Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What was the impact of UK press coverage on public opinion and trust in the monarchy after Meghan's 2021 statements?
Executive summary
UK press coverage after Meghan’s March 2021 interview with Oprah amplified debates about racism, mental health and the monarchy’s future and coincided with measurable falls in pro‑monarchy sentiment in subsequent years; National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) data show support for the monarchy dropped from 68% [1] to 55% [2] and continued declining to around 51% by 2024 [3] [4]. Reporting and commentary ranged from sympathetic accounts that framed Meghan as exposing institutional failings to hostile pieces that portrayed the couple as attacking the monarchy — a split that shaped public discourse rather than producing a single, uniform effect [5] [6].
1. Tabloid intensity set the agenda — and polarised reactions
British tabloids and other UK outlets waged intense coverage of Meghan’s claims (racism, suicidal ideation, and institutional coldness), often mixing investigative pieces, opinion and character-focused reporting; commentators observed that the press debate became a central driver of public conversation about the monarchy’s values and future [7] [8]. Opposing framings emerged quickly: outlets and columnists sympathetic to Meghan emphasised alleged racism and mental‑health failings, while critics and some right‑leaning commentators argued the interview was an attack on the monarchy that would alienate many Brits [5] [6].
2. Immediate impact: sparking national and international debate
The interview and the press handling of it produced a fast, wide debate in the UK and abroad about the monarchy’s relevance and colonial legacy — from calls to reform to renewed abolitionist arguments in former colonies — showing how media coverage can internationalise a domestic royal story [9] [5]. US and international outlets amplified different aspects (sympathy for Meghan in some US media; criticisms and scepticism in other outlets), meaning the publicity pushed the issue onto multiple political agendas rather than settling it [10] [11].
3. Public opinion shifted but not uniformly; long‑term trends matter
Polling experts and academic analysis cited by NatCen show a downward trend in attachment to the monarchy that predates, but was exacerbated by, the 2021 crisis: support fell markedly between 2018 and 2021 and remained volatile through 2024–25, with partisan divides (Conservative supporters much more pro‑monarchy than Labour or Green supporters) [3] [4]. That suggests press coverage contributed to shifting perceptions but operated against broader generational and political trends already eroding support [3].
4. Who moved — and who hardened — their views
Analysts reported that Meghan’s revelations eroded trust especially among groups for whom the racism allegation resonated; foreign‑based commentary argued Black Britons and others saw the interview as confirmation of systemic problems, whereas other constituencies treated the couple’s statements as damaging and unpatriotic [10] [6]. The net effect was therefore a polarisation: some people lost trust in the institution because of the allegations and press stories amplifying them, while others rallied behind the monarchy after hostile coverage of the Sussexes [5] [7].
5. The press‑monarchy feedback loop: litigation and strategy after 2021
Reporting around the Sussexes has fed legal and communications responses that further changed dynamics: commentators note a shift toward litigation and more assertive press strategies by royal actors in later years, which itself affects public narratives and how trust is rebuilt or eroded [12]. The long‑term relationship between royal communications and media outlets has evolved — critics argue the symbiosis has been strained and that courtroom battles and formal press releases now shape what the public sees [13] [12].
6. Limitations in causal claims — correlation not simple causation
Available sources document clear correlations (strong media coverage, high‑profile allegations, shifts in polls) and divergent expert readings, but they do not prove a simple causal chain that UK press coverage alone changed national trust in the monarchy; NatCen and media commentators place the 2021 episode within longer trends of declining support and partisan sorting [3] [4]. Multiple factors — generational change, the Queen’s death and institutional events after 2021 — also influenced public opinion [3].
7. Competing narratives and hidden agendas to watch
Sympathetic outlets and commentators framed Meghan as exposing institutional racism and failures of care, advancing a reformist agenda that foregrounds equality and mental‑health accountability [5] [7]. Opponents, including conservative commentators and think‑tanks, framed coverage as partisan or self‑serving, arguing the couple’s claims damaged the monarchy and their own credibility — an interpretation that served to defend institutional legitimacy [6] [14]. Readers should note these competing agendas when judging media effects.
Conclusion: UK press coverage after Meghan’s 2021 statements magnified existing debates about the monarchy, contributed to polarisation of public opinion, and coincided with measurable declines in broad support — but the effect operated alongside longer‑term trends and partisan divides, and sources do not establish a single, definitive causal pathway from press stories to the full arc of public trust [3] [4] [5].