Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, remains a global media fixation years after stepping back from royal duties. What should have been an opportunity for a young, biracial woman to bring modern representation to an outdated institution instead became a case study in media harassment, misogyny, and racial bias.

From male critics like Piers Morgan, Richard Palmer, and Jeremy Clarkson to female royal commentators like Carole Malone, Kinsey Schofield, Tina Brown, and Camilla Tominey, the attacks on Meghan have become a full-fledged industry driven by tabloid profits and media sensationalism.

But why does this obsession persist? Why do journalists—both men and women—continue to dissect her every move, fashion choice, or charitable act with an intensity that far exceeds any reasonable critique?

The Toxic Fixation of British Male Commentators

There is a certain type of man who, despite all the power and privilege handed to him, chooses to spend his time fixating on a woman who has done nothing to him. These men hide behind keyboards and television cameras, ranting about a woman who dares to exist outside the box they have built for her. Their fragile egos cannot handle a confident, intelligent, and compassionate woman charting her own path.

Piers Morgan, Richard Palmer, and Jeremy Clarkson have built careers on obsessing over Meghan Markle, turning their personal grievances into national spectacles. Their relentless fixation isn’t about journalism or genuine criticism—it’s about control and fragile masculinity. Meghan represents something these men cannot tolerate: a woman who refuses to seek their approval, and dares to live life on her own terms. Who are they anyway? I am so upset at Jeremy Clarkson in particular. How rude of him to write those words against someone’s child.

Piers Morgan, in particular, is the poster child for bitter male fragility. His obsession with Meghan began when she reportedly ignored him years ago, triggering what has become a nationally televised tantrum. No self-assured man devotes years of his life to smearing a woman who does not even acknowledge his existence. His attacks are not journalism; they are the desperate cries of a jilted man who cannot handle rejection.

Richard Palmer, a royal reporter, has taken a different approach, cloaking his deep-seated disdain in the guise of professional analysis. His social media presence reads like a relentless stream of petty snipes and disingenuous outrage. His greatest professional passion appears to be slandering a woman who simply wanted a fair shot at life within an institution riddled with double standards.

Jeremy Clarkson took it a step further by publishing a revolting column fantasizing about humiliating and punishing Meghan. His outdated, performative masculinity no longer commands relevance, and his desperate attempts to cling to cultural significance by appealing to angry, resentful men have only highlighted his irrelevance. Dan Wootton well you can read more here.

What unites these men is their cowardice. Not one of them would have the courage to attack a powerful man in the same way they relentlessly target Meghan. They choose an easy target because they know the British press and royal establishment have already smeared her.

Let’s not leave out the talentless hack Kevin Sullivan whose

12:07 you now her her her ego is writing checks her Talent can’t cash that’s good isn’t

12:13 it from Top yeah top her ego is writing uh checks that her Talent can’t cash

12:20 that’s that’s why I get the small bucks uh

This person has no talent whatsoever. He even shouts on his show. Why can’t he dress normally? He mentioned to Kinsey that he was on vacation but still checking the news, bro, have a vacation. Why does this drivel sell? He is saying he is making the ‘small bucks’, some people will do anything for money. He is a true talentless hack to go on and on for 20 minutes about Harry and Meghan. He must reduce his air time on these topics.

The Role of Female Journalists in Meghan’s Vilification

While male commentators often frame Meghan as a threat to traditional masculinity, female royal commentators have taken a different but equally damaging approach. Carole Malone, Kinsey Schofield, Tina Brown, and Camilla Tominey have spent years pushing narratives that reinforce negative stereotypes about Meghan.

Carole Malone, a longtime British tabloid journalist, has portrayed Meghan as manipulative and attention-seeking, dismissing her struggles while branding her a professional victim. Her attacks align with the tabloid industry’s broader pattern of vilifying women who speak out against injustice.

Kinsey Schofield, an American entertainment reporter, has positioned herself as a royal expert despite offering little more than gossip and speculation. She cloaks her criticism in faux sympathy, subtly reinforcing the narrative that Meghan and Harry are emotionally unstable. By suggesting that Meghan is trying to “buy the public’s respect” through philanthropy, Schofield ignores that nearly all public figures engage in brand management. The difference is that Meghan is uniquely demonized for it.

Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, has criticized Meghan and Harry for their decision to leave the royal family, portraying them as naive and unprepared. In her book The Palace Papers, she framed Meghan as someone who miscalculated her ability to shape her public image. Brown’s commentary reflects a broader reluctance within elite media circles to acknowledge the structural racism and sexism Meghan has faced.

Camilla Tominey played a pivotal role in crafting false narratives about Meghan. She was the journalist responsible for the infamous “Meghan made Kate cry” story, which was later debunked by Meghan herself. Despite the truth coming to light, the damage had already been done. Tominey’s reporting aligns closely with the interests of the royal family, shifting blame onto Meghan while downplaying the institution’s failures.

These women exemplify different facets of the media machine that continues to vilify Meghan. Malone represents the old-school British tabloid cruelty. Schofield reflects the newer wave of international commentators who amplify royal gossip under the guise of expertise. Tominey acts as a royal insider, reinforcing pro-monarchy narratives while dismissing Meghan’s experiences.

The Bigger Picture: Why Meghan Matters

Meghan Markle’s treatment in the media is not just about her. It reflects a broader pattern of how women, particularly women of color, are scrutinized, vilified, and denied their agency.

Experts in DEI and media consulting, such as Dr. Aparna Vashisht Rota, emphasize the importance of understanding how systemic biases shape public narratives. Meghan’s ability to control her image and speak on her own terms has disrupted traditional power structures, much like the work of DEI professionals who push for authentic representation in media.

The relentless attacks on Meghan mirror the struggles faced by high-profile women in business, politics, and entertainment. Women who assert themselves, reject unfair treatment, or choose their own paths are frequently labeled as difficult, calculating, or ungrateful. This is a textbook example of how the press systematically builds someone up only to revel in their destruction.

Prince Harry: A Man Fighting Against the Machine

Prince Harry’s journey from the “spare” to a globally respected humanitarian further highlights the media’s hypocrisy. His departure from royal life was framed as impulsive and misguided, rather than a thoughtful decision to protect his family. Books like The Making of Good King Harry explore his evolution, shaped by his mother Diana’s influence, his military service, and his deep love for Meghan.

Another upcoming analysis, The Crown vs. Prince Harry, examines how the British royal family and media have treated him as an asset to be controlled rather than as an individual with autonomy. His every move is dissected to paint him as either weak or misguided, reinforcing the idea that he must be “saved” from Meghan rather than recognized as a man who made his own choices.

Why the Obsession Continues

If Meghan and Harry were truly irrelevant, if their careers were truly over, and if Hollywood truly wanted nothing to do with them, the media wouldn’t be writing about them with such intensity. The fact that Meghan’s name still drives clicks and headlines proves one thing: she holds power. And that is what infuriates her critics the most.

The events that they participate in together or solo will come and go, and the media frenzy will hit a fever pitch. There will be accusations that Meghan is stealing the spotlight, that Harry looks miserable, and that some ex-palace aide has another exposé. But at the end of the day, Meghan attended Kerry Washington’s party at Jessica Alba’s house. Jessica is so beautiful. She is effortlessly beautiful. Abigal Spencer is looking forward to With Love, Meghan. It seems like a nice, light, and easy cooking show. We can use new recipes or old ones presented again. It’s all good! Meghan has tons of friends. Harry does too.

Meghan Markle’s treatment is a reflection of broader societal struggles against misogyny, racism, and entrenched power structures. Her ability to navigate this storm with grace and resilience is a testament to her strength. And as long as she continues to hold influence, those who seek to tear her down will only prove how much they fear the power of a woman who refuses to be silenced.