Prince Harry Calls Out ‘Pretend Journalists’ and the Double Standard of Those Who Profit From His Story

Prince Harry has spent most of his life watching journalists, royal commentators and biographers tell the public who he is, what he thinks and why he makes certain decisions.

But when Harry decides to tell his own story, suddenly some of the very people who have made careers discussing his life have a problem with it. And during his latest interview with GQ, Harry delivered one of the strongest explanations I have heard for why he refuses to remain silent.

Speaking with journalist Zach Baron for One More Question, Harry discussed his complicated relationship with the British press and the criticism he receives whenever he publicly challenges stories about his life.

What particularly struck me was that Harry wasn’t attacking journalism as a profession. Quite the opposite. He was defending its importance while calling out those who undermine its credibility. And frankly, it’s a distinction some royal commentators would benefit from understanding.

Prince Harry Asks Why Everyone Can Tell His Story Except Him

During his GQ interview, Harry acknowledged that he sometimes wonders whether he has shared too much of his personal life. But he explained that remaining silent has never stopped others from publishing stories about him.

Oh man, I’ve put a lot out there? Yes, but I prefer me to be putting things out there rather than the machine creating stuf. Someone like me, if you’re sitting back staying quiet, keeping low, the stories don’t stop. The stories are continuous. So you either just sit there and accept that all this crap is going to be created and people are going to write books about you and people are going to write stories, the hundred thousand millions of stories about you over the years, and the vast majority of them are made up, untrue, or just really badly sourced or with an agenda.

So why not share some of your story? Why not try to be in control of your own story? Because if they can’t be responsible enough to tell your story, then you have to tell your own story. But at the same time, I’ve been really criticized for telling my story. And I find it is fascinating because everybody else is allowed to tell their version of my story, but God forbid I should be able to tell the other side of it. Just by telling my own story, it takes away a lot of power from other people.

Prince Harry, speaking to Zach Baron in GQ’s One More Question interview, October 20, 2026.

And isn’t that the truth? Consider the royal journalists, biographers and commentators who have written extensively about Harry and Meghan Sussex. Royal biographer Angela Levin published Harry: Conversations with the Prince. Andrew Morton, best known for his biography of Princess Diana, wrote Meghan: A Hollywood Princess. Royal commentator Lady Colin Campbell released Meghan and Harry: The Real Story. Author Christopher Andersen examined their family relationships in Brothers and Wives, while former Times royal correspondent Valentine Low explored palace tensions in Courtiers.

Then there’s Tom Bower, who published Revenge in 2022 and Betrayal in 2026. Perhaps the most extraordinary example is Levin, who wrote extensively about Harry’s childhood and grief over Princess Diana, yet later publicly told him to shut up when he shared his experiences.

Bower has similarly built a career dehumanizing the Sussexes, recently suggesting they should be “put down” because they were attracting attention away from the royal family.

And Low’s Courtiers included an anonymous claim that Meghan expected to become Britain’s equivalent of Beyoncé. But did Meghan ever actually say that? Nope.

Royal authors can publish alleged intimate accounts of Harry and Meghan’s lives, speculate about their motivations and earn money doing so. Yet when Harry publishes Spare, suddenly he’s accused of betraying his family and profiting from private revelations.

Are journalists and royal biographers the only people entitled to make money from Prince Harry’s life? Harry’s recollections deserve scrutiny, just like anyone else’s. But surely the person who lived those experiences deserves a voice. The royal press does not own Prince Harry’s story, and telling it himself should never be treated as some sort of criminal offence.

Harry Isn’t Against Journalism. He’s Against Those Who Abuse It.

Perhaps the most important moment came when Harry explained how his experiences with the press have shaped his attitude towards journalism.

Despite growing up surrounded by reporting he considers deeply damaging, Harry said he now wants to support the profession. Then came his sharpest criticism:

“I’ll be damned if you guys who pretend to be journalists are gonna drag this whole profession down the drain.”

He added that proper journalism remains essential, particularly given events unfolding around the world. I loved this moment because Harry made a distinction that is frequently overlooked. Criticising irresponsible journalism is not the same as opposing press freedom.

Journalism is supposed to investigate powerful institutions, examine evidence, challenge official accounts and hold people accountable. That includes scrutinising Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex. Nobody should be exempt from legitimate reporting because they are famous, wealthy or members of the royal family.

But there is a difference between asking difficult questions and presenting speculation as established fact. There is also a difference between reporting information in the public interest and publishing intrusive details simply because they will attract attention. And Harry has spent years challenging that distinction in court.

Harry’s Complaints About the Press Haven’t Always Been Just His Opinion

It is worth remembering that Harry’s concerns about unlawful media practices are not based solely on personal grievances. In January 2025, News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, agreed to pay Harry substantial damages and issued an extensive apology.

Crucially, Harry also secured an apology acknowledging the press’s serious intrusion into his late mother Princess Diana’s private life. The publisher acknowledged unlawful activities involving private investigators working for The Sun, alongside phone hacking and surveillance associated with News of the World. It also apologised for the distress caused to Harry and the damage inflicted on his relationships, friendships and family.

That is considerably more significant than a prince complaining because he dislikes a newspaper headline. Harry has also pursued other legal actions against newspaper publishers, with differing outcomes. His July 2026 defeat in the case against Associated Newspapers is an important reminder that not every allegation he has brought has been upheld.

But neither does losing one case erase misconduct acknowledged in another. Harry has challenged media organisations through the legal system, where allegations can be examined, contested and resolved through judgments or settlements.

And that is precisely why I find the suggestion that he simply wants to silence journalists so unconvincing. There is nothing inherently anti-journalistic about asking newspapers to obey the law.

This makes clear that Harry’s legal campaign achieved something beyond financial compensation: a formal acknowledgement of the intrusion into both his and Diana’s private lives.