The UK newspaper front pages were filled with outrage and upset following the release of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s six-part Netflix documentary series.

The headlines screamed “Renewed Frenzy,” but the story remains the same.

Critics accused the royal couple of wanting to bring down the monarchy, while others described the tell-all as an assault on the Queen’s legacy.

The Daily Mail, in particular, offered a scathing critique of the royal couple, citing critics who accused them of trying to undermine the monarchy.

The paper portrayed the documentary as an attack on the Queen’s memory, with the Commonwealth being referred to as “Empire 2.0.”

Royal sources condemned this description as appalling and factually inaccurate, finding it deeply offensive to the Queen’s memory.

The Telegraph echoed a similar sentiment, claiming that the show directly targeted the late Queen’s legacy.

It quoted royal sources who criticized the documentary for its portrayal of the Commonwealth as Empire 2.0.

Buckingham Palace disputed these claims, asserting that the royal family had not declined to comment on the series.

The Times, on the other hand, described the series as a soap opera.

The paper highlighted Buckingham Palace’s denial of the claim that the royal family had refused to comment on the documentary.

The country’s High Commissioner to the UK also criticized the clumsy comments made about Empire 2.0, stating that it was insulting to think that they would blindly accept vassalage to another empire.

The use of footage featuring the Queen in the documentary drew astonishment within the royal household and at the headquarters of the Commonwealth in London.

The footage showed the late monarch at a Commonwealth summit in 2018 and her broadcasting to the British Empire in 1947.

However, it was interspersed with criticism of the organization by writer Afua Hirsch and academic Kehinde Andrews, who claimed that the Commonwealth had not changed since the days of the Empire.

Afua Hirsch referred to the Commonwealth as “Empire 2.0,” highlighting its similarities to the British Empire.

Kehinde Andrews, a professor of black studies, argued that conditions for black people within the Commonwealth remained dire, comparable to those experienced 50 or 100 years ago.

Royal sources expressed exasperation at Harry’s use of Commonwealth criticism in his TV series, as it was seen as undermining the Queen’s life work and legacy.

At the Commonwealth headquarters in London, staff questioned why Harry and Meghan had chosen well-known British critics of the organization and the monarchy to participate in the series, rather than consulting member nations about their reasons for joining.

A Commonwealth source challenged the view that the organization perpetuated the Empire, emphasizing that member states freely joined based on shared values and the benefits they gained from membership.

The new Commonwealth is led by equal members who direct its work, decide on priorities, and benefit from its successes.

The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, which previously had Harry and Meghan as its President and Vice President, distanced itself from the couple.

The trust no longer wishes to be associated with them.

The documentary has sparked a heated debate, with many questioning whether Harry and Meghan have overstepped their boundaries by dragging the late Queen’s legacy into their PR plot.

What are your thoughts on this?

Do you believe their actions are justified, or do you think they have gone too far?

Share your opinions in the comments section.

We will have to wait and see how things unfold.

And if you don’t want to miss any more sizzling royal updates like this, remember to subscribe and press the bell icon.

Thank you for your continued support.