A recent media analysis reveals that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle receive a disproportionate share of coverage compared to other royals, despite stepping away from royal duties in 2020. Together, they account for over 57% of all royal media stories in the analyzed period. Prince Harry leads with the highest coverage at 30.86%, followed by Meghan at 26.41%. In contrast, Prince William receives 21.67%, King Charles 16.63%, and Queen Camilla barely registers with 0.06% of total coverage. Kate Middleton, despite being a senior working royal, accounts for just 4.37% of the total articles.
The analysis highlights a clear pattern of media bias, where Harry and Meghan remain under intense scrutiny while other royals receive more favorable or neutral treatment. Their headlines dominate the media landscape, often framed negatively, reinforcing public perception through repeated criticism. Meanwhile, working royals like King Charles and Prince William receive comparatively lower and less critical coverage.
This media obsession is not accidental—it is driven by profit. Meghan and Harry’s names generate clicks, sell newspapers, and fuel tabloid narratives. The stark contrast in coverage raises critical questions about how the press shapes public opinion, how narratives are manipulated, and why the media continues to prioritize profit-driven sensationalism over balanced reporting.
Related | No, Meghan Sussex Isn’t Losing Popularity – The Data Exposes the Real Bombshell
Comparing Media Coverage: Meghan vs. Other Royals
A study from the news aggregation platform found that Meghan Markle’s media coverage remains highly polarized. 38% of her stories come from left-leaning sources, while 46% come from right-leaning outlets. This shows that both political sides see value in covering her—whether to praise or criticize. Prince Harry experiences a similar media storm, with 3,326 stories published about him in the same period, surpassing Meghan and every working royal. His coverage leans slightly more right-wing, with 42% of articles from conservative sources and 39% from left-leaning outlets.
In contrast, Kate Middleton’s coverage skews left. 53% of her stories come from left-leaning media, while only 31% come from right-wing outlets. This suggests that Kate’s media presence is less politically charged and more carefully managed by Kensington Palace. Even Prince William, the future king, received only 2,336 articles, significantly fewer than Meghan and Harry. Meanwhile, King Charles, the reigning monarch, was covered in just 1,792 stories.
Explainer
Media Coverage Methodology
This analysis examines 10,778 articles published in online and print media that reported on members of the British royal family between November 2024 and January 2025. Researchers gathered data from media aggregation platforms, tracking coverage that included the names “Prince Harry,” “Meghan Markle,” “Prince William,” “King Charles,” “Kate Middleton,” “Princess Catherine,” or “Queen Camilla” in their headlines. The study evaluates how different royals were portrayed across political spectrums and identifies patterns of media bias.
A team of analysts assessed each article’s overall tone, categorizing stories as positive, negative, or neutral based on both the headline and full content. Researchers also classified media outlets as left-leaning, right-leaning, or centrist to determine how political ideology influenced royal coverage.
To quantify media attention, the study measured the total number of articles mentioning each royal, revealing that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle received significantly more coverage than other royal family members, with a higher percentage of negative stories. Despite their senior roles, King Charles and Prince William received less media attention and a more balanced tone in their coverage.
This research sourced news coverage from two primary channels: major news publications worldwide, including newspapers, TV news channels, and magazines, as well as trending social media platforms, including select blogs. The findings highlight major disparities in royal media coverage, raising key questions about bias, profit-driven narratives, and the role of media in shaping public perception.
The Double Standard in Media Narratives
Meghan has often been treated differently from other royal women. A Guardian study analyzing British press coverage from 2018 to 2020 found that Meghan received twice as many negative headlines as positive ones. Out of 843 articles across 14 newspapers, 43% were unfavorable, while only 20% were positive.
By contrast, Kate Middleton received far more favorable coverage. Out of 144 articles, only 8% were negative, while 45% were positive. The study confirmed what many had suspected: the media scrutinizes Meghan far more than her sister-in-law.
Embed from Getty ImagesWhy Meghan Markle’s Coverage is a Case Study in Media Obsession
The media’s focus on Meghan is not just about her actions—it is about controlling narratives within the monarchy. The British press has a long history of shaping public perception about the royal family. With Meghan, the strategy was clear:
Tabloids profit from controversy, and Meghan Markle’s name guarantees engagement. Her headlines drive website traffic and sell newspapers, making her an easy target for sensational stories. At the same time, negative coverage of Meghan shifts attention away from other royal controversies, such as Prince Andrew’s scandals or scrutiny over royal finances. By keeping Meghan at the center of public debate, the press helps shield the monarchy from deeper criticism. The media also frames the royal family as the victim, portraying Meghan as “difficult” or “attention-seeking.” This narrative strengthens support for Kate and William, reinforcing the idea that the monarchy is under attack while maintaining the institution’s image.
The fact that Meghan receives more media attention than King Charles, the current monarch, speaks volumes. It suggests that, for the British press, Meghan remains a more valuable story than even the King himself.
What Media Bias Reveals About the Royal Family
The British press continues to frame Meghan Markle as a source of controversy, even though she rarely makes public appearances. Meanwhile, Kate Middleton—who has spent over 20 years in the royal spotlight—remains shielded from the same level of scrutiny. Even as Kensington Palace attempts to shift the narrative towards Kate’s “substance” over her style, the media’s relentless fixation on Meghan exposes a different reality. Whether the press likes it or not, Meghan’s influence, visibility, and advocacy still drive global conversations.
Instead of focusing on the royals who will one day lead, the media remains obsessed with the one who left. Meghan cannot go to a birthday party or support wildfire victims in her home state without the press picking apart her every move. Meanwhile, Prince Harry is now the target of a manufactured scandal over his visa, with right-wing media amplifying a baseless case led by the Heritage Foundation. The timing is no coincidence—Trump has just returned to power, and conservative outlets are eager to weaponize Harry’s immigration status to stir controversy. Yet, despite King Charles being the actual head of state for Canada, no journalists are rushing to ask him about U.S.-Canada tensions or Trump’s plans to turn Canada into the 51st state.
If the monarchy truly wants to modernize, the real question is why the media still focuses on Meghan instead of the royals who remain in the institution. The answer lies not with Meghan or Harry but with a press industry that thrives on keeping them at the center of attention. As long as sensational headlines drive clicks, the media will continue to scrutinize their every move, turning their names into a lucrative business—no matter how transparent the game has become.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ARE WE WITNESSING THE DEMISE OF JOURNALISM?
Referred to as ‘The Father of Journalism” Walter Williams, who founded the world’s first journalism school at the University of Missouri wrote “I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.”
This noble statement rings in my ears whenever I read the relentlessly distorted, messages about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. There also seems to be in existence a social media platform consisting of an expertly organised troll farm such as Hitler used against the Jews.
Highly=regarded American social media expert, Christopher Bouzy, whose company, Bot Sentinel, has investigated the online trolling of Meghan Markle, asserted that his company found that there were coordinated online campaigns against Markle, with a significant proportion from a small number of highly active accounts, including organized troll networks and bot accounts. He spoke about her “suicidal thoughts at the height of the abuse”. He told Newsweek “One doesn’t have to stretch to see a link between that despair and the ceaseless torrent of vilification she endured. They corrode our collective grasp on reality and decency.”
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, patronized through Buckingham Palace’s royal rota, and whose publishing reach is international, is accused of dispensing some of the most distorted claims about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Murdoch was criticized by his son, James, who was unconditional in his criticism of News Corp. policies in saying to The Atlantic, “There’s this tabloid culture that’s contrarian for the sake of it and delights in poking people in the eye. At its’ worst it metastazizes into something nasty and scary and manipulative. I underestimated the ability of a profit motive to make people do terrible things, to make companies do terrible things. Standing up to nazis is essential; there are no good nazis” he said.
Where, then, are those other committed and courageous professional journalists who are proud of their calling and life’s work to rise up against this practice which shows a biological flaw overriding reason and decency, espousing sycophancy and misinformation, that sets out to destroy the lives of two decent, principled, loving and talented humanitarians and their young family, exercising their God-given right to choose their path in life?
Harry and Meghan Sussex dared to expose the innermost secrets of an anachronistic, multi-billion pound and at times allegedly racist plutocracy, sucking on the teat of struggling taxpayers to support a life of decadence and obscene wealth, at the same time claiming and presenting themselves as committed to societal benevolence and charity only to preserve a secretive, grasping and self-indulgent life for the entire family. This uncaring attitude was summed up by King Charles in a recent tax-payer funded banquet speech with a hundred or so privileged followers, saying pompously “What we choose to eat helps to define us” as he salivated before enjoying a menu of Scottish crab panzanella, Westcombe ricotta and Highgrove fine herbs, ravioli, Isle of Wight tomato passata, Suffolk red porchetta (roasted suckling pig), pumpkin and sage mash, Tuscan kale and zuppa inglese and biscotti washed down with the world’s finest wines all paid for by the taxpayer while the dinner of the struggling mass of working Brits, was defined by what they could afford to feed their kids.
Journalists who continue to support this hypocrisy surely lack the courage of the likes of Harry and Meghan Sussex whose strength and unflinching courage against great tyranny of unearned wealth and power sets an example described succinctly by the great Athenian historian,Thucydides, who wrote “The secret of happiness is freedom and the secret of freedom is courage”.
By accepting reward for contributing to and allowing this cancer to spread any further is to see the complete betrayal of the Fourth Estate as an independent bastion of truth and of democracy itself.