No one will dare say it out loud… but there’s only one bombshell way Harry and Meghan’s ‘half-in, half-out’ new life in Britain can work: ROBERT JOBSON
Royal commentator Robert Jobson argues that reports of press notices warning UK media not to photograph Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet's school are unnecessary, since British newspapers already comply with the Editors' Code on child privacy, as shown by the absence of any unauthorised images of Prince George, Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis since 2022. He contends the Sussexes have instead relied on selective briefings to friendly outlets rather than the transparent "royal rota" system used by the rest of the family, a pattern he says was exposed in 2021 when former aide Jason Knauf told the High Court the couple had discussed briefing the authors of "Finding Freedom" despite denying involvement.
Jobson cites Harry's costly defeat in his UK phone-hacking case against the Daily Mail's publisher and Meghan's 2022 comments to The Cut, in which she said she could never manage school pickups in Britain without a large press pack, as evidence the couple exaggerate media intrusion while seeking royal-style protection without royal-style openness. He frames this as a recurring cycle of sympathetic, anonymously sourced stories followed by denials, backlash and renewed claims of being hounded, arguing the same dynamic is now being applied to the couple's children.
- Opinion piece disputes need for warnings over photographing Harry and Meghan's children's school.
- Author says UK press already respects privacy rules, unlike Sussexes' selective media strategy.
- Cites 2021 court evidence and Harry's costly High Court defeat as examples of this pattern.
New here? Start with this
Britain's tabloid press has a formal Editors' Code protecting children of public figures from being photographed, and no unauthorised pictures of Prince George, Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis have appeared since at least 2022, suggesting the system already works. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and now split their time between the UK and the US, a set-up sometimes described as "half-in, half-out". Their children, Archie and Lilibet, are said to be starting school in Britain, which has raised fresh questions about press access and privacy.
Unlike other senior royals, who engage with the media through an organised "royal rota" system giving accredited journalists standardised access, the Sussexes have been accused of instead giving selective, unofficial briefings to outlets they favour. This tension came under scrutiny in 2021, when a former aide told the High Court, during Meghan's privacy case over a letter to her father, that the couple had discussed engaging with the authors of a sympathetic biography despite public denials of involvement.
Harry has also fought and lost UK legal battles over alleged press intrusion, including a costly case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, while Meghan has spoken publicly about the difficulties of navigating public life in Britain because of media attention. This background of legal disputes, competing claims about media conduct, and differing approaches to press engagement forms the backdrop against which the couple's current arrangements, including matters involving their children, are being discussed.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to Jobson's argument hold that Britain's press already operates under a strict Editors' Code on child privacy, evidenced by years without unauthorised photographs of the younger royal children, so additional formal notices are unnecessary and imply bad faith on the part of newspapers that have complied. They argue that if the Sussexes wish for the protections associated with royal status, they should also accept the openness and scrutiny that comes with it, rather than relying on selective, friendly briefings while publicly condemning the media as a whole. This view holds that consistency and transparency matter: a family that has chosen to step back from official duties cannot expect the same deference extended to working royals without reciprocal openness.
The case against
Those defending the Sussexes' approach argue that Harry and Meghan's concerns about press intrusion are rooted in painful, well-documented history, including Diana's death amid a press pursuit and substantiated cases of unlawful media conduct, such as Harry's successful claim against Mirror Group Newspapers. They contend that protecting young children from press attention is a legitimate parental priority regardless of how other family members choose to manage media relations, and that having left official royal duties, the couple are entitled to set their own terms for privacy rather than being bound by the rota system. On this view, scepticism about their motives should not override the basic principle that children who are not public figures deserve protection from press exposure.