Prince Harry’s extraordinary statement attacking the “racial undertones” of press coverage of his girlfriend Meghan Markle ends with a plea to newspaper editors to “pause and reflect before any further damage is done”. But his chances of succeeding in this are far lower than the chances of the fifth in line to the throne ever becoming king.

If Harry believes he has dampened interest in his sex life with his direct appeal for public sympathy, he has been badly advised. The Sun reported: “IT’S OFFICIAL! Prince Harry confirms he has been dating Suits actress Meghan Markle for months”, while even the BBC led on the fact that “Prince Harry has confirmed that US actress Meghan Markle is his girlfriend”.

The royal intervention raises important questions about whether the press has changed since the death of his mother, Diana, or since communications involving his older brother prompted what became the phone-hacking scandal. Harry’s statement suggests he is among those who believe the press has changed surprisingly little.

Recent exuberant newspaper coverage, particularly of Brexit but of more besides, has convinced campaigners for victims of press intrusion that newspapers once again feel relatively unfettered in their pursuit of stories. The Mail’s front page labelling high court judges “enemies of the people”, for example, came days after the government launched a consultation on two remaining elements of the Leveson inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal. The Mail went on to crow that the prime minister had supported the freedom of the press over the matter.

The Society of Editors moved quickly after Harry’s statement to stress that the press took allegations of harassment “very seriously” and insist that Fleet Street had cleaned up its act since Diana’s death. It went on to accuse foreign newspapers, ungoverned by its own code of conduct, of the worst excesses in the current crisis.

However, Markle’s lawyers are understood to believe it is demand from British newspapers that is encouraging global news outlets to report royal stories that the British press can then follow up – although tabloid sources have always denied that such “story laundering” takes place.

Jonathan Coad, a privacy expert and partner at Lewis Silkin who has acted both for and against the industry, said: “Making a plea to Fleet Street for privacy where the press’s commercial interests are engaged is as likely to succeed as making a plea to Vladimir Putin to get out of Ukraine. Unfortunately, tabloid journalists look at Prince Harry as a butcher looks at a pig: his privacy is laid out on a slab for public consumption and turned into profitable copy for the tabloid press.”

Prince Harry, whatever his right to a private life, is a public servant paid for by the public purse. If the allegations of harassment and bribes to Markle’s former boyfriends are borne out, one of the most surprising things is that his statement appears to have come before any attempt to protect the privacy of a relatively unknown actor or her anonymous family. Palace officials, as they have in the past, have acted as though the typical behaviour of celebrities – contacting the media regulator, making the terms of engagement clear – is beneath them.

Hours after the prince’s statement, Ipso, the industry regulator set up in the wake of Leveson and supported by most of the national press, sent a private advisory note including a letter from Markle’s lawyers urging editors to desist.

The response will say more about the relationship between tabloid editors and Theresa May, who will ultimately decide on press regulation, than it will about the relationship between a prince and an actor.