Just about every sort of accusation imaginable has been hurled at Meghan Markle and Prince Harry in the years since the couple announced that they would be stepping down as senior members of the royal family.
The British tabloid press and Meghan's awful family have divided the task of denigrating these two for sport, and they've done a remarkably thorough job of attacking the challenge from every angle.
So it always comes as a surprise when the media digs into the archives and comes up with a new criticism of Harry and Meghan's actions from years prior.
And we have to say, the level of pettiness on display in this latest attack is almost impressive.
When sane, decent people talk about the Archie scandal, they're generally referring to the allegations that a member of the royal family expressed concerns about Archie's skin tone while Meghan was pregnant with the boy.
If the UK tabloid press wanted to make itself useful for a change, it could devote its energies to determining which member of the Windsor clan made this appallingly racist remark.
(And they wouldn't even have to put much effort into the search, since it was almost definitely Prince Charles.)
But when the British outlets who cover the royals talk about the Archie scandal, they might be referring to the incident in which Meghan and Harry didn't perfectly adhere to tradition when announcing the birth of their first child.
Yes, according to the controversial new documentary The Princes and the Press, it was expected that the couple would share their big news from the steps of the Lindo Wing of St. Mary’s Hospital just as Harry's brother and sister-in-law did, and his mother and father before them.
Instead, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex steered clear of the press and made their announcement on social media.
And if you know anything about the British tabloid press, then you probably won't be surprised to learn that this infuriated them.
“They told us that there would be positions out in Windsor, outside the castle, where there would be media briefings," Richard Palmer, royal correspondent for the Daily Express said in the doc.
“And then on the day he was born they announced ‘She’s gone into labor’ and so we’re all rushing to Windsor," Palmer continued.
"And then you find oh, she’s given birth and actually, she’d given birth hours ago before we’d told you she’d gone into labor.
“They made it so difficult for us. And it felt like they had deliberately gone out of their way to make the British media look stupid.”
“So the baby was born in the early hours of this morning and I’m in a taxi on the way to be reporting that she’s in labor,” echoed Camilla Tominey, an associate editor at the Daily Telegraph.
“When in fact, it’s a fait accompli. And, by the way, they’re not going to tell us much, including where the baby’s been born," she added.
“So if I’m asked live on the air where the baby’s been born, I won’t be able to say that.”
“Harry and Meghan’s use of social media, I think, really threw the British press for a loop,” Ellie Hall, a senior reporter for Buzzfeed News.
(Hall was not one of the Angry Brits in the film, but more of an impartial observer.)
“It was only when Archie was born that it really became something that if you wanted to know what was going on with Harry and Meghan, you had to follow this account.”
“When we finally were introduced to Archie it was three days after he was born,” Rhiannon Mills, a royal correspondent for Sky News chimed in.
“They decided that they wanted to do a very small photocall.”
The horror! Imagine a new mother wanting to stay at home with her baby instead of embarking ob a press junket!
Some of these British journalists are so easily appalled.
Just wait until they find out about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein!