The Sussexes are able to give their kids privacy, and the Cambridges can’t


When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex moved to California just as the pandemic was starting, the royal commentators were smugly predicting that Harry would find the paparazzi, media and tabloid situation much worse in the US. It just shows you how little those people know about American celebrity culture, honestly – A-listers are able to “hide” from the tabloids and paps all the time, all they need is the will, the security and the ability to sue. It’s hilarious to me that we’ve seen so little of Harry and Meghan in or around Montecito in the past year. The only time we see them now, it’s basically always on their terms, when they want to be seen. That’s pissing off the British media to no end, especially since there are no recent photos of Archie, and zero photos of Lilibet. Lili is four months old and we still haven’t seen her, and who knows if we’ll ever see her. Which is the point of Tom Sykes’ recent piece in the Daily Beast: Harry and Meghan have achieved something William and Kate always said they wanted for their kids: substantial privacy. Some highlights:

Despite the sniping, the Sussex kids have privacy: The couple have managed to provide a level of privacy to their children which far outstrips what they were able to offer Archie in the first few traumatic months after his birth, or, indeed, what Kate and William have been able to give their children.

We see the Cambridge kids constantly because of the invisible contract: Full-face photographs of William and Kate’s kids are routinely handed out on their birthdays and the children also make several carefully staged public appearances each year where the press are given opportunities to photograph them. They are also co-opted into other digital marketing stunts by their parents: think Instagram clips thanking the NHS for their work or marshmallow-roasting wedding anniversary videos, for example. These handouts represent a long-established palace peace deal with the media. The media get pictures of the children and the press are supposed to not publish any unauthorized images of the children in return.

The invisible contract holds up: Although the deal is uneasy and occasionally breaks down—just last week The Daily Beast revealed the palace hit the roof after unauthorized pictures of the Cambridges lunching in a pub garden were published by the Sun—the architecture of the arrangement generally holds up. Despite the fact that the arrangement gives the palace a level of control of the narrative which other celebrities would give their eye teeth for, William still loathes the principle of having to hand over pictures of his kids for public consumption. He reluctantly acquiesces.

No compromises for the Sussexes: Harry loathed it too and now, free from that collectively-bargained media compromise, he and Meghan are pursuing a far more radical policy. They appear to be seeking nothing less than complete anonymity for their kids by aggressively pursuing photographers, and, in one extraordinary case, bankrupting an agency which distributed pictures of Archie. The result is that, four months after her birth, the public still have absolutely no idea what baby Lilibet looks like. Not one photograph of their daughter, authorized or not, has yet been published. The couple have even declined to announce any christening date for her.

How H&M handled intrusive paparazzi: The Sussex’s ferocious response to such intrusions has been remarkable, and a salutary reminder to the press that Harry and Meghan will go to extreme measures to protect their children’s privacy. They sued Hollywood agency X17 over drone-snapped images which were taken of Archie and Meghan’s mother, Doria, at the luxury home they occupied in Canada over Christmas 2019. Bunte, a German supermarket tabloid, ran a photo of Doria pushing Archie, then 14 months old, in a toy car. As part of the settlement, X17 pledged to never again deal in any photos of the couple or their son taken by drone, zoom, or telephoto lenses “in any private residence or the surrounding private grounds.”

They bankrupted Splash: Splash publicly blamed its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on the cost of legal action against it by Harry and Meghan after it distributed pictures taken of Meghan walking in a public park with Archie in a papoose. Splash was perhaps unwise to rattle the Sussexes’ cage, having previously been forced to apologize to the couple when they lived in England for chartering a helicopter to fly at low altitude over the couple’s private home in the Cotswold village of Great Tew. Second time round, although Meghan was in a public place when the photograph was taken, and the case against the agency was arguably less cut and dry, the Sussexes went to war on Splash. In March it filed for bankruptcy, citing the “unbearably expensive” legal action.

The Sussexes now have a litigious reputation: Giles Harrison, a veteran paparazzo and CEO of agency London Entertainment, told The Daily Beast that the Sussexes’ proclivity to sue has had a chilling effect on his industry’s inclination to cover and photograph the family. “A lot of people have decided that it is kind of not worth the hassle. It is not worth the fall-out that comes from it. If you get the pictures of them, they are gonna try and sue you no matter what happens, no matter where you were, no matter if you were in the most legal, public place on the planet. And they can afford to sue you a lot more than you can afford to defend yourself.”

The Sussexes are A-list in their ability to keep their kids under wraps: Harrison says that while protecting your children’s privacy is a difficult task in L.A., doing so effectively is a potent expression of power, wealth, and status: “There is a level of celebrity that if they don’t want the kids to be photographed, they basically won’t. Think Beyoncé and Jay-Z or Brad and Angelina in the first few years of their kids’ lives.”

[From The Daily Beast]

I think it’s great! I wish I could force those royal commentators to eat their words, but of course they’re too busy complaining about “why is Meghan HIDING Lili??” And let’s be real, this is almost entirely about Harry. This is his thing, he’s the one who doesn’t want his kids to be photographed by the paps whatsoever. He’s the one who never wants his kids to be in the papers. I think Meghan would be fine with doing what Kate does, releasing the odd birthday photo or Christmas photo, anything on her terms completely.

HRH Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex closing the car door following his attendance at the twelfth annual Lord Mayor?Äôs Big Curry Lunch in aid of the three National Service Charities: ABF The Soldiers?Äô Charity, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity a

Princess Charlene of Monaco shows off her new punkish hairstyle at The traditional Christmas Tree children event at Monaco

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, social media.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

84 Responses to “The Sussexes are able to give their kids privacy, and the Cambridges can’t”

  1. truthSF says:

    “I think Meghan would be fine with doing what Kate does, releasing the odd birthday photo or Christmas photo, anything on her terms completely.”

    After the way she and Archie were attacked when A’s 1st birthday video was released….hell no!!! Meghan is just as protective of her kids privacy as much as her husband. That’s why they make great partners. And neither want their kids to be subjected to what both M and Archie were subjected to back in racistland.

    • Snuffles says:

      Agreed. She might have had that stance early on, but the way the RRs abused that child the moment her birth was announced, Meghan was probably on board with Harry’s “fuck ALL of them,” stance.

      • Pao says:

        Exactly. I would love to see a picture of the kids but archie and lili get credible death threats thanks to the media and the British royal family. So they are wise to keep the kids 100% anonymous. I think that if the British media had been a bit nicer, meghan would have indeed not minded sharing the occasional B’day pic. But after the way she’s been treated? And lets not forget the negative reaction on archie’s first birthday when they released that adorable video for save the children

    • Persephone says:

      Agreed. I think they are BOTH very protective.

    • Sid says:

      Exactly. Meghan and Harry actually seemed open to sharing the occasional photo or video of Archie early on, but then each time they did the rota rats and the bitters acted like fools. They photoshopped Janina’s christmas card photo and then tried to harass Meghan over it. Then they attacked her and Archie over the birthday video for Save The Children, and even went to so far as to attack Jennifer Garner on her IG account. Why continue sharing when the end result is that sort of nastiness?

      • Jais says:

        I still remember the nappy new year headline with the picture from the book reading. Using a dog whistle with a sweet picture. And that’s a true dog whistle (reference to the incorrect usage of dog whistle from one of yesterday’s posts).

      • Lorelei says:

        @Jais being reminded of the “nappy new year” headline — which I think my brain had blocked out — just made me nauseous again for a moment. There have been lots of horrific things said and written about all of the Sussexes, but there are a few that are so awful that I still have a visceral reaction to them to this day. The fact that “straight outta Compton” was one of the very first headlines published once H&M’s relationship became public definitely gave us a heads re: what was to come, but the “nappy” comment about a TODDLER is beyond vile. Although absolutely nothing should have surprised me after the chimp photo.

    • Ameerah says:

      Yup. The moment her child was compared to a monkey all bets were off. I think she would have been okay with sharing occasional staged photos had her son not been treated terribly from birth.

    • taris says:

      ITA, there’s no way meghan would want her children’s photos all over the same papers that nearly drove her to suicide.

      just look at how the british media keeps using the 2 or 3 photos they have of archie in half their anti-sussex articles. the anti-sussex hate extends towards their children. they’ve had no problem dragging baby archie into the circus (the hubaloo over his title, eg). lili was TWO DAYS OLD and she was already being abused by the tabloids and royalists.

      nah, h&m will both be determined to keep their babies safe as much as they can.

  2. Eating Popcorn says:

    When will the RR realize that Santa Barbara and LA aren’t the same place?

    • JT says:

      But even in LA you can give your children privacy if you want to. Beyoncé and Jay Z are the perfect example of that. I don’t think I’ve seen any photos of their kids that they haven’t released themselves and they live in Beverly Hills. The Sussexes are wealthy enough, A list enough, and are no strangers to the phrase fuck around and find out. I personally think that it’s a huge flex how H&M operate in regards to their children and their privacy, especially in contrast to how the Keens have to sell out their kids on the daily.

      • I have said this so many times. In LA when stars want not to be seen, they are NOT seen. Think how many movie stars live here and for example, you NEVER see snaps of George Clooney and the kids around LA. But when you go to the Ivy for lunch, or Catch for dinner, you are CLEARLY asking to be seen and photographed. Photographers hang out there all the time. But there a million restaurants where they are not. If you want privacy you can have it. And of course, even more so in Santa Barbara, which is very low key.

    • STRIPE says:

      I was coming here to say the same thing ha! They are several hours apart.

      It has to be purposeful at this point, right?

    • Pao says:

      Never because they are ignorant like that

    • Snuffles says:

      I think it’s a combination of willful ignorance and them refusing to state because it doesn’t go with their narrative. They could have learned the landscape by now, literally and figuratively, but they refuse to. These people are inherently lazy. They know the UK scene, royal and aristocracy scene like the back of their hand but can’t be arsed to learn the California scene. It’s a huge state. Northern California and Southern California are completely different. The LA scene is completely different from the Santa Barbara scene. The Silicon Valley is it’s own beat too. The Hollywood and wealthy American elite operate completely differently than the UK aristocracy.

      I’m sure a few tried to crack it by using the same tricks they use in the UK and we’re probably swatted back HARD. Mainly because the US press made it clear they will not be allowed to encroach on their territory.

    • Eurydice says:

      LA definitely represents a way of life, but they might also use it because their readers don’t know where smaller cities are in the US. “LA” is kind of a substitute for “somewhere in the bottom third of California.”

      • Anne Call says:

        Haha, that’s probably true. When I lived in Bay area I always told people we lived “near” San Francisco even though it was Silicon Valley area. It’s funny though, when I tell people in Europe I live in Santa Barbara lots know it (this was pre H and M moving here) from a soap opera from the 80’s or 90’s. Montecito is very sheltered and I have never seen paparazzi lurking about. I am surprised there haven’t been cell phone pics of H or M in town or at the beach.

      • Reece says:

        This is true. I’ve met people from the US who don’t realize that LA is not California. Also it’s not all beaches!

  3. Lorelei says:

    That first photo of Harry closing the car door with that expression on his face was so perfect to see right after reading this particular post!! 😂

    • Jais says:

      Right? Its a good pic. It’s just funny because describing them as aggressively suing to protect their kids is not a a negative thing. This makes them look good, very mama and papa bear, hear me roar.

      • Lorelei says:

        It’s just so perfect! Because you know that’s probably exactly how Harry feels a lot of the time now.
        Some people come off as smug in an obnoxious way if they make that sort of face, but Harry doesn’t at all. It’s such a great pic.

      • Jais says:

        Nope he just looks nice, like a person you’d genuinely smile back at.

  4. Rapunzel says:

    “A lot of people have decided that it is kind of not worth the hassle. It is not worth the fall-out that comes from it. If you get the pictures of them, they are gonna try and sue you no matter what happens, no matter where you were, no matter if you were in the most legal, public place on the planet. And they can afford to sue you a lot more than you can afford to defend yourself.”

    So these folks are just going to complain until the Sussexes throw them a bone? They want the pics. The pics are valuable. They’re trying to guilt the Sussexes into showing the kids by accusing them of being overly litigious.

    • LaraW” says:

      I think the BM doesn’t quite understand that the US is completely fine with the Sussexes being aggressive in litigating. It’s such a huge part of US culture at this point. I’ve had several (non-attorney lol) friends who’ve visited other countries on vacation and when something didn’t go according to their liking, they said they would (theoretically) sue— had to break it to them that they wouldn’t even get to the courthouse or find an attorney willing to take their case because there was no case/venue/law/take your pick. The US is kind of unique in its culture of civil litigation.

      Like mostly when I read this story, the terms of the settlement agreement with X7 (how did that leak?) and them pushing Splash into bankruptcy, I was more like “damn, they’ve got a top notch team representing them, and really really deep pockets.” Litigating in the US is not cheap, not with the kind of lawyers H&M probably have on their team. It kind of makes me think they’re a lot wealthier than we’ve speculated. $150M in Netflix money (or whatever the amount was) doesn’t really go far when you have multiple lawsuits (including Meghan’s ongoing suit in the UK and doesn’t Harry still have a couple going on in the UK about the BM wiretapping him or something?) going on. At the same time, it’s a classic litigation strategy. Go really really hard on some of the biggest and wealthiest players and it will deter the smaller businesses from taking the risk. It’s an investment and it seems to be paying off.

      • Caseysmom says:

        Yes, it is incredibly expensive to hire a litigator in the US! I had an attorney 10 years ago in Boston who charged $395/hour…in 2011. Was it worth it? Yes, but never again if I can help it.

    • Pao says:

      @Rapunzel: That is what makes this article so ridiculous. Aside from the fact that its full of errors, Sykes makes it sound like meghan & harry are enforcing some terror regime when it concerns their kids privacy. When in reality its what every sane thinking and loving parent would do

    • HeatherC says:

      I think the Sussex response to being labeled overly litigious to protect their kids will be: [shrug] Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

      • Truthiness says:

        Lmao at “proclivity to sue.” Rephrased it is “media illegally trespassed and violated the rights of the Sussexes, the Sussexes sued and won.” It was a classic case of f*** around and find out the consequences.

    • Becks1 says:

      I don’t think they’re trying to guilt the Sussexes so much as just stating a fact. The pics of the Sussexes aren’t worth it anymore at this point for the paparazzi. Maybe they’re trying to explain why they haven’t gotten more pictures of the Sussexes or whatever, but I don’t think accusing H&M of being litigious is going to prompt them to show their kids, and I think this guy knows that.

    • L says:

      And it’s even a lie because they’ve only sued when it involved lies about defaming their work or when their privacy was invaded on private property. All valid reasons

    • GRUEY says:

      @rapunzel that paragraph made me so happy. It’s the epitome of “cry more.”

      Harry and Meghan thumped these assholes. Cry more, idiots.

  5. Merricat says:

    Lol all day, at least the rota is finally getting the message. If they had to be sued into submission, whose fault is that?

  6. Nyro says:

    The power that this has. Sue them until they are brought to heel. It’s the American way and we love to see it. And we love to see the British press eating crow, honey. Archie and Lili are living their best exclusive and private lives while the Cambridge kids have to walk red carpets and do promo for David Attenborough’s Netflix specials. 😂

    • JT says:

      I said this upthread but this is a huge flex for the Sussexes. They are actually powerful and that aren’t scared like the royals are. William wishes he could tell the BM to f*ck off but they have him by the balls. All of the global statesman BS is just the press humoring him by making him seem powerful, but he’s actually a coward. And once again, Harry wins because he can actually give his kids another thing that William can’t: privacy. H&M’s stance have also made their children unicorns because when they are seen it will be breaking news and they don’t need an HRH to do it. The “real” prince and princesses do not command that kind of attention because their parents offer them up so much. And Harry wins again.

    • GRUEY says:

      Exactly. This article gave me a major dopamine hit. Thanks for feels, Sykes! Your grudging admissions are poetry.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Gruey I love this whole comment! It describes everything (certainly my reaction) perfectly! 😂

    • Dierski says:

      Yes!! I got the best kick out of this article too this morning. We Americans do love to see them suing the crap out of paparazzi and media outlets and winning. It’s awesome that because of their legal actions it almost “isn’t worth it” for photogs to seek them out for pics… Thats the whole point of their legal actions! And it’s working.

      The Sussexes are giving their children the best gift a parent can, privacy, safety, and non-public/non-judgmental space to just be themselves as they grow. Makes me so happy for them.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    Nah, I think Meghan was always on board with this action. Remember the first few pictures of Archie were of feet and part of his face. And if she wasn’t on the same page with Harry in the beginning she became so because of the press’ behaviour towards Archie. What was missing from the piece was that it is mainly the Sun and Daily Mail paying paparazzi to get pictures of the Sussexes and that the Royal rota tried to pretend that Harry and Meghan had more protection in the UK. For a number of reasons, moving to the US was the best decision they’ve made.

  8. Mandy says:

    We’ve seen more of Archie in the UK than we ever saw of him in the US, the supposed haven of paparazzi lol. Moving to Montecito was the best decision the couple made. I love how people are wondering when the world will get to meet Lili, especially the British media with their endless christening stories. Do they think they’d have access if the Sussexes christen Lili? Do they think they’ll get first preference photos of the event? H&M aren’t working royals so they’re under no obligation to show photos or christen Lili at all. I hope they don’t do either. Let the media starve.

    It also pleases me and terrifies me that a paparazzi photo of Lili would be worth so much that a photographer could never work again. That’s a scary thought. I mean realistically, H&M would have to eventually release a picture of her so that something like that would never happen.

    • LaraW” says:

      No, the picture won’t be valuable at all. The paparazzo will have no buyers, since all buyers in the industry are afraid of H&M coming after them. If the paparazzo releases the photo on their own, H&M will take then to court and the terms of settlement will be deletion of all copies of the photos, all profits made from the photo, agreement not to take or sell photos of the kids again, and probably a few easter eggs I haven’t thought of thrown in.

      Paparazzi looking for a multi-million dollar payout are not going to find it.

    • Nyro says:

      I think if we ever see Lili and Archie, it’s going to be in an exclusive photo with the queen and only b the queen. A big iconic photo and for a publication like Vanity Fair, bypassing the entire British media. It’ll be the only pic of the queen with great-grandkids that matters and that whole island will be upset.😂

  9. Becks1 says:

    I think Meghan WOULD have been okay with the occasional birthday pic or whatever, but not at this point. I think at this point she is not giving the press one damn thing. And by “this point” I mean probably by the time she gave birth to Archie.

    We all know about the invisible contract with the kids but I like how Tom Sykes is making the point that this is another area where Harry has “beaten” William – Harry has privacy for his kids, William needs to trot his out a few times a year, plus birthday pictures etc, in order to keep the press happy. And William needs to keep the press happy.

    I’m not mad at H&M for their litigation strategy. It seems to have paid off – they started out strong, and now its paying off, because the paparazzi don’t even want to bother with pictures of them, even if its legal, bc of the hassle and expense in defending themselves. That must drive the british tabloids INSANE – they probably are offering a lot of money for Sussex pictures, but it seems like the agencies and paps are probably saying, meh, unless you pay my legal fees, not happening. It’s brilliant on the Sussexes part.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Becks considering how much a photo of them would be worth— ESPECIALLY the first photo ever of Lilibet— it’s impressive!

      Celebs really can lock things down when they want to. Steve Martin has a young daughter and I don’t even think the public knows her name. There have been so few photos of her published that I would never recognize her in a million years. I usually forget she exists tbh, compared to, for example, Jennifer Garner & Ben Afflecks kids; I feel like I’ve seen more photos of those children than I have of my own at this point.

    • LaraW” says:

      Yeah, I’ve learned more than I ever anticipated on how the whole celebrity photos things works (or more like I guess I never connected the dots that were clearly laid out before me). For a while I assumed that photos taken by the paparazzi were bought by and sold to the publications directly. Going after the middleman was really good. I mean, I guess you could make first amendment arguments (though I’m not sure exactly how the argument would be structured because my brain is currently running at 25% capacity), but that’s still a huge expense. You’d need a top rate 1A attorney, I feel, if you want to go toe to toe against H&M.

      I know there’s the law in California re paparazzi taking photos of kids but that law has never been tested. Not sure if that’s something the industry wants to test though— there seems to be a kind of unspoken agreement among celebrities and paparazzi in LA at the moment. If an agency really tried to challenge the law, it would create a lot of resentment, I think, and even more hostility to paps. But again, this is my half baked rambling that no one should take seriously because it’s rampant speculation about an industry I know nothing about.

  10. *****Stevie*** says:

    I don’t believe that Meghan would be okay with her kids pictures being released given that since the UK doesn’t want to pay for their security and that Harry being so identifiable we throughout the world is due to the invasion of us pictorial privacy by the UK his whole life. No. Both Sussexes, I believe, want to protect their children’s privacy. Especially considering the loons who hate them without reason.

  11. LaraW” says:

    Another aspect that just occurred to me— why bother trying to get photos of the kids and take on the associated risk when photos of Meghan are super valuable. She makes herself so scarce, I imagine it would be a bigger payout with far less risk to take and sell pictures of Meghan and Harry (without the kids). I mean H&M keep a tight lid on their image and all, but the gazillion articles from just her 40×40 probably fed the click-monster to satisfy a few weeks of revenue for the DM.

  12. Neners says:

    William and Kate tried this when George and Charlotte were little. For a time, we barely saw those kids. Then, something rather abruptly changed. I’ve always thought it was a combination of needing to one up Harry and Meghan and the BM having dirt on William that they used as leverage. Either way, I’m sure it is one of many reasons William is jealous of his brother. Kate, I think, maybe enjoys the attention she gets from her children a bit more.

    • molly says:

      We NEVER saw Charlotte. It was birthday pics only for the first couple years.

      • Neners says:

        @molly Exactly! And I remember the Cambridges being very firm on that. Birthday pics only, taken by Kate. Makes it even more obvious that the rota has William by the scrote.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, there was a very definite switch at some point, I feel like it was around the time H&M got married but I’m not sure it was directly connected to that, maybe in part, but I think it was more connected to William’s affairs.

        We never saw Charlotte – birthday pics, the Canada tour, and that was about it. After Louis was born there was a switch and you could say it was because the kids were older – so its different to have George attend a soccer match at 8 years old than at 4 or 5 years old – but Louis is still pretty young, he’s only 3.5, and we’ve seen him a great deal compared to george and charlotte.

        There was definitely a deal made with the Cambridges and I think William’s broader plan was to move the deal to the Sussexes – to use those children as cover or PR or scapegoats or whatever – and now he can’t do that.

      • Jais says:

        Your point is kind of heartbreaking @becks1- that William kind of banked on using the sussex children. Harry foresaw this and that’s prob a huge and often unsaid reason of why they left.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Jais I have always felt that was a huge part of the motivation behind Sussexit – maybe not with regards to this specific issue with the invisible contract and “we get pictures of the kids every few months” but I definitely think that Harry realized that William was going to use his children the same way he had used him (Harry) and while he had been “willing” to be the scapegoat for William*, he wasn’t willing to let his children go through that.

        *willing as in he didn’t really have a choice at the time. I think one of the many positives of Meghan coming into his life and starting their family is that he realized he DID have a choice and not only did his children not need to be William’s scapegoats, he didn’t have to be either.

      • notasugarhere says:

        We got pap pics of Charlotte in private times, like with Carole or Nanny Maria, that were not protested by W&K.

        W&K used to play a game with the RRs. They’d have private events where all the RRs were invited to meet the kids. Anyone who wrote negative things about them were not invited. They even hand-picked the most obedient ones to provide the pap photos for Charlotte’s public circus of a christening.

      • Merricat says:

        Becks, agreed.

    • SarahCS says:

      My money is all on dirt on William.

    • L4frimaire says:

      I think in some ways the Cambridge’s kids are overexposed. That pub picture was such a turn off and so calculated, even some of their fans thought it was exploitative. The Sussexes have no reason to expose their children to these vultures. I was really taken aback by the nasty vicious reaction in the UK to Lilibet’s name and how the courtiers made it into a divisive fight. The British press only has bad intentions when it comes to the Sussexes and their children, so why even deal with them.

  13. Alexandria says:

    Sussex fans don’t even demand for photos of their kids or Cambridge kids. We respect their boundaries and don’t need to howl at the moon, unlike the rats and Cambridge lovers. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand. Get help. The Sussexes owe you nothing.

  14. molly says:

    I’m still mad that someone made Meghan trot out a brand new Archie to that polo match with Kate and the kids. There was 100% a comms meeting where it was decided that pics of all the kids together would be GREAT! Meghan and Kate and all the cousins! The press will love it!!

    You could tell Meghan hated every second of it as she clutched Archie in that giant dress. Kate has enough experience playing Happy Mum for the cameras, but Meghan looked so vulnerable and stressed. I hope she got in the car home and declared NEVER AGAIN.

    • Merricat says:

      Kate’s behavior at the polo match was reprehensible. She really showed her ugliness.

      • SS says:

        How was Kate reprehensible? I’m just curious because I saw 2 women who made little effort to interact with each other. One was chasing her 3 kids and the other was busy with a new born.

      • Becks1 says:

        Kate made no move to talk to Meghan, to help with Archie, anything. Meghan looked awkward and uncomfortable and Kate looked like she didn’t give two effs about her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        SS, why is the onus on Meghan to interact with a woman who has been against her from day one? Who refused to meet her, and had her mother openly doing press interviews in which she condemned Meghan? A woman who was still eating out on the ‘horrible Meghan made me cry’ lie. A woman who was likely one of two people in the family to question the skin tone of any Sussex children?

        Why is it that *certain people* always think Harry and Meghan, the ones being abused, should be required to offer the olive branch?

      • Maria says:

        Kate utterly ignored Meghan, and made sure her children who were old enough to get the message did too. Meghan didn’t ignore Louis when he toddled up to her, she smiled, so the idea she was also being frosty makes no sense. Kate sat there holding him after that to make sure it didn’t happen again, she wasn’t chasing anyone.

      • notasugarhere says:

        SS, why is the onus on Meghan to interact with a woman who has been against her from day one? Who refused to meet her, and had her mother openly doing press interviews in which she condemned Meghan? A woman who was still eating out on the ‘horrible Meghan made me cry’ lie. A woman who was likely one of two people in the family to question the skin tone of any Sussex children?

        Why is it that *certain people* always think Harry and Meghan, the ones being abused, should be required to offer the olive branch?

    • Anna says:

      When my daughter was so little I could almost physically feel how busy surroundings were overwhelming to her and avoided it for first months. If Meg felt similarly I feel for her, she was probably stressed and pissed and top it up with her bi****y SIL and fear for Archies safety… I would make and excuse to go breastfeed and GTFO. They really stole those first months with Archie from her&Harry.

    • GRUEY says:

      That was back when I wasn’t following this so closely, and I didn’t understand what I was seeing in those pics at all.

      My clueless ass was wondering why Kate wasn’t playing with and holding the baby (having just had a baby myself and observed how normal SILs behave).

      Welp I figured it out.

      • Nic919 says:

        Louis was far more social. He would have approached Archie even more had his Mum not been a part of the issue.

      • Anna says:

        Now I love my SIL even more… She was even reminding my hubby to bring me water when I was breastfeeding… Kate had 3 kids by that time, she knew exactly how Meg felt and yet she had zero empathy for her, not even to get up and ask if she’s ok.

      • windyriver says:

        I was most disturbed by the fact that George, and especially Charlotte, showed no interest in Archie, or Meghan. Kate being a bitch wasn’t unusual, but it seemed so sad that the children had so obviously been influenced by her (and William’s) attitude and behavior.

      • Anna says:

        Windyriver, exactly. Children know what we tell them at that age. Normally the family is excited about a new baby and kids are excited and interested too.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nic, Louis had not yet been fully taught how much hatred he was supposed to feel toward Archie, so he was acting like a normal person would around a baby. I’m sure W&K have gotten him all caught up by now 😒

    • swirlmamad says:

      Just thinking back to that debacle….that must have been so awful for Meghan. Postpartum, exhausted and emotional, and just trying to cope with the horrific situation they were in with the Firm and the BM….and her b*tch SIL couldn’t even be bothered to ask how she was doing, far less hold the baby for a few minutes to give her a break. “Hands-on mum who is sooo concerned about mental health”, my ass.

  15. Over it says:

    This just makes me believe even more that even if Harry and Meghan do return for the all about queen me so let them eat cake never ending carnival, there is no way that Archie and Lili will be standing around waiting to be papped. You will only be seeing Harry and Meghan.

  16. Over it says:

    This just makes me believe even more that even if Harry and Meghan do return for the all about queen me so let them eat cake never ending carnival, there is no way that Archie and Lili will be standing around waiting to be papped. You will only be seeing Harry and Meghan.

  17. GRUEY says:

    What a beautiful fuck you this article is. It’s clear that Sykes didn’t even like writing it, lol.

    What a fuck you to all the Rota who thought they had friendships and flirtations with Harry, lol!!!

    I also recall a certain Gossip Blogger going on a podcast, joking about how Harry and Meghan were fame whores for moving to LA, because it’s the paparazzi capital. Well fuck you too and your Toronto sour grapes, sweetie!

    They don’t even have an Instagram. There is literally NOTHING fame whorey about them.

  18. Anna says:

    Anyone really surprised they don’t want random haters knowing like Archie and Lili look like? I don’t even post pictures of my child and nobody is interested in me. Privacy yes, but mostly safety, internet is full of scary people.

    I also believe Harry, having lived a life of a child papped on a daily basis will go nuclear if necessary to shield his kids from that.

  19. Nic919 says:

    Sykes is completely ignoring how William has a super injunction about affair related issues and how they aggressively sued when they were papped on holiday in France. The Cambridges can be litigious as well, especially William, but they are exposing the kids more now because the UK media are staying silent on something else. In the early years there were few pictures of the Cambridge kids and often they would be months old photos when they were provided. However that all changed when Meghan arrived on the scene and the Cambridge kids became the only thing that could still hold media interest. Louis was shown earlier and more often than George and Charlotte ever were. And with the Kate’s cuties calendars happening, there is some merching going on with the copyright photos late took.

    Also no one believes the Burger King photos weren’t allowed. The RPOs would have seen this photographer in the middle of a Norfolk field and tackled him if they didn’t want the photos published. Plus the extensive interview is way more information than simply “here they are eating a burger”.

    • GRUEY says:

      I’m not sure he’s exactly ignoring it, because the topic is kids. Sykes is a British aristo, and pointing out how the Cambridges give out bits of their kids and don’t sue is the type of breadcrumb his ilk leave pointing toward the infidelity. This article is not flattering to the Cambridges, and it also chips away at the delusion that being in TRF is somehow more protective and luxurious than being cash-wealthy in California. The RR was banging on about how HM will be unprotected and vulnerable in CA, when clearly that was the case for them in England. The article endorses Harry’s statement that William is trapped.

      • Nic919 says:

        By trying to portray the Sussexes as the only ones being super aggressive with litigation he’s ignoring the obvious super injunction that William has out there. Which in the UK prevents even being mentioned, but he could hint at it in a US publication. The main difference is that the Sussexes are litigious about their kids whereas William shuts down the media for his gardening activities. The Cambridge kids are now pawns in William’s game with the Uk media. Which was not the case a few years ago.

      • Jais says:

        He def goes into details about how the Cambridges provide pics and access to their kids and how it is a stark contrast to the sussexes. The thing is Harry and Meghan have the right at any time to choose to show a picture of their kids. How will Tom Sykes and others treat them then?

  20. Eurydice says:

    Good for them – one way to cut demand is to make the product too expensive.

    My favorite part of this is at the end – that Harry and Meghan have the A-list celebrity status of Beyonce/Jay-Z and Brad/Angelina

  21. The Recluse says:

    The only downside is that we won’t get that one picture, like the really super cute one of Archie in his little winter cap to ooooh and awww over. Other than that, more power to them. Protect those kids.

  22. GrnieWnie says:

    …and that’s how it’s done. You aggressively go after one agency and set a precedent. Boom. No one will publish unauthorized photos anymore.

    This is something that lights me up to no end: I HATE it when people cannot imagine anything else other than what is. This happens to be the defining feature of British-style institutions, in my experience — likely due to their miserable class structure. Call it Tall Poppy syndrome, call it whatever…it’s a system that cannot conceptualize functioning in a different way, so it doubles down and defends the way it currently functions no matter the cost.

    The royal family will sit there and suffer no end of loss due to the behavior of the media because it cannot imagine reworking that agreement. Yet it is entirely reworkable. That is how modernization is achieved. So we also get a glimpse of why this relic from another age cannot modernize. I just cannot stand the profound lack of imagination.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Thank you!

Leave a comment