It has been over a week now since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced their decision to step down as senior members of the British Royal Family.
They will become financially independent, the couple explained, and will split their time between England and Canada.
Since then, the Queen has assured the public she is “entirely supportive” of her grandson and his wife’s decision, with plans currently underway to strategise their “period of transition”.
Now, as their drastic changes and "progressive" new roles are put into place, royal experts are sharing their thoughts on the couple's revised media approach - which sees them leave the 'Royal Rota' that was established 40 years ago.
Here's everything we know about the Royal Rota, and what the experts are saying about it.
What is the Royal Rota?
As the Duke and Duchess of Sussex explain on their new website, the Royal Rota is a system that allows UK media "exclusive inside access to the official engagements of members of the Royal Family".
"The core group of UK outlets with Royal Rota access remain the predominant news source through which worldwide media organisations receive content on the official engagements of members of the Royal Family."
This includes The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Mirror, Daily Express, The Telegraph and more.
Why are Meghan Markle and Prince Harry leaving the Royal Rota?
In their own words, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry say they are leaving the Royal Rota system "to reflect both their forthcoming change as members of the Royal Family with financial independence, and their wish to reshape and broaden access to their work."
Their new approach, they say, will aim to engage with "grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalists", "provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting," and "continue to share information directly to the wider public via their official communications channels".
What do the experts say about their decision?
Royal Reporter for the Daily Express Frederica Miller spoke to Mamamia's daily news podcast, The Quicky, about how the UK media generally feels about the royals' decision.
Miller told host Claire Murphy that their approach will feel like journalists are "getting information from a PR [public relations] exercise".
"If they're picking journalists and kind of curating their own publicity rather than showing the event in a real way, it's almost just like a PR exercise."
Listen to The Quicky here, as we interview Frederica Miller about her thoughts on Meghan and Harry's decision. Post continues below.
Furthermore, Miller criticised the royals' disapproval of the tabloid media, saying her colleagues share "a sense of frustration because they are suggesting that none of the tabloid journalists are qualified.
"They've spoken on their website about engaging with the grassroots media organisations and young and up-and-coming journalists, but they don't recognise that actually a lot of the journalists working for the outlets they want to ban are up-and-coming."
As for if the royal couple's frustration at the British tabloid press is justified, Miller believes the media has not necessarily been unfair.
"I think a lot of the negative coverage they've had, there has actually been a good reason for it."
"Some of their actions need to be held to account over the past year. Things like taking private jets while preaching about green causes - it just seems hypocritical and I don't think it's wrong to pick that kind of thing up."
Miller does, however, concede that she understands why they would be upset "on a personal level," admitting, "it must be horrible to read coverage that you don't like about yourselves."
"But I just think that's part of being a public figure."
However, this criticism of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry is not shared by all Royal experts.
Internationally renowned European Royal Expert Marlene Koenig also spoke to The Quicky, saying: "Let's be honest - Meghan has not been treated fairly.
"She's been their whipping boy and that is just not a good thing."
Feature image: Getty.
Sign up for the "Mamamia Daily" newsletter. Your morning hit of the top news stories, to be consumed with a coffee in hand.
To support those affected by Australia's devastating bushfire crisis, you can donate to the Australian Red Cross disaster relief and recovery fund. Your money will go towards supporting thousands of people in evacuation centres, emergency assistance including cash grants to people who have lost their homes, psychological first aid, and helping communities prepare for future disaster.
Top Comments
It seems they would like ‘journalists’ to focus on the charities and organisations they are supporting and the good things they are doing, rather than constantly gossiping about their personal/private lives. Things like constantly interviewing estranged family members (when Meghan has no voice to give her own side of the story in what must be a very difficult and painful situation), criticising Meghan for touching her baby bump, insisting on attending their private family christening and outrage about not knowing who the godparents are (who cares?), and other constant speculation/gossip has obviously not been enjoyable for them and probably very toxic.
By no longer being ‘senior royals’ and by becoming financially independent they can take back control of their lives are no more ‘public property’ and expected to put up with nasty gossip in the name of ‘news.’
The private jet thing is literally the only fair criticism the other 80-90 % of so called royal reporting has been sexist and racist gossip designed to generate clicks and spread hate towards that big bad black woman who should be seen but not heard, and if she is heard she should be quiet and
bland smile nicely for the cameras and wear neutral nail polish.
You seem to have fallen into the trap that Meghan was the victim of a vicious racist campaign to oust her from the Royal Family, without providing any evidence to support such a statement. There was enormous good will and press coverage of the couple both before and after they married. The rot stsrted to set in when Meghan appeared to confuse her celebrity background with Royalty, spending huge amounts of money on clothes, merching for her friends, the vulgar baby shower, naff messages scrawled on bananas. It was more than occasionally touching her baby bump, it was constant when appearing in public on behalf of the Queen and looked more Essex than Sussex. As for the Christening, none of the press expected to be invited, but neither did they (or the public) expected the level of secrecy surrounding it, including naming the godparents and snubbing the royal rota for Gayle King's exclusive photo op. None of those things have anything to do with race. Harry snubbing the Royal Marines for a Lion King premiere where it appears he hit on the CEO for a job for Meghan was crass and shows them both in a poor light. Fast forward to their African trip which received hugely positive media coverage. So what did they do, Harry abused a female reporter and Meghan gave a pathetic interview about her terrible life. They could have left the Royal Family and concentrated on charitable work and lived off Harry's rather generous £30 million slush fund, but, the Sussex Foundation raises questions who will really benefit from it. They want the benefits of Royalty, but none of the drawbacks.
Being a royal means being apolitical and not putting your point of view or personality on as the main show. It's nothing to do with being "that big bad black woman". Meghan wanted to be a celebrity with celebrity press, not a public figure bound to duties who is subjected to scrutiny.
"You seem to have fallen into the trap that Meghan was the victim of a vicious racist campaign to oust her from the Royal Family..."
And you have just regurgitated the tabloid stories about Meghan and Harry. So what if Meghan touched her belly while she is pregnant? So does every other pregnant women. So what if they spend money on clothes - do you think other members of the royal family don't?
If you have a look on the web, there's a very interesting article that compares headlines about Kate, with headlines about Meghan from tabloid papers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail. When Kate touched her pregnant belly, she was described as maternal. When Meghan touched her baby bump, she was described as acting, or as trying to attract attention. When Kate didn't wear a hat to an event with Queen Elizabeth, she was described as independent and trend-setting. When Meghan did it, she was criticised for being disrespectful and ignoring custom. There are many more examples.
Kate was rarely seen touching her baby bump, unlike Meghan who appeared to have her hands super glued to it. You never saw the Queen, Diana , Anne etc ever grope their pregnant bellies in public. Kate had heaps chucked at her by the press before and after she married William. As for clothes, of course Royalty spend huge amounts on them, but close to a £500,000 million within a year is pushing it especially for the wife of the sixth in line to the throne. Princess Anne still drags outfits she wore back in the 1970s and the Queen is famous for her frugality.
Perhaps if the "Royal Rota" (ie the UK tabloid media) had not been so savage in its coverage of Megan, Harry and Megan would be more co-operative?
On the one hand, highlighting the hypocrisy of travelling via private jet while talking about the need to combat climate change is relevant and reasonable.
On the other hand, there has been article, after article, after article that paints Megan as selfish, controlling, arrogant, lazy, shallow and much, much more.
The media (as we see all the time with so-called reality TV) loves to create a villian, and to pit one person, or couple, against another. This is precisely what the UK tabloid media is doing with Megan - it is painting her as the villian, and it is attempting to pit Harry and Megan against William and Kate. It is done purely to generate newspaper sales and page views, and it is unfortunate that so many people appear to be hoodwinked by it.
I don't think Meghan has ever been accused of being lazy, generally that accusation is directed at Kate, or Duchess Doolittle (as dubbed by the press).