Meghan Sussex’s Spokesperson Just Explained What “Privacy” Actually Means, And The Critics Still Don’t Get It

Another milestone, another round of the same tired criticism. Princess Lilibet is about to turn five, and Meghan Sussex has not even shared a new birthday post yet. Still, the usual suspects are already screaming “hypocrisy” because her spokesperson dared to explain the obvious: privacy does not mean disappearing. It means parents can choose what they share while still protecting their children’s identities from a public that has repeatedly shown it cannot be trusted.

This is not happening in a vacuum. These are the same people who mocked Meghan’s pregnancies, spread conspiracies about her children, and treated Archie and Lilibet as fair game from birth. Let us not forget that a BBC presenter once compared baby Archie to a monkey. So yes, Meghan and Prince Harry have every right to protect their children’s faces, routines and digital footprints from people who have already proved exactly why those boundaries are necessary.

Here is what Newsweek‘s Jack Royston reported:

When Prince Archie turned 7 in May, Meghan posted a photo of her son as a baby asleep on Prince Harry’s chest. Later that month, Meghan gave a speech for the World Health Organization in Geneva, raising concerns about the damage done to children by social media. The speech led to allegations of hypocrisy.

Meghan’s spokesperson told Newsweek: “The Duchess has always been clear that there is a distinction between sharing moments from her life and exposing her children to public scrutiny. By obscuring their faces, she is demonstrating the very principle she advocates for: giving children privacy, agency, and protection in an increasingly digital world.”

“Far from being contradictory, by concealing their faces she is actually reflecting the message she delivered in Geneva: that parents can choose to share family experiences while still taking deliberate steps to protect identities, privacy, and digital footprint.”

And here is the key context that always gets left out. During the Princes and the Press documentary on the BBC, Meghan’s lawyer, Jenny Afia, set the record straight:

“It’s not them who said they want privacy. It’s something that the tabloids said about them that’s latched on. They have taken steps when there have been blatant violations – unlawful violations – of privacy. Of course they challenged it because that’s in line with their values, but that doesn’t mean just because you assert your human rights you then become a Trappist monk.”

Meghan and Harry never claimed they wanted to disappear from public life. They never said they would never share a single photo. What they have always said is that they want to control what personal information they choose to share, and they want their children to have agency and protection that they themselves were never given.

The same people who bullied Meghan throughout her pregnancies and put mother and baby at risk are now the same people who do not want her to share family moments on her own terms. Those are also the people who called her children dolls and claimed they did not exist. Racists, plain and simple.

Choosing to share family moments is not the same thing as exposing children to potential harm. Meghan is protecting her kids by obscuring their faces and not revealing private information like schools, friends, or personal issues. You can share your family with fans while still controlling the vicious demand from the media to see the little prince and princess.

Why do some people believe they can dictate what Meghan does in her life? She does not need to defend anything. It is her and Harry’s prerogative if and when she shares videos or pictures of their children. She is not required to become a Trappist monk just because she once asked tabloids to stop publishing private letters.

And speaking of double standards: have William and Kate not talked about online safety for kids? Their children have a very public life. Their faces are plastered everywhere. Their personal information is so easy to find on the internet. Where is the outrage there?

The Newsweek piece quotes a brand expert calling Meghan a “hypocrite” because she posted a photo of herself in an Armani suit with the label visible. Really? That is the gotcha? An adult woman wearing a suit with a visible label is now a crime against children? The mental gymnastics are exhausting.

Here is the truth: Meghan is not being inconsistent. She is being a parent in the modern world. She gives speeches about online safety because her children, and millions of others, are at risk from predatory algorithms and unregulated platforms. She also shares occasional, carefully curated photos of her family with her followers. Those two things can coexist.

The critics want her to either be a full-time activist with no personal life or a silent recluse who never posts anything. But that is not how real people operate. And it is certainly not what Meghan and Harry ever promised.

As Jenny Afia said, asserting your human rights does not mean you sign up for a life of silence. Meghan is living her life on her own terms. And if that bothers you, maybe the problem is not her.