✕ Sensationalism [3/10]: The headline emphasizes drama and personal conflict over factual reporting, using emotionally charged terms like 'tension', 'acrimony', and 'lightning rod' to frame a retrospective on a past event.

"As Meghan marks 8 years of marriage to Harry, how tension over protocol like curtsying and THAT bridesmaid's dress row became a 'lightning rod' for acrimony with Kate in the run up to the big day"

✕ Loaded Language [5/10]: The headline references 'THAT bridesmaid's dress row' in all caps and quotes, invoking a widely publicized but unverified anecdote, which sensationalizes a minor detail into a central drama.

"THAT bridesmaid's dress row"

✕ Loaded Language [8/10]: Describes Meghan as having 'undisguised disdain' and 'contemptuous' views, using judgmental language that frames her negatively without equivalent characterization of others.

"Meghan's 'undisguised disdain for the Palace's hierarchy' was plain to see from the beginning and had aroused Kate's distrust"

✕ Editorializing [7/10]: Characterizes Meghan’s actions as 'mocking' based on a body language expert’s opinion, injecting subjective interpretation into news reporting.

"Her mocking tone begins when she shares that "I just thought it was a joke…right?""

✕ Loaded Language [8/10]: Describes Meghan’s upbringing as 'all-American' and contrasts it with 'boring' Kate and William who 'cried himself to sleep at Eton', using value-laden comparisons.

"Kate was boring; William had cried himself to sleep at Eton. Both were were so detached from her reality"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [7/10]: Frames Meghan’s cultural adjustment as inherently disrespectful, implying her informality is a flaw rather than a difference.

"Meghan was contemptuous of the [then] Cambridges' aloofness"

✕ Cherry-Picking [8/10]: Relies heavily on Tom Bower, a controversial royal biographer known for speculative claims, without counterbalancing with neutral or official sources.

"according to royal author Tom Bower in his new book about the Sussexes"

✕ Vague Attribution [7/10]: Uses 'body language expert Judi James previously told this newspaper' as a source for interpreting Meghan’s tone, which is speculative and lacks scientific rigor.

"body language expert Judi James previously told this newspaper"

✕ Cherry-Picking [6/10]: Quotes Meghan and Harry from their Netflix series and memoir, which are promotional and subjective, without contrasting perspectives from the Wales side beyond Bower’s interpretation.

"In his memoir Spare, Harry detailed how Meghan asked to borrow a lip gloss from Kate..."

✕ Omission [9/10]: No direct quotes or perspectives from Kate or William are included, creating an imbalance in representation despite discussing their alleged feelings.

✕ Omission [8/10]: The article fails to provide context about the broader public and media scrutiny of Meghan Markle during 2018, including racialized coverage and press intrusion, which is essential to understanding the tensions described.

✕ Omission [7/10]: No mention is made of the institutional pressures within the monarchy or how media narratives shape royal relationships, reducing a complex dynamic to interpersonal conflict.

✕ Selective Coverage [6/10]: The article selectively revisits past controversies without acknowledging evolving public understanding of Meghan and Harry’s departure from royal duties, omitting key developments in their public narrative since 2020.