Amanda Platell’s article, published in the Daily Mail, suggests that Jason Knauf’s recent interview could be a “ticking timebomb” that disrupts Meghan Markle’s latest rebranding efforts. She revisits past allegations of bullying, critiques the secrecy surrounding Buckingham Palace’s investigation, and implies that the timing of Knauf’s remarks is not coincidental. However, this piece is riddled with bias, speculation, and selective framing. Below is a breakdown of its major flaws, followed by a reasoned rebuttal.

---

Analysis of Platell’s Claims

1. Timing of Knauf’s Interview
   Platell insinuates that Knauf’s interview was strategically timed to sabotage Meghan’s Netflix series, With Love, Meghan. However, there is no direct evidence linking his interview with the show’s release. Knauf’s statements were given to 60 Minutes Australia, a well-respected investigative program, which suggests a broader context rather than a deliberate attack on Markle.
2. The “Buried” Bullying Investigation
   The article paints Buckingham Palace’s decision to withhold the findings of the bullying investigation as suspicious, implying a cover-up that protected Meghan. However, the Palace’s decision to keep it confidential could just as easily be interpreted as a move to avoid fueling further controversy. If the findings had been damaging, they would likely have been leaked by now—especially given the ongoing media scrutiny surrounding Meghan.
3. Knauf’s Integrity as a Witness
   Platell emphasizes Knauf’s closeness to Prince William and his role in the Royal Foundation, suggesting his credibility is beyond question. However, she fails to acknowledge that Knauf’s involvement in leaking private communications (such as Meghan’s letter to her father) raises ethical concerns. His history suggests that he is not a neutral observer but someone deeply embedded in the royal institution’s internal conflicts.
4. Speculation on Meghan’s Character
   The article repeatedly employs character attacks, using phrases like “self-appointed fabulousness” and questioning why Harry and Meghan did not sue over the bullying claims. This language is emotionally charged rather than fact-based, designed to sway readers against Meghan rather than presenting a balanced argument.
5. The Assertion That “The Truth Will Come Out”
   Platell’s article heavily leans on the idea that a future scandal will inevitably expose Meghan. However, no new concrete allegations or evidence have surfaced. The assumption that damaging information is being hidden is speculative and plays into a longstanding media narrative rather than presenting verifiable facts.

---

Rebuttal: A More Balanced Perspective

1. The Hypocrisy in Timing Accusations
   If Meghan’s team had spoken out about Jason Knauf right before an important royal event, the media would frame it as a calculated attack. Yet, when Knauf does an interview right before Meghan’s Netflix series, it is not subjected to the same scrutiny. The media often applies double standards to Meghan, portraying her actions as manipulative while ignoring the timing of narratives that seek to discredit her.
2. The Bullying Allegations Remain Unproven
   The article presents the bullying claims as a looming scandal without acknowledging that there has been no conclusive evidence. If the allegations had serious merit, why has no legal action been taken? Why hasn’t Knauf, despite his high-profile connections, revealed more damning evidence? Instead, vague accusations are repeatedly resurfaced to tarnish Meghan’s reputation without any substantial follow-up.
3. Selective Presentation of Knauf’s Role
   Platell describes Knauf as a dedicated and honorable royal aide, yet omits his involvement in leaking Meghan’s private letter to her father, which played a central role in her lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday. That case resulted in a legal victory for Meghan, underscoring the unlawful publication of private correspondence. The omission of this critical fact skews the portrayal of Knauf’s credibility.
4. Unfounded Character Attacks
   The language used in the article is not journalistic but rhetorical, filled with personal jabs rather than substantive analysis. The phrase “Meghan’s self-appointed fabulousness” is a clear example of how the piece veers into opinion rather than objective reporting. Serious journalism should rely on facts, not sarcasm and insinuation.
5. The Reality of Meghan’s Media Treatment
   The article ignores the well-documented media campaign against Meghan. Numerous reports, including research by Bot Sentinel, have highlighted coordinated online attacks and misinformation campaigns targeting her. Platell’s framing—suggesting Meghan is on the verge of exposure—fits into a broader pattern where negative speculation about her is presented as inevitable truth, regardless of the facts.

---

Conclusion

Amanda Platell’s piece is a textbook example of how Meghan Markle is subjected to speculative, often unfounded, media attacks. It takes old, unresolved allegations and repackages them as a “ticking timebomb” without presenting any new evidence. The selective omission of critical context—such as Knauf’s role in Meghan’s privacy case—further reveals its bias.

While Meghan is not beyond critique, true journalism demands factual rigor, not recycled rumors and character smears. If there were genuine, verifiable scandals, they would have come to light by now. The continued reliance on speculation rather than facts suggests that the real issue is not Meghan’s actions, but the relentless efforts to discredit her at every turn.