Rebecca English Accuses the Sussexes of ‘Privacy Hypocrisy’ Over a Photograph That Does Not Show Diana’s Grave

Rebecca English has decided that Meghan Sussex poses a threat to privacy, rather than acknowledging the long and well-documented history of intrusion across Britain’s tabloid industry. Speaking on the Palace Confidential podcast, the Daily Mail columnist described Meghan’s summer holiday carousel as “hypocritical,” because apparently choosing to share a limited collection of holiday photographs is equivalent to surrendering all expectations of privacy.

English singled out the Althorp image, claiming it showed Harry and Archie “clearly walking” towards Diana’s burial place and using that interpretation to support her charge of hypocrisy. But there is one glaring problem with this accusation: Meghan did not post a photo of Princess Diana’s gravesite.

“We have pictures of Meghan in a swimsuit on a beach with Harry and the children in the water, we have pictures of local restaurants they have eaten at, local shops they’ve used. I find that quite extraordinary given the complaints they have made about their privacy and security issues. What was particularly extraordinary about this was the photograph of Harry and Archie with flowers in their hands, clearly walking to the burial place of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.”

Daily Mail

The Outrage Is About Control, Not Privacy

A week later, parts of the British press are still manufacturing outrage over a photograph Meghan never said was taken at Diana’s grave. They have treated an image of Harry and his children carrying flowers at Althorp as proof that they were walking towards Diana’s grave, while showing far less outrage when Countess Spencer shared an identifiable photograph connected to a visit to the grave of Earl Spencer’s infant brother.

English and her colleagues at the Daily Mail have constructed an entire narrative around an assumption that the family was walking towards Diana’s burial site, and then condemned Meghan for a narrative they inferred rather than one she supplied.

The real issue appears to be control. Harry and Meghan choose what they share, when they share it and how much of their children the public sees. That is not hypocrisy. Privacy has never meant disappearing from public life or never posting a family photograph. It means having boundaries and refusing to let newspapers, paparazzi or unnamed “sources” decide which private moments become public property.

Final Thoughts

The same commentators who accuse Meghan of exploitation immediately reproduce her posts, build days of coverage around them and use her children to generate clicks. Their frustration is not that the Sussexes share too much. It is that the press no longer has unrestricted access or exclusive images to monetise.

There is also a glaring double standard. Other royals regularly release carefully selected photographs of their children without being accused of betraying some imaginary vow of total secrecy. Yet when Meghan shares limited images, often without showing her children’s faces, the press resurrects the tired “privacy” attack.

Much of this coverage rests on speculation presented as fact. Meghan offered no detailed explanation of where the family was walking, where the flowers were going or what the moment represented. The tabloids filled in the missing context themselves and then condemned her for the narrative they invented. This type of rage bait is designed to keep a grievance alive.