Royal Reporting in the Age of Tribalism: When Loyalty Becomes More Important Than Facts
EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS: Reporting surrounding the Royal Family is becoming increasingly tribal, with online divisions over loyalty too often overshadowing facts, context and credible sourcing
ROYAL reporting has always attracted strong opinions. But in the age of social media, something has shifted.
Increasingly, stories involving the Royal Family - and particularly the Prince and Princess of Wales and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - are treated less as journalism to be examined and more as battles in which readers are expected to choose a side. For some, Harry and Meghan can do no wrong, and for others, they can do virtually nothing right. The same phenomenon exists around Prince William and Princess Catherine. The result is a deeply polarised environment in which the source of a story can sometimes matter less than whether the information supports the reader's preferred viewpoint.
The so-called “Sussex Squad” has become one of the most visible - and in some cases quite aggressive - online communities supporting Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Many of its members simply admire the couple, defend them against vehement criticism and (admirably) raise money for their charitable causes. But others online have played a part in a much more confrontational culture, simply lying about the facts to back up certain viewpoints, even when Harry and Meghan have been proven wrong. Sometimes, many resort to personal abuse of the Prince and Princess of Wales, correspondents, journalists and other royal enthusiasts for no reason in many cases.
However, the problem is not exclusive to Sussex supporters. Research published by social-media analytics company Bot Sentinel in 2021 identified what it described as a coordinated network of accounts responsible for a disproportionate amount of abusive anti-Harry and Meghan material online. Meghan in particular has also been subjected to unacceptable racist and misogynistic abuse, something that should never be minimised simply because legitimate criticism may exist simultaneously.
It's not a lesson of one royal “side” seemingly behaving badly, but that royal fandom as a whole is now a tribal place to be. Once that happens, evidence risks becoming secondary to allegiance, but ultimately sources still matter, something that is particularly important when anonymous sources are involved.
Royal journalism frequently relies upon unnamed aides, friends, associates and people familiar with conversations surrounding the institution. Sometimes those sources produce accurate information and subsequent events support what was originally reported. At other times, conflicting sources provide entirely different versions of the same event. in journalism, it's always up to the reader to decide what they think of any story. To get the full picture, there are basic questions to ask. Who originally reported this information? Are other reputable organisations independently confirming? Is a viewpoint being reported as fact, or is it actually just interpretation? And, importantly, does the account fit with previous documented actions and established fact? None of those questions requires somebody to support any member of the firm or otherwise; it's simply media literacy.
Readers have naturally become more sceptical than ever. Harry and Meghan themselves have repeatedly criticised Britain's tabloid culture and aspects of the Royal Rota. When they originally announced changes to their media arrangements in 2020, their website said they wanted to move away from the traditional Royal Rota system, provide greater access to specialist and international media and communicate more directly with the public. They also accused the existing system of contributing to misreporting as Harry took several newspapers to court. That history helps explain why some of their supporters instinctively distrust reports attributed to “royal sources”.
But scepticism is different from automatically dismissing journalism, as a report does not become automatically false simply because it appears in a newspaper someone dislikes. This is the same as a favourable story to Harry and Meghan does not automatically become true because it comes from a sympathetic source. Royalty is not the same as celebrity. A Hollywood actor can promote a film, launch a company, negotiate interviews and construct a public image primarily around their own career and spin any given point accordingly. A working member of the Royal Family operates within a constitutional institution. The King is Britain's constitutional head of state and working royals undertake engagements on behalf of the Crown. Their activities involve government departments, diplomatic considerations, charities, patronages, security arrangements and established systems of media access, which in turn creates an entirely different set of expectations.
Harry and Meghan are particularly unusual because they now occupy the space between these worlds. They retain royal titles, and Harry remains the King's son, meaning their actions inevitably generate royal interest. But they are not working royals and do not represent the King. Their charitable, commercial and media activities belong to them as individuals rather than to the official monarchy. Understanding that distinction is essential when reporting them.
Context is also vital and something that many online seem to miss. Royal reporting becomes distorted when support or dislike for an individual determines which facts people are prepared to actually accept. One good example is Prince William’s Homewards programme. Critics, including some prominent Sussex-supporting accounts online, sometimes characterise William as claiming he will personally “end homelessness” and then attack him for failing to do so.
But that oversimplifies what Homewards actually promised to do; the facts are ignored simply because of the vehemently expressed viewpoint those particular critics hold. Homewards is a five-year programme working across six locations to demonstrate approaches that can make homelessness “rare, brief and un-repeated”, with the intention that successful models can subsequently be adopted elsewhere. The model works on a trial basis with a view to push it out worldwide if solutions are found. William is using his platform, the Royal Foundation funding and partnerships to test solutions. He has never claimed that as prince, he can personally eradicate homelessness across the whole of the UK.
Similarly, arguments about the finances often lose important context. Harry and Meghan are not funded as working royals, but it is also misleading to suggest William and Catherine receive a personal taxpayer salary for simply being royal. William is entitled to the annual revenue surplus of the privately held Duchy of Cornwall, which funds the couple’s public, charitable and private activities, and he voluntarily pays income tax on Duchy income. That's an entirely different arrangement than the UK Sovereign Grant, which is calculated as a percentage of the profit from the Crown Estate; which in turn funds certain official royal expenditure.
The same fairness must extend to Harry and Meghan. Some supporters of the wider Royal Family question why the Sussexes remain public figures when they are no longer working royals, while simultaneously following and commenting on almost everything they do. Harry remains the King’s son as both he and Meghan undertake charitable, media and commercial activities, so legitimate public-interest reporting about them has not simply disappeared. They have indicated through their actions that they wanted to undertake work as individuals, not to just disappear from sight forever.
But there is a strong difference between legitimate scrutiny and abuse & misinformation. False or misleading claims about William and Catherine have sadly become accepted as fact within some online communities, just as inaccurate narratives about Harry and Meghan can spread among their critics. In an age of social media, that is why responsible royal journalism still matters.
