In a recent article, Omid Scobie, a spokesperson for Meghan Markle, has taken aim at Zara and Mike Tindall, highlighting what he perceives as a double standard in the treatment of the two families by the British media.
Scobie questions why the Tindalls’ various royal endeavors are rarely scrutinized, while every move made by the Sussexes is heavily criticized.
Scobie points out that despite Meghan and Harry no longer being working members of the royal family and relinquishing their HRH titles, their financial activities continue to face intense scrutiny.
Even when the couple used their personal funds to invest in a fintech asset manager, they faced criticism about potential ties to other companies or individuals.
In contrast, the Tindalls, who do not hold royal titles, have been applauded for their own business ventures, such as their podcasting careers and Zara’s achievements as a silver medalist Olympian.
The article by Scobie has sparked a range of responses online.
Some users argue that Meghan and Harry should have their titles stripped since Zara and Mike do not possess them, emphasizing the need for fair comparisons.
Others highlight the distinction between working royals and non-working, non-publicly funded royals, suggesting that the criticism directed towards Meghan and Harry is unwarranted.
One commenter points out that Zara and Mike have little in common with Meghan and Harry, and comparisons between the two couples are like comparing apples and oranges.
They also note that Zara and Mike are respected as athletes, which may contribute to their positive reception.
Meanwhile, royal expert Duncan Larkham believes that Mike Tindall’s decision to join the reality show “I’m a Celebrity” is a smart move.
Larkham suggests that Mike, who is married to Zara Tindall, has been underutilized by the monarchy and could potentially fill the role of the family’s court jester, previously held by Prince Harry.
Larkham argues that Mike’s successful rugby career and broadcasting experience make him a valuable asset for such ventures.
Larkham further explains that Mike’s involvement in the show would not be problematic for the palace, as he is an ex-rugby player with significant achievements.
He compares Mike’s potential participation to other rugby players who have previously appeared on the show.
Larkham believes that Mike’s long-standing presence within the royal scene, combined with his playful interactions with children during the Jubilee celebrations, will make him an entertaining addition to the family.
Although Mike Tindall is not a blood royal, it is expected that many members of the family would tune in to watch his appearance on “I’m a Celebrity.”
Larkham’s endorsement of Mike’s decision suggests that the ex-rugby player has the potential to bring entertainment to the rest of the royal family.
As the debate continues regarding the differing treatment of the Sussexes and the Tindalls, it remains to be seen how this ongoing saga will unfold.
The scrutiny faced by Meghan and Harry, even after stepping back from their royal duties, contrasts sharply with the more favorable reception received by Zara and Mike.
These double standards raise questions about the fairness and objectivity of the British media’s coverage of the two families.