Tensions between Harry and the media arose from the death of Princess Diana more than 20 years ago.

A few hours after Harry reunited with his wife and children in Vancouver, Canada yesterday, the couple's team of lawyers released a letter of strong condemnation of people "hiding in the bushes and stalking" to photograph Meghan with son Archie. The warning came as a number of photojournalists broke the unwritten rules issued by the media after Harry's mother, Princess Diana, died in a car accident while fleeing paparazzi in the year. 1997.

The death of Princess Diana sparked public outrage with the paparazzi reporters who followed her every step to capture every moment. Since then, Harry has had a feud with the media.

Eight days after Princess Diana's death, the Daily Mail pledged not to post stolen photos on its site, claiming it was a "pioneering" move. Other newspapers also agreed with the notion of privacy in a "gentleman's agreement" similar to what they had done since 1995 when they were not scrutinizing Prince William, then 13, at boys' school. Eton.

Other changes include the Press Complaint Committee (PCC) tightening the reporters' code of practice and the Anti-Harassment Law (PHA) passed by the British parliament. PPC has made specific provisions for the coverage of young princes but admits that it is impossible to completely extinguish all the stories about them at school.

In 1999, PPC amended the law and achieved success when the paparazzi that once hung around Eton nearly disappeared and realized that "their photos could not be sold to the British press."

However, by 2000, when Prince William started college, the royal royal informal deal with the paparazzi faded and changed rapidly as the information about William Middleton, William's girlfriend, rise.

Before Harry and Meghan publicly criticized the media recently, Kate had complained to the police about being followed by reporters after a breakup with William in 2007. Last year, Harry accepted an apology from a news agency for taking aerial photos of his house on the Cotswolds hill, forcing him and Meghan to leave.

In the latest photos published in the Sun, Meghan smiled as she walked her dog along a forest path in Canada, carrying her 8-month-old son and escorted by two bodyguards. Despite pictures of the ex-American actor happily staring straight into the camera, sources close to him deny that she agreed to take pictures. The lawyers said this was an "unacceptable" act of paparazzi and they tried to take photos inside Harry's house with a telephoto lens.

According to Mark Thompson, CEO of the New York Times and former BBC general manager, after moving to North America to live, Harry - Meghan can live more peacefully "without the attention of the paparazzi" .

However, if they go to the US, things will get more complicated. Paparazzi in the United States are not restricted by the informal rules introduced after the death of Princess Diana. It's an environment where popular tabloids and celebrity-hunting websites are popular.

Canada has recently changed laws to combat privacy invasion. Compared to the US, Canadian media also have a higher self-censorship culture, according to Lisa Taylor, assistant professor of journalism at Ryerson University.

"But the gentle approach is beginning to change and it's interesting that we tend to learn in the manner of both the US and UK," she added.

"It is clear that Meghan's pictures are very hot right now and people will pay quite a bit of money for them," admitted a paparazzi about the couple.

Photos can be sold for tens of thousands of pounds, he revealed, and many freelance photographers will flock to Canada to hunt for Harry - Meghan. However, he also warned that many newspapers did not use the pictures Sun posted yesterday and "I think people will obey the rules".

In the province of British Columbia, where Meghan was stolen, there is a privacy rule that allows suing privacy invaders. In the UK, there are similar laws that regulate the use of photographs in newspapers, regardless of where photos are taken. In 2014, a British court ruled that Mail Online had to pay £ 10,000 for violating the privacy of three children by British musician Paul Weller.

Ian Murray, executive director of the Association of editors in the UK, said that the tension between Harry and the media would not be easily ended simply because the couple said they wanted to get out of the spotlight. However, he predicts there will be a "healthy debate" about privacy and how the press has the right to report on celebrities.

"There are guidelines on what is public, what is private and they will apply," he said. "There is a paragraph that says 'you can only take pictures when I want to'."