I define press coverage of Meghan and Harry in two ways. Firstly, there is the title tattle and comment that attaches itself to those who put themselves in the public eye. Celebrities endure this as the cost of fame. People in the press routinely say that the beautiful and elegant Tess Daly on Strictly is dull. She has to shrug that off. Celebrities have to find a way of maximising their strengths, attending to the weaknesses and getting advice on how to develop their skills.
Some people are famous and their appearance attracts comment, notwithstanding they didn't put themselves in the public eye to get scrutinised for their looks. On Mumsnet, posters say they wouldn't shag Boris Johnson, impervious to his possible hurt feelings.
Then there is the commentary about the royals. For instance, people would post in the comments section of newspapers that they couldn't believe Prince Charles would choose Camilla over Diana. I expect performance comedians made similar gags. The press reported that Carole Middleton hadn't gone down well with the Queen, initially, for doing things like chewing gum and mini-pointing, when seated with Catherine, at a ceremonial occasion ( to do with William, I think). Even serious journalists like Sarah Vine have kind of defended Beatrice and Eugenie's looks ( not just their dress sense) and said how hard it must be for them not being as beautiful as Catherine - ticking off their strengths, like their great hair, I recall.
So much for tittle tattle. All of the above comments would have upset me, if I had been any of those people, because the comments obviously hit to the heart of what those individuals would like to be - elegant; accepted; loveable and twist the knife.
Then you have Meghan writing on the Sussex web page that they are going abroad to carve out a progressive new role within the British Royal Family. A few digs too - at the press. They didn't tell the Royal Family first. They didn't allow the Palace to announce the news. It was factually wrong because they were not going to be allowed to pursue royal duties in the way they chose. This had never been done before. It's like going into work at a big corporation and emailing the client list that you're going to be doing a semi-independent role - your way, from now on. What would everybody's line manager say and do on being forwarded that email by a client?
Then the Queen gets dissed for her use of the term 'service'. 'Wait' it's as if Meghan, trot back. 'You haven't got a monopoly on service, Your Maj. Who d'you think you are? Harry and I can do service - and more relevantly'.
I guess, any onlooker would think Meghan had taken the royals for fuddy duddy has-beens who were just ripe to be toppled from their perch and replaced by the cool younger royals. Not the serving ones, who no one follows, but the new hip royals.
To many people it is just so obvious that press criticism of Meghan is based on her extreme audacity and her problem-causing for the Royal Family, who do have a limited role to play in supplying the glue which binds community harmoniously - or so many think.