Over 100 Harry and Meghan Stories Linked to Online Casinos, Including Commentary From Anti-Sussex Critics

Have you ever wondered why British newspapers keep publishing bizarre stories analysing the body language of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, speculating about Prince Harry’s emotional state or consulting psychics about the future of their marriage?

Well, it turns out there is an entire commercial operation helping to supply some of this nonsense, and the money has nothing to do with the Royal Family.

An investigation by Press Gazette has revealed that more than 100 articles about Harry and Meghan featured commentary supplied on behalf of online gambling companies. These businesses work with former palace employees, royal commentators, body language analysts and even psychics to generate stories that newspapers are willing to publish.

The objective? Publicity, website traffic and valuable backlinks that can improve gambling websites’ visibility in Google search results.

How Online Casinos Turn Royal Gossip Into Marketing

According to Press Gazette journalist Rob Waugh, the articles began appearing in 2022 and have become increasingly common. The investigation identified several gambling operators working with commentators whose opinions subsequently appeared in established publications.

Those commentators include Princess Diana’s former butler Paul Burrell, former royal butler Grant Harrold, body language analyst Darren Stanton, lip-reader Nicola Hickling, celebrity psychic Inbaal Honigman and PR consultant Nick Ede.

“For casino brands, links in sites with high domain reputation such as newspapers offer a valuable boost for casinos in Google search results – potentially worth millions.

The articles have featured in dozens of titles – most prolifically the Daily Express, which has featured at least 20 articles from casino-affiliated experts.”

Press Gazette

The investigation identified the Daily Express as the most prolific outlet, publishing at least 20 articles featuring casino-affiliated experts. Other publications included the Daily Mirror, The Independent, New York Post, Daily Record and Yahoo News.

Think about that. A gambling company can commission commentary about Meghan’s facial expressions, distribute it through a PR agency and potentially secure coverage from a newspaper with an established readership.

The newspaper gets another royal headline. The gambling operator gets publicity and potentially a valuable backlink. And readers are left consuming speculation dressed up as expert analysis. What a remarkable business model.

Meghan Was Called Haughty on MasterChef by a Casino-Affiliated Commentator

One particularly ridiculous example appeared in Showbiz Cheat Sheet in July 2026. The headline declared: “Meghan Markle Shows ‘Haughtiness’ During TV Guest Appearance.” The article examined Meghan’s appearance on MasterChef Australia, with Inbaal Honigman suggesting that the Duchess displayed signs of superiority and anxiety.

And who was Honigman representing? An online gambling operator. This is someone who regularly provides speculative interpretations of celebrities’ behaviour, yet her opinions are packaged as insights into Meghan’s personality.

So Meghan appears on a cooking programme, encourages contestants and participates in a television production, only for a gambling-affiliated commentator to interpret her gestures as evidence of an attitude problem.

Imagine turning somebody’s chin movements into a personality assessment and convincing a publication that this deserves a headline. This is the standard of royal journalism we are dealing with.

Former Royal Staff Criticise Harry and Meghan While Using Their Names for Publicity

Paul Burrell’s involvement is particularly troubling. Harry has openly accused his mother’s former butler of exploiting Diana’s memory for money. In Spare, he condemned Burrell’s 2003 tell-all book as a betrayal. Burrell has repeatedly criticised Harry and Meghan, including publicly questioning the future of their marriage. Yet media outlets continue treating him as a credible royal insider, and now his commentary is helping promote online gambling companies.

Given Paul Burrell’s longstanding public feud with Harry and his repeated criticism of Meghan, why do media outlets continue presenting him as a credible, impartial commentator on their marriage?

Then there is Grant Harrold, another former royal butler whose commentary about Harry and Meghan’s Christmas plans and birthday celebrations has appeared in gambling-affiliated articles.

Neither man needs current access to the Sussexes to generate headlines. Their former palace employment is enough to give speculation an appearance of credibility.

Nick Ede’s Former Acquaintance With Meghan Is Also Being Monetised

And then there is Nick Ede. The British PR consultant regularly appears in articles discussing his former acquaintance with Meghan, whom he knew before she married Harry.

Ede has publicly discussed how their “friendship” faded and offered opinions about Meghan’s personality, career and public image.

In October, the Daily Express published a story headlined: “I was friends with Meghan Markle and she needs to forget her royal title.” Ede offered that advice while speaking on behalf of an online gambling operator.

How inappropriate. His former acquaintance gives the impression of personal insight, even though he no longer has the same relationship with Meghan. And rather than simply discussing his own experiences, he is now offering public advice about how she should manage her identity and career.

What exactly qualifies a former acquaintance to dictate whether Meghan should use her title? More importantly, why is his opinion being distributed as part of a gambling company’s marketing campaign?

Even Harry and Meghan’s Private Conversations Become Casino Content

In October 2025, Tyla published a story claiming that lip-reader Nicola Hickling had interpreted conversations between Harry and Meghan during a baseball game.

Hickling was speaking on behalf of an online gambling company. Yes, even a married couple talking at a sporting event became material for a gambling operator’s publicity campaign.

And Darren Stanton, another regular commentator, has supplied gambling-affiliated interpretations of Harry and Meghan’s body language.

We are repeatedly told what Harry supposedly feels, what Meghan’s facial expressions allegedly reveal and what their private conversations might mean.

Yet much of this commentary comes from people who cannot establish another person’s private thoughts simply by watching a video. The supposed revelations may be trivial, but the publicity arrangements behind them have a clear commercial purpose.

The Royal Gossip Industry Has Been Profitable for Decades

The relationship between royal insiders and newspaper journalists is hardly new. Richard Kay, the Daily Mail’s former royal correspondent, was reportedly so close to Paul Burrell that Diana’s former butler became godfather to his child.

Their relationship later deteriorated after Burrell sold his account of royal life to a rival newspaper. It illustrates how personal access, media relationships and financial opportunities have long overlapped in royal reporting.

What this investigation exposes is another layer of that business: gambling companies inserting themselves into an industry already built on speculation, personal grievances and celebrity access. And Harry and Meghan provide an almost endless supply of commercially attractive headlines.

We have spent years watching newspapers publish stories claiming that Meghan is unhappy, difficult, controlling or responsible for Harry’s supposed misery. Now we know that some of the commentary feeding this coverage has been distributed through gambling-industry marketing campaigns.

The Ethical Problem With Using Harry and Meghan to Promote Online Gambling

To be clear, the investigation does not establish that gambling companies paid journalists to attack Harry and Meghan or instructed commentators to produce negative coverage. Some of the commentary was favourable. Nevertheless, it is deeply troubling that some individuals who have spent years publicly criticising the Sussexes are also participating in gambling-industry marketing campaigns that capitalise on public interest in the couple.

Online gambling raises serious ethical concerns, particularly around addiction, financial harm and the exploitation of vulnerable people. Using Harry and Meghan’s names to generate publicity for gambling operators makes these arrangements especially concerning. The campaigns prioritise commercial exposure over meaningful reporting, turning speculation about the couple’s private lives into a marketing opportunity for an industry that deserves far greater scrutiny.

Meanwhile, sections of the press continue presenting speculative commentary as credible royal analysis. The next time a media outlet publishes a psychic’s prediction about Meghan or a former butler’s assessment of Harry’s marriage, perhaps readers should ask two questions: What makes this person a credible authority, and whose commercial interests does their commentary serve?