Jan Moir lets slip that Prince Edward was also described by the same language used to describe Harry

The Daily Mail's Jan Moir opens her piece describing a prince who complained the British media hate anyone who succeeds, who said America is where the money is, who was accused of using royal privilege to film other members of his family without their permission, and who was mocked for an unwise fancy dress outfit. She structures that paragraph so the reader assumes she is describing Harry. She reveals a sentence later that she is describing Edward. That is documented. In a 1999 interview with the New York Times, Edward said the British media hate anyone who succeeds and that America is where the money is, comments confirmed by contemporaneous BBC and Independent coverage and criticised at the time by two Labour MPs. His production company, Ardent Productions, was reported in 2001 to have filmed royal family members without their consent, a controversy that ended with Edward agreeing to stop making royal films and apologising to the Queen. Ardent was later wound down having left assets of just forty pounds. And the fancy dress outfit is a reference to his widely mocked appearance in the 1987 televised event It's a Royal Knockout, which he also produced and which was considered an embarrassment for the institution at the time. So the entire opening of this piece is not a rhetorical trap describing Harry by accident. It is an accurate, sourced description of Edward's own record, deployed by the writer as a setup purely so she can then pivot to praising his quiet dignity and contrasting it against Harry's supposed lack of restraint. The behaviour in that first paragraph, complaining publicly about the press, monetising royal access, overstepping consent boundaries within the family, courting embarrassing publicity, is presented as forgivable history for one prince and as a character indictment for the other, inside the same five hundred words, written by the same person. The double standard does not stop at the opening paragraph either. The piece frames Ruthie Henshall's memoir as an embarrassing trial Edward endured with quiet fortitude, while omitting several other chapters of his own record that complicate the steady, dutiful portrait being sold. Sophie was caught in a 2001 newspaper sting making indiscreet comments about members of the royal family to an undercover reporter posing as a wealthy client, an episode that required its own damage control. Edward's television company folded owing considerably more than it earned. And when Prince Philip died in 2021, there was a sustained and eventually successful effort, reported across royal media at the time, to see Edward granted the title Duke of Edinburgh, which he received on his fifty ninth birthday in March 2023, a title he did not hold by right of birth and had to be actively pursued on his behalf. None of that appears in a piece built entirely around the idea that one prince complains and demands while the other simply gets on with it. The actual record shows two brothers who have both, at different points, criticised the press, sought financial opportunity outside strict royal convention, and generated their own embarrassing headlines. The difference the piece is really describing is not character. It is which prince the institution and its friendly press have decided to protect, and which one they have decided to make an example of. You do not need to defend Harry to notice that the writer's own first paragraph already told you the truth, before she spent the rest of the article trying to talk you out of it.