Hollywood star Ashton Kutcher will also invest and join the new board of directors.

The "upshot" is that the deal will bring together investors with experience of running successful hotels and expert financiers, while keeping "faithful insiders" as part of the journey. "But make no mistake: faith is exactly what's needed to turn this into a good deal for the buyers."

The acquisition valued Soho House at a "punchy" 16 times its ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) this year. In order to deliver a solid return, the company will need to "find more members, charge existing ones more, or spend less on showing them a good time", and "probably all three".

Still, the deal will "undoubtedly" free Soho House bosses from the "expensive and time-consuming requirements from life on the stock market", said The Telegraph. And there are already signs that it is "rekindling its reputation as the place to be seen", with Dua Lipa hosting a star-studded after-party at the White City venue in June.

Members are "hopeful" that the buy-out will mark a "return to form", transforming the global chain into something closer to the "exclusive refuge" it once represented.

Senior aides representing King Charles and Prince Harry reportedly met last week, sparking rumours of a possible reconciliation between the pair.

The Mail on Sunday published leaked images of the meeting, with an unnamed source saying that there was a "long road ahead, but a channel of communication is now open for the first time in years".

The Duke of Sussex's team was "understood to be frustrated" by the publication of the images, denying it had leaked them, said The Telegraph. The worry now is this has "jeopardised the fragile peace operation".

'A bid to start afresh'

The meeting was allegedly a "bid to start afresh", with both the prince and the King's teams "recognising that an open communications channel would benefit them all". But these are "sensitive talks" over a relationship that has been "almost non-existent in recent years".

"Given the animosity", it is "interesting" that the summit was able to happen at all, said The Times. Harry's "past behaviour" makes "rebuilding a relationship with his family" particularly "tricky", but he "wants to see his father" and is also keen to be "welcomed back with open arms". But for this to happen, the King may "require" an apology from Harry rather than the other way around.

However, it would be the "right thing" to take in someone who "is in as much pain as Harry clearly is", said Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail. He is still suffering "complex, deep-seated emotional wounds" from the death of his mother, Princess Diana, and Meghan Markle has "re-opened or even rubbed salt" in those wounds" and "helped him turn his back" on the royal family. It "would be miles better" for both sides if the Sussexes were to be "brought in from the cold".

'Back to business as usual'

No matter how reconciliation begins, any "positive effects" from the clandestine meeting have been "immediately jeopardised by the leak", said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. Harry's team has "loudly insisted that it is not behind" the leak, which seems plausible. But some of the Sussexes' choices have been "similarly nonsensical" and, "given everything that has happened", not many will be fully "convinced that this is the beginning of a renewed bond between father and son".

For now, things are "back to business as usual" as the "two camps are bickering over who leaked the details" to the press, said New York magazine. Having the "two sides fighting over their attempt to stop fighting" isn't a "good sign".

There is still hope that this "first step" is the start of a "long road towards reconciliation", said People. Sources "close to the palace" have "downplayed the long-term significance of the meeting", and it has been painted as a "professional exchange" between royal staff. However, it still means "lines of communication appear to be reopening" for a "dialogue" that "hasn’t taken place in the recent past".

Sir Geoffrey Vos's judgment last week "was delivered politely and calmly", said Hugo Vickers in The Independent, bringing to an end a years-long legal battle over Prince Harry's security. The Court of Appeal judge found that the decision to downgrade Harry's police protection after he stepped back from royal life in 2020 was legally justified – though he said he understood Harry's fears and his "sense of grievance".

Harry had lost, and at this point, anyone else in his position would have retreated to quietly nurse their wounds (and pay their significant legal fees). But not Harry, said Rebecca English in the Daily Mail. Instead, he gave a "frankly extraordinary" interview to the BBC in which he described the decision as a "good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up", and claimed it wasn't safe for him to bring his wife Meghan and their children to the UK. He even set hares running over the health of the King, who is battling cancer, saying: "I don't know how much longer my father has. He won't speak to me because of this security stuff."

As Harry tells it, said Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail, he and his family "are victims of a massive conspiracy", perpetrated by an "utterly ruthless organisation called 'the Royal Household'". "They" are trying to kill him by removing his police protection; "they" use security to control members of the family. "On and on it goes, an endless litany of perceived injustices" – wilfully ignoring the fact that Harry deliberately chose to step away from royal life and all its trappings, including security.

After firing off those "missiles", said Roya Nikkhah in The Sunday Times, Harry then had the gall to say he hoped for "reconciliation" with his family. He still doesn't get it, does he? To go on the attack just as the royals were about to commemorate VE Day "goes to the very heart of what he keeps getting wrong".

"The interview was awful, slick with entitlement and ignoring the harm done by his own hostility," said Libby Purves in The Times. But Harry is clearly suffering, and the magnanimous thing at this stage would be for his brother and father to grit their teeth and try to welcome him back into the fold (though of course, with his history of spilling royal secrets, they would have to watch what they said).

The King should accept his "wounded" son's appeal for reconciliation, agreed Peter Hunt in The Observer. If not, this family sore will continue to "fester" – casting a shadow over Charles's reign. According to Harry, his father once implored: "Please, boys – don't make my final years a misery." The King should avoid turning that prophecy to reality

What a "tedious, expensive and miserable way to live", said Joanna Williams in The Times. Last week, Prince Harry was back in the UK, fighting yet another legal battle – this time at the Court of Appeal, where he is challenging the Home Office's decision to strip him and his wife Meghan of their round-the-clock, taxpayer-funded security when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.

Ravec, the body responsible for the protection of royals and VIPs, decreed that, instead, the level of security offered to the couple would be decided on a case-by-case basis. Ever the victim, Harry claims he has been singled out for "unjustified and inferior treatment". Is there no limit to his sense of entitlement, asked Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail. Why should we "keep paying for him and the Duchess", when "they are no longer working royals and don't even live here"? Besides, if Harry really thinks he is at risk in Britain, said Kate Mansey in The Times, why did he fly 5,000 miles to a hearing he could have followed from his mansion in Montecito?

This case is "at the heart" of Harry's rift with his father, said Victoria Ward in The Daily Telegraph. He claims that he was promised that he could keep his protection at the Sandringham summit in 2020, held days after he and Meghan announced that they were leaving for California – and that the "Establishment" later reneged on that promise to "punish" them, and to try to dissuade them from leaving. Harry says the King could get Ravec's decision reversed – and that if he did, it would be "swords down" between the warring royals.

It would also be the right thing to do, said Alison Phillips in The i Paper. Yes, Harry is a "self-absorbed" idiot who has repeatedly wounded his family, but he didn't choose to be a royal, and is as deserving of "proper security" on British soil as any other British VIP. Liz Truss is eligible for automatic protection, for goodness sake – and she caused far more harm in her 49 days as PM than Harry has done. Besides, imagine if he were to be attacked. It would be a national scandal; and it would have happened not because his wife was in "Suits" and now flogs jam, but because his father is King Charles III. "It seems churlish and unfair for the nation not to recognise that."

Prince Harry was just 20 when he visited Lesotho during his gap year, said Tessa Dunlop in The Independent. His adolescence had been turbulent and self-destructive, but in the tiny landlocked country he found "meaning" and purpose. Two years later, he and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho founded Sentebale – a charity dedicated to orphans of the Aids epidemic – in memory of their late mothers.

The cause was clearly very close to Harry's heart, and he raised millions for it; so "no one was surprised" when Sentebale (which translates as "forget me not", his mother's favourite flower) remained in the Sussexes' portfolio after they left the UK. Last week, however, Harry revealed that he had made the "devastating" decision to stand down as its patron, in solidarity with its trustees. Mainly members of his "establishment old guard", they had resigned following a power struggle with its new chair, Sophie Chandauka, a Zimbabwean lawyer and former trustee.

In the war of words this triggered, few facts are agreed, said Roya Nikkhah in The Sunday Times. The trustees have briefed that Chandauka had wasted vast sums on consultancy fees, in a failed effort to attract US donors. She denies this, and counter-claims that the charity had been damaged by the "toxicity of its lead patron's brand" – arguing that Harry's fall out with his family had deterred commercial partners. She says the trustees refused to discuss this, and accuses them of weak management, bullying, "misogyny and misogynoir".

She also implies that Harry had used the charity to enhance the Sussex brand. She claims that he forced a fundraising polo match to be moved, so that he could bring a Netflix camera crew; and that he'd ordered her to issue a public defence of his wife Meghan, who had turned up at the event unexpectedly, and been criticised for seeming to "manage" Chandauka out of a photocall with Harry. Now, she says the duke is playing the "victim card", while "unleashing the Sussex machine" against her.

Chandauka aimed her attacks well, said Richard Kay in the Daily Mail. She has turned Harry's victim status against him, and undermined his claim to be "awake" to injustice. And she has a point about the charity's funding: these days, it doesn't look good for a charity serving Africa's poor to be mainly funded by white men playing polo. Still, you have to feel for Harry. Sentebale was his passion project and, without it, his in-tray will look even emptier, while his wife's is "overflowing". Whoever is to blame, this dispute is surely "a crushing blow" for the prince.

The worst thing about the phone hacking scandal is, of course, the misery it caused to those whose privacy was invaded, said The Independent. But the damage spread further than that: it tarnished the reputation of all journalists, and by further eroding trust in the media, it undermined a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

So even those who do not share all of Prince Harry's views about the press should commend him for his long campaign to bring to account those responsible for tabloid phone hacking, surveillance and other nefarious practices – and welcome the victory he scored last week, when Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers (NGN) finally admitted that "unlawful activities" had taken place at The Sun. As part of a last-minute settlement, Harry also won "substantial damages" and an apology for the "serious intrusion" into his private life, and that of his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, by The Sun and the defunct News of the World.

It is a vindication of sorts, but this is not the result Harry hoped for, said Victoria Ward in The Daily Telegraph. Only six weeks ago, he said he'd not settle because his goal was full accountability, to bring "closure" for all the victims who'd had to settle. Yet last week, he and former Labour MP Tom Watson – the last two claimants – capitulated, in return for a limited acceptance of liability: NGN admitted that investigators hired by The Sun had acted unlawfully, but denied wrongdoing by its own journalists at the paper.

Harry had been made an offer he could not refuse, said Jane Martinson in The Guardian. Had he rejected the settlement – believed to be £10 million – then been awarded a penny less in court, he'd have been liable for both sides' costs, which exceed £30 million. This rule is designed to stop litigants from clogging up the system, but the powerful can use it to avoid public scrutiny, said Robert Shrimsley in the FT. NGN had already paid out an estimated $1 billion to settle more than 1,300 cases, and spare its executives from having to testify about the scandal and their efforts to contain it. A further £10 million must have seemed small beer to bring the saga to an end.

The only hope left now for transparency is if the police decide to reopen their investigation. Until then, there is no real victory: the Murdochs and their top executives – including former Sun editor Rebekah Brooks – "remain unbowed; fêted and fawned upon". Like the Buchanans in "The Great Gatsby", the business has "been able to wreck lives then retreat into their money". The "warrior prince won more than most", but "even he could not meet the full price of justice".

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might have hoped that their decision to exile themselves from the royal family five years ago would temper the lurid gossip and intense speculation about their private lives. But if anything, absence has made the heat grow stronger.

The latest article about them by ­Vanity Fair – which has "American Hustle" on its cover – "has proved to be difficult reading for the Sussexes", said The Times. The feature made several claims about their marriage, community relations in Montecito, California, and business challenges, which the couple reportedly found "distressing".

Markle in particular has taken considerable flak recently. Her public support of the Los Angeles wildfires relief efforts, where she was filmed on a walkabout in the badly affected Altadena and Pasadena districts, saw "'Princess Markle'" being "castigated for being no better than an 'ambulance chaser' in a city where she doesn't 'live'", said The Independent. Then her "With Love, Meghan" cookery series on Netflix, originally due to begin last Wednesday, was delayed "as we focus on the needs of those impacted by the wildfires in my home state of California". But that announcement was also met with cynicism.

It appears the "actor-cum-duchess can't do right for wrong. And to trawl back, beyond the recent fire-disaster, is to be reminded that it was ever thus."

'Mean Girls'

Accusations of bullying levelled at Markle date back to 2018, said The Times, when palace staff were said to have been left in tears by her behaviour.

Last week, Vanity Fair spoke to people who had worked for Markle. They said that it was "very painful". One staff member described how there was "talking behind your back" and "gnawing at your sense of self" in a manner reminiscent of teenagers in the movie "Mean Girls". According to Vanity Fair, one former employee who was excited to begin working with the couple on media projects did not believe reports that Markle had bullied palace aides. After working with her, this person realised: "Oh, any given Tuesday, this happened," it is alleged. Sources close to the Sussexes said that previous employees had gone on record in the past to dispute these claims.

"Even the Sussexes cannot deny, however, that they have an unusually high team turnover," said Tatler. Their chief of staff, Josh Kettler, recently left his position after just three months in what was reportedly a mutual decision, with both sides agreeing "it wasn't the right fit". But Kettler himself has called the couple "dedicated and hardworking", while Ben Browning, the couple's former head of content at their foundation Archewell, told Us Weekly that he had found the pair to be "positive and supportive", adding: "The narratives we've seen suggesting the contrary are untrue."

'Misogyny and racism'

So is there something more insidious behind the hatred towards the Sussexes, and Markle in particular? The recent furore over her new Netflix show "marks a sad and tedious continuation of the misogyny and racism" surrounding her, said Vogue. Many of the comments accuse Markle of stealing the IP of Emma Thynn, Marchioness of Bath. "Because the world doesn't have space for more than one Black woman married to an English aristocrat who happens to cook on television."

The "act of hating her" has "evolved into the art of projecting the various wrongs of the world onto a woman", said Mamamia. The accusations of bullying have seen her "become a stand-in for every person who has treated us badly in the workplace or within our own families and is still publicly adored".

After the backlash over the wildfire relief efforts, publications such as People magazine later confirmed the couple worked a full day at an evacuation centre, "but that was not the story that rose to the surface", said Mamamia. The desire to be "the first one to the Meghan Markle commentary or critique has overridden our desire to look for the truth, the empathy or even the humour".

Prince Harry is looking at ways to repair his relationship with his father as the first step in a potential return to the royal fold, the Mail on Sunday has reported.

Having grown increasingly "dissatisfied" with advice from US-based image experts, the Duke of Sussex has sought out former trusted aides in a bid to "rehabilitate" his image and "mastermind a return from exile in the US", where he has lived with his wife, Meghan, and their two children since 2020.

But "well-placed sources" told the BBC's royal correspondent Sean Coughlan that Prince Harry "is not planning a permanent move back to the UK" as it is "understood that concern over his and his family's security in the UK remains an issue". 

Operation bring Harry in from the cold

"Harry is feeling more and more isolated in California, which is why he has been reconnecting with old friends back home", a source "close to his inner circle" told The Sun. The 39-year-old royal "feels as though he has lost his way since moving to the US and has become 'The Spare' again" after being "overshadowed" by his wife, LBC reported.

Part of a strategy dubbed "Operation Bring Harry In From The Cold" in the Daily Mirror may involve performing "very low-key royal duties" to rebuild public trust, although sources have been quick to stress the couple would not move back to the UK permanently.

"He is clearly reaching out thinking, 'I need to do something different because what I'm doing is clearly not working'," said one source. "In short, he is rethinking the way he operates.

"If Harry comes back to the UK with zero fuss, and does zero publicity and attends very mundane events, he could prove himself and win over the British public again." 

But there is an "ongoing, labyrinthine legal wrangle with the Home Office over his security status in the UK", said the BBC's Coughlan, which "has become a thorny issue in any discussion about a return".

Healing royal relationships

William and Harry have not been on speaking terms for years, but were last week spotted in the same room for the first time since the May 2023 coronation of their father.

The Sun said Harry and William both made an appearance at the funeral of their uncle, Lord Robert Fellowes, in Norfolk. They arrived "very discreetly", a source told the paper with a local adding "but we never saw them speak to each other and they were keeping their distance".

Last month, People reported that Harry's recent texts, letters and phone calls to William have gone unanswered, with a royal insider describing the rift between the brothers as "very bad" if not "irreparable".

"Unless matters change very considerably, it is unlikely that either the King or Prince William will countenance any kind of formal return for Harry into the royal family," said The Spectator's Alexander Larman. It would be too humiliating after what has happened, and would risk making the institution a laughing stock.

Harry has, however, been trying to repair his relationship with his father for some time, said The Times, with the paper reporting in February that he was willing to return to a temporary royal role in the UK to support the family as the King was treated for cancer.

Although Harry had sought a position that involves limited royal duties but allows him to continue living in the US, Buckingham Palace has "opposed such an arrangement" said the paper, sticking to the line of his late grandmother, Elizabeth II, who insisted he could not be "half in, half out".

Prince Harry is in London to celebrate a decade of the Invictus Games, but a visit to his father, the King, will not be on the agenda.

Today's Invictus thanksgiving service at St Paul's Cathedral will be the "first major event Harry has attended in Britain for some time", said Sky News. It is also the first time he has been back to the country since his "rushed visit to see the King in February after the monarch's cancer diagnosis". 

But he will not be seeing his father this week "due to His Majesty's full programme", said a spokesperson for Prince Harry. The Duke was said to be "understanding of his father's diary" and "hopes to see him soon".

At around the same time as the St Paul's service and "just round the corner (or a mere five stops on the District Line)", said Kevin Maher in The Times, King Charles is expected to attend the first Buckingham Palace garden party of the year. "It's almost as if there was something other than practicalities keeping them apart."

The apparent snub represents the "second blow in the space of 24 hours" for the Duke, after Buckingham Palace announced that Prince William is to officially become colonel-in-chief of the Army Air Corps, the home of "Harry's old regiment", said The Independent. The honour would have likely passed to Prince Harry had he remained a working royal.

The Prince of Wales and other senior royals were reportedly invited to the service at St Paul's, but they are not expected to attend. Prince Harry founded the Invictus Games a decade ago as a Paralympics-style sporting event for military personnel and veterans.

With plans underway for the first winter hybrid Invictus at Vancouver Whistler next year, Prince Harry said the team behind the games was "eager to celebrate the Invictus Spirit once again".

Prince Harry has won nearly half of his claims of phone hacking and unlawful information-gathering against the Daily Mirror publisher in a ruling that could have "profound implications" for British media and the royal family.

The Duke of Sussex sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages, claiming journalists at its papers "were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called 'blagging' or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities", said the Daily Mirror. At the High Court, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Harry on 15 claims, awarding him £140,600 in damages – "just under a third of the £443,000 he'd asked for", said the newspaper. 

Harry, 39, claimed that 33 articles about him published between 1991 and 2011 involved unlawful information-gathering. MGN denied that 28 of the 33 articles were unlawfully produced. 

During the trial this summer, Harry became the first member of the royal family to give evidence in court for 130 years, said The Times. He said the articles "left him paranoid" and he ended relationships with those he suspected of leaking information.

The ruling will have "profound implications for the British media", said The Guardian, as the judge ruled that there was "extensive" phone hacking – "even to some extent" during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards held in 2011-12.

There might even be "a rapprochement between Harry and the rest of the royal family", posted Craig Prescott, author of the upcoming book "Modern Monarchy", on Twitter (now X).

"Today is a great day for truth, as well as accountability," Prince Harry said in a statement read by his lawyer. He also urged the Metropolitan Police to "do their duty" and investigate the unlawful information-gathering in his case. He claimed that MGN directors, legal team and Piers Morgan – then the editor of the Daily Mirror – "clearly knew about" the phone hacking. They "even went as far as to lie under oath" at the Leveson Inquiry, he said. 

Responding to the outcome of the trial, Morgan said he "never hacked a phone or told anyone else to hack a phone" and blamed "old foes of mine with an axe to grind" for the claims to the contrary.

MGN said: "Where historical wrongdoing took place… we apologise unreservedly." 

A painting found in an Oxfam charity shop has fetched £25,000 at auction, reported The Telegraph. The unwanted impressionist painting by 20th century British painter Henry Scott Tuke of a nude figure had been donated with several other unknown and unvalued artworks to the Oxfam shop in Stamford, East Midlands. A leading auctioneer noted the back story of the piece and the proceeds from the sale are expected to go mainly to Oxfam.

Psychics predict Harry woe

A medium has predicted that Prince Harry will lose his royal roles, but it will not be King Charles III that strips him of them. Craig Hamilton-Parker claimed the Duke of Sussex will soon lose out on his royal privileges – with the government potentially playing a part in the drama. On a YouTube livestream, his fellow psychic Jane Hamilton-Parker hinted at an "inner circle" threatening Harry, noted the Daily Star.

Snake in drawer shocks family

A US family made a "shocking discovery" on their houseboat in the form of a snake hiding in a sock drawer, reported UPI. The family said they were on their boat in Florida when they opened a sock drawer and found a yellow Eastern rat snake staring back at them. A friend who agreed to capture the snake ended up with a bite on his hand, but the injury was not serious. The non-venomous snake was relocated to its natural habitat.

Ever since the Oprah Winfrey interview in 2021 in which the Duchess of Sussex reported that a senior member of the royal family had speculated over the colour of her unborn child's skin, there has been public fascination with the identity of the so-called "royal racist", said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. 

The Duchess never named any names, bar assurances it was neither the late Queen nor Prince Philip. But last week, with the publication of Omid Scobie's book about the royal family, "Endgame", all was revealed. The English version was tactfully silent, but the Dutch translation asserted that not one but two royals expressed "concern" about Archie's likely skin colour: King Charles and the Princess of Wales. 

Scobie said the revelation was a mistake: a "translation error". But the Dutch translator said she had merely translated what she was given – leading to suspicions that this "accident" was in fact a tawdry publicity stunt. 

Inside scoop?

Some of us are bound to wonder what part Harry and Meghan played in this book, said Allison Pearson in The Daily Telegraph. In it, Scobie takes various swipes at Catherine, calling her "Katie Keen" and painting her as a "Stepford Wife", and at the King. 

Scobie has repeatedly denied acting as the Sussexes' "mouthpiece", and says the couple had no direct input into this book. But last year, Meghan had to apologise in court for "failing to remember" that she'd authorised a senior aide to supply information for his previous one. At any rate, "Endgame" will have made the prospect of a family reunion any time soon still more unlikely. 

A 'ridiculous' row

The whole royal racism saga is pretty ridiculous, said Trevor Phillips in The Times. It's normal for families to speculate about who the baby is going to look like. I have no idea what the King said to Meghan, but having met him a few times, I very much doubt that he would express "antediluvian" views on the subject: he has, after all, "probably met more black folk than any public figures outside Africa". 

I am not naive about the "depth of racial prejudice" that exists in some British families. But this particular issue is trivial, and worse: talking about it endlessly "sends a sour, unwelcoming message" about Britain out "across the globe".

Prince Harry was due back in court today to argue he was unfairly treated when denied security protection in 2020 shortly after he announced he and his wife were stepping back as working members of the royal family to move abroad.

The "three-day High Court battle" is part of legal action against the Home Office's decision not to afford him the "same degree" of personal protective security when visiting Britain, said The Telegraph. The Duke of Sussex has claimed members of the royal household should not have been able to influence the process, after it emerged that Sir Edward Young, the late Queen's assistant private secretary, and the Earl of Rosslyn, the Master of Prince Charles's household, were both on the committee making the decision.

The hearing comes on "the heels of a royal scandal", said The Independent, when a new book by Omid Scobie appeared to name King Charles and the Princess of Wales as the royals who speculated about the colour of the Sussexes' first child. Buckingham Palace is said to be "considering all options" including legal action of its own.

What other cases is Harry involved in?

Last month, the High Court ruled legal action brought against the publisher of the Daily Mail by Prince Harry and seven other high-profile defendants, including Sir Elton John and Dame Doreen Lawrence, could proceed.

Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) is facing accusations of alleged unlawful information-gathering, including listening in on private telephone conversations, accessing confidential records and even planting bugging devices within vehicles.

The decision was a "significant blow" to ANL, which had – until now – escaped the barrage of lawsuits related to illegal phone-hacking, reported The Guardian.  

To be fair, "it's hard to keep up with the various cases that he is involved with", said Alexander Larman at The Spectator. At the last count, Prince Harry is engaged in litigation against ANL over unlawful information gathering, the Home Office over withdrawing protection, and ANL again over libel claims relating to his Home Office legal action.

He is also awaiting judgment in a privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror, after giving what the BBC described as "unprecedented" testimony when he became the first senior royal in more than 130 years to give evidence from the witness box. He is among more than 100 other people, ranging from actors, sports stars and celebrities, suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for "widespread unlawful activities between 1991 and 2011", Reuters reported.

There is also the case against the Murdoch-owned News Group Newspapers (NGN), publishers of The Sun and now-defunct News of the World. A ruling in July blocked parts of Prince Harry's claim relating to allegations of phone hacking against the publisher and the judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, also refused to allow the Duke to rely on an alleged "secret agreement" between the royal family and senior executives working for Rupert Murdoch as part of his claim. He did, however, give the Duke's claim over other allegations – including use of private investigators – the green light to go ahead to a trial, which the Press Gazette suggested might not be until January 2025.

What does he hope to achieve?

Harry would argue, said Larman at The Spectator, that he is "attempting both to stand up for his and his family's privacy, and that by taking on the venal forces of British tabloid journalism – and winning – that he will not only ensure that false and inaccurate stories about him are not published, but also that he is a sufficiently powerful and high-profile figure to stand as a champion of those without the same level of influence".

Whatever the motives, there is a "lot on the line here for the prince", said The Guardian's media editor, Jim Waterson, in reference only to The Mirror case. "He could lose a lot of money in legal fees if he has not signed a 'no win no fee' agreement with his legal team, and British newspapers will probably pillory him further if the verdict does not come out in his favour," he said.

With so many cases on the go at once, he risks spreading himself far too thin, concluded Larman. "At the back of his mind, there is the uncomfortable knowledge that he has to win every single action he is involved in. The alternative can only be humiliation, and a persistent irritation with this most litigious of members of the royal family, who has long since ignored the Firm's edict to 'never complain, never explain'."

A new book that promises to make the royal family feel "ashamed" may prevent a "thawing in relations" between the King and Prince Harry, experts warn. 

In "Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy's Fight for Survival", Omid Scobie, who is "famous for writing about Harry and Meghan", makes a number of "highly controversial allegations" about the royals, said The Telegraph.

These days, "warts-and-all tell-alls seem to be as integral to the Windsor brand as weddings, jubilees and blockbuster funerals", said The New York Times. But what is in this book and what has the reaction been?

The background

Scobie is one of the UK's most prominent commentators on the royal family, and has taken a particular interest in the lives and thoughts of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

In 2020, Scobie co-authored a book about the couple with US journalist Carolyn Durand. "Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family" sold more than 31,000 copies in the UK in its first five days on the shelves.

"In revealing the depth of the divide that developed between William and Harry after Meghan came on the scene, it cemented Scobie in many people's eyes as Meghan's cheerleader, crusader and chum," said The Sunday Times.

The latest

His new book promises to be as explosive as its predecessor. "Tone-deaf, racist and financially reckless” are three charges "hurled" by Scobie at the monarchy, said The New York Times. 

Scobie writes that "when Queen Elizabeth II was at the helm she managed to keep much of it at bay". But the new King "comes in for a walloping", with allegations that  Charles is "often envious" of his sons' popularity. 

The book is equally critical of Prince William, who is portrayed as "snapping at Charles' heels" as the "ambitious" prince eyes the throne, said The Independent. The heir apparent is cast as a "hot-headed" company man who is "increasingly comfortable with the Palace's dirty tricks and the courtiers who dream them up".

Scobie claims that Harry was "left completely by himself" after the Queen's death. Meanwhile, the Princess of Wales considered her future sister-in-law Meghan a "rival" from the moment she appeared on the scene in 2016, according to Scobie.

Indeed, the book "rips into every member of the royal family – apart from a certain couple in California", said The Sunday Times. Harry and Meghan have denied any connection to "Endgame". Asked by the paper if Meghan contributed to the book, Scobie replied: "No, and I'm not her friend." But he admitted that he does share "mutual friends" with the duchess – something he says "helps with getting information and breaking details" about the royal family.

The reaction

Readers "hoping for a final death blow of gossip will be disappointed", said The New York Times, because "we've heard much of it before". But the book is "crammed with gripping gems about the bilious backbiting among the royal family" and is a "pacey, well-written account of where the modern monarchy could be heading if it doesn't adapt and appeal to a new generation".

Experts said that the new biography is "threatening a potential thawing in relations between the King and his youngest son", the Daily Mailreported. The royal family is in for a "bumpy ride", said Honey.

Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the extracts from Scobie's book. Nevertheless, said the BBC, the royal family "continues to provide inspiration for authors, book editors and television commissioners", so we can expect plenty more. 

For "royal critics, fans and observers alike", it's "not going to be a quiet week", said Deadline.

With a new king on the throne this year, the role of the monarch and his family has come under renewed scrutiny.

Although King Charles III is the UK’s head of state, “his powers are largely symbolic and ceremonial”, said BBC News. But given that Charles is personally worth about £1.8 billion – according to an investigation by The Guardian – many may wonder how the King and his family spend their time.

Despite their global fame and “the constant flood of royal paparazzi photos and press releases”, said Insider, “it can be tough to discern what it is the family members actually do”.

What does the monarch do politically?

Although the monarch is politically neutral, that’s not the same as being politically uninvolved. First and foremost, the monarch appoints the government. Whoever wins a general election is invited to Buckingham Palace, and the monarch formally asks him or her to form a government.

The King opens each session of Parliament, giving a speech about the government’s plans for the year ahead. Charles also receives daily government dispatches in a red leather box, including briefings and documents needing his signature.

Every Wednesday, he meets the prime minister at Buckingham Palace, who keeps him “informed on government matters”, according to BBC News.

The monarch also has to approve every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament. With “Royal Assent”, legislation becomes law. This is “mostly a formality, though”, noted Insider. No monarch has refused to give Royal Assent since 1707, “when Queen Anne refused a bill that would have recreated the Scottish militia after England and Scotland were formally unified”.

And what about state duties?

The monarch’s days are filled with official “engagements”. They meet foreign ambassadors and host visiting heads of state, as well as carrying out state visits abroad. This year, Charles became the first British monarch to address the German parliament, but questions still abound as to whether he will be able to wield as much diplomatic heft as his late mother.

The head of the royal family also presents citizens with awards and honours, like knighthoods and military achievements.

“As a team,” said Insider, royals attend about 2,000 official engagements a year, entertain about 70,000 people at royal residences for meals, receptions and parties, and answer 100,000 letters a year.

In 2015 the late Queen Elizabeth II carried out 341 engagements, according to The Daily Telegraph, 306 in the UK and 35 abroad – the year before she turned 90. She “put the younger generation of the Royal family to shame”, the paper noted, by carrying out more engagements than Prince Harry, Prince William and Kate Middleton combined.

The King is also head of the Commonwealth, made up of 56 independent countries and comprising 2.5 billion people. He is the head of state of 14 of these, known as the Commonwealth realms, as well as the Crown dependencies like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

What about the military, church and charities?

Technically, the monarch is the colonel-in-chief of the armed forces. The late Queen, all three of her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry also served in the military themselves.

William, for example, is “a skilled pilot”, said Marie Claire, “completing his Royal Air Force training in 2010 and later going on to serve as a search and rescue pilot for years”.

The family “also plays an important role in recognising and supporting the work of the Armed Services”, said the official Royal.uk website. Members have “official relationships with many units of the Forces, paying regular visits to soldiers, sailors and airmen serving at home and abroad”.

The King or Queen is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, after Henry VIII broke with Roman Catholicism in the 16th century. That involves appointing bishops, archbishops and deans.

“Even so,” noted Good Housekeeping, “the Archbishop of Canterbury is head cleric of the church”.

Charitable work is another duty for many royals. About 3,000 charitable organisations list a member of the royal family as a patron or president, according to Royal.uk. Some also establish their own organisations.

Charles, for example, set up more than 20 charities over 40 years as the Prince of Wales, including the Prince’s Trust.

When he was the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William founded United for Wildlife with The Royal Foundation, to combat trafficking of illegal wildlife products. In June this year, he also launched a five-year programme to try to end homelessness.

As of her 90th birthday in April 2016, the late Queen was a patron of 600 charities.

And the rest of the family?

Working royals “support the King in his many state and national duties”, according to Royal.uk, and “carry out important work in the areas of public and charitable service in their own right”.

These “working royals” include Charles’s sister, Princess Anne, his brother Prince Edward, Edward’s wife Sophie (Countess of Wessex), the Prince and Princess of Wales, and some of the late Queen’s cousins.

In 2015, Princess Anne carried out 456 engagements in the UK and 88 overseas, said The Telegraph, “living up to her reputation as the hardest-working member of the royal family”.

“Involved in upwards of 300 different charity organisations, Anne spent roughly 180 days at royal engagements in 2018, making her the busiest member of the royal family that year,” said Town and Country magazine. The Princess Royal, as Anne is known, is also president of the British Olympic Association, a member of the International Olympic Committee, and since 1986 patron of the Scottish Rugby Union.

Some working royals have even had “day jobs”. William, for example, was a pilot for East Anglian Air Ambulance from 2015-17.

“When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their $20m, multi-year deal with Spotify in 2020, it was hailed as the centrepiece of the couple’s growing business empire,” said Nadia Khomami in The Guardian.

Last week, however, news broke that the partnership was coming to an end. The decision was described as mutual, but insiders reported that the couple had failed to meet a “productivity benchmark”, and would not be getting the full payment.

In other words, said Reaction, Spotify had looked at their total output – 12 episodes of Meghan’s dreary Archetypes podcast, in which she interviewed some of her famous friends about the “labels that hold women back” – and concluded that it just wasn’t good enough. One senior executive went rather further, by implying that the couple had conned the firm. Speaking on his own podcast, Bill Simmons declared that Meghan and Harry should have produced a show called “The F**king Grifters”.

To be fair, this isn’t just about the Sussexes, said James Warrington in The Daily Telegraph. It’s also “the latest sign that Spotify’s big bet on podcasting has gone sour”. Four years ago, the music-streaming giant started splurging millions on headline-grabbing podcast deals, hoping that “ad dollars would follow”.

It even created a dedicated campus in LA called Pod City. But the expected revenue hasn’t materialised, and it is now laying off staff and rethinking expensive deals. Signing the Sussexes generated useful media buzz, but relative to other podcasters, Meghan produced very little content, and seems not to have hauled in the listeners: having initially topped the charts, her series is no longer even in the top 100.

That doesn’t surprise me, said James Marriott in The Times. In a market crowded with limp celebrity podcasts, the show was notably bad – the “distilled essence of purest Californian banality” – and Meghan was awful on it: she introduced fascinating guests, then covered them in “gush” (“you’re choosing liberation and newness; I love that so much”) until they became boring, which is “the opposite of good interviewing technique”.

Spotify doesn’t release listener figures, but my guess is that Archetypes’s were very low, and that is worrying for the Sussexes. They can’t keep droning on about the horrible royal family. What with Harry’s book and the Netflix documentary, it’s a story they’ve “milked to within an inch of its life”, and there are signs that people are getting tired of it. But the failure of Archetypes suggests that no one wants to listen to them talk about anything else.

Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II last September, King Charles has led the nation in mourning, played host to world leaders and taken centre stage at the most prestigious of royal celebrations.

It was “inevitable” that this would be “a year of firsts” for the new monarch, said Town & Country. Charles “took his inaugural salute as sovereign” at Trooping the Colour – or officially, the King’s Birthday Parade – on Horse Guards Parade at the weekend, before leading the Order of the Garter service at Windsor Castle yesterday.

The official birthday celebrations are “the most colourful and impressive of Royal events – save only the Coronation itself”, said Alan Cochrane in The Telegraph. Some 1,400 soldiers, 400 musicians and 200 horses took part in the military parade, which marked the first time a monarch had ridden on horseback at the ceremony since his mother did in 1986.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s absence from the weekend’s celebrations did not go “unnoticed”, said Town & Country. The King’s youngest son and his wife were not invited to attend the event, and while a rift remains in the royal household, “it seems that even a desire to put on a show of unity has been put to one side”.

One very notable presence, however, was five-year-old Prince Louis, who “has a track record of lightening the mood at formal royal events”, said Sky News. The young royal “thoroughly enjoyed” watching the fly-past with his family on the Buckingham Palace balcony, seemingly pretending to ride a motorbike as the planes flew overhead.

As Charles’s year of “firsts” begins to draw to a close, take a look back at some of the most memorable moments of his reign so far.

Prince Harry has taken the stand for the second day in his phone hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), becoming the first senior British royal to give evidence in court since the 1890s.

His lengthy fight against the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The Sunday People “came to a head in a tense courtroom showdown”, reported CNN.

The Duke of Sussex alleges 140 articles “contained information gathered using unlawful methods” and told the court that every article played “a destructive role” in his growing up. He also claimed the tabloids “caused him significant distress and wrecked some of his closest relationships”.

He added “some editors and journalists do have blood on their hands”, for the “distress” caused, and “perhaps, inadvertently death”, referencing his late mother Princess Diana.

Seeing a senior royal “subjected to a tiring, meticulous interrogation was exceedingly rare”, CNN added. Indeed, Prince Harry has become the first British royal to give evidence since 1891.

Before he became king, Edward VII was a witness in a slander trial over a card game, said The National. He is one of a handful of British royals who have appeared in court over the centuries.

Edward VII

Edward VII, the last royal to give evidence in court, appeared twice as a witness – in 1891 to give evidence in the slander trial – but for the first time in 1870.

The then Prince of Wales was a voluntary witness in a divorce case on the first occasion, when Lady Harriet Mordaunt “falsely accused the heir to the throne of being one of her lovers”, said Yahoo Life. She had “confessed to a string of affairs” to her husband, Sir Charles Mordaunt, and Sir Charles filed for divorce.

Edward VII was “known as ‘Dirty Bertie’ for his philandering ways”, said Harry Mount in i News, with Yahoo adding he “had many mistresses”. He denied there had been any “improper familiarity or criminal act” between himself and Lady Mordaunt, though, and she was “declared insane by the jury”, with the divorce case dismissed.

Princess Anne

Although “it is rare for a senior member of the Royal Family to appear in court”, Princess Anne has “led the way, particularly when it comes to motoring offences”, said the Daily Mail.

After being given a written warning in 1972, aged 21, after “being caught driving at up to 90mph on the M1”, she was five years later fined £40 “for doing 96mph in a 70mph limit on the M1” at Alfreton Magistrates Court, Derbyshire. Then, in 1990, she was fined £150 and “banned from driving” for a month by magistrates in Stow-on-the-Wold, Gloucestershire, after admitting two speeding offences, claiming “she had been late for an engagement”.

Her first in-person court appearance came in 2002 after she pleaded guilty to offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Her bull terrier, Dotty, “had got dangerously out of control” and attacked two boys. ​​

Charles I

Following the end of the English Civil War, Charles I was “charged with tyranny and treason” and brought to trial in Westminster Hall on 20 January 1649, said The Guardian.

The king’s trial “was proclaimed to the sound of trumpets and drums”, according to Parliament, as the Serjeant at Arms “rode into the Hall carrying the mace and accompanied by six trumpeters on horseback”.

Appearing before judges four times, the exchanges “generally focused on the king challenging the court’s authority and its right to try him”, The Guardian added.

Although “the King’s persistence disconcerted the judges”, there was “little doubt about the outcome” Parliament said, and he was sentenced to death on 27 January.

Mary, Queen of Scots

The Babington Plot was a plan to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I in 1586 and install her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne.

Mary “faced trial for treason” before 36 noblemen, The Guardian said, but “denied all charges”. She urged those trying her to “look to your consciences and remember that the theatre of the whole world is wider than the kingdom of England”.

Despite arguing “she had been denied the opportunity to review the evidence” and that she was “denied access to legal counsel”, she was convicted and sentenced to death.

The Duke of Gloucester

In 2004, the Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Gloucester, was banned from driving for six months by magistrates in Ely, Cambridgeshire.

After he admitted to driving at 70mph on a stretch of the A47, where the limit is 60mph, magistrates added three points to his licence, in addition to the nine he’d accrued for speeding offences in November 2001, December 2002 and January 2003.

He was also the president of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, and “offered to quit” in the wake of the outcome, given that membership “depends on passing an advanced driving test”, reported The Guardian at the time.

He was invited to “give reasons why a ban would cause “exceptional hardship””, as was his legal right. But the Duke told the court: “I don’t recall the event, so I don’t really recall what the circumstances are”.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s involvement in what they called a “near catastrophic car chase” with US paparazzi in Manhattan has been put under the microscope amid claim and counterclaim from those involved.

Harry and Meghan were attending the Ms. Foundation’s Women of Vision annual gala at the Ziegfeld Ballroom, during which the Duchess of Sussex was honoured by Gloria Steinem for her “global advocacy to empower and advocate on behalf of women and girls”, reported Good Morning America.

But the night turned sour when, according to the couple’s spokesperson, they were “involved in a near catastrophic car chase at the hands of a ring of highly aggressive paparazzi”.

The spokesperson added: “This relentless pursuit, lasting over two hours, resulted in multiple near collisions involving other drivers on the road, pedestrians and two NYPD officers.”

New York police gave a rather different account, saying that while there were “numerous photographers that made their transport challenging”, the pair “arrived at their destination and there were no reported collisions, summonses, injuries, or arrests in regard”. Sukhcharn Singh, who drove the couple on part of their journey, said the description of the situation as “catastrophic” was “exaggerated”.

‘Impossible not to think of Princess Diana’

Speaking to Sky News, the couple’s press secretary Ashley Hansen said: “I have never experienced their vulnerability as much as I did last night. They were incredibly scared and shaken up.”

Journalist Omid Scobie, who has written biographies of the royal couple, told BBC Newsnight that it was “impossible not to think of Princess Diana when we hear about car accidents and this kind of aggressive paparazzi chase”.

The Sussexes’ account of “a relentless pursuit” is a “percussive succession of coincidences and details that will make the blood of every right thinking person boil”, agreed The Independent’s Samuel Fishwick.

“Let us not forget the terms on which the prince began his campaign of retribution against the press in that infamous Oprah Winfrey interview back in 2021,” added Fishwick.

“The clicking of cameras and the flashing of cameras makes my blood boil,” he told Winfrey. “It makes me angry and takes me back to what happened to my mum and my experience as a kid.”

‘Cynical timing’

A photographer familiar with the market for celebrity pictures in New York suggested to The Guardian that “the claims could be designed to play into the Diana, Princess of Wales narrative, given how popular she was in the US”.

They told the paper: “‘Americans are a bit more sympathetic to the couple than the Brits right now.’”

“There are jokes, too, that photographers are tipped off by the couple themselves,” said The Guardian’s Edward Helmore, recalling the “sniping” of former TV anchor Megyn Kelly when Meghan was photographed going hiking with friends in California on the day of her father-in-law’s coronation.

“A cynical observer might question the timing of their bombshell statement”, wrote The Telegraph’s associate editor Camilla Tominey. It came “just a day after Harry’s lawyers appeared in the High Court arguing that it was not only wrong of him to be stripped of his armed Metropolitan Police protection when he is back in the UK, but unfair for him to have been denied the right to reimburse the taxpayer for it”.

The events on the streets of Manhattan “don’t form part of the case against the tabloid press which Harry is fighting in London, but they neatly, some say conveniently, embolden his cause”, agreed Sky News’s US correspondent Mark Stone.

“As is often the case with the British royal family,” said Intelligencer, “there’s still plenty of confusion and controversy surrounding the incident.”

Prince Harry has confirmed that he will attend the King’s coronation next month, albeit without his wife Meghan Markle, amid growing hopes that father and son will be reconciled.

After weeks of “delicate negotiations”, described by the Daily Mail as a game of “transatlantic ping pong”, Prince Harry will attend the coronation on 6 May, but Meghan and their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet will remain at their home in California.

Harry’s trip to the UK will be little more than a flying visit, with the Duke of Sussex expected to attend just the Westminster Abbey coronation service and spend little personal time with the royal family.

But his decision to attend the service “is viewed as a potential olive branch by royal insiders”, said the paper, and the day will see him come face-to-face with his father and brother, Prince William, for the first time in public since the release of his controversial memoir, Spare.

What did the papers say?

The duke’s attendance at the coronation will be seen by many as a sign of “growing hopes of a reconciliation with his father”, said The Telegraph. Royal sources told the paper that his decision to attend has “pleased” the King, who is “keen to have the support of both his sons at the ceremony”.

The paper added that there had been “growing speculation that the pair may even have spoken in recent weeks”. But Prince Harry’s relationship with his brother William is still said to be “fraught”, with the heir to the throne understood to feel “deeply betrayed by the many personal family revelations the Duke has made in his memoir” and other media interviews.

Harry had been said to be holding out for “peace talks” with his family over the royal rift, but has decided to attend the coronation “regardless”. His decision is said to have “prompted positive conversations that both sides hope will pave the way, in the longer term, for reconciliation between father and son”.

One source told The Telegraph: “It is about showing up, showing support and being there for his father. It was a very personal decision, not a PR one.”

A source told The Sun that the King “is happy that Harry, his son, who he calls his ‘darling boy’ will be at the Abbey”. The King is “very disappointed that he won’t see Meghan or his grandchildren but understands the situation”.

“The ‘Will they? Won’t they?’ question of whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would attend has hung over King Charles’s coronation for months,” said Caroline Davies in The Guardian. Organisers have been “increasingly impatient” with the pair, who were formally invited by email a month ago and missed the deadline for a response, which passed last week.

But the announcement that Harry will attend the ceremony, without Meghan, is just as likely to “fuel the narrative that difficulties between the couple and the palace remain very real, with some undoubtedly interpreting Meghan’s decision to stay away as a snub”.

Harry’s solo trip could be down to a failure in negotiations, suggested royal historian and author Robert Lacey to the paper. With the invitation going out a month ago, “it seems the result of the best part of a month’s discussions and negotiations have not worked”.

Ingrid Seward, editor of Majesty magazine, suggested that Meghan’s non-attendance at the coronation is a “double insult” to her father-in-law who “walked her down the aisle in her hour of need” after her father, Thomas Markle, was too ill to attend her 2018 wedding. “I don’t think Meghan wanted to risk being sat in the hinterland at the Abbey,” she added.

Omid Scobie, the royal commentator and author who is thought to be close to the couple and co-authored their biography Finding Freedom, tweeted: “I understand that Archie’s fourth birthday (also on May 6) played a factor in the couple’s decision. Expect it to be a fairly quick trip to the UK for Prince Harry, who will only be attending the coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey.”

What next?

Yesterday’s announcement has finally put an end to months of speculation surrounding the highly anticipated event, allowing organisers to move forward with finalising arrangements. The Sun said it understood the seating plan had already been prepared and is now ready to be signed off.

But commentator Rob Jobson, author of the upcoming book Our King: Charles II – The Man and the Monarch Revealed, expressed doubt that Meghan will ever attend another official palace event.

Praising Harry’s decision to attend the coronation as “the most pragmatic move in a difficult situation”, he also added that “the fact his wife is not attending means it is now highly unlikely we will ever see her attend an official or Palace event again – apart from maybe the King’s funeral”.

An advert from a sex toy retailer referencing Prince Harry’s book Spare has been banned for appearing where it could be seen by children. The promotion for Lovehoney, which was displayed at Clapham Junction train station in February, featured an image of a ball gag with the words “silence is golden, Harry”. Lovehoney said the commercial was intended to be “humorous” and make the point that “not all family stories needed to be shared with the public”, reported Sky News.

Shopper demands ‘misogynistic’ steak is renamed

An angry shopper has criticised Sainsbury’s for giving a product a “sexist” name, reported the Daily Star. Rose Robinson is calling on the supermarket chain to rename its “Big Daddy” rump steak, which she feels is a “misogynistic” title. “I was shocked and just a bit disappointed that in this day and age, it was possible for it to make it through whatever channel it had to have made it through to get onto the shelves,” she added. Sainsbury’s said: “We strive to be a truly inclusive retailer.”

Swimmers breaks handcuff record

A swimmer broke a Guinness World Record when he swam for over seven miles while wearing handcuffs, reported UPI. Shehab Allam, from Egpyt, claimed title for farthest distance swimming wearing handcuffs when he completed his 7.24-mile swim in the open waters of the Arabian Gulf. “During the training, I used to attract curious glances when I have the handcuffs on,” admitted the 31-year-old. “To avoid drawing too much attention, I prefer to swim in quieter areas.”

For more odd news stories, sign up to the weekly Tall Tales newsletter.

Prince Harry made a surprise appearance at London’s High Court for the second day of his privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

He is one of a group of high-profile celebrities who are suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering, including commissioning the “breaking and entry into private property”, phone-tapping and the unlawful obtaining of medical records.

What is he alleging?

It was announced in October 2022 that the Duke of Sussex would be taking joint legal action against ANL but “so far, legal restrictions requested by the newspaper group mean that specific details of their allegations have not been made public”, said Cosmopolitan.

According to David Sherborne, barrister for the group of claimants, they all claim to be victims of “numerous unlawful acts” carried out by ANL or by those acting on the instructions of its newspapers, the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Dating back to 1993 and continuing until 2018, these included “illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening into live landline calls, obtaining private information, such as itemised phone bills or medical records, by deception or ‘blagging’, using private investigators to commit these unlawful information gathering acts on their behalf and even commissioning the breaking and entering into private property”.

Sky News’s royal correspondent Laura Bundock said Prince Harry’s “unexpected arrival at London’s High Court guaranteed all lenses were on him.

“For once, he wants to be the centre of the media attention. By coming to court, Harry is positioning himself as the poster boy of privacy cases,” she said.

He is already involved in a separate libel case against the Mail on Sunday over an article published in February 2022 about his security arrangements in the UK. In 2021 Prince Harry accepted an apology and damages from the paper over its claims that he had “turned his back” on the Royal Marines, while his wife, Meghan Markle, won a privacy case against the publisher in the same year for printing a letter she had written to her estranged father, Thomas Markle.

What is Associated Newspapers’ defence?

ANL said it “vigorously denies” all the claims in the current case, said the i news site. The publisher is arguing that Prince Harry knew extensively about allegations surrounding unlawful information gathering “long before October 2016” and that any claim he has is outside the statute of limitations and should be dismissed.

According to court documents seen by Yahoo News, “ANL is using Harry’s recently released memoir, Spare, to try to prove that he was more fully aware of certain allegations made about him earlier than he says”.

The news site said: “ANL cites a section of Harry’s claim that he ‘was probably aware of only a small percentage of the articles Associated wrote about me at the time’”.

Who else in involved?

Prince Harry has joined half a dozen high-profile claimants who have brought the case against Associated Newspapers.

They include Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, who allege the Daily Mail published the birth certificate of their first child before they had even seen it and claim their private conversations were “tapped, taped, packaged and consumed as a commercial product for journalists”, said the Independent.

The actress Liz Hurley claims her phone was hacked and a microphone installed outside her home, while her ex-partner Hugh Grant’s car was bugged. Fellow actress Sadie Frost claims ANL used covert methods to get hold of information about her relationship and divorce from actor Jude Law, as well as their children, said Sky News.

Former Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes claims ANL paid a private investigator to unlawfully track down and photograph a man it believed was his lover.

And Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, alleges ANL “unlawfully obtained” information about the investigation into her son’s killing at the same time as the Daily Mail ran a campaign calling for justice for his death.

What happens next?

The preliminary hearing is expected to last until Friday and “will allow each side to offer legal arguments over whether the case should continue, with ANL putting forward arguments to end the claims without trial” by arguing the claims are “stale” and have been brought too late, the i news site reported.

NPR said Associated Newspapers is “trying to strike down the case on two points: 1) that some of the events in question occurred before 2007, which makes it outside the statute of limitations and, 2) that the claimants themselves unlawfully obtained evidence against ANL, using material from a government report that was under a strict confidentiality ruling”.

According to a press release from Hamlins, one of the law firms representing the claimants, none of them is expected to speak during the four-day hearing.

“That made it a big surprise for local media to see the Duke seated next to his fellow claimant Frost in a back row of the courtroom, studiously taking notes in a black notebook,” reported NPR. They were also joined by Elton John, who made a brief appearance yesterday – ensuring the public gallery will be packed for the remainder of the hearing.

Buckingham Palace has announced that Prince Edward will be the new Duke of Edinburgh.

King Charles III conferred the title on his brother, the former Earl of Wessex, in celebration of Edward’s 59th birthday today. It will be held for his lifetime.

Sophie, the former Countess of Wessex, is now the Duchess of Edinburgh and their 15-year-old son James, Viscount Severn becomes the new Earl of Wessex.

The former Duke of Edinburgh was Prince Philip, who died in 2021, and who was given the title in 1947 on the day of his wedding to Princess Elizabeth, who later became Queen Elizabeth II, noted the BBC.

“It was Prince Philip’s wish that the Earl of Wessex should inherit his title,” said The Telegraph, and the King chose to “coincide the recreation of the dukedom” with Edward’s visit to Edinburgh today for a reception to mark the first year of the war in Ukraine.

In an interview with The Telegraph in 2021, Sophie recalled how, two days after their engagement, Philip asked his son if would be willing to become the next Duke of Edinburgh. “We sat there slightly stunned,” she said. “He literally came straight in and said: ‘Right. I’d like it very much if you would consider that.’”

Philip’s death “was two years ago, however”, noted the Daily Mail, and “there has been much to-ing and fro-ing behind the scenes on the issue ever since”.

It added that the “issue for Buckingham Palace” was that Edward is “now 13th in line to the throne and will only slide further down the order of succession” and “there was concern that the most senior titles associated with a nation of the United Kingdom would be passed on to an ever more junior branch of the family line”.

The title change is not the first this week. The royal family’s official website has been updated to reflect the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s children’s new titles, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, noted ITV News.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been asked to "vacate" their residence at Frogmore Cottage, a spokesman for the couple confirmed on Wednesday.

Harry, Meghan, and their two children live in Southern California, and have used Frogmore Cottage as their home base during visits to the United Kingdom. Frogmore is part of the Crown Estate, and Harry's late grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, gave it to them as their primary residence when they still lived full-time in England. In his memoir Spare, Harry wrote that Frogmore was "charming, full of potential" and it was "a dream come true" to live there. In January 2020, when Harry and Meghan quit being working royals, they repaid the $3.2 million of taxpayer money that had been used to renovate the property.

Harry also went into detail in Spare about his fraught relationship with his family, but expressed optimism that he could get back to a good place with his father, King Charles III, and brother, Prince William. It's not clear if his public airing of grievances had anything to do with Charles' Frogmore decision, or if it's because there will be "a major government review of royal household finances" after his coronation in May, The Washington Post reports. Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the matter.

The British tabloid The Sun is claiming that Charles' younger brother Prince Andrew has been offered Frogmore, which the Post said would be "a downgrade" from his current residence at the Royal Lodge, a larger property in Windsor. In January 2022, Andrew was stripped of his titles and patronages after being accused of sexual abuse; he settled with the accuser, Virginia Giuffre, in February 2022.

Back in December, the furore surrounding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Netflix documentary was all-consuming enough, said Jan Moir in the Daily Mail. Now, just when it seemed to be calming down, Harry “barges into the narrative once more, tootling on his trumpet of ongoing anguish, simply impossible to ignore”.

And this time, in his memoir Spare – and the various TV interviews he has given to promote it – the “grudge-toting manbaby really has thrown all his toys out of the royal pram”. In the past week, we have learnt about everything from his fractured relationship with his brother (“Willy” to his “Harold”) and the negligence of his father, to the danger posed to him by his stepmother: a “villain” in the public eye who redeemed her reputation by sacrificing him “on her personal PR altar”.

Some of Spare is intensely moving, said CNN. Harry recalls that following his mother’s death, when he was 12, he shook the hands of mourners outside Kensington Palace, and found that they were all wet. He had been unable to cry, but these strangers had been weeping. He is haunted by thoughts of the paparazzi who photographed Diana while she lay dying in a Paris underpass. And for years, he says that he fantasised, or dreamed, that she was not dead, and would be coming back to him.

But what really comes across is his anger, said James Marriott in The Times – most of which is reserved for the press. He blames it for his mum’s death, and for every bad thing that has happened to him since then, from revelations of his drug-taking to the break-up of his relationships.

He is scornful of the royals who play the media game, yet he craves being the centre of attention himself, and he is particularly touchy about his status as “spare”. William has the bigger bedroom at Balmoral; William’s apartment at Kensington Palace is furnished with priceless antiques, whereas he and Meghan must make do with Ikea furniture. He is gleeful about William’s hair loss, and delighted when, at his passing out parade at Sandhurst, William is obliged to salute him.

Harry is not the first royal to air the family’s dirty linen in public, said The Observer. When he was a child, his parents gave tit-for-tat TV interviews after the tabloids published lurid stories about their failed marriage. Now, we are seeing the full effects on the prince of “that complex trauma”.

Having felt silenced for years, he “appears to have become besotted by truth-telling”. His account of the row in which William shoved him, breaking his necklace, was headline-grabbing; but more shocking still was his decision to publicise the grim details of his first sexual experience (behind a pub, with an older woman who treated him like a “young stallion”), and the tally of lives taken in Afghanistan. He says he killed 25 Taliban militants, whom he regarded as “pieces on a chessboard”. That last pronouncement was particularly ill-advised, said The Sun. At one stroke, Harry alienated many of his fellow Army veterans, and increased the security risk to himself and his family.

Reading Spare, you do wonder if Harry thought to run it past a friend, said Janice Turner in The Times – or anyone who had no financial interest in it. They might have warned him that talking coldly about killing people of colour could play badly with his liberal-minded admirers in the US. And that even if he doesn’t mind the world knowing about his “todger”, he shouldn’t breach William’s privacy by revealing that they are both circumcised.

Alas, Harry has no self-awareness, said Jennie Bond in The i Paper. He accuses the Palace of failing to defend his wife from media attacks, and yes, perhaps it should have done more. But when his interview with Oprah Winfrey set off a hunt for racists in the royal family two years ago, he let his relatives hang out to dry: only now has he clarified that neither he nor Meghan had ever thought the family was racist, only perhaps guilty of “unconscious bias”.

The overall impression is of a man who feels perpetually sinned against, said Camilla Tominey in The Daily Telegraph. He even blames William for his decision, aged 20, to wear a Nazi uniform to a party. Still, Harry is right about one thing, and that is the viciousness of our media landscape, said Polly Toynbee in The Guardian. Against his father’s advice, he bravely took on the tabloids, by launching a series of lawsuits against them, and they’ve retaliated with a torrent of bile.

He claims that his family has conspired in this, said Sean O’Grady in The Independent, and uses that to justify spilling their secrets. It’s hard to know if that is true: leaks may come from gossipy courtiers, not individual royals. But either way, his book makes one thing clear, said Camilla Long in The Sunday Times. As a traumatised child, Harry was badly let down by his family, and by a rigid and unfeeling institution. This isolated, damaged man should have had help a long time ago.

A famous naturist has praised Prince Harry for losing his virginity in a field, saying “there’s no better place for it”. Colin Unsworth, 52, who once rode naked from Lands End to John O’Groats, said he thinks it’s “wonderful” that Harry had made the rite of passage in the great outdoors, reported the Daily Star. “As long as you’re away from prying eyes and nobody can see you, I can’t think of a better location than out in nature, in the middle of a field,” he said.

Man spends thousands on wolf costume

A man in Japan has spent more than £18,000 on a lifelike full-size wolf suit to realise his longstanding dream of being an animal, reported The Telegraph. “At the final fitting, I was amazed at my transformed self in the mirror,” said the man, of the outfit created by Zeppet Workshop, which cost three million yen (£18,600). “My order to look like a real wolf walking on hind legs was difficult to say the least but the complete suit looked exactly like what I imagined.”

Czech sets record for biting cans

A man in the Czech Republic bit 36 drink cans in half in one minute, landing himself a Guinness World Record. The aluminium cans were filled with water for the attempt, and René Richter was allowed to use only one hand and his teeth for each can, noted UPI. The stunt took place on Italy’s Lo Show Dei Record. Richter munched his way through 36 cans in the allotted time, successfully setting the record.

For more odd news stories, sign up to the weekly Tall Tales newsletter.

Stephen Colbert's Late Show interview with Prince Harry got off to a lighthearted start Tuesday night.

But when the self-exiled Duke of Sussex started discussing his raw new tell-all memoir, Spare, things got fairly serious fairly quickly. "Writing this book has been a cathartic experience for me," and it's nice to have it out finally for people to read, Harry said. He slammed the British press, his nemesis, for leaking fragmented, out-of-context bits to "turn it into a salacious headline."

"Do you think that right now there is an active campaign by the rest of your family, by the royal house as it were, to undermine this book and you as you support it?" Colbert asked. "Of course," but the effort is "mainly by the British press," Harry said.

"Without doubt, the most dangerous lie that they have told is that I somehow boasted about the number of people that I killed in Afghanistan," Harry said. That's "a lie," and "it's really troubling and very disturbing that they can get away with it, because they had the context. ... My words are not dangerous. But the spin of my words are very dangerous," because it puts a bigger target on his back. Veterans carry shame about their service, Harry explained, and "my whole goal and my attempt with sharing that detail is to reduce the number of suicides."

Prince Harry discussed his decision to exit Britain and distance himself from his royal family, which the royals perceived as a threat, he said. "They always knew that my wife was going to leave, because the way that they were abusing her. But I think the most embarrassing thing is that I decided to leave with her." The idea of him and Prince William growing up close, brought together by the traumatic death of their mother, is a royal fabrication, he added. "The fracture of the relationship between me and my brother has very much been pinned on my wife."

Finally, about 30 minutes into the interview, and right before their second glass of tequila, Colbert brought up the part of the book about Harry getting "frostnip" on his "todger" during an even with veterans at the North Pole, and their long discussion of that topic lightened the mood. You can watch that, and learn whether Harry fact-checks The Crown, below.

The rift between Prince Harry and his older brother, Prince William, only seems to be growing. In his new book, the Duke of Sussex accuses the Prince of Wales of physically attacking him, among other stunning allegations. How did the two get to this point? Here's what we know:

December 2017: Harry and William reportedly have 'fallout' over Meghan

Rumors of a rift between Princes Harry and William begin popping up in 2018 after the Duke of Sussex's marriage to Meghan Markle. In November 2018, Vanity Fair reports there was a "fallout last Christmas" after "Harry told William he didn't think his older brother was doing enough to welcome Meghan into the family." This conversation would have taken place over a year after Harry and Meghan started dating and not long after they got engaged.

"Harry felt William wasn't rolling out the red carpet for Meghan and told him so," a source tells Vanity Fair. "They had a bit of a fall out which was only resolved when Charles stepped in and asked William to make an effort."

The book Finding Freedom, published in 2020, later claimed Harry was angered after William told him to move more slowly in his relationship with Meghan while they were dating, worrying he was being "blindsided by lust" and telling him to "take as much time as you need to get to know this girl."

"In those last two words, 'this girl,' Harry heard the tone of snobbishness that was anathema to his approach to the world," the book says. "Also, to remove Meghan from the equation, Harry was tired of the dynamic that had become established between him and his older brother." The book also claims that "once Harry and Meghan were married, the gap between the brothers only widened." But in a 60 Minutes interview in 2023, Harry rejected the "idea that somehow my wife was the one that destroyed the relationship" with his brother.

November 2018: Harry and Meghan are set to move away from Kensington Palace

In November 2018, The Sun reports Harry and Meghan are "splitting from" William and Kate by moving away from them, from Kensington Palace to Frogmore Cottage.

"The initial plan was for Harry and Meghan to move out of their cottage in the grounds of Kensington Palace and into one of the main apartments," a source tells the outlet. "But there has been a bit of tension between the brothers. Now Harry and Meghan don't want to live next to William and Kate and want to strike out on their own."

2019: William allegedly physically attacks Harry during an argument

In his 2023 book Spare, Harry claims William physically attacked him during a confrontation about Meghan at his London home in 2019, The Guardian reports. This allegedly occurred while Harry was still living on the grounds of Kensington Palace.

William allegedly called Meghan "difficult," "rude," and "abrasive." As the confrontation escalated, Harry alleges William "grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace, and … knocked me to the floor," and he "landed on the dog's bowl, which cracked under my back, the pieces cutting into me."

April 2019: Harry and William don't speak to each other during Easter service

Harry and William attend an Easter service at Windsor Castle in April 2019, but outlets including People observe they "kept their distance from one another" and "did not speak to each other on their way in or out" of the chapel.

People also reports this month that "tensions between the brothers deepened back when Harry first told his family he wanted to marry Meghan after less than a year of dating," as William "cautioned Harry that things were moving too quickly, leaving Harry angry and hurt."

June 2019: Harry and Meghan split from charity with William and Kate

Harry and Meghan confirm in June 2019 they're splitting from the charity they shared with William and Kate and setting up their own foundation, fueling speculation of a rift between the couples. However, aides tell Vanity Fair this is "not because of any royal rift or distance between the couples, but in order for William and Kate and Harry and Meghan to pursue different trajectories."

October 2019: Harry confirms he and William are 'on different paths'

In an ITV documentary, Harry appears to confirm rumors of a rift between him and William.

"We're certainly on different paths at the moment," he says, "but I'll always be there for him and as I know he'll always be there for me." Harry adds that "the majority of this stuff is created out of nothing, but as brothers, you know, you have good days, you have bad days."

December 2019: Harry and Meghan don't spend Christmas with the royals

In December 2019, Harry and Meghan decide not to spend Christmas with the royals but instead with Meghan's mother, Doria.

"Harry and Meghan are having a small Christmas with just immediate family instead of spending it at Sandringham," a source tells Us Weekly. "The rift between William and Harry is one of the main reasons behind their decision."

But Buckingham Palace says the decision is "in line with precedent set previously by other members of the royal family, and has the support of Her Majesty The Queen."

January 2020: William allegedly screams at Harry during meeting about royal exit

Harry and Meghan drop the bombshell announcement in January 2020 that they're stepping back as senior members of the royal family. Royal correspondent Katie Nicholl tells Entertainment Tonight that William is "absolutely devastated and quite shocked by this decision," adding, "I think William feels a sense of betrayal by his brother and possibly a sense of being abandoned too."

That same month, Harry and William attend a summit at Sandringham to discuss the former's planned exit. In his Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan, Harry later claims William shouted at him during this meeting. "It was terrifying to have my brother scream and shout at me and my father say things that just simply weren't true," he says.

January 2020: Report claims William's 'bullying attitude' led to Harry and Meghan exit

Also in January 2020, a report claims William's "bullying attitude" pushed Harry and Meghan away from the royal family. A joint statement is then released with Harry and William's names on it blasting this "false story" about their relationship. "For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health," the statement says, "the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful."

However, Harry later claims in his Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan that this statement was released with his name on it without his knowledge. "I couldn't believe it," Harry says. "No one had asked me permission to put my name to a statement like that. ... Within four hours, they were happy to lie to protect my brother, and yet for three years, they were never willing to tell the truth to protect us."

The book Battle of Brothers also later reveals that William was allegedly "so infuriated" by Harry's behavior that he "refused to have lunch with his brother" before the Sandringham summit, the Daily Mail reports.

March 2020: Harry has 'cold' reunion with his family

Two months later, Harry reunites with his family for his last official engagements as a working royal and attends a Commonwealth Day ceremony. William is also in attendance, but Us Weekly dubs it a "royally awkward reunion," noting William and Kate "barely acknowledged" Harry and Meghan.

"The two brothers exchanged only the most awkward of hellos," the Daily Mail also writes. "Although Harry greeted his brother William with a smile, there was little interaction between them."

Harry later admits in his Netflix documentary he "felt really distant from the rest of my family" during this event. "It looked cold, but it also felt cold," he adds.

May 2020: William and Harry reportedly get 'back in touch'

Royal correspondent Katie Nicholl tells Entertainment Tonight in May 2020 that Harry and William are "back in touch" over the phone following the former's move to California. "They have done video calls together, they have done a lot of family birthdays and I think with Prince Charles not being well, that really forced the brothers to pick up the phone and get back in touch," she adds.

August 2020: 'Finding Freedom' book makes 'things worse'

But Finding Freedom, the book about Harry and Meghan that includes the claim that William told Harry to "take as much time as you need to get to know this girl," is published in the summer of 2020, and a source tells Us Weekly it "has made things worse between" Harry and William.

"William thinks the book is their calculated way of controlling the narrative and that they took advantage of their entertainment contacts so they'd be painted in a favorable light," an insider tells Us Weekly, and another says, "Even before the book came out, the bad blood between William and Harry was apparent. But it's taken a whole new turn."

Harry and Meghan note, though, they "were not interviewed and did not contribute to Finding Freedom."

March 2021: William reportedly 'devastated' over Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview

Harry and Meghan give a bombshell interview to Oprah Winfrey in March 2021, in which they allege an unnamed member of the royal family expressed "concerns" about "how dark" her baby's skin would be. Harry also reiterates that he and William are "on different paths" in the interview.

"William is devastated by this interview," royal correspondent Katie Nicholl tells Entertainment Tonight.

William later tells reporters that "we are very much not a racist family" and that he hasn't spoken with Harry about the interview yet, but plans to do so. In the Harry & Meghan Netflix documentary, Harry receives a text from William on camera after the interview airs, but its contents aren't revealed.

A few days later in March 2021, CBS News' Gayle King reports Harry has now spoken with William and Charles. "The word I was given was that those conversations were not productive," King says, "but they are glad that they have at least started a conversation."

April 2021: Harry reunites with William at Philip's funeral

Weeks after the Oprah interview airs, Harry returns to the U.K. and reunites with his brother during the funeral of his grandfather, Prince Philip. But royal expert Robert Lacey claims in the Daily Mail that they "started quarreling again" in private, and a long-time friend alleges, "There they were, at each other's throats as fiercely as ever."

Harry later writes in his book Spare that he had a "secret meeting" with William and Charles after the funeral. "I'd vowed not to let this encounter devolve into another argument," Harry writes, per Us Weekly. "But I quickly discovered that it wasn't up to me." He also says Charles begged the two not to "make my final years a misery." Harry says in his Netflix documentary that his brother and father "were very much focused on the same misinterpretation of the whole situation" during their chats.

July 2021: Harry and William unveil statue of Diana

Three months later, Harry and William unite to unveil a statue of their mother, Princess Diana, at Kensington Palace. A source tells the Sunday Times that William was allegedly still "furious" about the Oprah interview and didn't want to attend the unveiling with Harry. Harry leaves the U.K. and heads back to California the next day.

But a source tells Us Weekly Harry and William "spent the morning before the statue unveiling looking through old keepsakes, notes from Diana and bonding," adding that they "have absolutely turned a new page in their relationship and have started the healing."

June 2022: Harry and William don't sit near each other at jubilee service

The following summer, Harry and Meghan return to the U.K. to attend a service of thanksgiving for the queen's platinum jubilee, but commentators note the two sit on the opposite side of the cathedral from William and Kate.

The Sunday Times reports (per The Daily Beast) that Harry and William "spent no private time together over the jubilee, and the broken relationship is not on the brink of being patched up any time soon." A friend also tells the outlet William is "still deeply upset" about Harry and Meghan's exit from the royal family "and feels let down, but he's moved on."

September 2022: Harry and William reunite after queen's death

Three months later, Harry and William reunite after the death of their grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, and walk side-by-side in a procession. Harry, Meghan, Kate, and William also step out together to greet mourners.

December 2022: Harry reveals damning claims about William in Netflix doc

Harry and Meghan's highly anticipated Netflix documentary drops in December 2022, and the second volume puts William on blast. Harry accuses his brother's communications office of working against his and leaking stories to the press about him and Meghan.

"If the comms team wants to be able to remove a negative story about their principle, they will trade and give you something about someone else's principle," Harry alleges. "So the offices end up working against each other."

Harry goes on to say he and William "both saw what happened in our dad's office and we made an agreement that we would never let that happen to our office," so "to see my brother's office copy the very same thing that we promised the two of us would never, ever do, that was heartbreaking."

This is also where Harry claims William screamed at him during the Sandringham summit in 2020.

January 2023: Harry publishes tell-all book, labels William 'archnemesis'

With Harry's tell-all book Spare set to publish, leaked excerpts reveal some of its contents, including Harry's claim of a physical altercation with William. He also reportedly describes William as his "beloved brother" but also his "archnemesis" in the book.

"There has always been this competition between us, weirdly," he explains to ABC News.

Harry tells ABC News that Diana "would be sad" about the state of his relationship with William but would understand that "there are certain things that we need to go through to be able to heal the relationship." He also tells ITV, "I would like to have my brother back," but he adds that William and his father have "shown absolutely no willingness to reconcile."

Prince Harry’s final round of TV interviews ahead of the release of his autobiography Spare tomorrow may have ended any hope of a future royal reconciliation as he “once again twisted the knife on his closest family members”, said the Daily Mail.

In pre-recorded interviews on ITV and CBS, which aired last night, along with another on Good Morning America (ABC) today, the Duke of Sussex tried to row back on claims his family is racist while still suggesting the institution needs to do more to address unconscious bias within palace walls. At the same time he doubled down on previous allegations, accusing his brother and sister-in-law of “stereotyping” his wife, Meghan, because of portrayals in the British media, and stating that “certain members” of his family had been cosying up to journalists, or as he put it “getting in bed with the devil”.

Since copies of his tell-all memoir were accidentally leaked early by a Spanish retailer last week, Harry has faced a huge backlash from the British press and public, with polling showing that he and his wife are now the least popular senior royals apart from Prince Andrew, according to the Financial Times.

What did the papers say?

“Harry had time to decide his message, and again it was his family who took the direct hit,” wrote Sky News’s royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills.

Speaking to ITV’s Tom Bradby, Harry said his family had “shown absolutely no willingness to reconcile up until this point. And I’m not sure how honesty is burning bridges. You know, silence only allows the abuser to abuse.”

Mills said: “For all his efforts to say how much he still loves them, it felt like another huge betrayal as he compared them to abusers.”

Prince Harry insisted he is “100%” confident he can reconcile with his family and multiple news outlets have reported that King Charles is also keen to mend relations with his youngest son. The King reportedly wants to extend an invitation to the Sussexes to his coronation, which will take place in May.

“Charles wants to project an image of unity for the royal family and would like a genuine rapprochement with his youngest son,” reported Vanity Fair. However, the magazine cited “sources close to the King” who have also said that Charles “will not tolerate Harry attacking his wife and that Harry may have crossed a line by speaking about Camilla”, whom he accused of planting stories in the press and being a “villain” who “needed to rehabilitate her image”.

What next?

A source told The Daily Telegraph that King Charles “has never given up hope of reconciling with the Duke of Sussex”. The paper said that “despite all of the recent revelations and allegations fired from California, Charles believes he will one day be reunited with his son and they will move forward”.

Until then, however, “the two sides appear to have reached a stalemate, each keen to build bridges but convinced that the ball is in the other’s court”.

As it stands the divisions in the royal family are being mirrored in wider society. The Times reported that “Megxit”, the term used to describe the Sussexes’ decision to leave the royal family and move to the US, “has become the new Brexit, splitting families by pitting Gen Z against boomer, woke against traditionalist”.

King Charles’s biographer, Catherine Mayer, told The Guardian that prospects for reconciliation were remote even before the book, “but there is a strong incentive for King Charles to initiate some kind of truce”.

Mayer noted that the alleged racism, bullying and image manipulation inside the royal family are not being examined and that “left alone, they have the power to dissolve faith in the idea of a hereditary head of state”.

David Yelland, editor of The Sun between 1998 and 2003, agreed that “while the British press and public’s support for the royal family was solid, Spare still presented serious problems for Buckingham Palace, which has refused to comment on any of the allegations.”

Yelland told the FT: “The bigger issue is that Harry, in theatrical terms, has broken the ‘fourth wall’ and let light into an institution that has survived for centuries in the dark. The risk to the palace is that the monarchy becomes a soap opera. The more light you shine, the less likely it is to survive.”

Prince Harry is naming names, accusing his father, King Charles III, brother Prince William, and stepmother Camilla, the queen consort, of leaking to the press some of the "most heinous, horrible things" that have been printed about him and his wife, Meghan Markle.

The 38-year-old Duke of Sussex made the claims during an interview with Tom Bradby of the British network ITV, ahead of the Tuesday release of his new memoir, Spare. When an article in the British press about Harry or Meghan includes a "royal source," that is actually "the palace" itself, Harry said, "covering their tracks by being unnamed." They will "feed or have a conversation with the correspondent," he continued. "And that correspondent will literally be spoon-fed information and write the story."

British tabloids "want to create as much conflict as possible," Harry declared, and "the saddest part of that is certain members of my family and the people that work for them are complicit in that conflict." His mother, Princess Diana, died in 1997 from injuries sustained in a car accident, which took place as the driver tried to get away from paparazzi. There are similarities between how the press treated Diana and how they treat the Sussexes, Harry said, and he told Bradby that he doesn't "want history to repeat itself. I do not want to be a single dad. And I certainly don't want my children to have a life without a mother or a father."

Harry said he has been trying to get his family to stop going to the press, and "every single time I've tried to do it privately, there have been briefings and leakings and plantings of stories against me and my wife." Camilla is especially guilty of doing this, he added, as some of the things that have been printed "could only have been leaked" by her.

He does still believe there can be "reconciliation, but first there needs to be some accountability," Harry said. "You can't just continue to say to me that I'm delusional and paranoid when all the evidence is stacked up, because I was genuinely terrified about what is going to happen to me."

The Sussexes now live in Southern California, and Harry told Bradby he has been approached by Americans who ask him "how could you ever forgive your family for what they have done?" Forgiveness is "100 percent a possibility, because I would like to get my father back," Harry said. "I would like to have my brother back. At the moment, I don't recognize them, as much as they probably don't recognize me."

Buckingham Palace has not commented on Harry's interview, or any of the revelations he makes in Spare.

Still waiting to get your hands on a copy of Prince Harry's Spare? We've got you covered in the meantime. Here are some of the newly released memoir's biggest revelations and allegations:

Neither King Charles III nor Prince William made the book's dedication page

Several stores in Spain accidentally put the book up for sale on Jan. 5, which allowed at least The Sun to score a Spanish-language version before launch day. And per the outlet's translation, the memoir's dedication page reads: "For Meg, Archie, and Lili… and, of course, my mother." The names Meg, Archie, and Lili refer to the Duke of Sussex's wife, son, and daughter, respectively. But Prince William, Harry's brother, and King Charles III, Harry's father, are noticeably absent from the epitaph.

Harry and William allegedly got into a physical altercation

According to The Guardian, Harry at one point in his memoir recounts a physical altercation with his brother William after the latter allegedly called Meghan Markle — Harry's wife — "difficult," "rude," and "abrasive." By Harry's account, he and William had agreed to meet at Nottingham Cottage, where Harry was living, to discuss Harry's romantic relationship. William then complained about Megan and things escalated from there. The pair shouted back and forth before a frightened Harry moved into the kitchen; William then followed. "Willy, I can't speak to you when you're like this," Harry allegedly said, handing his brother a glass of water. But William "set down the water, called me another name, then came at me. It all happened so fast. So very fast."

"He grabbed me by the collar," Harry continues, "ripping my necklace, and he knocked me to the floor. I landed on the dog's bowl, which cracked under my back, the pieces cutting into me. I lay there for a moment, dazed, then got to my feet and told him to get out." William then left, but returned "looking regretful" and apologized. When he later departed a second time, however, William suggested Harry keep what happened from Meghan. "You mean that you attacked me?" Harry allegedly replied, to which William responded, "I didn't attack you, Harold."

Meghan later learned of the incident, but only after she noticed "scrapes and bruises" on her husband's back. When Harry then told her about the altercation, she "wasn't that surprised, and wasn't all that angry," he writes.

Harry says Camilla, the queen consort, changed his bedroom into a dressing room

Once Harry was out the door, Queen Consort Camilla Parker Bowles allegedly turned his bedroom at Clarence House in London into "her own personal dressing room," Page Six summarizes. "I tried not to care. But especially the first time I saw it, I cared," Harry writes.

He claims to have urged his father not to marry Camilla

Though Harry writes that he and his brother "recognized that [their father] was finally going to be with the woman he loved, the woman he'd always loved," and "the woman fate might've intended for him in the first place," both apparently urged Charles not to marry Camilla, the supposed "other woman" in his marriage to William and Harry's late mother, Princess Diana. The brothers allegedly assured their father they would welcome Camilla into their family, but they didn't believe he needed to marry again. Charles proceeded regardless. "We pumped his hand, wished him well. No hard feelings," Harry says.

Even so, Harry writes that he later felt as though Diana was "blocking rather than blessing" Charles and Camilla's marriage, on account of multiple delays in the ceremony, Us Weekly reports.

Harry says he was dubbed the 'spare' the day he was born

When Harry was born, Charles allegedly told Diana: "Wonderful! Now you've given me an heir and a spare – my work is done," per the prince's memoir. As the old royal saying goes, "a first son is an heir to titles, power and fortune, and a second is therefore a spare, should anything happen to the first-born," The Guardian explains.

Charles allegedly made jokes about Harry's 'real' dad

Charles apparently had no problem making jokes about the long-festering rumor that Major James Hewitt, Diana's former lover, was Harry's real father, per a segment of the memoir reviewed by Page Six.

"Pa liked telling stories," Harry writes, "and this was one of the best in his repertoire. He'd always end with a burst of philosophizing … Who knows if I'm really the Prince of Wales? Who knows if I'm even your real father?"

"He'd laugh and laugh, though it was a remarkably unfunny joke, given the rumor circulating just then that my actual father was one of Mummy's former lovers: Major James Hewitt. One cause of this rumor was Major Hewitt's flaming ginger hair, but another cause was sadism."

Harry says Charles didn't hug him when breaking the news of Diana's death

By Harry's account, Charles did not hug his son when sharing the news of his mother's death. "He wasn't great at showing emotions under normal circumstances," Harry writes, "how could he be expected to show them in such a crisis?"

At the time, the prince claims, Charles sat down on the edge of his son's bed and "put a hand on my knee. 'Darling boy, Mummy's been in a car crash,'" Harry recalls his father saying, before recounting how he waited in that moment for good news that didn't come — that his mother would be okay. "Mummy was quite badly injured and taken to hospital, darling boy," Charles continued. Harry says his father always called him "darling boy," but "he was saying it quite a lot now. His voice was soft. He was in shock, it seemed."

He killed 25 Taliban fighters while in Afghanistan

"Most soldiers can't tell you precisely how much death is on their ledger," the prince writes of his time in the military. "My number: 25."

He says he refrained from humanizing his targets in the "heat of combat" because "you can't kill people if you think of them as people. … I'd been trained to 'other-ize' them, trained well. On some level I recognized this learned detachment as problematic. But I also saw it as an unavoidable part of soldiering."

He regrets Googling some of Meghan Markles' Suits scenes

In Spare, Prince Harry writes that he made "the mistake" of watching some of Meghan Markles' Suits sex scenes online when the pair first began dating. Now, he says he'll need "electric-shock therapy" to get the images out of his head. "I'd witnessed her and a castmate mauling each other in some sort of office or conference room," he says. "I didn't need to see such things live."

Harry comes clean about his drug use

Harry also admits for the first time to trying cocaine as a teenager, Sky News reports. He writes that he was "offered a line" during a "hunting weekend" at someone's house and that "since then I had consumed some more."

"It wasn't very fun," he goes on, "and it didn't make me feel especially happy as seemed to happen to others, but it did make me feel different, and that was my main objective. To feel. To be different."

Even so, the Duke of Sussex concedes to also trying mushrooms while staying at actress Courteney Cox's house in 2016. At the time, a party had broken out, and he and his friends "spotted a huge box of black diamond mushroom chocolates. Someone behind me said they were for everybody. Help yourself, boys. My mate and I grabbed several, gobbled them, and washed them down with tequila," Harry writes, per Vice News. After gobbling down the chocolates, the prince then went to the bathroom, where he says the trash can "became … a head." He stepped on the can's foot pedal to open its lid, "and the head opened its mouth," Harry continues. "A huge open grin." Then the toilet became a head, as well: "The bowl was its gaping maw, the hinges of the seat were its piercing silver eyes. It said, 'Aaah.'"

He had a frostbitten 'todger' at William and Kate Middleton's wedding

A 2011 charity trip to the North Pole left Harry with "frost nipped ears and cheeks," as well as a frostbitten "todger," or penis, he writes in his memoir, per Page Six. And while his "ears and cheeks were already healing" upon his return to the U.K., "the todger wasn't," he says. "It was becoming more of an issue by the day." Unfortunately, the prince wasn't able to remedy the situation before William and Kate Middleton's wedding, meaning his … extremities were still "frost nipped" as he stood next to his brother at Westminster Abbey.

He claims to have lost his virginity to an 'older woman' in a field

In another particularly juicy revelation, Prince Harry recounts how he lost his virginity to an older woman in a "grassy field behind a busy pub." The woman, who "liked horses," treated the prince like "a young stallion," he says, likening the encounter to a "quick ride, after which she'd smacked my rump and sent me to grace."

Harry wasn't William's best man, and William wasn't Harry's

Apparently, the palace lied about Harry and William being each other's best men. Harry says he actually selected his "old friend" Charlie for the role, and that William, possibly as a result, didn't show up to drinks the night before the ceremony. "Was he sulking because he wasn't my best man? Was he annoyed because I had asked my old friend Charlie instead?" Harry writes, alluding to his brother. "The Royal Family announced Willy was the best man as they had done with me when he and Kate got married. Did that have something to do with it?"

Further, Harry says his family issued a "bare-faced lie" when announcing he was William's best man back in 2011. William "didn't want me giving a best man's speech," Harry says, claiming he was told to go along with the lie so William's friends and actual best men weren't scrutinized.

He addresses his infamous Nazi costume

In Spare, Harry sheds new light on his decision to wear a Nazi costume to a party in 2005. He says he was deciding between the Nazi outfit and a pilot get-up, and "phoned Willy and Kate" to get their opinions. "Nazi uniform, they said." When he tried the costume on, "they both howled," he writes. "Worse than Willy's leotard outfit! Way more ridiculous! Which, again, was the point."

Of course, the prince would later come to regret his choice. Upon seeing the photos, "I recognized immediately that my brain had been shut off, that perhaps it had been shut off for some time. I wanted to go around Britain knocking on doors, explaining to people: I wasn't thinking. I meant no harm," he writes. "But it wouldn't have made any difference. Judgment was swift, harsh. I was either a crypto Nazi or else a mental defective."

Per CNN, the prince ends the passage by writing that the "shame would never fade. Nor should it."

He describes seeing Queen Elizabeth II's body at Balmoral Castle

"I braced myself, went in," Harry writes of seeing his late grandmother, who passed in September of 2022. "The room was dimly lit, unfamiliar — I'd been inside it only once in my life. I moved ahead uncertainly, and there she was. I stood, frozen, staring. I stared and stared."

"It was difficult, but I kept on, thinking how I'd regretted not seeing my mother at the end," he continues. "Years of lamenting that lack of proof, postponing my grief for want of proof. Now I thought: Proof. Careful what you wish for." He says he then whispered to the queen that he hopes she is happy and that she is with her husband, Prince Philip.

Update Jan. 10: This article has been updated to include additional information from Prince Harry's memoir.

Prince Harry has confessed he was "probably bigoted" before he started dating his wife, Meghan Markle.

Harry spoke with Anderson Cooper for 60 Minutes in an interview set to air Sunday to promote his new book, Spare. In a preview clip, he reiterated his argument that the "race element" of the British press' coverage of Meghan made it a "very different" situation compared to what other royals have gone through. But he added he was "incredibly naive" about this beforehand.

"I had no idea the British press were so bigoted," he said. "Hell, I was probably bigoted before the relationship with Meghan."

Harry clarified he doesn't "know" if he was bigoted but "didn't see what I now see."

Harry has said that racism against Meghan was a major factor in their decision to step back as senior members of the royal family and leave the U.K. He previously told Oprah Winfrey that the "U.K. press is bigoted, specifically the tabloids," though he added this is not true of the U.K. as a whole.

In the Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan, Harry also argued there is a "huge level of unconscious bias" within the royal family.

"The thing with unconscious bias is it's actually no one's fault," he said. "But once it's been pointed out or identified within yourself, you then need to make it right. It's education, it's awareness, and it's a constant work in progress for everybody, including me."

The royal family have revealed their plans for Christmas Day as they prepare for their first festive season without the late Queen.

The announcement from Buckingham Palace came “just minutes” after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex unveiled a trailer for another Netflix show they have in the works, less than a week after debuting their “bombshell docuseries” Harry & Meghan, said The Mirror.

As a turbulent year for the royals draws to a close, the paper predicted that this year’s festive season will be an “emotional occasion” for the family, “who are still mourning the loss of their mother, grandmother and great-grandmother”.

Return to Sandringham

Buckingham Palace has confirmed that King Charles, Queen Consort Camilla and other senior royals will celebrate Christmas at Sandringham for the first time in three years.

The decision marks a return to royal tradition, after Queen Elizabeth spent the festive season at Windsor Castle during the pandemic.

Royal Christmases at the Norfolk estate usually include a “morning visit to St Mary Magdalene Church”, said Yahoo! News, followed by a “family lunch and a gathering round the television to watch the monarch’s televised address to Britain”.

Charles will be giving his first King’s speech, “and he's likely to pay tribute to his late mother with his words”, said The Mirror.

Prince Louis is also set for a “starring role” in the celebrations, “after stealing the show at the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee”, according to the paper’s Lucy Thornton. The four-year-old prince will reportedly join the family’s traditional Christmas Day walk to church for the first time, amid hopes that he can “give proceedings a lift” – although a “final decision” about the “important Sandringham milestone” will not be made until the big day, Thornton added.

Scaled-back plans

Experts have predicted that the royals’s “much-loved Christmas traditions” will be “scaled back” this year, said Cosmopolitan, and will centre around a “low-key Christmas lunch”.

Former BBC royal commentator Jennie Bond told OK! magazine that without “the linchpin of the Queen holding together an often fractured family, they may suddenly decide to do their own thing”.

The King’s Christmas plans “might be up in the air a bit”, she added, and “the younger royals will probably want to spend time with their own families”, so “two- or three-day celebrations” may be “a thing of the past”.

Frozen out?

According to The Sun’s royal editor Matt Wilkinson, the Sussexes are being “frozen out” of Charles’s first Christmas dinner at Sandringham as monarch. The King and Camilla have “invited large numbers of those dubbed ‘The Loyal Family’”, said Wilkinson.

The guest list is expected to include Camilla’s children, Tom Parker Bowles and Laura Lopes; the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their three children; Prince Edward and his family; and princesses Beatrice and Eugenie plus their husbands and children.

But Harry and Meghan are expected to spend Christmas in California with their children Archie, three, and Lilibet, 18 months, although “it is believed they will share presents with William and Kate”, said Wilkinson.

Prince Andrew ‘masterstroke’

The King’s Christmas guest list is also expected to include Prince Andrew. His ex-wife Sarah Ferguson has reportedly been invited to join the royals for Christmas too, for the first time in 30 years.

A Sandringham source told The Mirror’s royal features writer Jennifer Newton that the former couple would be staying at Wood Farm, a five-bedroom cottage set away from the main house on the 20,000-acre estate.

Royal biographer Ingrid Seward said the decision to allow the disgraced prince and his ex to attend while keeping them “tucked out of sight” was a “masterstroke”.

Charles is “not an unkind person”, Seward told the paper. “There were many times Camilla had to hide away like a fugitive so he understands Andrew’s situation only too well.”.

But the King cannot risk his image “being tarnished by Andrew”, she added, and “he will not allow it to happen”.

The controversy over Harry and Meghan’s Netflix series has led to speculation over how his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, might have felt about her younger son’s actions.

Piers Morgan, a long-standing critic of the couple, wrote on Twitter that Diana “would be appalled” at how Harry is “trying to destroy the Monarchy & attacking Britain”.

However, others have drawn parallels between Harry’s experiences and behaviour and those of his late mother.

A ‘burn-it-all-down gesture’

In her book The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor – the Truth and the Turmoil, author Tina Brown suggested that Diana might have approved of her younger son’s actions.

Harry expresses his “lasting contempt for the press” with “tortured, vocal, frequently ill-judged condemnation, a never-ending flurry of lawsuits” and “a burn-it-all-down gesture that his mother… might have well understood”, she wrote, in a passage adapted for Vanity Fair.

“Have we forgotten the lessons learned from Diana’s experience?” asked MSP Karen Adam in The National. She was commenting on Jeremy Clarkson’s controversial column for The Sun in which he wrote that he was “dreaming of the day” when Meghan is “made to parade naked… while crowds chant, ‘Shame!’ and throw lumps of excrement at her”.

Harry “clearly just wants to keep his family safe”, wrote Adam, because he “knows where this could all end”.

Diana ‘would be ashamed’

But could Harry be manipulating the media in the same way his mother was accused of?

Diana was a “media mastermind”, said Elle, and an “unabashed spin doctor of her own wounded cause”. She was “hunting for a chance to strike back against her separated husband” and as “she knew the power of media”, she “decided to use it”, in the form of her bombshell Panorama interview in 1995.

The director of the Netflix series “works hard to foreshadow the Sussexes’ experience in Diana”, said The Cut, “framing her largely as a victim of the tabloids”. However, it added, the reality was “more complicated – a symbiotic relationship with the outlets that cemented her superstar status”. Diana was “known to have orchestrated her own leaks” and “sometimes called the paparazzi on herself”.

Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi said that Diana would have been “appalled” by the Netflix series and the Daily Mail’s Dan Wootton said Harry’s mother would be “ashamed of her youngest”.

There is also speculation that there is intense disapproval from Harry’s older brother. The Prince of Wales is said to be “livid” at his brother’s “antagonistic” use of Diana’s Panorama footage in the Netflix series, Vanity Fair’s Katie Nicholl told OK! magazine.

“William has campaigned for that footage to never be screened again,” said Nicholl, “so for it to be used in his brother’s own reality TV show will be very frustrating for William.”

In recent days, the news has been “awash with stories of suffering and struggle”, said Michael Deacon in The Daily Telegraph. Children going to school hungry. Nurses using food banks. Pensioners deciding between heating and eating. Between all this, we have been seeing trailers for a Netflix documentary in which two multimillionaires who live in a mansion in California sob about how hard their lives are.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been complaining about their lot for three years. Last week, the first tranche of their six-part series – part of a $100m deal they struck with Netflix – finally aired, and Deacon wondered: did this couple, who “pride themselves above all else on their empathy and compassion”, pause to consider how their pity party might appear to the eight billion or so people in the world who are less fortunate than they are?

‘Hollow selfmythologising’

“‘What are we doing?’ the couple wonder more than once, as they reflect on their actions in this fever dream of self-aggrandisement,” said Jessie Thompson in The Independent. Harry and Meghan say they want to tell their story – a story they felt unable to tell before, but which they now “seem to tell professionally, for a living”.

The first three episodes, released last week, focus on their early lives and courtship. It is mainly anodyne stuff: a “mix of melodramatically soundtracked, soft-focused photo montages, doeeyed soppiness and hollow selfmythologising”, plus a “relentless amount of intimate material”. This is a couple who seem to have a “pathological need” to document their lives. They have video diaries, and a photo for every moment; we are even treated to a clip of Meghan whispering down the phone to a friend, as Harry prepares to propose.

They have every right to reveal details of their lives on their terms, but it’s too much: we get it, you are a lovely couple, perfectly in love. Or, as Harry tells us, in one of several scenes that feel curiously unnatural, “This is a great love story, and the craziest thing is, I think it is just getting started.”

Those hoping for bombshells will be disappointed, said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. The first part of this “interminable” documentary goes over wearily familiar ground, as it contrasts life in stuffy Britain (largely seen in monochrome) with sunny California.

There are a few sideswipes at Harry’s family. King Charles may have been hurt by his son’s assertion that he was “brought up” in Africa. The Prince and Princess of Wales may have been irked by Harry’s claim that whereas he married for love, other royals have had to marry women who “fit the mould”. But there is no “full-frontal assault” on the family. Instead, we get an “earnest history lesson” (courtesy of David Olusoga, who offers context on racial issues), “self-consciously goofy romantic comedy, and a salutary reminder of how awful the British press is”.

‘Heroes of social justice’

If Harry seethes with rage, you can hardly blame him, said Ayesha Hazarika in The i newspaper. This is a man who spent his childhood in the glare of publicity; who was paraded for the cameras days after his mother had been killed fleeing the paparazzi. Of course he wanted to protect Meghan from the misery inflicted on Diana and other women who have married into the institution – especially when, on top of the usual meanspirited scrutiny, she had to contend with racism, unconscious and otherwise, including a torrent of filth online.

And when Harry talks about royal briefing wars, planted stories and “dirty tricks”, he is not wrong, said Rob Lownie on UnHerd. There is good evidence that other royal households were briefing against him and Meghan.

Sections of the right-wing press feasted on it, said Jim Waterson in The Guardian, because they found that their readers relished stories about the Sussexes. Now the couple’s documentary is driving more traffic to the very news outlets they condemn.

The liberal left went the other way, and decided the couple were “heroes of social justice”, said Ian Dunt in The i newspaper, which is equally absurd. Some of what they say makes no sense. For instance, Meghan claims she had no idea that she’d have to curtsey to the Queen (she says she thought it was a “joke”, then mocks the procedure). What kind of situation did she think she was entering when she opted to marry a prince?

She says she was given no preparation for royal life, said Jennie Bond in the Daily Mirror. If that is true (and royal insiders say it is not), Harry is partly to blame. He should have taken more time to explain to her, for instance, that in the Firm, there is a hierarchy – and that she’d have to conform to it, however stultifying that might be.

Harry was struggling with it himself, said Tanya Gold on UnHerd; and in Meghan, he found someone strong enough to take him away. But he is only half free, because he is still a prince, “with all the expectations” of a prince, and still relying on the “attention without merit” that his royal status bestows. He may have moved to California, but he has not travelled all that far.

The final three episodes of Netflix's highly anticipated documentary about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Harry & Meghan, were released Dec. 15. Here are the biggest revelations from the series:

Harry and Meghan met over Instagram

Much of the first episode of Harry & Meghan focuses on the start of their relationship, and it reveals they met thanks to Instagram.

"I was scrolling through my feed and someone who was a friend had this video of the two of them, like a Snapchat [of Meghan] with [a] doggy ears [filter]," Harry explains. "That was the first thing. I was like, 'Who is that?'"

The friend, Meghan says, emailed her saying that a "friend of mine asked about you" and "maybe you'd like to meet him." Meghan then asked if she could see Harry's Instagram feed.

"So that's the thing," Meghan says. "When people say, 'Did you Google him?' No, but that's your homework. You're like, 'Hm, look, let me see what they're about in their feed. Not what someone else says about them, but what they are putting out about themselves.'"

Harry was late for their first date

Harry and Meghan say they got each other's numbers and were "constantly in touch" until they met in London and got drinks while she was there for Wimbledon.

"You were late!" Meghan tells Harry. "And I couldn't understand why he would be late."

Harry was apparently texting Meghan the whole time apologizing that he was stuck in traffic, but Meghan initially wasn't sure if he was making her wait intentionally. But then, "when I walked in a hot, sweaty, red ball of mess, she was like, 'Oh, that's not what you are,'" Harry adds, noting he was "panicking" and "freaking out."

Meghan's mom speaks out

The Netflix documentary reveals the first ever on-camera interview with Meghan's mother, Doria Ragland, who provides commentary throughout the second and third episodes.

"The last five years has been challenging," Ragland says. "I'm ready to have my voice heard."

Ragland speaks out about her ex-husband, Thomas Markle, staging photos to sell to the paparazzi in 2018, saying she was "stunned" he would "become part of this circus."

Ragland also says she regrets not having a "real conversation" with Meghan when she was growing up about "how the world sees you" because she is mixed race, and Meghan says that before she came to the U.K., "most people didn't treat me like a Black woman." But Ragland recalls telling Meghan, after her relationship with Harry became public, "This is about race. … You may not want to hear it, but this is what's coming down the pike."

Ragland describes Meghan as a "very empathic child," who once told her she felt like her "older, controlling sister" rather than her mother.

Meghan claims paparazzi paid neighbors to set up a live stream in her backyard

A major focus of the first three episodes of Meghan & Harry is the intrusive nature of the paparazzi in the couple's lives. At one point, Meghan describes how it "felt like all of the U.K. media descended upon Toronto" after her relationship with Harry was revealed, and her house was "surrounded" by "men sitting in their cars all the time" waiting for her.

Meghan claims "they had paid certain neighbors to put a live stream camera into my backyard," though she doesn't provide details.

Meghan also recalls going to the police in Toronto and saying that "if any other woman" told them she has "six grown men who are sleeping in their cars around my house and following me everywhere," this would be called "stalking." But she claims police told her, "Yes, but there's really nothing we can do because of who you're dating."

Meghan's first meeting with William and Kate

Meghan describes a jarring first meeting with Prince William and Kate Middleton in the second episode of the Netflix series.

They came over for dinner, Meghan recounts, and "I was in ripped jeans and I was barefoot." She recalls going in for a hug because "I'm a hugger," only to realize "that is really jarring for a lot of Brits."

"I started to understand very quickly that the formality on the outside carried through on the inside," she says, noting this was "surprising to me."

Royals allegedly thought the relationship wouldn't last

Harry says that while the royal family was "incredibly impressed" when they met Meghan, they also thought the relationship was fleeting.

"The fact that I was dating an American actress was probably what clouded their judgment more than anything else at the beginning," Harry says. "'Oh, she's an American actress. This won't last.'"

Meghan chimes in that "funnily enough," the "actress thing was the biggest problem" because it was "easy for them" to "typecast" her based on their perceptions of Hollywood.

Meghan dishes on engagement interview

When asked about their 2017 BBC interview about their engagement, Meghan immediately shoots back, "Orchestrated reality show, yep."

It "was rehearsed," she continues, including in the sense that she was told ahead of time about how "there'll be a moment when they'll want to see the ring, so show the ring." But until now, she claims, "We weren't allowed to tell our story because they didn't want [us to]."

Harry takes aim at 'royal experts'

Harry lays into British tabloids all throughout the Netflix documentary, but perhaps his most pointed comments come in the third episode. Meghan asks if "people can just call themselves royal experts" in the media, and Harry opines that "anyone can be a royal expert," a title that's intended to "lend legitimacy" to news articles.

"That press pack of royal correspondents is essentially just an extended PR arm of the royal family," he alleges. "So it's been an agreement that's been there for over 30 years."

Meghan speaks out against her estranged sister

In the third episode, Meghan discusses her relationship with her estranged half-sister Samantha Markle, who slammed her in the tabloids and wrote a tell-all book titled The Diary of Princess Pushy's Sister Part 1.

Calling Samantha "my half-sister who I hadn't seen for over a decade, and that was only for a day-and-a-half," Meghan says, "I don't know [her] middle name. I don't know [her] birthday." She also says she and Samantha never had a "fallout" because "we didn't have a closeness to be able to have that."

Meghan was given 'painful' guidance to not invite niece to her wedding

Meghan did, however, develop a close relationship with Samantha's daughter, Ashleigh. She appears in the Harry & Meghan documentary, and Meghan says they "hit it off," while Ashleigh describes Meghan as a sister and best friend. Ashleigh suggests there was "resentment" toward Meghan on her mother's part.

But in the third episode, Ashleigh notes that communication between her and Meghan eventually became "less and less frequent," and Meghan claims she was given "guidance" not to invite Ashleigh to the royal wedding because "how do we explain that this half-sister isn't invited to the wedding but that the half-sister's daughter is?"

Meghan calls this "painful," while Ashleigh says she was "hurt" but "understood where it was coming from." But Ashleigh chokes up saying it's "hard" that because of her mother, this "important" relationship with Meghan was "taken away."

Harry addresses his Nazi uniform

While discussing his own unconscious biases when it comes to race, Harry addresses wearing a Nazi uniform to a party in 2005, when he was 20.

"It was one of the biggest mistakes of my life," he says. "I felt so ashamed afterwards. All I wanted to do was make it right." He continues that while he could have ignored the controversy and "made the same mistakes over and over again in my life," he instead "learned from that."

Harry says Meghan 'doesn't have a father' anymore

The end of the third episode delves into Meghan's falling out with her father, Thomas Markle, and allegations that he staged photos to sell to the paparazzi. (He later admitted this was true.)

Meghan says she confronted her father about this, and though he denied the claims, she didn't believe him. Later, TMZ reported that Thomas wouldn't be attending Harry and Meghan's wedding after suffering a heart attack, and Meghan says she found this out through the media. While trying to get in touch with her father, Meghan says she suspected his phone was "compromised" after getting "really weird" texts that didn't seem to be written by him. "That's not my dad," she recalls thinking.

Ultimately, Harry concludes that Meghan "had a father before this, and now she doesn't have a father," and he blames himself. "If Meg wasn't with me, then her dad would still be her dad."

Harry suggests royals were upset over Meghan 'stealing the limelight'

The documentary posits that the large amount of media attention Meghan received after joining the royal family created issues at Buckingham Palace. After a trip to Australia, "[Harry and Meghan] were so popular with the public, the internals at the palace were incredibly threatened by that," Meghan's friend Lucy Fraser claims.

Harry also suggests it upset his family that Meghan began "stealing the limelight" and "doing the job better" than people who were "born to do this." As an example, he recalled an instance where the entire royal family attended an event, but The Telegraph's front page was only about Meghan.

"You've been led to believe that the only way your charities can succeed, and the only way that your reputation can be grown or improved, is if you're on the front page of those newspapers," he says.

Harry 'hates' himself over how he dealt with Meghan's suicidal thoughts

The documentary also expands on Meghan's previous revelation that she had suicidal thoughts after joining the royal family. "It was like, all of this will stop if I'm not here," she says.

Meghan's mother, Doria Ragland, confirms Meghan told her that she "wanted to take her own life," while Harry admits he didn't "deal with" this "particularly well."

"I dealt with it as institutional Harry, as opposed to husband Harry," he says. "And what took over my feelings was my royal role. I had been trained to worry more about, 'What are people going to think if we don't go to this event, we're going to be late.' Looking back on it now, I hate myself for it."

Harry suggests William's communications office worked against his

The second part of the documentary puts a target on Prince William's back pretty quickly. In the fourth episode, Harry suggests William's office would work against his, including by planting stories about him and Meghan.

"If the comms team wants to be able to remove a negative story about their principle, they will trade and give you something about someone else's principle," he alleges. "So the offices end up working against each other."

Harry implies he's specifically referring to William's office, going on to say he and his brother "both saw what happened in our dad's office and we made an agreement that we would never let that happen to our office," noting, "I would far rather get destroyed in the press than play along with this game or this business of trading."

But Harry suggests William violated this agreement. "To see my brother's office copy the very same thing that we promised the two of us would never, ever do, that was heartbreaking," he says.

Harry alleges the palace leaked other stories about him and Meghan

Harry also alleges other instances where the palace allegedly leaked stories about him and Meghan. For one, he describes a plan for them to move to South Africa, noting the palace signed off on this, and the offices of his father, brother, and grandmother knew about it. "No one else knew," but it was leaked, so the plan had to be "scrapped," Harry says.

Harry says he then began speaking to his father about the possibility of moving to Canada, and Charles asked him to put that in writing. Harry says he was reluctant given the previous leak, but he did so, sending his father emails about it; one of the emails allegedly said that he and Meghan would be "willing to relinquish our Sussex titles." Soon, though, all of this leaked again.

"It became clear that the institution leaked the fact that we were going to be moving back to Canada, and the key piece of that story that made me aware that the contents of the letter between me and my father had been leaked was that we were willing to relinquish our Sussex titles," Harry says. "That was the giveaway."

Their decision to step back from the royal family came not long after that, Harry says.

Attorney Jenny Afia also alleges, "I've certainly seen evidence that there was negative briefing from the palace against Harry and Meghan to suit other people's agendas."

Harry was allegedly blocked from seeing the queen

While discussing plans to move away from the U.K., Harry describes trying to meet with the queen before allegedly being blocked from doing so, with the palace telling him she was busy after she told him she was free.

"I rang her and I said, 'I'm now told that you're busy,'" Harry recalls. "She goes, 'Yes, I didn't know that I'm busy. I've been told that I'm busy. I've actually been told that I'm busy all week.' I was like, 'Wow.'"

Harry alleges the royals planned 2020 meeting around not inviting Meghan

After the 2020 announcement that Harry and Meghan planned to step back from the royal family, a meeting of the royal family was held at Sandringham to discuss the situation. Harry suggests this meeting was planned around making sure Meghan, who had left for Canada, wouldn't be there.

"Imagine a conversation, a roundtable discussion, about the future of your life, when the stakes are this high, and you as the mom and the wife and the target in many regards aren't invited to have a seat at the table."

Harry adds, "It was clear to me that they planned it so that [Meghan wasn't] in the room."

Harry alleges William screamed and shouted at him

But Harry did attend this Sandringham summit, during which he alleges his brother berated him. "It was terrifying to have my brother scream and shout at me and my father say things that just simply weren't true," he claims, adding that the queen "quietly" sat there to "take it all in."

Harry also says he was given "five options" during this meeting ranging from being "all in" or "all out" of the royal family. He chose option three, which would involve being "half in" and "half out" by having their own jobs but continuing to work to support the queen. But he says it soon became clear this was "not up for discussion or debate."

Harry claims the palace put out a statement with his name on it without permission

After that Sandringham meeting, a joint statement was put out in Harry and William's names denying a story that William bullied Harry out of the family. But even though Harry's name was attached to this statement, he claims it was released without his approval or knowledge.

"I couldn't believe it," Harry says. "No one had asked me permission to put my name to a statement like that. ... Within four hours, they were happy to lie to protect my brother, and yet for three years, they were never willing to tell the truth to protect us."

It was at this point that Harry says it became clear there was "no other option," and he told Meghan, "We need to get out of here."

Harry says Meghan 'never asked' to leave the royal family

Harry slams the British press for blaming Meghan for their royal exit, noting, "In fact, it was my decision. She never asked to leave."

Harry admits reuniting with his family 'felt cold'

Harry and Meghan discuss their last official engagement as working royals in 2020, when they attended a Commonwealth Day ceremony. "The first time that we saw the other members of the family was in public at Westminster Abbey," Meghan says.

Harry recalls they were "nervous" seeing the family, which felt like "living through a soap opera," and he admits, "I felt really distant from the rest of my family … It looked cold, but it also felt cold."

Harry blames British tabloid for Meghan's miscarriage

In the documentary's final episode, Harry directly blames the Mail on Sunday for Meghan suffering a miscarriage in 2020. Meghan and Harry were battling publisher Associated Newspapers at the time, following the Mail on Sunday publishing portions of a private letter Meghan wrote to her estranged father.

"I believe my wife suffered a miscarriage because of what the Mail did," Harry says. "I watched the whole thing. Now, do we absolutely know that the miscarriage was caused by that? Of course we don't. But bearing in mind the stress that that caused, the lack of sleep, and the timing of the pregnancy, how many weeks in she was, I can say from what I saw, that miscarriage was created by what they were trying to do to her."

William texted Harry after the Oprah interview — and Beyoncé texted Meghan

The aftermath of Harry and Meghan's bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey is explored in the documentary, with Meghan noting she expected the "biggest takeaway" would be her opening up about her suicidal thoughts rather than allegations of racism in the royal family.

Sometime after the interivew airs, we see Harry show Meghan his phone, and she notes he "just got a text from his brother," though Harry doesn't share what William wrote with viewers.

Meghan, meanwhile, reveals she received a text from Beyoncé after the interview aired telling her she "admires and respects my bravery" and believes she was "selected to break generational curses that need to be healed."

William was accused of authorizing former aide's witness statement

The final section of the documentary focuses heavily on Meghan and Harry's lawsuit against Associated Newspapers. At one point, they voice frustration over the role of Jason Knauf, a former adviser to Prince William. In 2021, Knauf gave a witness statement and provided texts suggesting Meghan wrote the letter to her father at the center of the lawsuit with the "understanding that it could be leaked." The documentary alleges William himself authorized Knauf to do this.

"There's just no way he could have done that without the authority of his bosses," attorney Jenny Afia claims.

We see Meghan and Harry reacting to this, with Meghan clearly frustrated. "It's your brother, I'm not going to say anything about your brother, but it's so obvious," Meghan tells Harry. Harry also says it's "obvious that they'll try and cover it up," adding that this is "why I'm now living in a different country."

In a statement to Netflix, a representative for Knauf called Harry and Meghan's allegations "entirely false," adding he was "asked to provide evidence by both The Duchess of Sussex and Associated Newspapers." Meghan's attorney disputed this, claiming he "was not asked to provide a witness statement by The Duchess or her team."

Update Dec. 15: This piece has been updated to include details pertaining to the second part of the documentary.

The first three episodes of Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan may only have aired last week, but it has already created waves on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond.

While the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are no strangers to the media spotlight, the release of the highly anticipated series has brought global attention to the woman behind it: Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Liz Garbus.

Initially hesitant to take on the task of documenting the couple’s break from the royal family, the project is in fact “something of a culmination of the issues Garbus has chronicled for the past two decades”, said The New York Times.

What is her background?

Born in New York in 1970, Garbus’s father Martin was a prominent civil rights attorney hailed by The Guardian in 1992 as “one of the world’s finest trial lawyers”. His clients included Nelson Mandela, actors Al Pacino, Marilyn Monroe, Robert Redford and Sean Connery, First Lady Nancy Reagan and Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. Her mother Ruth was a writer, therapist and social worker.

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in history and semiotics from Brown University, Garbus interned at Harvey Weinstein’s Miramax production company. It was there she met fellow documentary maker Jonathan Stack, with whom she made her directorial debut in 1998 with a documentary called The Farm: Angola, USA, which focused on America’s most notorious and largest maximum-security prison, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

The film won Garbus the first of her two Oscar nominations, followed in 2016 for What Happened, Miss Simone?, about the life of troubled jazz singer Nina Simone.

Over her 25-year career Garbus has become known for her “critically acclaimed exposés and documenting the stories of survivors”, said Hello magazine. She has also been hailed for her handling of “complicated stories, ranging from systemic injustices to the lives of troubled public figures”, CNN added.

Whether it’s “social justice seen through the lens of the prison system” – The Farm: Angola, USA and Girlhood – or “uncovering the troubled personal stories” of famous yet enigmatic figures – Bobby Fischer, Marilyn Monroe and Nina Simone – mental health and righting systemic wrongs are “topics she returns to time and again”, said The New York Times.

In 2019, Garbus and her husband, producer Dan Cogan who previously ran documentary finance company Impact Partners which won an Oscar for Icarus, formed their own production company, Story Syndicate. The couple have a daughter, Amelia, and a son, Theodore.

Why did she want to direct Harry & Meghan?

With Meghan Markle “already a fan long before the two were considering working together”, she has been described by the London Evening Standard as a “natural choice” for the Netflix documentary “for many reasons”. However, Garbus was not in fact originally slated to direct the series.

According to Page Six, the Duke and Duchess initially turned to Garrett Bradley, director of Netflix’s documentary miniseries about tennis star Naomi Osaka. But they “reportedly clashed over the direction of the show” with both sides disagreeing on the tone of the series, said the Daily Mail.

It meant the Sussex’s own production company, Archewell Productions, captured as much footage as they could before Garbus was hired. Even then it was “not all smooth sailing” for Netflix bosses and Garbus who also “clashed” with Meghan and Harry over the “content of the series, which the couple wanted to heavily edit”, Page Six claimed.

At first Garbus was “sceptical”, said The New York Times. Far from an avid royal watcher, she knew the broad strokes of the decision by the couple to leave the British royal family and had seen their interview with Oprah Winfrey, but she assumed that the “stiff upper lip emblematic of elite British society would not make for a compelling documentary – too guarded, too interested in hagiography, too much of an all-around royal pain”, said the paper. “Then she saw the footage.”

“It’s very personal and raw and powerful, and it made me appreciate the incredible weight that went into their decision,” she said. “It also affirmed the choice I had made about wanting to unravel how this historic break came to be.”

Lancaster University media lecturer Laura Clancy on what the first episodes of Harry & Meghan reveal about Meghan Markle’s reputation within The Firm

As an expert in the contemporary British monarchy, I watched the first three episodes of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new Netflix docuseries, Harry & Meghan, closely.

What came across most was how Markle’s gender, race and class intersected in her treatment both by the media and by “the Firm” (an unofficial nickname for the British monarchy and its staff that describes the institution as a business) itself.

As with their 2021 Oprah interview, this documentary is a forum for the couple to account for their treatment by the Firm. These kinds of royal confessionals risk damaging the monarchy, as they cast a light “behind the scenes” of an institution which relies on magic and majesty to maintain its image.

Patriarchy and women’s bodies

Princess Diana’s traumas in the royal family have been well covered over the decades, including by the Panorama documentary she used to tell her own story in 1995. Like Markle, Diana Spencer spoke about her mental health and a lack of support from the Firm. Harry & Meghan also makes comparisons between Spencer and Markle, claiming that both women were hounded by the paparazzi throughout their royal lives.

Markle talks about “men sitting in cars all the time” outside her house, waiting for her to leave. In any other situation, she says, this would amount to stalking. As Markle mentions, gender matters here. Celebrities like Britney Spears have spoken out about the unique pressures women face from tabloid intrusion.

The economy surrounding these women encompasses multiple industries, from cosmetic surgery to fashion brands, who benefit from paparazzi exploitation. Britney Spears’ body became an economy in itself as paparazzi pictures of her were worth so much money.

For royal women, this takes on a new imperative. The monarchy is reliant on women’s bodies for its reproduction – literally, the reproduction of heirs. Royal women’s bodies are fetishised as reproductive of the nation, as they birth the next “symbol” of Britishness. This also accounts for the hidden meaning behind those questions from within the royal family about the colour of Archie’s skin – they are asking how “British” (or rather, how white) her baby might look.

It is not just about clothing and branding, but about how royal women’s bodies take on meaning that connects femininity and the nation. This is a patriarchal institution that uses women’s bodies for its own ends.

Respectability politics

As the documentary shows, for Markle this is not just about gender. Race and class come to play a part in the intersectional pressures she was placed under. Headlines like the Daily Mail’s “(Almost) Straight Outta Compton” are discussed as evidence of the racist coverage of the early days of the couple’s relationship.

Markle also mentions the Firm’s discomfort with her acting career. She explains that there are assumptions made about Hollywood and the people who work in it. Acting is seen as too déclassé a profession to marry into the royal family, despite the fact that the Firm operates like a celebrity industry in and of itself.

Around the time of their wedding, tabloids were also representing Markle’s father’s (Thomas Markle) side of the family in ways reminiscent of “white trash” discourses. “White trash” is an American slur (equivalent to the UK’s “chav”) for an abject working class figure.

The Daily Mail reported on Markle’s aunt and cousin spending the royal wedding wearing cardboard browns in a Burger King, a fast food chain associated with working-class stereotypes. Their meal was positioned in contrast to the upper class and aspirational one taking place at the same time in Windsor.

Black studies scholars like Brittney Cooper have referred to condemnation of the actions of people of colour as “respectability politics”. Inclusion into typically white spaces is undertaken through observing white, middle class norms, including being “mainstream, articulate, and clean cut, black but not too black, friendly, upbeat, and accommodating”.

Of course, the monarchy is perhaps the pinnacle of “respectable”: an institution enshrined as the peak of British society. The racism which has plagued Markle, and the fact she was never allowed to achieve racial uplift, demonstrates how whiteness, gender and upper classness are used to police the boundaries of respectability.

Femininity and the nation

Women in the royal family are always subject to more pervasive attention than the men. Princess Diana and Kate Middleton have received intense scrutiny, from what they say and wear to speculation about what’s going on in their wombs.

As Harry points out in the documentary, though, Markle’s situation was unique. Her story tells us something fundamental about the British monarchy’s relationship to patriarchy and whiteness, and how the two are inseparable.

And as media scholar Raka Shome writes in her book, Diana and Beyond, white femininity “is always a doing and not a being. It is always pushed and pulled, routed and rerouted to script national desires.”

The hounding of Markle is one site of this push and pull. The scripts of white femininity, and therefore of nation, were fought and continue to be fought, over representations of her.

Laura Clancy, lecturer in media, Lancaster University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Netflix documentary hasn't premiered yet, but even its brief trailers have already generated controversy.

The trailers for Netflix's highly anticipated documentary about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are facing criticism for the use of stock footage that critics have labeled misleading, BuzzFeed News and BBC report.

Harry & Meghan's trailers tease a series that will delve into Prince Harry's criticism of the British press' treatment of his wife, and the royals are depicted as being relentlessly hounded by the media. "I didn't want history to repeat itself," Harry says in one trailer, referring to the death of his mother, Princess Diana. But critics noticed the teasers make use of completely unrelated footage of paparazzi who were not, in fact, attempting to take photos of Harry and Megan.

One of the trailers includes a shot of photographers implied to be taking pictures of Harry and Meghan, when in reality, this reportedly appears to be from a 2011 Harry Potter premiere. The full trailer also cuts between a shot of Harry and Meghan and a shot of paparazzi reportedly taken from the sentencing hearing of model Katie Price. Another shot shows paparazzi swarming a car, but Michael Cohen is getting into the vehicle, not Harry and Meghan.

Additionally, Evening Standard editor Robert Jobson took issue with a shot of a photographer taking pictures of Harry, Meghan, and their son Archie from above. While Jobson argued it suggested an "intrusion by the press," he said it "was taken from [an] accredited pool," adding, "Only 3 people were in the accredited position. [Harry and Meghan] agreed [to] the position."

It wasn't immediately clear if the contentious shots are present in the documentary itself or were only used for marketing. The first volume of Harry & Meghan will hit Netflix on Dec. 8.

A trailer for the new Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan has added a new twist to the royal saga between Princes Harry and William.

The series, which comprises six episodes and is rated 15, will tell the inside story of why the couple decided to step down from royal duties. Although the show has no official release date, the teaser trailer itself revealed a series of previously unseen photographs as well as footage of Meghan wiping away tears.

‘Declaration of war’

The trailer’s release “could hardly have been timed for more explosive impact”, said Louis Chilton in The Independent. The appetiser for the “unprecedented new documentary” comes “just a day after the late Queen’s lady-in-waiting, Lady Susan Hussey, resigned from the palace over a racism scandal”.

And it was only last year that the Duchess of Sussex told Oprah Winfrey in a two-hour TV interview that when she was pregnant with her first child Archie there had been “concerns and conversations” among unnamed members of the royal family “about how dark his skin might be when he was born”.

Dan Wootton, writing for Mail Online, described the 59-second “vile” Netflix trailer as a declaration of “all out war on the British Royal Family”.

Wootton also focused on the timing of the release, but instead claimed it was “specifically designed to derail William and Kate’s already troubled US tour”, the Prince and Princess of Wales having arrived in Boston on Wednesday for a three-day trip centred around William’s Earthshot Prize climate charity.

“It’s confirmation that, despite the hopes of a grieving King Charles, the relationship with his youngest son and daughter-in-law is now forever smashed,” Wootton continued. He added that “there’s no going back after this full-throttled attack on the British monarchy” and called on the King to “go nuclear too by stripping his son and his wife of their royal titles”.

Writing in The Times, Hilary Rose agreed with Wootton, sarcastically declaring the timing of the trailer release a “happy, scene-stealing coincidence”. Rose believes the Sussexes, while their true motivation is anyone’s guess, are attempting to “suck the oxygen out of every single thing the Waleses do between now and kingdom come”. She even admitted to feeling sorry for William and Kate despite their “lives of unimaginable wealth and privilege” for what William’s brother and his Hollywood wife are putting them through.

‘Winning the battle but losing the war’

“What were you both thinking?!” asked Paul Baldwin of the Sussexes in the Daily Express. Baldwin said that before the trailer’s release and in light of the Lady Hussey racism scandal, he had started to think that maybe Harry and Meghan “really were victims”. However, his sympathies have since waned with the release of what he described as a “toe-curling, truly bizarre promo-video”.

In the Daily Mail, Maureen Callahan concluded that while “Harry and Meghan are winning the battle” they are certainly “going to lose this war”. Callahan added that “it’s as if Harry and Meghan have nothing better to do than go through the royal schedule and figure out ways to screw the family over”.

In her conclusion, Callahan asserted that ultimately “these two have nothing new to say”. The couple will not win the attrition war they’re fighting with the royal family because “they exist only in opposition to the royals. They have nothing to offer.”

While criticism of the Sussexes was plentiful across the mainstream media, the New York Post did highlight some support for Harry and Meghan, citing a tweet that argued “imagine being right that staff in the royal household are racist but no-one believed you”, in reference to the widely criticised comments from Lady Hussey.

Prince Harry's potentially explosive new memoir officially has a release date.

Penguin Random House announced Thursday it will publish Spare, the new memoir by Prince Harry, on Jan. 10. "With its raw, unflinching honesty, Spare is a landmark publication full of insight, revelation, self-examination, and hard-won wisdom about the eternal power of love over grief," the publisher said.

It was previously reported that the Duke of Sussex had a memoir in the works, raising questions about whether it would contain damaging revelations about the royal family in the wake of Harry's bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview. In July, Page Six cited a publishing insider who said, "There's a lot of new stories in there about the past that Harry has not spoken about before, about his childhood … there is some content in there that should make his family nervous."

But The New York Times reports, citing book industry executives, that Harry "has gotten cold feet about the memoir's contents at various points," and the Times notes that potential "attacks" on the royal family in the memoir could come across as "unseemly" in the wake of Queen Elizabeth II's death.

Harry previously said in a statement he's writing the memoir "not as the prince I was born but as the man I have become," and in telling his story, filled with the "highs and lows, the mistakes, the lessons learned," he hopes to "show that no matter where we come from, we have more in common than we think."

Penguin Random House Global CEO Markus Dohle also said that Harry shares his "remarkably moving personal journey from trauma to healing" in the book. Harry will be donating proceeds from Spare to British charities, according to the publisher.

The ascension of Charles III to the throne has sparked fresh interest in not only his Queen Consort but also her two children.

Laura Lopes and Tom Parker Bowles – the offspring of Camilla and her first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles – became step-siblings to Prince William and Prince Harry when their mother married Charles in 2005.

But Camilla’s children “haven’t actually built any trade-off from their relationship with the crown” and are not bestowed with any royal titles or duties, British Monarchs Society founder Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills told the i news site. “This is why they’ve been able to fly under the radar to have very private lives,” he added.

Who is Tom Parker Bowles?

Camilla’s oldest child has the “curious honour” of having Charles as both a stepfather and a godfather, said Town & Country.

Parker Bowles was born on 18 December 1974 in Westminster in London, but grew up in Wiltshire. He was educated at Eton College and Oxford University, where he was a member of the Piers Gaveston Society, a dining club. But despite being an avid foodie, he later recalled having largely “survived on chips and curry sauce”.

“I basically went out all the time and ate crap,” he told the London Evening Standard in 2013.

After leaving university, Parker Bowles went into public relations, but landed in the spotlight himself when the News of the World reported that he was “high on coke” while working at the Cannes Film Festival in 1999. The BBC reported that his godfather had given him a “severe scolding” over the alleged drug use.

Charles was said to have told him: “You’ve been a bloody fool. Pull yourself together.”

In 2001, Parker Bowles left PR to become Tatler magazine’s food columnist. He has since written about food for a host of titles, including The Mail on Sunday, and is the author of a string of books including The Year of Eating Dangerously: A Global Adventure in Search of Culinary Extremes. He has also appeared as a judge on food-themed reality TV shows.

In 2005, he married fashion journalist Sara Buys, with whom he has two children: daughter Lola, born in 2007, and son Frederick, born in 2010. The couple split in 2018.

Parker Bowles was then in a relationship with writer Alice Procope for almost two years, until her death from cancer at the age of 42 last year.

And who is Laura Lopes?

While her brother’s career has made him “something of a celebrity in the UK”, said US Weekly magazine, “Laura has kept a relatively low profile since her mother married into the Royal Family”.

Born in Swindon on 1 January 1978, she was educated at St Mary’s Shaftesbury, a Catholic girls’ boarding school in Dorset, and attended Oxford Brookes University, where she studied history of art and marketing.

After an internship at the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, she had a brief stint as Tatler’s motoring correspondent, in 2001, before returning to the art world. She became a manager at The Space Gallery in London, before co-founding the city’s Eleven gallery in 2005.

The following year, she married former Calvin Klein model-turned-chartered accountant Harry Lopes, the grandson of Massey Lopes, 2nd Baron Roborough. The wedding cake, “made of thousands of chocolate muffins”, was cut with her retired brigadier father’s military sword, Tatler reported.

The “happy couple sped to Claridge’s for the night before heading to Vietnam for their honeymoon”, the magazine added.

They have since had three children: daughter Eliza, born in 2008, and twin sons Gus and Louis, born a year later. When Prince William wed Kate Middleton in April 2011, Eliza was one of the bridesmaids.

Lopes is set to inherit two stately homes, “though not through her mother’s royal connection”, said the Daily Express. Instead, Lopes and and her own aristocratic husband are in line to take over Gnaton Hall in Devon and the Skelpick Estate in the Scottish Highlands, as well as his family’s titles of baron and baroness.

Prince Harry has accused his brother of knocking him to the floor, according to a leaked extract of his memoir published by The Guardian.

Days before the Duke of Sussex’s highly anticipated autobiography, Spare, was due to hit the shelves, the newspaper obtained a copy and broke one of its “most shocking stories”, said Vanity Fair.

Harry allegedly writes about a confrontation in 2019 at Nottingham Cottage in the grounds of Kensington Palace, sparked by Prince William calling Meghan Markle “difficult”, “rude” and “abrasive”.

In the copy seen by the newspaper, Harry claims he told William he was “parroting the press narrative” about his wife. William “grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace, and… knocked me to the floor”, he writes in what the paper calls an “extraordinary scene” that is “likely to spark a serious furore for the British royal family”.

What else do we know about the book?

Publisher Penguin Random House has reportedly spared no expense to prevent leaks of the memoir, with security measures compared “to the release of the Harry Potter series” when “millions” of pounds were spent to ensure no details were revealed before publication day, said The Times.

But that has done little to prevent national newspapers gathering details from insiders. One told The Sun the book would reveal “Harry’s bitterness and feelings of unfairness that by the nature of hierarchy and birthright that he always played second fiddle to older William”.

Another told The Sunday Times that the book will likely be “worse” for the royal family than they are expecting, adding that even Kate Middleton “gets a bit of a broadside”.

“There are these minute details, and a description of the fight between the brothers. I personally can’t see how Harry and William will be able to reconcile after this,” added the source.

And today Spanish copies of the book mistakenly went on sale, said Sky News. The broadcaster, which has also obtained a copy of the book, said Prince Harry calls William his “beloved brother and arch-nemesis”. He admits he took cocaine as a teenager, and that he had visited a woman with “powers” in a bid to contact his late mother, Diana.

The broadcaster says Harry and William asked King Charles not to marry Camilla after their mother died. “Willy and I promised our father that we would welcome Camilla to the family,” writes the prince. “The only thing we asked for in return was that he didn’t marry her.”

It is not just the British media. Page Six reported that Harry will put “some of the blame for his Nazi uniform scandal” on his brother and sister-in-law, claiming they “‘howled with laughter’ when they saw him dressed up for the 2005 party”.

What about the TV interviews?

Prince Harry has taken part in two television interviews ahead of the book’s release, with US TV heavyweight Anderson Cooper and ITV’s Tom Bradby.

The pre-recorded interviews, thought to have been filmed at his home in California, are set to be broadcast on Sunday 8 January, two days before the slated release of his memoir on 10 January.

In his interview with Bradby, the prince speaks of his desire to reconnect with his father and brother. “I would like to get my father back, I would like to have my brother back… they’ve shown absolutely no willingness to reconcile. It never needed to be this way,” he says.

Harry’s interview with Cooper, set to air on CBS, will also reveal how Harry felt he and Meghan were “betrayed” by the royal family, claiming that there were “briefings and leakings and planting of stories against me and my wife”. He adds that the royal family’s motto of “never complain, never explain” is just that – a motto – as he suggests Buckingham Palace was responsible for leaking damaging stories to the press.

Why does Harry want to publish his story?

In a statement in July 2021 announcing the planned memoir, Harry said he would be writing “not as the prince I was born, but as the man I have become”.

Random House said the book offers “full insights, revelation, self-examination, and hard-won wisdom about the eternal power of love over grief” with “raw, unflinching honesty”.

Readers will be taken back “to one of the most searing images of the twentieth century: two young boys, two princes, walking behind their mother’s coffin as the world watched in sorrow – and horror”, the publishers said.

It’s thought that the book will go on to detail the prince’s childhood, his military service in Afghanistan, and his family life, according to Hello!.

The choice of title is “presumably a nod to the phrase that monarchies need an ‘heir and a spare’”, said the BBC’s Sean Coughlan. Harry “will tell his version of his life in that ambiguous territory of the ‘spare’”, he continued – being put under “the spotlight from birth” but “with no defined role”, said Vogue.

What will it mean for the royal family?

“The project has been shrouded in rumors, delays and secrecy,” said The New York Times. But friends of the ghostwriter told the Mail on Sunday “they have no doubt that Harry’s memoir will dig deep and contain bombshells”.

It’s “expected to take aim at members of the royal family, as well as the institution [of the monarchy] as a whole”, said The Telegraph. Harry’s family have not seen the manuscript, or been given an opportunity to address claims made by the book through their lawyers, the newspaper continued.

Publishing sources told The New York Times that the prince “has gotten cold feet about the memoir’s contents at various points”.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the duke pushed for “significant” last-minute alterations to avoid a public backlash following the death of Queen Elizabeth II in September.

A source told The Telegraph that these reports were “overblown”, but “any attacks” that the book makes on members of the royal family “could strike many readers as unseemly”, said The New York Times.

As preparations for King Charles’s coronation get underway, Harry’s relationship with his father and step-mother Camilla “is likely to come under the microscope”, said the Mail on Sunday.

The Duchess of Sussex has released the first episode of her long-awaited podcast series promising to “dissect, explore and subvert the labels that try to hold women back”.

Released exclusively through Spotify, the debut episode of Archetypes with Meghan is titled The Misconception of Ambition and features her chatting with close friend Serena Williams, who recently announced her retirement from tennis. Dr Laura Kray, a leading expert on gender in the workplace, is also a guest, and Prince Harry makes a surprise cameo too.

“You wanna come say hi?” the duchess asks her husband, before adding: “Look who just popped in.” She and Williams then jokingly greet the duke in faux British accents. But while Harry received a warm welcome, critics have been less receptive to the new podcast.

‘Pure, narcissistic gibberish’

The nearly hour-long opening episode focuses on the double standards faced by women, including attitudes towards female ambition.

“I don’t remember ever personally feeling the negative connotation behind the word ambitious until I started dating my now husband,” the duchess says. “Apparently ambition is, uh… a terrible, terrible thing, for a woman that is.”

While that complaint may win her sympathy from some listeners, the British press remain largely unconvinced. The Times’ James Marriott dismissed the “almost entirely preposterous” podcast as a “tastefully soundtracked parade of banalities, absurdities and self-aggrandising Californian platitudes”. The listener’s “overwhelming sense” is one of “futility and irritation”, he added.

Fellow Times columnist Hilary Rose also gave Archetypes the thumbs down. “I’ve listened to 57 minutes and 28 seconds of Meghan Markle’s syrupy California drawl while rocking back and forth and moaning softly under my breath,” she wrote. This podcast is “pure, narcissistic gibberish”, Rose concluded.

Celia Walden was equally as dismissive in The Telegraph. “If the rest of the season is anything like the premiere, what we’re really going to be listening into week after week is Meghan interviewing herself,” she said. Walden added that “every woman has had a girlfriend like Meghan: the one who turns every confidence back to them and hijacks every distressing anecdote with one of their own – only theirs is longer drawn-out, more distressing”.

The Spectator’s Steerpike agreed that Archetypes is nothing more than a vehicle for the duchess to “concentrate on talking about herself”.

“It’s hard to believe that it took 28 people, including eight executive producers, to make the episode,” added the anonymous gossip columnist.

‘Spotify execs will sigh with relief’

Although positive reviews of Archetypes have been few and far between, a personal anecdote by the duchess did “bring me some clarity” about why the Sussexes quit their royal duties and the UK, said The Independent’s Clémence Michallon.

In a brief story that “exemplifies the complete dysfunctionality of life as a royal”, according to Michallon, the Los Angeles-born duchess told how back in 2019, the nursery that son Archie was supposed to be sleeping in caught fire – and revealed that she and Harry were not told until they later returned from an official engagement.

“And of course, as a mother, you go, ‘Oh, my God, what?’ Everyone’s in tears, everyone’s shaken,” she said. “And what do we have to do? Go out and do another official engagement? I said, ‘This doesn’t make any sense.’ … I was like, ‘Can you just tell people what happened?’”

Many listeners may have related to her frustration at being told that a problem which “could easily be solved with a little bit of pragmatism” actually “can’t be for completely amorphous reasons (optics, stiff upper lip, ‘it’s not the way things are done around here’)”, wrote Michallon.

But regardless of whether listeners sympathised, odds are they will return to hear the duchess “air her old grievances”, said Bel Mooney in the Daily Mail. After all, episode one of Archetype provided “the kind of gossipy, headline-making stuff that will make the Spotify execs sigh with relief that their investment” in the Sussexes and their Archewell Audio production company “has delivered”.

Meghan Markle has shared a shocking story about being required to continue with official royal engagements after being "shaken" by a fire in her son's nursery.

The Duchess of Sussex on Tuesday debuted the first episode of her Spotify podcast Archetypes, in which she chats with tennis star Serena Williams. During the conversation, she reveals that her son Archie's nursery caught on fire in 2019 while she and Prince Harry were on their tour of South Africa.

After finishing an engagement, Meghan describes being told "there's been a fire in the baby's room" at the housing unit where they were staying. According to Meghan, their nanny, Lauren, was "supposed to put Archie down for his nap" but decided to get a snack downstairs, bringing the baby with her.

"In that amount of time that she went downstairs, the heater in the nursery caught on fire." Meghan said. "There was no smoke detector. Someone happened to just smell smoke down the hallway, went in, fire extinguished. He was supposed to be sleeping in there."

Meghan recalled that everyone was "in tears" and "shaken" by the incident. But she says that she and Prince Harry had another official engagement scheduled for that day, and they weren't able to cancel it. "Optically, the focus ends up being on how it looks instead of how it feels," she said, adding, "We had to leave our baby."

Archetypes is Meghan's first podcast under a deal with Spotify signed in 2020. She shared the South Africa story during a conversation with Williams about people not "having any sense" of what someone is going through "behind the scenes."

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were ordered to leave their California home amid devastating floods in the state that killed at least 17 people this week.

Authorities issued an evacuation order on Monday for Montecito, Santa Barbara, with warnings of mudslides. It was lifted on Tuesday, the same day that the Duke of Sussex’s revelatory memoir Spare was released.

Harry was “not believed to be at home at the time” of the order, said LBC, as he travelled to New York for publicity interviews. It is not known whether the “Duchess was with him in New York, or at home with the couple’s two children”.

According to Hello!, Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland lives a “short distance away” and “could be an option for the Sussexes to spend some time” to escape any floods.

Where do Prince Harry and Meghan Markle live?

The royal couple opened up about their Californian living arrangements in their much-talked-about Netflix documentary, Harry & Meghan, released late last year.

From 2017 to 2019, the couple lived in Nottingham Cottage within the grounds of Kensington Palace in London. The 1,324 square feet (123 square metre) property was described by the prince as “really small, on a slight lean with low ceilings”.

The documentary hurled the pair back into the spotlight with revelations about the inner workings of the royal family and further accusations of bullying.

However, the six-part Netflix series was not actually filmed in their own home in California, where they moved to in July 2020, but rather “a nine-minute drive away from where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex live with their children”, reported Marie Claire.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the series’ location, with its “sweeping vistas over the Pacific Ocean, majestic oak ceiling and impeccably designed interior”, is in fact a £27.3m mansion, addressed 888 Lilac Lane, which is currently up for sale down the road from the couple’s own estate in Montecito.

Prince Harry and Meghan officially stepped down from royal duties in 2020 amid what The New York Times described as an “extraordinary retreat”. They took up temporary residence in several cities before finally settling on California.

The Sussexes’ Montecito neighbourhood is “renowned for its secluded hillside estates that promise the utmost privacy”, said Hello! It’s “a full two hours northwest of downtown LA by car, but celebrities have flocked to the area in recent years”, said Dirt.com.

The area’s “laid-back and mostly paparazzi-free atmosphere provides a welcome retreat from the hectic hustle of Hollywood and its surrounding environs”. The celebrity real estate site reported that Ellen DeGeneres, Ariana Grande and Gwyneth Paltrow are also residents of the area.

The home of the Duke and Duchess is situated on a private road and features “a lengthy driveway and large security gates”, said Hello! It’s officially known as the Chateau of Riven Rock.

What’s the property like?

Multimillionaire software boss Terry Cunningham told The Mail on Sunday that he and his wife Randi had originally bought the 5.4 acres of land to build “the house of their dreams” in 1999, with the property completed four years later.

He described it as “a beautiful French country house”, inspired by a holiday the couple had enjoyed in the south of France. As well as being “very private”, he described it as “a wonderful place to have lots of family around”.

According to Hello!, the house has “a grand total of nine bedrooms and 16 bathrooms”, as well as a library, office, spa, gym, games room, cinema, wine cellar and five-car garage. A separate guest house also has two bedrooms and bathrooms.

Cunningham said: “The kitchen is probably one of the coolest rooms in the house. It opens on to the side patio where the pizza oven and outdoor tables are. Living in Montecito, there’s a lot of indoor-outdoor lifestyle, so you easily move from decks to indoors.”

The “Mediterranean-style main house includes a trove of beige and off-white decor”, said Dirt. “Oozing sophistication”, Markle’s office “is an oasis of calm with its natural tones and rustic furniture”, said Hello!, while the living room is “decked out with modern artwork, fresh flowers, candles and organic pottery”.

The garden is “beautifully landscaped” with “tiered rose gardens, olive trees and cypress trees”, said Architectural Digest. There is a “tennis court, a swimming pool, and a chicken coop”, which featured in the couple’s “bombshell” TV interview with Winfrey, broadcast in 2021.

Archie and Lilibet can also enjoy “an adventure playground, a climbing frame, a helter-skelter, and two different climbing walls”, said Hello!. Metro reported that there is a “tea house” and a “children’s cottage” as well.

Who paid for the house?

In 2020, a source told US Weekly that Harry “could’ve asked [Prince] Charles to contribute toward the cost of the house”, but he “chose not to” go to his father, as it would “result in the royals having control over him” and would “mean going backwards”.

The couple “paid out of their own pockets” instead and “have taken out a huge mortgage”, said the source. The estate cost an “unquestionably hefty” $14.65m (£12.12m), said Dirt, and a $9.5m (£7.9m) mortgage was secured to make the purchase.

Omid Scobie, royal correspondent and co-author of Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family, told Entertainment Today that the Sussexes “are extremely liquid when it comes to their assets”.

He added: “Harry brings a lot to the table himself and Meghan lives off residuals from Suits and the many appearances that she’s done in other projects too.” In the tell-all interview with Winfrey in 2021, Harry said money left to him by his late mother, Princess Diana, meant he was able to support himself financially.

US Weekly said the couple were “proud of their purchase” and saw it as “the next step toward their long future together”.

Will they stay there?

Reports first emerged in January last year that the Sussexes were thinking of selling their Californian home. A source told The Mirror: “They want to stay in the neighbourhood or nearby but they aren’t over the moon about the house and the location.”

At the end of October, similar reports appeared in the Daily Express that the couple were “looking for a new place” in Hope Ranch, a community just ten miles from their current Montecito property.

According to the Express’s Dorothy Reddin: “The family of four’s potential new neighbourhood includes not only a members-only country club and a golf club, but also tennis courts, picnic grounds, and a network of equestrian trails.”

House & Garden reported that the rumoured move was due to a “series of break-ins” at the couple’s current residence. While the two locations “offer similar advantages”, the magazine continued, “Hope Ranch, however, offers somewhat more privacy and security than Montecito”.

The Prince Andrew scandal is threatening to bring down the monarchy, unless drastic action is taken to quarantine him from the rest of the royal family.

That is the view of commentators and royal watchers from across the political spectrum after new revelations concerning his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. A newly released email – dated 28 February 2011 and containing the message “we are in this together” – appears to directly contradict claims made by the prince in his now infamous “Newsnight” interview with Emily Maitlis that he severed all ties with the disgraced financier in 2010.

The BBC said the allegations were “intensely damaging” for the Duke of York, “but perhaps still more significant are the consequences of this never-ending saga on the image of the monarchy”, said Richard Kay in the Daily Mail.

“Every good deed” carried out by the royals in recent years “risks being drowned out by the relentless wave of the Andrew scandal”. It “corrodes public support for the royals and emboldens republican voices, which gleefully seize on every indiscretion to scorn the House of Windsor’s credibility”.

Many question whether the institution is fit for the 21st century and what value it brings. Here are the arguments for and against keeping the centuries-old institution.

Pro: popular with public

The monarchy as a whole “has long enjoyed broad, albeit declining, support among Britons, even if several of its individual members have not”, said Time magazine.

Just over half (51%) of people in Britain believe that it is “very” or "quite important" for Britain to have a monarchy, according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research in 2024. This is a dramatic decline from 86% in 1983, but it’s worth noting that only 15% of those surveyed actually think the monarchy should be abolished entirely.

While there is overall positivity towards the monarchy across most age groups, “there is a sharp generational divide”, said the BBC. According to a new poll on Statista, 81% of 65-year-olds want the monarchy to continue but the younger the person polled, the more likely they are to want to replace the King with an elected head of state, a majority view among 18- to 24-year-olds.

“Modern monarchy no longer depends on divine grace, but the consent of the people,” said Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London, in a 2022 paper for the Institute for Government. He warned that if public support continues to decline, the government might come under pressure to reduce funding for the royals, as has happened in Spain.

Con: cost to taxpayers

The monarchy is supported financially by UK taxpayers via the Sovereign Grant, which covers central staffing costs and expenses for the monarch’s official households, maintenance of the royal palaces in England, and travel and royal engagements and visits.

Accounts for 2024/25 show that the Sovereign Grant that financial year remained at £86.3 million. Yet the “real cost” to taxpayers is nearly six times more, said anti-monarchy campaigners.

Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy, claims the official figure does not account for security, and other "lost income" for taxpayers, including from property businesses controlled by the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which go directly to the King and the Prince of Wales respectively. Republic says the royals' total annual bill is in fact £510 million. "How can we talk about cutting the winter fuel allowance while wasting half a billion pounds on the royals?" Republic's chief executive, Graham Smith, told the BBC last September.

The question of whether the monarchy continues to offer value for money is one that – like positivity towards it in general – divides along generational lines. According to YouGov polling in 2024, 75% of the over-65s believe they do, but only 34% of 18 to 24-year-olds feel the same.

Pro: 'soft' power benefits UK

Like his mother before him, the King is a source of British "soft power" and diplomatic influence, holding state visits and foreign tours that bring benefits for national security, influence and trade.

A 2017 report by consultancy agency Brand Finance said that the monarchy generated an estimated £150 million worth of trade for the UK each year. And combined with contributions including surplus revenues from the Crown Estate, which go to the Treasury, and money from tourism, the total estimated gain for the UK economy was almost £1.8 billion.

"Measuring the wealth-generation of a brand is no easy task, especially when it comes to the royal family," said Sebastian Shehadi at Investment Monitor, but their influence on the UK economy "spans the likes of trade, tourism, media, real estate and heritage sites, foreign investment and much more".

Con: no place in equal society

Critics of the monarchy argue that having a system of hereditary power at the top of the country's political, military and religious institutions perpetuates class divisions and inequality.

The royal family "exist as a glaring symbol of the unearned privilege and inequality that pervades the roots of British society", said political journalist and author Eve Livingston in The Independent.

And it is not just in Britain that the monarch’s role as head of state is increasingly under scrutiny. The late Queen's reign was "bookended by periods of great uncertainty about Britain’s role on the world stage", said Foreign Policy. She "was crowned in 1953 as the sun was beginning to set on the British Empire" and her death came "as the country reexamines its place in the world". There are increasing calls for the UK to "reckon with its colonial history", while republican sentiment is gaining traction in the Caribbean.

Pro: boosts national unity

Supporters of a constitutional monarchy say it "represents a constant and lasting connection to the country's past" and they stress the importance of having a head of state who is "above party politics or factional interests", said Politics.co.uk. This neutrality means "the Crown can help secure smooth and peaceful handovers of political power and restrain abuses of authority", said The Telegraph.

The royal family's official website said that the monarch provides "a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service".

The Queen’s seven decades on the throne was "a low-key but extremely effective unifying force", said Martin Kettle in The Guardian, but it was one "her heirs cannot assume they will be able to replicate".

Con: undemocratic

Republic and other anti-monarchists argue that "hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle". The public cannot hold the royal family to account at the ballot box, so "there's nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money". The monarch should be replaced with an elected head of state.

In reality, the king or queen "can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters", say campaigners. Therefore, "the monarchy is a broken institution" that should be scrapped in favour of an elected head of state who "could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check".

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are reportedly set to snub the Cambridges during a planned visit to the UK next month.

A spokesperson for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said the couple would attend charity events in Manchester and London, as well as popping over to Germany, during their first trip back since the Platinum Jubilee celebrations in early June.

Following the announcement, The Daily Mirror’s royal editor Russell Myers said that the California-based couple were “in line for a dramatic reunion” with Prince William and Kate Middleton. But according to The Telegraph’s royal correspondent Victoria Ward, despite speculation that Harry “might take the opportunity to reconcile with his brother, with whom tensions remain”, the Sussexes “have no plans” for a catch-up.

Although the two couples are expected to be staying “just a stone’s throw” from each other on the Windsor estate, “there is no current expectation that they will meet”, Ward reported.

The two brothers are not believed to have spoken face-to-face since last summer, when they unveiled a statue of their mother, Diana, at Kensington Palace. Harry and Meghan have returned to the UK only twice since quitting their royal roles and moving to the US more than two years ago.

The Sun reported last month that the Queen had invited them to join her at the Balmoral estate in Scotland. An insider told the paper that “staff have been told to expect the full list of royals including Harry, Meghan and their children Archie and Lilibet”.

But celebrity news site Page Six said the claims had been denied by “multiple sources close to the couple”.

The September visit is being planned at a particularly tense time for the Royal Family, as Harry prepares to publish a “tell-all memoir” later this year.