The NYT’s royal blunder

The NYT's royal blunder
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Text settings

Trebles all round at the New York Times after another dose of anti-British bile. Mr S last week noted that the Gray Lady's news reporting of Covid in the UK mixed misrepresentation with outdated figures. This week the newspaper has followed this up with the inevitable crowing comment piece to follow Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview. Titled 'Down with the British Monarchy' it mocks the Queen as 'some utterly random rich wastrel' and claims her own 'claim to legitimacy' is being 'the child of the child of the child of someone who was, centuries ago, the nation’s biggest gangster.'  

Leaving aside the question of whether Sophia of Hanover qualifies for such a title and indeed parliament's role in passing the Act of Settlement, Mr S can't help but wonder what the NYT's owner A G Sulzberger makes of his newspaper criticising hereditary privilege. After all, Mr Sulzeberger is actually the sixth member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family to serve as publisher since its patriarch Adolph S Ochs purchased the paper in 1896.

Mr S hopes that Mr Sulzeberger's heir does a better job in tackling dynastic succession.

Written bySteerpike

Steerpike is The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from Westminster and beyond. Email tips to