Home / Entertainment News / PRINCE HARRY TO EDIT NATIONAL GEO’S INSTA PAGE AS ‘THE SUN’ FORCED TO APOLOGIZE FOR #FAKENEWS

PRINCE HARRY TO EDIT NATIONAL GEO’S INSTA PAGE AS ‘THE SUN’ FORCED TO APOLOGIZE FOR #FAKENEWS

Prince Harry is following his wife Meghan Markle's lead, and is grabbing the reins as guest editor of National Geographic's Instagram page. The Duchess famously helmed Vogue UK's September issue, in which she highlighted "Game Changers" in the fields of fashion and culture.

Harry is guest-editing @NatGeo in a bid to promote the social media campaign "Looking Up," designed to raise awareness about trees and the role they play in our ecosystem. The 35-year-old will curate a series of posts taken by NG's famed shutterbugs, and will highlight trees in Liwonde National Park in Malawi, which he visited Monday.

He wrote in his first post: "Hi everyone! I'm so happy to have the opportunity to continue working with @NatGeo and to guest-curate this Instagram account; it's one of my personal favourites. Today I'm in Liwonde National Park, Malawi an important stop on our official tour of southern Africa, planting trees for the Queens Commonwealth Canopy. As part of this takeover, I am inviting you to be a part of our ‘Looking Up' social campaign. To help launch the campaign, here is a photograph I took today here in Liwonde of Baobab trees. "#LookingUp seeks to raise awareness of the vital role trees play in the Earth's ecosystem, and is an opportunity for all of us to take a moment, to appreciate the beauty of our surroundings. So, join us today and share your own view, by looking up!"

Harry and Meghan are currently on their official royal tour of Southern Africa.

APOLOGIES

Meanwhile, U.K. tabloid The Sun has apologized to Meghan and Harry after a press regulator ruled it breached accuracy guidelines in an article titled "NOT IN MEG BACK YARD," which claimed they banned "low paid staff" from using a parking lot near their home in Windsor.

In the ruling, the regulators wrote: "The publication had not provided any direct evidence of the complainants' involvement in the decision. In these circumstances, and where the complainants' position had been made clear to the publication in advance of the article being published, there was a failure to take care over the presentation as fact of the claim that they had ‘imposed' the ban."