Loud noise about how Harry "won" a review of his protection status - although the article (DM so far) was that it may/was initiated by the Home Office. Maybe? Maybe not. One of the comments was that actually it was part of a periodic review to see if the safety status has changed. It's been, what, five years? That would be logical. Status can change and therefore their interpretation of safe/not safe would need to be adjusted. Timing is good. The comments are running heavily in the No, don't give him an upgrade. Hot and heavy there. But ... sometimes I like to read the opposite comments to see how they phrase/look at the world. And, how their supportive numbers are running. Only a fraction supportive when you compare to don't give in group. Vocal? yes. Massive? no.
In the past, it always kind of bothered me that the media tended to call Catherine as Middleton. This even when they had been married for years. On some level, I felt perhaps they had missed notice of the wedding or something? Kind of spitefully mean middle school response. I just saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHtWxSvzGRo Very interesting about why it doesn't apply to Meghan. Think back through the history of antagonism towards the media - Harry with his past (photos, comments) and then bringing her in (where it was more she controlled output + good for her plans of expansion) to now the situation where she no longer could. Full stop. And, not a whiff of apology for the most part. Notice that it follows other stories of how the BBC have been rather coming face to face about past less savory actions to get what they wanted (lies to Diana and so on). I think we are seeing a shift in how reporting will hand...