Aja Binder

Profesor Richard

ENG 1111-70

25 March 2022

The Riches: Heavy Bias on the World’s Most Royalist Couple

Biases exist within ourselves, whether we admit it or not. This truth is an unfortunate

reality because biases are very damaging. In any event, bias in news articles is the most

damaging because the news informs others of recent stories. Every person relies on the news and

for the news to tell us the truth. The news story about former Prince Harry’s and his wife

Meghan Markle’s decision to remove the ‘his/her royal highness’ (HRH) title from their name

and ultimately remove themselves as working members of Britain's monarchy is an exemplary

case of the implicit biases found in news articles. The variability among renowned news sources

about the same story exists because of the writers’ ability to manipulate a story for more reads.

For more reads, the writer must write in a way that best aligns with their audience. This paper

will look at how The Guardian, AP News, and BBC each tell the story of Prince Harry and

Meghan Markle’s decision to remove said connections to the throne.

The most alluring part of any news article is its headline, and each source displayed theirs

uniquely. AP News wrote “Harry, Meghan to Quit Royal Jobs, Give Up ‘highness’ Titles.” AP

News is supposed to be a reasonably neutral news source, however, when you compare this

headline to the very similar headlines of The Guardian: “Harry and Meghan to drop HRH titles

and repay £2.4m”, and BBC: “Harry and Meghan to Drop Royal Duties and HRH Titles” you see

there is a subtle but crucial difference in language that makes the AP News source more negative.

The AP News piece uses ‘quit’ and ‘give up,’creatings a lazy tone. To give up or to quit is highly
looked down upon by society; thereby the inclusion of the word makes the reader look down

upon the former royals’ decision to debunk their royal titles. This is interesting because it

introduces a prerequisite that is particular to one article rather than an overview of facts that are

relevant to the story.

Interestingly enough, the articles do share some contributing plot features. A common

focal point shared among the three articles was Meghan’s ongoing backlash from being an

outsider to the monarchy. Both The Guardian and BBC discuss this point keeping in mind that

the backlash was uncontrolled by Meghan and an unfortunate circumstance. The BBC does so by

alluding to Prince Harry’s “fear that his wife would fall victim to the same powerful forces

[scrutiny] that led to his mother’s death” (BBC 2020). By mentioning Prince Harry’s expressive

‘fear’ the BBC studiously sparks an emotional reaction within the reader. This immediate

reaction suddenly makes the reader understand Meghan because the reader can relate to her

through the evolutionary adaptation that fear is an overwhelmingly unwanted emotion.

Consequently, the BBC deepens our understanding of Meghan and her family’s unfortunate

reality. The Guardian similarly focuses on the backlash with a mention to the Queen, and her

word’s during this difficult time as she says, “I recognize the challenges they have experienced

as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more

independent life” (The Guardian, 2020). By including the Queen's direct words of her support

and her acknowledgement of the difficulties endured by the family, The Guardian attempts to

maintain neutrality on the situation by bringing into light the depth of the situation. By the same

token, the Queen uses the word ‘intense,’ which supports the article’s rationale about how

disruptive the backlash has gotten. Since we usually correlate intensity with overload, the word

appropriately gratifies the impact of the backlash.

 Conversely, fairness towards Meghan is quickly diminished in the AP News report. AP

News covered the unexpected emotional transition as “disillusionment setting in fairly quickly

[for Meghan]” (AP News 2020). By choosing ‘disillusionment’ to describe Meghan’s

unprecedented welcome to the monarchy, AP News makes it seem as if it is Meghan’s fault for

expecting a warm welcome.

Another discrete form of bias found in the articles is a referral to historical events. This

was heavily included in BBC and AP News. The BBC had a statement that the royal pair would

continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. This went on to introduce the past

associations made, specifically, those made among the Rugby Football League and the Rhino

Conservation Botswana. By choosing to include these facts, BBC creates an article that is more

pro-Prince Harry and wife Meghan because it assures the reader that Prince Harry and his wife

Meghan are still kind people.

On the contrary, AP News decided to incorporate pieces of history that make the reader

reflect negatively on the pair’s decision. By choosing to mention Prince Harry as “a devoted

Army veteran and servant to the crown, who carried out dozens of royal engagements each year”

(AP News 2020), AP News emphasizes the juxtaposition of his departing and thus makes it seem

like it is the wrong thing to do. AP News does this again when they chose to include the royal’s

history with the duchy chartered in 1337. The wire source included that “[the duchy] produced

more than 20 million pounds ($26 million) in revenue last year [to help fund Prince Charles’

activities and those of his wife and sons]. It is widely regarded as private money, not public

funds. Much of the royals’ wealth comes from private holdings.” (AP News 2020). The decision

to include this historical aside, which is not made in either The Guardian or BBC, is to have the
readers realize how much the royals relied on others and yet again juxtapose their decision to

leave because it makes it out to seem like they are not appreciative of the help.

The news of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle removing their HRH titles and

themselves financially from the monarchy does not require past references. The news is designed

to tell people current news; anything else is decorative and thus unnecessary. The writer chooses

to include certain parts of history that they deem caters to their audience, which in turn is biased.

Among the three news articles, The Guardian and BBC were biased in favour of the pair.

They provided a tone of support and thus emphasized the former royals’ change as a positive.

While AP News specifically focused on the pair’s reliance on others in the past and used

language that indicated to the reader a feeling of overall ungratefulness towards the monarchy

and the people of Britain.

When staying up to date on the current news scandals, it is essential to conduct research

on the origin of the source presented, whether it be a news source or a social media page. An

article, like the ones from BBC and The Guardian, is biased as well even though it is speaking

positively of the pair. Knowing that those two sources are British-owned makes one hyper-aware

of the potential bias that could exist in favour of the storyline. It is also wise to look at multiple

sources because then common themes will emerge, and the juicy asides will become clear. Both

of these tips are beneficial because biases do exist throughout everything. However, a way to

avoid potentially falling into a biased article or news input source is to become knowledgeable of

these sources. Then, hopefully, some biases will be debunked, and an accurate report on the

news will become clearer.

 Works Cited

Global News Ltd., BBC. “Harry and Meghan Drop Royal Duties and HRH Titles.” BBC News,

BBC, 19 Jan. 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51163865.

Katz, Gregory. “Harry, Meghan to Quit Royal Jobs, Give up 'Highness' Titles.” AP NEWS,

Associated Press, 18 Jan. 2020, https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-prince-harry-

ap-top-news-internationl-news-europe-5bfcbf944904be1ce273d2d14618b624.

Tapper, James. “Harry and Meghan to Drop HRH Titles and Repay £2.4m.” The Guardian,

Guardian News and Media, 18 Jan. 2020,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/18/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-to-

drop-hrh-titles.