RadarOnline and OK! Magazine dropped another entry in the Sussex marital doom genre this week, and it’s a masterclass in constructing crisis from thin air. “Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Leading ‘Separate Lives’ as They Work on Different Business Ventures” screams the headline, promising scandal while delivering… the revelation that two professionals have different career interests.

Let’s deconstruct how this narrative assembly line works.

The Sourcing Shell Game

The entire piece rests on anonymous sources: “a source,” “an insider,” someone who conveniently knows what happens “when the cameras are off.” Not a single verifiable human being. The only named source? Kinsey Schofield, identified as a “royal expert” despite having zero palace access. She’s a commentator who monetizes royal content her expertise is in generating royal commentary, not insider knowledge.

This is legitimacy theater. By including one named source with an official-sounding title, the piece creates a veneer of credibility while the actual claims come from literally nowhere.

The Contradictions They Hope You Won’t Notice

Here’s where it gets delicious. The article claims Harry and Meghan are “spending a ton of time apart” due to their “separate lives.” But buried in the middle? An acknowledgment that they just appeared together at the 2026 Sundance Film Festival in late January promoting their joint Girl Scout documentary, Cookie Queens.

So they’re allegedly leading separate lives… while collaborating on documentary projects and appearing together at major film festivals. Make it make sense.

Let me present Exhibits A and B:

February 5, 2026 (People Magazine): Meghan Markle posts Instagram video of herself bringing chocolates to barefoot Prince Harry working from home. He’s in their cozy office with their rescue beagle at his feet. They exchange “Hello” and “Thank you, love you.” Domestic bliss, captured casually.

February 7, 2026 (RadarOnline/OK! Magazine): “Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Leading ‘Separate Lives’… They’re Spending a Ton of Time Apart.”

That’s a 48-hour turnaround from documented togetherness to alleged separation crisis. Let’s unpack how this works.

Professional Specialization as Relationship Pathology

The core “evidence” of marital discord:

• Meghan is focusing on her lifestyle brand and Netflix projects
• Harry is focusing on Invictus Games and speaking engagements

This is presented as inherently problematic. But this is how most successful dual-career couples operate—they have distinct professional identities. Harry founded Invictus in 2014, twelve years ago. It’s his established passion project. Meghan has entertainment industry experience. They’re… playing to their strengths?

The manipulation lies in framing normal professional differentiation as evidence of personal separation. It’s the classic tabloid move: take a mundane fact, strip context, add sinister interpretation.

Weaponizing Vulnerability: The “Spare” Recycling Project

The piece resurrects Harry’s Spare memoir to argue he’s “traded one hierarchy for another,” now playing “supporting character to Meghan Markle’s ambitions.” This is particularly insidious—it takes Harry’s vulnerable disclosure about childhood trauma and repurposes it as a weapon to pathologize his current life.

Notice the framing: Meghan’s professional focus is characterized as “ambitions” (negative, grasping), while Harry’s work is presented as aimless consolation. The value judgment is baked into the language choices.

The Evidence-Free Assertion

My favorite line: “When the cameras are off, their lives are separate.”

How exactly would an anonymous source know what happens when cameras are off? This is pure assertion dressed as insider knowledge. It sounds authoritative while being literally unfalsifiable.

The Formula Revealed

This piece follows the standard Sussex crisis narrative template:

1. Identify mundane facts (couple has different professional projects)
2. Add anonymous speculation (“sources say” they’re apart constantly)
3. Ignore contradictory evidence (their joint appearances)
4. Deploy “expert” validation (Schofield’s commentary)
5. Package as exclusive insight (what’s “really” happening)

The goal isn’t accuracy, it’s engagement. These stories generate clicks from people who want to believe the Sussex relationship is failing, while providing just enough deniability (“we’re just reporting what sources say”) to deflect criticism.

What’s Really Happening Here

RadarOnline and OK! Magazine are in the Sussex content business. They need a steady stream of stories, and marital discord narratives are reliable traffic drivers. The actual state of Harry and Meghan’s relationship is irrelevant to the production needs.

This isn’t journalism—it’s content generation optimized for engagement metrics. The anonymous sources, the selective evidence presentation, the logical contradictions all reveal a piece constructed backward from its conclusion.

They’re not investigating whether the Sussexes are having problems. They’re manufacturing the appearance of problems because that’s what their business model requires.

---

The Bottom Line: When you see “separate lives” narratives built on anonymous sources and contradicted by the couple’s own public appearances, you’re not reading reporting. You’re reading fiction with a byline. The tabloid industrial complex doesn’t need truth—it needs content. And the Sussexes, whether together or apart, cooperative or conflicting, will be whatever the next headline requires.