Amanda Platell has done it again. The Daily Mail columnist, never one to miss an opportunity to paint Meghan Sussex as a scheming villain, has written a piece so unhinged that it practically writes its own rebuttal. What triggered this latest panic? A visit that has not even been confirmed by the Sussexes.
Platell’s latest column frames the possibility of Prince Harry and Meghan returning to the U.K. with their children as some kind of threat to Kate Middleton. Apparently, the Princess of Wales must “stand firm” and “protect her family” from the “Sussexes’ manipulation.” Because nothing says danger like a seven-year-old and a five-year-old meeting their cousins.
It is honestly exhausting. Sections of the press, like the Daily Mail, spent years complaining that Harry and Meghan were keeping their children away from the royal family. Now, when there is speculation that the children may come to the U.K., suddenly the Wales children need to be “protected” from them. Which is it? Are the Sussexes cruel for staying away, or dangerous for possibly visiting?
When the King graciously offered his younger son an ‘olive branch’ last week, by setting aside time for Harry, Meghan, Archie and Lilibet on their first visit to Britain as a family in four years, there was one person who came to the forefront of my mind: Kate.
Frankly, I’m less concerned by the psychodrama between father and son than about the Princess of Wales…. My final advice goes to Princess Catherine herself: there is absolutely no pressure, as some may argue in the coming weeks, for you to meet Meghan. Nor for your children – who you have raised so beautifully – to meet their cousins Archie or Lilibet. Stand tall, stand proud, know you are loved by millions and see off the Sussex invasion, please, for all our sakes.
Amanda Platell, Daily Mail
The column goes on to frame Kate as the real victim of any potential Sussex visit. Platell never explains exactly what Kate needs “protecting” from, but the implication is clear: Meghan is a threat, and the children are somehow collateral damage in her grand scheme. No evidence. No confirmation of any plans. Just pure, unadulterated hatred dressed up as concern.
What makes this whole narrative so disturbing is how easily the press drags children into it. Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet’s cousins. That should be the simplest thing in the world. If the children ever meet, it should be treated as normal family contact, not some dangerous political event. But instead, columnists like Platell have turned the idea of Meghan and the children returning to the U.K. into a threat narrative.
No one has produced evidence that Harry and Meghan are planning some grand reunion with Prince William and Kate. No one has confirmed that the Sussexes are even trying to place themselves around the Wales family. Yet the press is already acting as if Meghan is plotting an “invasion” and Kate must somehow “protect” her children from their own cousins.
The language is doing a lot of work. Calling a possible family visit an “invasion” is not neutral. It sounds loaded, especially when Meghan and her children are the ones being framed as the danger. It turns a mother and two young children into outsiders who need to be kept away from the “proper” royal children. That is not subtle.
It also exposes the hypocrisy. For years, the same press complained that Harry and Meghan were keeping their children away from the royal family. Now, when there is speculation that the children may come to the U.K., suddenly the Wales children need to be protected from them. Which is it? Are the Sussexes cruel for staying away, or dangerous for possibly visiting?
Related Stories
Final Thoughts
The final insult is that Platell’s framing asks readers to treat Meghan and her children as the danger while ignoring the actual history of harm around the Sussexes. The leaks, the smears and the palace-adjacent briefings did not come from Archie or Lilibet. They came from adults with access, influence and an obvious interest in protecting one royal image at the expense of another.
That is why the Wales context matters. The Waleses did not attend Lilibet’s birthday while she was in the U.K. They reportedly declined an invitation to Lilibet’s christening. So the idea that Harry and Meghan are desperate to force their children into William and Kate’s orbit feels like pure projection. The press keeps inventing a reunion drama because it needs Meghan to remain the problem.
And the history is not neutral. Reporting has accused William’s now-former private secretary of selling information about Archie’s nanny. Kate also allowed the “Meghan made Kate cry” story to sit in the public record for years, even though Meghan later said the reverse happened while she was pregnant with Archie. So when columnists start warning that Kate must protect her children from the Sussexes, they are asking readers to forget who was actually targeted by palace narratives.
That is what makes Platell’s column so ugly and racist. It is not really about child welfare. It is about preserving a hierarchy where Kate is framed as pure, protective and under siege, while Meghan is cast as manipulative, invasive and unsafe. The word “invasion” gave the game away. It turned a possible family visit into a racialised threat narrative.
Archie and Lilibet deserve better than this. They are children, not tabloid props. But the British press has once again found a way to drag Meghan’s motherhood, her race and her children into a story that has not even been confirmed by the Sussex camp.
What do you think? Is Amanda Platell’s column a legitimate concern or just another excuse to attack Meghan? And why is the press so desperate to frame two young children as a threat? Let us know in the comments.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.