Oh, Richard. Do give it a rest. Particularly today. Since you've decided that the supposed “venom” of royal fans deserves a mention in your latest reconciliation sermon, perhaps we should refresh your memory. Evidently, someone needs to. 1. Royal fans did not sit down with Oprah and broadcast their family grievances to millions. Harry and Meghan did. 2. Royal fans did not sign lucrative entertainment deals and turn private family disputes into commercially valuable content. Harry and Meghan did. 3. Royal fans did not publish Spare, complete with intimate family conversations, accusations against relatives and deeply personal details that nobody had consented to make public. Harry did. 4. Royal fans did not publicly question the institution, criticise family members and then expect the very same institution to accommodate their preferred version of royal life. The Sussexes did. 5. Royal fans did not demand privacy whilst repeatedly discussing private family relationships with television presenters, journalists, documentary producers and publishers. Again, that would be Harry and Meghan. 6. Royal fans did not create the rift between two brothers. Nor did they make William responsible for repairing a relationship in which his own family has been publicly criticised. William is entitled to boundaries, Richard. They are not an act of cruelty. 7. Royal fans did not make trust disappear. Years of public disclosures and accusations understandably raised questions about whether private conversations could remain private. That is a consequence of conduct, not criticism on X. 8. Royal fans are not responsible for the extraordinary suggestion that promising not to overshadow the King's engagements should be treated as some magnificent diplomatic breakthrough. Respecting the sovereign's official duties is basic courtesy, not a Nobel Peace Prize achievement. 9. Royal fans are not obliged to applaud a hypothetical apology, especially one for which nobody appears able to identify the actual wrongdoing being acknowledged. An apology without accountability is merely another carefully packaged public relations exercise. 10. And finally, Richard, royal fans are not standing between Harry and a reconciliation with his father or brother. The people involved will decide whether reconciliation is possible. The public merely remembers what happened, even when certain journalists appear remarkably eager to move on. You speak of rebuilding trust whilst relying on anonymous briefings about the Sussexes' supposedly noble intentions. You lament the hostility of royal supporters whilst giving remarkably little attention to why that scepticism exists in the first place. And the timing of another sentimental reconciliation narrative, amid today's other serious headlines, makes your priorities seem particularly peculiar. If Harry and Meghan genuinely wish to rebuild relationships, they are perfectly capable of doing so privately, consistently and without a running commentary from sympathetic sources. But please stop presenting the consequences of their own public decisions as an unfortunate inconvenience created by royal supporters. The Royal Family is not obliged to provide Harry with a redemption arc. William is not obliged to sacrifice his family's peace for a pleasing headline. And the public is not obliged to develop collective amnesia simply because the reconciliation narrative needs another chapter. Perhaps the next time you feel tempted to blame the audience, Richard, you might consider reviewing the actual plot. The audience didn't write this particular family drama. They simply watched the Sussexes sell tickets to it.

Yet much of the public conversation has become consumed by Meghan's recollections, her spokesperson's explanations, the history of her relationship with her father and whether her personal narrative can be defended. Where is the equivalent determination to investigate the underlying allegations, establish the provenance of the reported evidence and scrutinise the actions of the relevant authorities? Where is the sustained attention to the potential victims, whose welfare and access to justice should be paramount? Meghan may understandably be affected by allegations concerning her father. She is entitled to explain her decisions and to maintain whatever family boundaries she considers necessary. But she has not been publicly identified as a victim of the alleged offences. Her personal experience should not displace the people who may actually have suffered them. Nor should this case become another opportunity for competing royal fandoms to declare victory. The Metropolitan Police's handling of the 2019 letter also deserves serious scrutiny. Why were allegations of potential criminal conduct not passed to other law enforcement agencies? What assessment was made at the time? What will its internal review establish? These are questions of institutional accountability, not royal gossip. And finally, to those treating every statement from Meghan's representatives as established fact, or every inconsistency as conclusive proof of dishonesty: neither approach is acceptable. Evidence matters. Chronology matters. Attribution matters. The presumption of innocence matters. A letter is not a conviction. A spokesperson's explanation is not independent verification. And a journalist's access to a document does not make every interpretation of that document an established fact. Investigate Thomas Markle's alleged conduct. Examine the evidence. Protect potential victims. Hold the relevant authorities accountable. And scrutinise public statements with the same rigour, regardless of who makes them. This is a potential child sexual abuse case, not another chapter in Meghan Markle's public relations story. The people who may have suffered these crimes deserve justice, not to become supporting characters in someone else's narrative. And journalism should be serving that pursuit of justice — not allowing it to disappear beneath another round of royal reputation management.

I'm so bloody sick of this case being turned into yet another fucking PR exercise. Having followed the statements from Meghan, her spokesperson, the Metropolitan Police and the journalists covering the allegations against Thomas Markle, I find the direction of this story increasingly troubling. Let us establish what we actually know. The Metropolitan Police confirmed receiving a letter in January 2019 containing allegations of offences allegedly committed outside the United Kingdom. The letter was sent to its Protection Command because it raised concerns about the Duchess of Sussex's security. The Met reviewed it and decided to pass it to the Sussexes' office. It also confirmed that the allegations were not shared with other law enforcement agencies. Crucially, the Met has stated that it neither previously investigated Thomas Markle nor is currently investigating him. Yet we were initially told that Meghan had been shown the letter in the summer of 2018, that it explained her estrangement from her father, and that she had received assurances that the allegations were being investigated. Following the police statement, the timeline was corrected to January 2019. Her spokesperson has attributed the discrepancy to the passage of time and an understandable lapse of memory. I find that explanation difficult to reconcile with the extraordinary level of detail Harry and Meghan have devoted to documenting their personal history. We have heard about lip gloss, bridesmaids' dresses, tiaras, Nottingham Cottage, family disagreements, private conversations, press disputes and royal tours. These events have been revisited through interviews, books and documentaries, often with remarkable precision. Yet the timing of a letter containing allegations serious enough to supposedly influence a major family estrangement is now something nobody can accurately recall? More importantly, Meghan's estrangement from her father began before January 2019. If this letter is being presented as the reason for that estrangement, journalists should establish what she knew before then, how she knew it and what independent evidence supports that chronology. And what about the alleged assurances of an investigation? Who provided them? When? Which authority was supposedly investigating? The Met's statement does not corroborate those assurances. That does not establish that Meghan deliberately misled anyone, but it certainly warrants further questioning. Which brings me to the journalists. Chris Ship, Roya Nikkhah, Matt Wilkinson and others have reported details attributed to sources or documents that the public cannot independently examine. I am not suggesting that sensitive material involving potential child victims should be published. Quite the opposite. But journalists who claim to have examined the letter should be able to explain what they have verified about its date, provenance and transmission, and clearly distinguish those findings from statements supplied by the Sussexes or their representatives. A document containing allegations does not establish their truth. Nor does confirming that a letter existed independently verify someone's explanation of their personal decisions. Reporting what a spokesperson says is journalism. Establishing whether that account is supported by evidence is also journalism. And those two responsibilities should not be confused. I am not alleging that these journalists are coordinating their coverage. But the repeated presentation of similar claims, followed by a significant chronological correction, makes independent scrutiny all the more necessary. Now to the issue that troubles me most. There is an investigation in the Philippines involving allegations of child sexual abuse material. Those allegations are extraordinarily serious. Thomas Markle denies wrongdoing, and his guilt or innocence must be determined through a proper legal process.