I think there is an important principle - there has been no admission of guilt, if this were someone not in the public eye I would be appalled that they were being reported as guilty. This was/is a civil case. I don't think there is a right for people to know how he is funding the settlement - the same would apply to other cases.
We don't know the details - this case did not go to court and therefore there must be a presumption of innocence . I say that because if this were not a member of the royal family or a famous individual I think we would be horrified if they were assumed guilty.
We frequently see cases where a person is named if they are either accused in a criminal or civil case - the other individual remaining anonymous - this admittedly has not happened in this case but there is again trial by media. I say this not out of any feelings for this case but due to the principle.