I don't care what people think of our Royal Family but The Cut has been very disrespectful.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11214555/Readers-turn-Meghans-new-favourite-magazine-Cut-branded-King-Charles-big-fussy-baby.html#newcommentReaders turn on Meghan's new favourite magazine The Cut after it published article branding King Charles a 'big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff' as he walked behind the coffin carrying his mother
The Cut has upset its own readers with 'ignorant' article slamming the Queen and her son as world mourns
Writer Claire Lampen calls King Charles 'a big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff' and a 'persnickety snob'
She also repeats unverified claims branded 'fiction' by King's staff that he was racist towards grandson Archie
Magazine published a feature with Meghan Markle in August that contained series of 'swipes' toward royals
In it she had claimed Harry had felt he had ‘lost’ his father over his decision to quit his public duties
The Queen's funeral: All the latest Royal Family news and coverage
By Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter For Mailonline and Paul Farrell For Dailymail.Com
Published: 11:15, 15 September 2022 | Updated: 14:32, 15 September 2022
Meghan Markle's favourite left-wing US magazine The Cut published an extraordinary assault on King Charles III calling him a 'big, fussy baby and a jerk' as he marched behind his mother's coffin yesterday, MailOnline can reveal. The Duchess of Sussex is in the UK with her husband Prince Harry as part of ten days of mourning for the Queen ahead of her state funeral on Monday. The offensive article in the liberal New York magazine is likely to upset the Royal Family as it grieves the loss of Britain's longest-reigning monarch. The New York Times has also been accused of plumbing new depths in its campaign of 'sneering', 'anti-British propaganda' in recent days that has seen Britons cancel their subscriptions. The Cut published an in-depth interview with the Duchess of Sussex before she came to the UK last week where she claimed Harry felt he had ‘lost’ his father over his decision to quit his public duties. Meghan made a series of other apparent swipes at her British family, claiming they had been treated differently to other senior royals, and warned she could ‘say anything’ in an interview promoting her Spotify podcast. And in a new attack by The Cut, staff writer Claire Lampen, who appears to cover sex, gender and the royals, calls the monarch a 'big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff' and a 'persnickety snob'. She also refers to King Charles III as the 'Queen' throughout and makes claims about the King and Queen Consort's sex life. Last month she also made lewd comments about Prince William and speculation about the sexual proclivity of his royal relatives. Lampen says of the late Queen and her son: 'While there are valid criticisms to be made of his mother that she was the figurehead of a colonialist empire who never apologized for the crimes committed in her name, for example Charles has applied his own special flare to the job. It is a flare for being a big, fussy baby and a jerk to his staff; not very queenly material if you ask me'.
The piece from the New York Magazine offshoot even accuses Charles of racism towards his own grandson Archie - a claim his own spokesman said was 'fictional' last year. There are also false claims that the King stormed out of a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland when a pen leaked on him. This was a reference to an incident this week when he was seen venting frustration over pens which leak ‘every stinking time’ while signing a visitors’ book. Footage of the incident shows Charles completed the task before leaving. Lampen also says he threw a 'tantrum' and 'hissed' at his staff for not removing a pen quick enough when he was confirmed King at a ceremony on Saturday. In fact he merely motioned to an aide to urgently move a pen box from his desk which was getting in his way as he went to sign the historic Proclamation at St James' Palace. The Cut published the article titled: 'King Charles's Reign of Fussiness Has Begun' at around the time the mourning monarch, his siblings and his children accompanied the Queen's coffin on her final journey to Westminster Hall to lie in state yesterday afternoon.'
It has sparked outrage from some of the publication's own readers who slammed its timing and content. One declared it was 'a half ar*ed article bad mouthing the subject of that article with no real truths behind it'. Another said: 'It is sad to read such nonsense. But maybe this should be expected from a little comic that recently ran an article called "Meghan of Montecito". Yesterday's pictures from London will have shown the world how much we love and respect our Monarchy, including our wonderful new King'.
One critic said: 'Your snark isn't that clever, and your ignorance is astounding. I like the Cut, and have been a reader for many years, but the sentiment of this article has really made me reconsider their objectives'.
The Cut goes on to mention a report from the Guardian in which it was alleged that Charles chose to tell close to 100 employees that he was letting them go as he prepares to move into Buckingham Palace during a memorial service for his mother. A source told the newspaper: 'Everybody is absolutely livid, including private secretaries and the senior team.'
Lampen blames the King for the decision, calling it the 'culling of the royal herd'. He was in Edinburgh at the time. The article also accuses him of 'mundane cruelty' to his wife, Princess Diana.
The latest attack from the magazine Charles III comes less than a week after his mother's death
The Cut's assault on the mourning monarch came as The New York Times launched another attack on the monarchy, this time in a front page article criticising King Charles III for enjoying tax privileges while the British public is ‘reliant on food banks’. Infamously, shortly after the Queen's death, The Cut published an article titled: 'I Won't Cry Over the Death of a Violent Oppressor.'
The piece was an interview Carnegie Mellon linguistics professor Uju Anya who tweeted on Thursday: 'I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.'
Anya told the Cut that the Queen was a 'representative of the cult of white womanhood.' The Cut was launched in 2008 as a section on New York Magazine's website and made into a standalone brand in 2012. It owned by Vox Media, who publish titles such as Thrillist, Eater and The Verge. It has published such controversial removed pieces such as a 2018 article that referred to Priyanka Chopra as a 'global scam artist' with regard to her relationship with Nick Jonas and an open forum for spreading unconfirmed reports of sexual misconduct by men in journalism. Anya, an applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, is the daughter of a mother from Trinidad and a father from Nigeria. She told NBC News that she is 'a child of colonization,' and that her perspective was shaped by Britain's role in the Nigerian Civil War. 'My earliest memories were from living in a war-torn area, and rebuilding still hasn't finished even today,' she said.
She defended her remarks opposing the monarchy and added that the Queen was not exempt from the decisions made by the British government 'she supervised.' 'Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood,' Anya said.
'There's this notion that she was this little-old-lady grandma type with her little hats and her purses and little dogs and everything, as if she inhabited this place or this space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who didn't have a hand in the bloodshed of her Crown.'
In August, Markle told the Cut that what the couple asked for when they wanted financial freedom was not 'reinventing the wheel'. The article also heard from Harry who suggested some members of the Royal Family 'aren't able to work and live together', while Meghan revealed that her husband told her that he had 'lost' his father Prince Charles. Meghan also said: 'I'm getting back on Instagram' with Davies describing 'her eyes alight and devilish'.
It comes after she closed all of her social media accounts ahead of her wedding to Harry in 2018. But further down the article, it says: 'Later, Meghan would relay she was no longer sure she would actually return to Instagram.'
And Meghan said she spoke to a Lion King cast member from South Africa in London in 2019 who told her: 'When you married into this family, we rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison.'
Meghan said that she and Prince Harry were 'happy' to leave Britain and were 'upsetting the dynamic of the hierarchy just by existing' before they stepped down as frontline royals and moved to North America. Prior to the release of their interview, The Cut published an article titled: 'People Will Accuse Meghan Markle of Lying About Anything.' That piece dealt with Markle's claim that there had been a fire in Archie's room prior to the formerly Royal couple attending an event, and cited numerous commentators allegations that the event was exaggerated. The Cut reported today that 41-year-old Meghan listed a 'handful of princes and princesses and dukes who have the very arrangement they wanted', although none of these royals are named in the article. And Meghan, speaking to New York-based features writer Allison P Davis, said: 'That, for whatever reason, is not something that we were allowed to do, even though several other members of the family do that exact thing.'
Asked 'Why do you think that is?', she simply replied: 'Why do you think that is?', with the interviewer Davis saying that she said this 'right back with a side-eye that suggests I should understand without having to be told'.
The article states that Harry and Meghan suggested to 'The Firm' that they should be allowed to work on behalf of the monarchy but make their own money, with the Duchess saying: 'Then maybe all the noise would stop.'
The article says: 'They also thought it best to leave the U.K. (and the U.K. press) to do it. They were willing to go to basically any commonwealth, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, anywhere. ''Anything to just because just by existing, we were upsetting the dynamic of the hierarchy. So we go, 'Okay, fine, let's get out of here. Happy to,' ' she says, putting her hands up in mock defeat. Meghan asserts that what they were asking for wasn't 'reinventing the wheel' and lists a handful of princes and princesses and dukes who have the very arrangement they wanted. That, for whatever reason, is not something that we were allowed to do, even though several other members of the family do that exact thing.'
'Why do you think that is? I ask. 'Why do you think that is?' she says right back with a side-eye that suggests I should understand without having to be told.'
The Duchess was asked during the interview whether forgiveness can exist between her and her own family as well as members of the Royal Family. She told The Cut: 'I think forgiveness is really important. It takes a lot more energy to not forgive. But it takes a lot of effort to forgive. I've really made an active effort, especially knowing that I can say anything.'
The article also refers to Meghan's estranged father Thomas Markle, a retired lighting director who now lives in Mexico. The report said that Meghan discussed how two families had been 'torn apart'. And it quotes Meghan as saying: 'Harry said to me, 'I lost my dad in this process.' It doesn't have to be the same for them as it was for me, but that's his decision.'
The Left-wing New York Times newspaper has in recent years been accused of increasingly virulent anti-British bias. Only last week it came under fire for promoting an article claiming the Queen ‘helped obscure a bloody history of decolonisation’ on the day of her death. Now it has run a story accusing her grieving son and heir of using ‘tax breaks, offshore accounts and canny real estate investments’ to build a ‘billion-dollar business’. In the front page story on Tuesday, it claimed that as Prince of Wales, Charles spent ‘half a century turning his royal estate into a billion-dollar portfolio and one of the most lucrative money-makers in the royal family business’. The authors Jane Bradley and Euan Ward said he inherited an ‘untold personal fortune tax free’ from the late Queen while British citizen must pay 40 per cent inheritance tax. Questioning his wealth, the London-based writers say he amassed his riches at a ‘time when Britain faced deep austerity budget cuts. Poverty levels soared, and the use of food banks almost doubled.’
‘His lifestyle of palaces and polo has long fuelled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. And he has at times been the unwitting symbol of that disconnect,’ they added.
The newspaper has closely covered the death of the Queen and the accession of the new King over the past week including a number of front page stories and critical opinion pieces. In one article published last week under the heading ‘Mourn the Queen, Not Her Empire’ author Maya Jasanoff claimed that the monarch put a ‘traditionalist front’ on ‘decades of violent upheaval’. The professor of history at Harvard University wrote: ‘We may never learn what the Queen did or didn’t know about the crimes committed in her name.’
The move prompted a backlash on social media with critics branding it ‘totally inappropriate’ to publish the opinion piece on day of Her Majesty’s death. Ben Goldsmith, a financier and brother of Zac Goldsmith, a Tory peer, labelled the article ‘appalling’ and said he was ‘so revolted’ that he would cancel his subscription. While David McMurtrie, head of UK publishing at Google, added that the timing of the article was ‘totally inappropriate’. Earlier this month, the publication was also criticised for promoting a Kremlin-linked comedian’s attack on Liz Truss and the state on the UK.
Will Prince Harry now seize the opportunity for reconciliation his brother and father have given? If there was a chance for this most tragic of rifts in the family to be healed, this was surely it, writes RICHARD KAY
Just as it had 25 years and eight days ago, the September sun shone down on William and Harry as they walked side by side behind their grandmother’s coffin. But everything else was different. A quarter of a century before they were brothers united in grief at the sudden death of their mother and the fraternal bonds of shared loss seemed unbreakable. Yesterday only their mutual sorrow at the passing of the Queen remained. Rarely has the relationship between princes once so close looked so strained, nor the gulf between them so wide. There was no human barrier to separate them as there had been last year at the farewell for Prince Philip when the burly figure of their cousin, Princess Anne’s son Peter Phillips, walked between them. At their mother’s funeral they were just boys who could barely lift their gaze from the ground. Yesterday, they stared rigidly ahead, Harry hatless in his mourning clothes, William’s eyes hooded by the peaked cap of his RAF No 1 uniform. Both carried themselves with dignity and respect, impervious to those watching on who hoped for some sign small sign of reconciliation, some exchange of brotherly love, a flicker of forgiveness even. There was none. Of course, the solemnity of the occasion could make such a gesture misplaced. Twenty-five years ago, there was a moment when Princess Diana’s cortege disappeared briefly beneath Horse Guards Arch before re-appearing on Whitehall. Then there was a reassuring pat for William from his grandfather. This time there was no such release from the formality of it all and only Harry and William’s footfalls remained in lockstep. Yet if there was an opportunity for this most tragic of rifts to be healed, this was surely it. Four days earlier, as Harry and Meghan joined William and Kate to view the flowers and greet well-wishers at Windsor Castle, there was no disguising the coolness that now exists between brothers on whom the long-term future of the Royal Family once depended. Where once they were a natural and spontaneous foursome, now they were awkward and uncertain. But at least they were together. The question was, could Harry accept the olive branch he was being offered?
When Prince Philip died, Harry was a late arrival landing in Britain after a long flight from California he found himself playing catch-up and missing out on the nation’s mood of loss and sadness. Attempts at reconciling with his brother failed and he was soon heading home to Meghan, then pregnant with daughter Lilibet, and son Archie. This time there was no need for an urgent flight across the Atlantic he was already here when the Queen died last Thursday. It has meant he has been witness to the extraordinary outpouring of national grief and mourning that has gripped the country from the very beginning. If ever he wished to re-evaluate the decisions he has taken, then there was no better place to start than on the Mall yesterday as he stood in silent reflection behind his father, the King. How easy it would have been to confine the Prince and his wife to some minor role, tucked away as they were during the Platinum Jubilee celebrations as a mere support act. On that occasion the reality of their role as minor royals alongside the Queen’s cousins in the less prominent pews at St Paul’s Cathedral could not have been clearer. And if the same had happened this week, wouldn’t they only have had themselves to blame?
Their peevish complaints from their Montecito mansion, so often insensitive, have continued unabated. While looming over everything remains the spectre of Harry’s score-settling memoir. Yet King Charles and indeed William have shown magnanimity. Rather than being excluded, Harry has been brought into the centre of things. His role yesterday was hardly obscure. Indeed he was afforded every courtesy of his position as the King’s son. He was in his rightful place alongside his brother and behind his father. In Westminster Hall, he and the Duchess of Sussex lined up exactly as they should have in the order of succession behind William and Kate to pay their respects to the Queen’s coffin. As for Meghan, she too was shown the respect that merits a monarch’s daughter-in-law. While Harry walked with his brother, his wife travelled in a royal limousine with his aunt Sophie, Countess of Wessex. She was second in the convoy of royal cars behind the Queen Consort and Kate, the new Princess of Wales. In the fine-tuned world of monarchy these are more than just symbolic gestures. Here, Harry was being shown his rightful place in the House of Windsor, should he ever wish to return and pick up the threads of his royal life. What is clear is that he is not at least not yet being treated as the royals once treated another former much-loved figure who chose exile over duty. King Edward VIII and his wife Wallis who was always denied an HRH title was never truly welcomed in Britain after the abdication. Does Harry realise that?
Can he even see the distinction?
Surveying the now thinning ranks of frontline royals, even he must realise how much his father, a pensioner King, and his brother need him. The question is, will Harry seize the opportunity?
There is one other factor, however. In America, where the Sussexes’ celebrity has definitely been waning, how significant will be Harry and Meghan’s central role this week?
How much will it have breathed fresh life into their flagging brand?
The answer, of course, is that the brand will have been transformed by their closeness to an epic event that has gripped the world. They have reafirmed their status as outsiders with a ringside seat at great historical occasions. For months, rumours have trickled out from California that Harry is homesick, that he misses his friends, his old Army buddies and even the English countryside. ‘What does he do all day,’ is frequently asked by some of his oldest friends?
It is only fair to say that in Meghan and their children, he has a settled and extremely happy domestic life. And it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that he is here because of his love and affection for the Queen and he has been sincerely sorrowful. His moving statement about her ‘unwavering grace and dignity’ was testament to that. But opportunity for members of the Royal Family rarely knocks more than once. Between them, his father and brother have offered him a way back and he has had more than a glimpse of the life he left behind. There is a pragmatism here on Charles’s and William’s part: they need him. Slimming down the Royal Family is all very well, but in just two years it has lost much of its firepower: the disgraced Andrew, the absent Harry and Meghan, and now the Queen. Soon those royal cousins, the Gloucesters and Kents, who did much of the unsung heavy lifting are likely to retire. There will be a need for more working royals, not fewer. For Harry any step towards a royal re-engagement would mean significant compromise. Can he cancel the book, for example, and can he stop his wife’s endless critical and selfish interventions about how shabbily they were treated by the royals?
There would need to be compromise on William’s side, too and he will not find it easy to forgive. As one royal friend told me: ‘You can apologise but you can’t unsay things you have said and Harry and Meghan have said an awful lot, much of it deeply hurtful.’
Just suppose some form of reconciliation came to pass, and Harry was prepared to resume his life here, where would that leave Meghan?
Could they find a new royal model that allows Harry to rejoin ‘The Firm’ and his wife to have a semi-detached role?
It could be done. A role of this sort developed over time for Princess Diana, who continued to support Charles at national events throughout their separation but followed her own path in terms of duties. The difference of course is that Diana did not commercialise her life as Meghan and Harry have done. And it is for this reason, tragically, that for all the positive signs the couple’s presence have triggered, not even the most optimistic of courtiers truly believe there is any way back for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Of course, they will be back for Charles’s coronation, but after that?
In the years ahead, failing to recognise the possibilities presented to them this week may turn out to be the couple’s biggest error yet.
Together again for the Queen: Harry and Meghan stand behind William and Kate in Westminster Hall lying in state service days after they reunited to meet mourners in Windsor
By Martin Robinson and Mark Duell and Rory Tingle For Mailonline
William and Harry stood together with their wives Kate and Meghan on Wednesday as they put aside their bitter feud to honour the Queen for her lying in state service inside Westminster Hall. While the brothers walked side-by-side for the poignant 38-minute procession from Buckingham Palace, their spouses travelled in separate cars, with Meghan accompanied by the Countess of Wessex and Kate joined by Camilla, the Queen Consort. During the service, the 'Fab Four' stood in formation facing the coffin on its purple-covered catafalque, which was flanked with a tall, yellow flickering candle at each corner of the wide scarlet platform in the heart of Westminster Hall the backdrop of some of the most famous moments in British history. The Sussexes stood at the back of the group of royals, with Harry directly behind William and Meghan behind Kate. The touching moment is the first time the couples have been seen together since their surprise walkabout together at Windsor Castle on Saturday, and a rare show of togetherness. The Queen's coffin entered Westminster Hall as the choir of Westminster Abbey and the choir of His Majesty's Chapel Royal, St James's Palace, sang Psalm 139. When the Queen arrived, Charles, William and Anne saluted. Harry and Prince Andrew barred from wearing military uniform bowed their head instead. The Archbishop of Canterbury then read the opening prayer, which the King led the royals in reciting. The family stood silently for the short service that the late monarch had put together with the Church of England before she died aged 96. After the congregation was dismissed, cries of 'God save the King' could be heard as the King and the Queen Consort left Westminster Hall as Big Ben rang out at 3.30pm. Royal couples left the building side by side, with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex holding hands and the Princess of Wales rubbing her husband's arm reassuringly. From 5pm mourners will be able to file past the coffin to pay their respects to Britain's longest-reigning monarch with an estimated 1million people expected to queue for up to 30 hours to see her before the state funeral on Monday. The procession poignantly passed the statue of the Queen's parents King George VI and the Queen Mother which overlooks The Mall. The Imperial State Crown, worn by the Queen on the way back to Buckingham Palace after her Coronation, glittered in the daylight as the crowds held aloft their phones to capture the scenes. After a 38 minute journey to the cradle of British democracy, the coffin was brought into the Houses of Parliament via the Carriage Gates entrance and passed through New Palace Yard, which features at its centre a fountain to commemorate the Queen's Silver Jubilee. The King and the Queen Consort led the Royal Family into Westminster Hall with William and Kate standing in front of Harry and Meghan during the 20 minute service led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hundreds of thousands of people lined the route but there was a silent reverence as the coffin appeared. There were some muted cheers and clapping and cries of God Save the Queen as well as many tears shed as the late monarch left her London home for the final time. All viewing areas on The Mall, Whitehall and Parliament Square were full by 1pm with people turned away. The Queen's coffin was draped with the Royal Standard and adorned with the glittering, priceless Imperial State Crown on a purple velvet cushion and a wreath of white flowers for the procession to the lying in state. The flowers were white roses, spray white roses, white dahlias and foliage, including pine from the gardens at Balmoral and pittosporum, lavender and rosemary from the gardens at Windsor. The procession left the palace at 2.22pm and is expected to arrive at Westminster Hall at 3pm. A service lasting around 20 minutes will be led by the Archbishop of Canterbury accompanied by the Dean of Westminster. Princess Anne, who has remained with her mother since she died last Thursday, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward also followed the coffin on the 1.2mile journey to Westminster Hall the ancient heart of the Houses of Parliament where up to 1million Britons hope to see the Queen lying in state there as her father and mother did in 1952 and 2002. Queen Consort Camilla, the Princess of Wales, the Duchess of Sussex and the Countess of Wessex followed by car. Zara and Mike Tindall. Princess Beatrice, her husband Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack Brooksbank are also taking part. But Andrew's ex-wife Sarah Ferguson did not receive an invite because of their divorce. The occasion is heavy with historical significance, with brothers Prince William and Prince Harry setting aside their ongoing feud to support their father by marching with him behind the coffin. For William and Harry it will bring back painful memories of when they, aged 15 and 12, walked behind the coffin of their mother Princess Diana in 1997. The Queen's coffin was borne on a Gun Carriage of The King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery - poignantly used for the coffins of the late Queen's mother and father. Known as the George Gun Carriage, it carried King George VI from Sandringham Church to Wolferton Station after his death in 1952 and was used in the funeral of the Queen Mother in 2002. The royals moved in time to the imposing funeral marches, in step with one another and the troops. William stared straight ahead as he processed directly behind his father the King, in keeping with his place as the new heir to the throne. Charles, in his Field Marshal uniform, held onto the end of his Field Marshal Baton, which was presented to him by his mother when he became Field Marshal in 2012. Solemn members of the Royal Family gathered this lunchtime to prepare to accompany the Queen for her poignant final journey from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall, where she will lie in state for the next five nights. The crowd burst into applause and cheers as King Charles III passed the Victoria Memorial in his state Rolls Royce as he was taken into the residence, followed later by Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice and Queen Consort Camilla. Hundreds of thousands of well-wishers are expected to line the route as they do so. The Queen's other children Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and Princess Anne will also form part of the procession through London. Her Majesty spent her final night in the Bow Room of Buckingham Palace before she will be conveyed on a gun carriage to Westminster Hall where she will lie in state until 6.30am next Monday, the day of her funeral. More than one million people are expected to queue in Central London for up to 35 hours to walk past her coffin but experts believe only 400,000 will make it inside meaning 600,000 people will be left disappointed.
Sex and gender writer behind latest hit job on the royals by US magazine The Cut
Claire Lampen (right) is Bates history major and recipient of a Fulbright Study Research grant to aid her research into German history. She has written about The Great War and the Second World War - and the impact of the battlefield. But since moving into journalism, she has written widely on gender, sex, women's issues and reproductive rights. These include articles such as: 'If Your Vibrator Is Hacked, Is It A Sex Crime?'
Since becoming a staff writer for The Cut, she has written more royal stories. Before the much-criticised piece on King Charles, last month she penned an article about Prince William's 'sexy nickname' and another piece on whether the new Prince of Wales 'dropped the F-bomb'. Claire also wrote a piece called: 'Is the Queen Beefing With Her "Favourite" Cheese?'
Fury at 'woke' New York Times' 'sneering attack' on the monarchy as readers cancel subscriptions
The New York Times has been accused of plumbing new depths in its campaign of 'sneering', 'anti-British propaganda', as an article revealed - with apparent surprise - that it would be up to UK taxpayers to pay for a funeral for their own head of state.
The story labeled it a 'hefty price tag' amid rampant inflation in Britain, but readers were unamused, with some announcing they were cancelling their subscriptions following a barrage of attacks on the monarchy within days of the Queen's death.
America's 'paper of record' has long been accused of displaying a haughty ignorance of the reality of life in the UK, with reports in recent years suggesting Brits spend their time 'cavorting in swamps' and, until recently, existed on a diet of 'porridge and boiled mutton'.
For many, its latest report only confirmed this impression, with Andrew Neil suggesting it wasn't exactly revelatory to point out that a funeral for a head of state who had served with unfailing duty for 70 years would be funded by that country's taxpayers.
'Amazing scoop from the New York Times reveals that the Queen's funeral will be paid out of taxation,' he tweeted. 'Must be a first for any head of state anywhere. Or … maybe there are no depths to which the @nytimes won't stoop in its anti-British propaganda.'
Harry and Meghan 'angry as it emerges Archie and Lilibet will not get HRH titles when they are appointed Prince and Princess by Charles'
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's children will not be granted HRH status when they are appointed by prince and princess by King Charles III, a source has claimed. Archie, three, and Lilibet, one, are set to be officially made prince and princess in the near future as Charles has agreed to issue a Letters Patent to grant the titles. But a report claims that following tense talks between the new King over recent days, the Sussexes have been left 'furious' that their children will not also get HRH titles. Harry and Meghan are said to have highlighted that Prince Andrew's daughters Beatrice and Eugenie have HRH status despite not being working royals. A source told The Sun: 'Harry and Meghan were worried about the security issue and being prince and princess brings them the right to have certain levels of royal security. 'There have been a lot of talks over the past week. They have been insistent that Archie and Lilibet are prince and princess. They have been relentless since the Queen died. But they have been left furious that Archie and Lilibet cannot take the title HRH. That is the agreement they can be prince and princess but not HRH because they are not working royals.'
