For over five years, Meghan Markle has been the subject of relentless scrutiny, much of it steeped in a refusal to acknowledge the real reason she remains so controversial: she walked away. She left the monarchy, the traditions, the titles, and the suffocating expectations that came with them. And, most significantly, she took Prince Harry with her. Yet, instead of openly admitting that her rejection of royal life is what angers them, the British media and royalists manufacture new reasons to vilify her. The latest in this long line of grievances comes from royal commentator Ingrid Seward, who claims that while Prince Harry might one day be forgiven, Meghan never will be.

The Meghan Markle Double Standard

Ingrid Seward’s assertion that Harry might be “welcomed back” while Meghan remains permanently outcast follows a familiar pattern: Harry is treated as the misguided prince who can still be salvaged, while Meghan is portrayed as the unredeemable villain. This narrative has persisted since the couple first stepped back from royal duties in 2020.

It’s a tale rooted in deep-seated biases, wrapped in the language of royal traditions and propriety. Meghan, an American, a woman of color, and an outsider to Britain’s aristocracy, was never going to be fully accepted into the royal fold. Her departure, rather than being viewed as an individual exercising her personal autonomy, was framed as an act of betrayal. Royalists, who insist that the monarchy is an institution built on duty and service, struggle to reconcile the fact that someone could walk away from it—especially when that someone is a woman who was supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to join its ranks.

Prince Harry’s Conditional Redemption

Seward claims that despite Harry’s tell-all memoir Spare and his numerous criticisms of the royal family, there is still room for forgiveness. The reasoning? Because, according to her, “deep down people still love Prince Harry, and they want to love him.” But this begs the question—why is Harry, who has been outspoken about his family’s flaws, potentially redeemable, while Meghan is not?

The answer lies in the underlying belief that Harry can be “rescued” from Meghan’s influence. This is not new—throughout their relationship, Meghan has been framed as the controlling force leading Harry astray. When he speaks out about his personal struggles within the royal family, it’s seen as Meghan’s manipulation rather than his own agency. This infantilization of Harry—treating him as someone who needs to be saved rather than a man making his own choices—reinforces the idea that if he were to leave Meghan, he could return to the fold.

The Manufactured Sussex Separation Narrative

Another talking point emerging from this conversation is the claim that Harry and Meghan are “going their separate ways.” Seward suggests that because they have been making public appearances independently, it indicates a shift in their dynamic. However, she contradicts herself by acknowledging that this is a normal progression for any public figures or members of a family. The difference is that when Prince William and Kate Middleton carry out separate engagements, it is seen as a practical division of responsibilities. When Meghan and Harry do the same, it is framed as a marriage in crisis.

This is part of a broader effort to fabricate a narrative that suits the royalist agenda. If Harry and Meghan are seen as a strong unit, it contradicts the idea that he regrets his decision to leave. Therefore, the media continuously attempts to drive a wedge between them—regardless of whether there is any truth to the speculation.

The Reality of Meghan’s Life Outside the Royal System

Despite the claims that Meghan is desperate for attention or struggling to remain relevant, her recent public appearances tell a different story. Her attendance at the LA Children’s Hospital gala was described by Seward as “posing for the camera,” yet Meghan was there supporting a cause that aligns with her long-standing philanthropic efforts. Seward’s remarks reek of contradiction—first suggesting that Meghan is fading from relevance, then implying that she is doing everything she can to maintain a public presence.

If Meghan is truly irrelevant, why does the British press continue to scrutinize her every move? The reality is that she remains one of the most talked-about public figures because she represents something that both fascinates and unsettles royalists—someone who walked away from the monarchy and is thriving without it.

The Gilded Cage She Rejected

At the heart of the animosity toward Meghan Markle is the fact that she rejected something that many believe should have been irresistible. She was supposed to embrace the fairytale, to accept the royal life as the pinnacle of status and success. Instead, she saw it for what it was—a rigid institution that required self-sacrifice, conformity, and a willingness to be controlled by forces beyond her.

Rather than silently enduring the scrutiny and mistreatment, Meghan made the choice to leave. And that is the true reason why she will “never be forgiven.” Her decision exposes the reality that the monarchy is not, in fact, the ultimate privilege—it is, for many within it, a gilded cage. And those still loyal to that institution cannot tolerate the idea that someone might choose freedom over status.

Conclusion: Meghan Markle’s Legacy Beyond the Royals

Regardless of what the British media claims, Meghan’s legacy will not be defined by the monarchy’s inability to “forgive” her. She has established herself as a philanthropist, an advocate, and a media entrepreneur in her own right. The attempts to paint her as desperate for attention ignore the fact that she and Harry have successfully built careers outside of the royal institution.

The fixation on whether Meghan will ever be forgiven is ultimately irrelevant. She does not need the approval of the royalist establishment to validate her choices. The more the media obsesses over her every move, the clearer it becomes that despite their claims, she is far from forgotten.