I wonder if I should just start a thread to preemptively answer questions I know are likely to be asked by angry people in my mentions.
Mostly to save time, haha. I genuinely enjoy engaging in good faith discussions about the royal family on here 🤞🏻
(Or, I guess, if anybody has any questions I can answer them here?)
Methodology for the review:
Extensive internet research (hyper specific Googling) and news archive searches (Nexis) between 2 specific dates.
I explicitly asked BP press team for specific comments on each point + for any records of on-the-record comments past.
A thing that was really fun about working on this piece was that it gave me a legitimate, work-related reason to look into things that I PERSONALLY have always wanted answers to.
Or things I've always wanted to get into SOME story somewhere because it was so wild.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Once I get this story up, it's gonna be [redacted] for you [redacteds]
Look all I am saying is that I literally am taking next week off to make up for the fact that I’ve been working on this story during what is supposed to be a PTO week. I’m all about that work-life balance and would not do this for many stories.
Before Harry + Meghan’s Oprah interview, it’s worth noting how the narrative re: why they left royal life has been twisted by the (UK) media to “They want privacy.”
But that isn’t their issue w/ the press. It’s double standards + false/biased reporting
Last year I compared UK media coverage of Meghan Markle + Prince Harry to that of Kate Middleton + Prince William.
Limited scope: only stories from the same news org written AFTER weddings + only outlets in the royal rota.
And there’s more. If you look at the coverage of Meghan from after she married Harry (aka once she was royal) until they “stepped back,” you’ll see thousands of negative, sensationalist stories, which are often thinly sourced and of somewhat dubious news value.