Real Threats to Harry and Meghan Get Less Coverage Than Old Royal Grudges

While much of the British press runs with recycled headlines about the late Queen’s “fears” or Meghan’s supposed motives, a real story with life-or-death stakes is going largely unnoticed. According to reports, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have become active targets of extremist threats on the dark web. Insiders report that jihadist channels and encrypted forums list Harry, Meghan, and their children as high-value kidnap and torture targets. Yet mainstream outlets bury the story beneath a flood of gossipy royal fiction instead of giving it serious coverage.

The threat is not just theoretical. Harry recently lost a years-long legal battle to regain police protection in the UK despite presenting credible evidence of terrorist threats. But that ruling has barely registered in the media. Instead, headlines focus on five-year-old grievances and anonymous quotes about the Queen’s alleged dismay. The gap between what’s being reported and what actually matters has never been wider.

Dark Web Threats Are Real And Documented

In July 2025, the Scottish Daily Express reported that terrorists had identified Harry, Meghan, and their children on communication platforms, and a security source warned that their threat level is now “on red.” These reports align with earlier legal arguments made by Harry’s legal team during his UK security appeal, where documented threats from Al-Qaeda affiliates formed part of his case. Marie Claire confirmed that British authorities had acknowledged at least one credible call to assassinate Harry issued by a known extremist group.

Security insiders also told RadarOnline that threats now extend to the couple’s young children, Archie and Lilibet. The nature of these threats, targeted, ideological, and persistent, has raised alarm among private security experts, though not, it seems, among the royal-obsessed press.

Harry Lost His Appeal Despite The Risks

In May 2025, the UK Court of Appeal upheld a prior decision to downgrade Harry’s security status while in Britain. Judge Geoffrey Vos ruled that the Home Office acted lawfully when it removed automatic police protection after Harry stepped down from royal duties in 2020. The ruling confirmed that Harry’s safety would now be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Embed from Getty Images

Shaheed Fatima KC leaves UK High Court after detailing Al Qaeda threats against Prince Harry in his police protection appeal.

After the judgment, Harry issued a statement describing the decision as “deeply disappointing” and said it confirmed his “worst fears.” He also made it clear that he would not bring Meghan or their children back to the UK under current conditions. That statement received only brief mentions in the press, even as he cited direct threats as the reason for his refusal to travel with his family.

The Press Keeps Focusing On Gossip

Instead of following up on the terror threat story, major outlets have chosen to focus on palace drama that dates back to 2020. In recent days, Express US, Page Six, and Gloucestershire Live have led with headlines claiming Queen Elizabeth feared “disaster” over a word in the Sussexes’ exit statement. Others promoted quotes from royal biographers claiming Meghan used Harry as a “steppingstone.”

None of these stories offer new information. Most rely on anonymous courtiers or commentators known for attacking the couple. Yet these narratives dominate headlines, search engines, and social platforms. At the same time, verified reports of potential harm are treated as footnotes—if they’re acknowledged at all.

What The Distraction Tells Us

The contrast between real threats and fantasy gossip reveals more than media bias. It shows a refusal to treat Harry and Meghan as people with legitimate security concerns. The press drowns out serious stories with clickbait, reinforcing the idea that the couple are dramatic attention-seekers instead of vulnerable public figures targeted by extremists.

That framing does more than protect the institution of monarchy. It undermines public understanding of the risks they face. It also allows the state to continue denying police protection, even when terror chatter names the Sussex children. For all the talk of “duty” and “service,” the people behind these headlines seem far more interested in maintaining a fantasy than reporting the truth.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle live under a credible threat confirmed by court records, legal testimony, and security insiders. Yet the press would rather speculate about Queen Elizabeth’s long-past emotions or William’s supposed feelings than confront the facts. These editorial choices aren’t neutral. They shape public opinion, obscure real dangers, and make it easier for institutions to avoid accountability. When threats are real but media coverage isn’t, it’s not just irresponsible—it’s dangerous.