Experts suggest the Duke of Sussex and Meghan Markle may have strengthened criticism by reacting too strongly
Harry and Meghan Markle’s recent response to criticism continues to stir debate, with some experts suggesting the couple may have made a strategic misstep.
Days after issuing a strongly worded statement targeting what they described as a “deranged” commentator known for pushing “conspiracy” and “melodrama,” reactions are still pouring in. The couple also criticised the individual for building a career on theories about people they have never met.
Among those weighing in is Renae Smith, founder and director of Atticism, who believes the response may have done more harm than good. Speaking to the Daily Express, she described the move as ill-advised from a public relations standpoint.
“I don’t think the statement was a wise move at all,” she said. “It was scathing, very detailed, and emotionally loaded, which is rarely the strongest position when responding to a book like this.”
The controversy centres around claims made by author Tom Bower in his latest book, recently serialised by The Times. The book includes allegations about Meghan Markle’s role and influence, along with other contentious assertions.
According to Smith, the couple’s reaction may unintentionally signal that the criticism struck a nerve.
“Does it show that Bower hit a nerve? Yes, I think it does,” she explained. “Not necessarily because every claim is true, but because it aligns closely enough with existing public perceptions to resonate.”
She added that when public figures respond so directly and emotionally, it can have the opposite effect of what they intend.
“People rarely walk away thinking the matter is settled,” she noted. “Instead, it often leaves them wondering if there is some truth behind the claims.”
Alongside Harry and Meghan Markle’s response, the Invictus Games Foundation also issued a statement rejecting the allegations. The organisation defended its mission and criticised the coverage.
“It is disappointing to see The Times give prominence to commentary that appears driven by a long-established agenda rather than a genuine understanding of the Invictus Games and the community it supports,” the statement read.
The foundation reiterated that its purpose remains supporting the recovery and rehabilitation of wounded, injured, and sick service personnel and veterans worldwide.
It also pushed back against suggestions that undermine participants’ experiences, particularly those living with invisible conditions such as PTSD.
“Attempts to question the legitimacy of competitors or diminish their experiences are deeply disrespectful,” the statement continued. “The focus should remain on the courage, recovery, and camaraderie of those who have served.”
The situation highlights the delicate balance public figures must strike when addressing criticism, especially in an already charged media environment.
