A short video shared by the Duchess of Sussex during her visit to Paris has ignited a new wave of media criticism. British and American outlets quickly framed the clip as “insensitive,” linking it to the site of Princess Diana’s fatal 1997 car crash.
The footage, which appeared on Instagram Stories, showed Meghan traveling through the city at night. Recorded from the back of a vehicle, it featured views of the Seine, including Pont Alexandre III and Pont des Invalides, two iconic Parisian bridges.
The clip had no sound or caption. Most viewers interpreted it as a quiet moment reflecting her time at Paris Fashion Week, where Meghan attended a Balenciaga show in support of designer Pierpaolo Piccioli, a long-time friend.
Still, several commentators objected to the setting. The New York Post described the video as “insensitive.” The Daily Mail quoted a royal expert who called it “bewildering” and questioned Meghan’s judgment. They cited its proximity to the Pont de l’Alma tunnel, where Princess Diana died, as justification for outrage.
The Tunnel Wasn’t In The Video
A closer look at the geography discredits the tabloid framing. The Pont de l’Alma tunnel doesn’t appear in the footage. It’s roughly one kilometre away from the bridges shown and was not visible, referenced, or implied. The video offers no visual or narrative connection to Diana’s death.
Even so, the story escalated quickly. Social media users repeated the tunnel claim without verifying it. Media headlines encouraged the speculation, and the video became a viral example of what critics framed as poor taste.
The claim itself collapses under scrutiny. It hinges on vague proximity and invented symbolism. The real story isn’t about Paris. It’s about how certain outlets consistently distort Meghan’s actions to fit a predetermined script. Her visibility continues to provoke disproportionate responses, especially when she appears unbothered.
Diana’s Legacy Has Never Been Treated Equally
Diana’s death remains one of the most emotionally charged moments in modern royal history. Her sons have spoken openly about the trauma they experienced and the role the press played in it. As a result, any perceived reference to her passing carries weight.
Yet Meghan’s video made no such reference. It was a fleeting moment, a car ride through central Paris, far from the Pont de l’Alma tunnel. The media chose to inject meaning where none existed.
The contrast with previous royal media moments is striking. In 1999, just 18 months after Diana’s death, the then Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles made their first public appearance as a couple. The event was dubbed “Operation Ritz”, a name loaded with symbolism, given that Diana had stayed at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris on the night she died.
The outing was meticulously planned. Over 200 photographers were positioned outside the Ritz Hotel in London to capture the couple’s exit. Despite the timing and associations, the press treated the moment as a turning point, praising it as a successful public debut. Headlines acknowledged Camilla as “the mistress” but reframed her image with institutional approval.
There was no outrage, no accusations of disrespect. The story served its purpose and moved on.
By contrast, Meghan Sussex receives none of that latitude. Her actions, silent, brief, and context-free, are recast with suspicion. The press strips them of meaning and replaces them with its own. The response is less about what she did and more about who she is.
The Same Pattern Keeps Resurfacing
Meghan is often criticised for behaviour that draws no comment when performed by other members of the royal family. A silent car ride becomes a provocation. A few seconds of video is reinterpreted as a flashpoint. She is not punished for misconduct but for her refusal to disappear.
What makes the current moment more concerning is the speed at which misinformation has circulated. Several UK tabloids, along with US outlets like the New York Post and Australia’s Sunrise programme, have advanced a false narrative: that Meghan filmed herself beside the tunnel where Princess Diana died. In fact, the Pont de l’Alma tunnel does not appear in the footage. The locations filmed—Pont Alexandre III and Pont des Invalides—are nearly a kilometre away.
Meghan Derangement Syndrome.
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 5, 2025
Looking for every reason to hate her.
Making up reasons! pic.twitter.com/rz4ERjy0Lt
Despite this, the claim has gained momentum online and has triggered a wave of hostility. Some have called for the Duchess’s representatives to respond publicly, given the scale of the backlash. Prince Harry has previously addressed inaccurate coverage with sharp rebuttals. Meghan, by contrast, has largely withdrawn from engaging with media narratives—a choice understood to protect her mental well-being.
Still, the severity of the current distortion has raised concerns. The misleading coverage has not only encouraged targeted attacks but has also created a false narrative around a moment that, until tabloids intervened, went largely unnoticed. Paris welcomed Meghan. The backlash followed only once the story was reshaped.
Related Stories
Selective Invocations of Diana’s Legacy
Nearly three decades after Diana’s death, her name is still used as a cultural shield. Media institutions that once helped drive her into crisis now claim to defend her memory. But that protection seems selective. Diana’s legacy becomes useful when it can be turned against Meghan.
Meghan has issued no public response. The video has expired, as Instagram Stories do after 24 hours. Still, the reaction lingers. It reveals how swiftly commentators distort the narrative around her and how little they need to restart the cycle.
If the media truly respected Diana’s memory, they would stop using it as a cudgel against the woman most often compared to her. What they framed as disrespect was never about Diana at all. It was about control.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The media are acting like we have forgotten what they said about Diana. On the morning of August 31, 1997, The Daily Star’s front page carried the headline: “Di’s New Love: He’s got a £10m house, a £250,000 yacht, and a FIANCÉE… So what’s the attraction, Di?”
The Daily Mirror, also had a pre-printed headline (“Di Goes Sex Mad”) but they managed to pull most copies before distribution.
We don’t need to even talk about DailyFail considering the court cases.
Long, long history of being absolutely vile humans, and being proud of it.
We all saw it, and they all fed into it. Now they act as if they always loved her.
We were here and grown in 1997.
UK did such an about face when she died we all got whiplash.
They are back at it.
We won’t allow them to Diana Meghan. Their hands are bloody, and they are are still at it.
Merde
You’d think her motorcade had knocked down an OAP who later died. Oh no, that was Sophie. Or it was Sophie who took the slight rap on the knuckles for it.
Wow. How far can these people go to drum up some sort of drama out of something so mundane as Meghan putting her feet up after a long day. I wasn’t aware that Diana dying in Paris became a shrine where in no one has used the roads since then . Charles and Camilla went to the same hotel that Diana stayed at back in nineties ,before they got married but of course it wasn’t disrespectful to Diana. Only when Meghan does something that it suddenly becomes a problem, I can’t forget the “she should stay at home because Kate is sick”, while Kate sister is holidaying in St Bart’s & the brother promoted dog food or how “disrespectful for her to go out on the eve of the queen’s death” while Charles & Camilla was living it up at a horse show ,or it’s George birthday how dare she overshadowed his day by going out. While the other royals were out doing their thing and not once acknowledge her or her children birthdays she supposed to show difference to them. The list goes on and on with their expectations and policing what Meghan is supposed to do while everyone else in the world can go on and do the exact same things without being scrutinised and called out for it.
I don’t think Meghan should respond to that story. This is part of the smear campaign against her. There will be more, and she can’t continue to respond to everything.
William’s recent interview with Eugene Levy (sp) was very telling about how he feels about his mother. If no one picked up on it, I did. He said that the hardest year of his life was 2024…meaning about Kate’s “cancer” and his father’s (who he cares nothing about and disrespects all the time) cancer. They’re both still alive. Meanwhile, the year his mom died (1997) wasn’t as hard as 2024. Ok.