Prince Harry's Account of 'Endless' Palace Leaks Hides an Awkward Truth

Prince Harry told 60 Minutes there had been "endless" palace leaks in which journalists were "spoon-fed information," after he was asked his reasons for going public with his story.

The account echoes comments made during his six-hour Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan, which accused palace staff of planting stories about the couple.

However, the narrative about leaks complicates the story about the couple's relationship with the media in that it lends authority to publications whose credibility they have frequently sought to undermine.

In the interview, due to be broadcast on Sunday, January 8, Harry told Anderson Cooper: "Every single time I've tried to do it privately there have been briefings and leakings and planting of stories against me and my wife. You know, the family motto is 'never complain, never explain,' but it's just a motto."

He added that the briefings had been "endless" and said: "They will feed or have a conversation with the correspondent. And that correspondent will literally be spoon-fed information and write the story. And at the bottom of it they will say that they've reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment.

"But the whole story is Buckingham Palace commenting. So when we're being told for the last six years, 'We can't put a statement out to protect you.' But you do it for other members of the family. It becomes... there becomes a point when silence is betrayal."

Prince Harry spoke to Cooper to promote his upcoming memoir, Spare, which is due for release on January 10.

While newspaper editors may not feel entirely comfortable with the depiction of their journalists being spoon-fed stories, Harry's allegations may encourage people to take a fresh look at articles in U.K. newspapers that quote anonymous royal sources.

For those inclined to side with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, it may be straightforward to dismiss palace leaks as Machiavellian manipulation. However, for others who want to know the palace perspective on the transatlantic royal rift, those anonymous sources may now seem far more credible.

Harry's use of the word "endless" perhaps suggests that those interested in the monarchy should assume there has been a real, and potentially well-placed, palace staffer behind a significant number of quotes attributed to a "royal source" that might otherwise have been perceived as fiction.

That may bring back the focus on a number of other stories about the couple, including the December 2018 allegations that Meghan's staff found her difficult to work for.

An article quoting an unnamed source in U.K. broadsheet The Sunday Times carried the headline: "Meghan loses second close aide, Samantha Cohen, as rumours swirl of 'Duchess Difficult.'"

The nickname stuck and was re-used by other British publications. However, it existed purely as an anonymous quote, with no evidence to back it up, until the days before Harry and Meghan's Oprah Winfrey interview, in March 2021.

At that point, a historic email sent in October 2018 by former Kensington Palace communications secretary Jason Knauf was leaked to U.K. newspaper The Times.

It showed that in private Meghan had been accused of more than being difficult—she had in fact been accused of bullying two PAs out of the household. Meghan's team denied that she was a bully and framed the leak of the email as a smear designed to undermine the Oprah interview.

The Sunday Times and its royal correspondent clearly didn't make up the existence of a dispute and the version that was leaked had been watered down compared to the allegation in the internal email sent two months previously.

Likewise, Meghan told Oprah that she was falsely accused of making Kate Middleton cry at a bridesmaid's dress fitting in a November 2018 article, an accusation first published in The Daily Telegraph and followed up on the front page of tabloid The Sun.

However, Meghan also confirmed the argument between her and Kate had happened and said that in fact she was the one who cried.

In other words, whatever the reality and whether it was unfair on the duchess or not, the account was leaked by a genuine source well-placed enough to know that a real dispute had happened and that it was serious enough to provoke tears. It will have been news for some that there was any real life argument at all.

For those who thought the British media was publishing completely fictional accounts produced from the overactive imaginations of desperate hacks, the direction of travel may have changed.

It is easy to see why some may have initially been dismissive of stories quoting unnamed royal sources.

Kensington Palace released a statement attacking the media on Prince Harry's behalf in November 2016, days after his relationship with Meghan first became public.

Attributed to the same communications secretary, Jason Knauf, who would later accuse Meghan of bullying, the statement read: "He [Harry] has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about."

When Harry and Meghan first announced their royal exit, they released a statement about the media on their now defunct Sussex Royal website: "Britain's Royal Correspondents are regarded internationally as credible sources of both the work of members of The Royal Family as well as of their private lives.

"This misconception propels coverage that is often carried by other outlets around the world, amplifying frequent misreporting."

Prince Harry told the third episode of their Netflix documentary: "It's the same as 'royal correspondent.' Royal correspondent is a title I suppose that is given to a select group of journalists so that those newspapers can use them and their stories with 'royal correspondent' as credible fact, just so that whatever the papers print can come with extra credibility.

"I mean, anyone can be a royal expert. The whole point of it is to lend legitimacy to media articles, and they get paid for it.

"And that sort of press pack of royal correspondents is essentially just an extended PR arm of the royal family."

Harry may not agree with the palace briefings, and may think some are unfair or even untrue. But if royal correspondents are able to provide the U.K. press with an account—whether spoon-fed or not—of the palace's perspective on a period of royal conflict more dramatic than any seen since the days of Princess Diana, then editors are unlikely to cut off their salaries any time soon.

In fact, if those journalists were able to tell the world exactly who their palace sources were, it's difficult to believe the world would cease to view them as experts.