So, this refrain about it being a "private wedding" may be true in some respects, but private weddings do not cost the public purse millions and millions in security.
Harry is a member of the BRF who will be supported by the public as he does duties on behalf of a national institution. Meghan will now too. Their wedding is not a private event and the public deserves access which comes through the media. Claiming so is IMO disingenuous.
So, I am of two minds: media access being curtailed simply because the Boys have feeling about the media is bad strategy in the long run bcause the BRF NEEDS the media. Full stop. Love them or hate them, the tabs and mainsteam media set the national narrative. If Harry wants events that mean something to him like IG to be covered, he has to play the game. That is the reality. I think it is a dumb move to so restrict the media myself. These are photographers who are yes, obnoxious at times, but they are not the Niraj Tanna's of the world, they are respected photojournalists.
On the other hand, these publications, not the photographers who are often freelancers who sell to wires, but the Fleet Street groups have been out of hand for years. Both royals and every day folks claimed back some control after Leveson, but the papers have been out for blood with Meghan for MONTHS. So I understand not being friendly toward the papers.
I just think the wedding is a bad avenue to exact that revenge.
For Arthur Edwards to speak so negatively about Harry is a big, big red flag.
I also agree that Harry has IMO come across more petulant in his dealings with the media which reads badly to the broader public. I get he is protective now of Meghan, but diplomacy is a practice.
BUT, broadcast media will have lots of access it seems.