The Daily Mail Called People Pro-Sussex, Then People Handed The Waleses A Diana Glow-Up

Last month, the Daily Mail accused People Magazine of being “pro-Sussex” over its coverage of Meghan Sussex’s summer photos showing the family at Princess Diana’s ancestral home, Althorp. Now, People has published a new article framing Prince George’s Eton future through Diana’s legacy.

People reports that George, 13, will start at Eton College in September, following in Prince William’s footsteps. The article cites author Simon Vigar, who says William’s move to Eton was a break from royal tradition and “very much a Diana decision.” Diana died in 1997 and never met her grandchildren, so the framing depends on treating William’s schooling as a legacy now being passed down to George.

Prince George will start at Eton College in September, a path set in motion decades ago by the grandmother he never met, Princess Diana.

George, 13, is following his dad Prince William’s footsteps in attending Eton, but it was an unexpected choice for William to attend the all-boys boarding school located not far from Windsor Castle. Previous male members of the British royal family — including William’s father, King Charles, and grandfather, Prince Philip — attended Gordonstoun in the Scottish Highlands, known for its strict discipline and rigorous demands of students.

Author Simon Vigar of the new biography The Four Wives of Windsor tells PEOPLE that Prince William going to Eton was a break from royal tradition — and “very much a Diana decision.”

People

Eton Has Become A PR Storyline For The Wales Family

For years, George’s future school has been used as a reliable royal content machine. First, the story was framed as a William-and-Kate dilemma, with reports claiming tension over Eton, Marlborough or another school. Once Eton was confirmed, the coverage shifted to George following William and Prince Harry. The wider boarding-school conversation even dragged Prince Archie into the mix through separate reports about whether Harry and Meghan would ever send their son there.

Now, the narrative has been repackaged through Diana. Instead of simply saying George is following William, People has framed the decision as part of Diana’s legacy because she influenced William’s own move decades ago. Diana did not choose George’s school. Her name is being used to give the decision emotional weight.

At this point, the school story has become a recurring PR mechanism for the Wales family: a way to generate headlines, soften William and Kate’s image, create parental-drama narratives, and attach George’s future to whichever royal legacy is most useful at the time.

Diana’s Name Shouldn’t Be a PR Tool

Yet the timing is also hard to ignore. Harry and Meghan’s children were just linked to Althorp through Meghan’s summer photos, and suddenly we are getting another Wales-adjacent story that places Diana back at the centre of their family branding. Every time the Sussex family is visibly connected to the Spencers or Diana’s legacy, the royal press seems to produce a reminder that William is Diana’s son too, which nobody was disputing. Of course William is Diana’s son. But the constant need to reassert it through press stories is telling.

The question is why Diana is being used to sell a boarding school decision for a grandson she never got to meet. If George goes to Eton, that is William and Kate’s choice. It may be tradition. It may be convenience. And it also may be what William always wanted. But dressing it up as a Diana-coded decision feels like using her memory as soft-focus PR.

Harry’s Spencer Bond Exposes The Diana Double Standard

And that is where the hypocrisy comes in. Harry visits Diana’s family home with his wife and children, and the press immediately starts interrogating motives, privacy, exploitation and whether Meghan is “using” Diana. But when William’s side invokes Diana to make a school story sound warmer and more sentimental, it is treated as touching, natural and beyond criticism. The double standard is so obvious.

There is also a deeper question about the Spencer connection. Harry’s bond with the Spencers appears visible and consistent. Charles Spencer has publicly supported him, and Althorp is Spencer territory. It belongs to Diana’s family, not the monarchy. That may be part of why the reaction to Meghan’s photos seemed so intense. The images placed Harry’s children directly inside Diana’s family world, outside Palace control.

That’s important because the royal machine has spent years trying to make the Middleton family the emotionally central “normal” family around the Wales children, while the Spencers remain much harder to manage. Charles Spencer is not a Palace courtier. He is not a royal rota source. He has his own history with the press, and he is not afraid to push back. So when the Sussex children are seen in that world, the response exposes royal insecurity.

Wales Privacy Is Protected While Sussex Privacy Is Prosecuted

The press is oddly silent about where the Wales family are actually holidaying. After all the drama around their Greek holiday and that yacht story, the contrast is hard to miss. Meghan posts a controlled carousel, and suddenly reporters become location detectives. Harry and Meghan’s movements are dissected, their representatives are contacted, and Althorp becomes a headline machine.

But when it comes to William, Kate and their own luxury breaks, the tone changes. Suddenly privacy matters. Suddenly the public does not need details.

It is also uncomfortable to watch George being placed at the centre of these narratives. He is still a child. He should not be used as a PR shield, a future-king symbol or a way to soften adult decisions. If the Waleses want privacy for their children, they should have it. But that same standard should apply to Archie and Princess Lilibet too.

The problem is that William and Kate’s children are often presented as symbols when the Palace needs warmth, continuity or distraction. School choices, birthday portraits, carriage appearances, family videos and “normal childhood” briefings are all carefully packaged for public consumption. Then the same press turns around and attacks Meghan for sharing the back of her children’s heads on her own Instagram.