Tina Brown’s recent remarks on Meghan Markle and With Love, Meghan read as though they’re preserved in amber from another era. Although Brown was once hailed as a forward-thinking editor, her take on the Duchess of Sussex’s lifestyle pivot and media strategy betrays an almost nostalgic longing for a bygone royal dynamic—one in which newcomers “wait their turn” and keep quiet.

1. Nostalgic Elitism
   Brown’s entire critique hinges on the assumption that Meghan should have “waited” for an elusive moment within the Royal Family—an idea that implicitly suggests an old-world hierarchy, tone-deaf to current shifts in culture. In today’s reality, more and more people applaud independent voices who speak up on their own timelines, seizing opportunities as they come rather than waiting for some intangible green light from entrenched institutions. Brown’s argument, therefore, feels more like a dated loyalty to the status quo than a nuanced reading of our modern media ecosystem.
2. Misreading Today’s Media Landscape
   Brown laments Meghan’s choice to sign a Netflix deal, framing it as a crass abandonment of “Commonwealth duties.” Yet, in 2025, Netflix and similar platforms have proven they hold the power to amplify stories globally in a way the traditional monarchy never could. By dismissing these new forms of content creation as crass or opportunistic, Brown appears to cling to a world where glossy magazines and formal patronages still define influence. Today’s audiences, however, gravitate toward authenticity, personal agency, and content that can be accessed on-demand—something With Love, Meghan clearly delivers.
3. Underestimating Modern Viewers
   Brown calls With Love, Meghan a poor fit for “Trump’s America,” implying that audiences accustomed to casual, unscripted video are disinterested in the aspirational. This is a miscalculation of modern viewers’ desires. People are, in fact, quite able to enjoy carefree lifestyle programming—particularly as escapism from the very gritty, unfiltered culture Brown references. Even amid swaths of low-fi podcasts and YouTube channels, aspirational and polished content continues to thrive. Underestimating this appetite shows Brown’s surprising disconnect from the streaming generation.
4. Selective Critique and Double Standards
   A key tension in Brown’s commentary is the impression that her harsh scrutiny focuses on Meghan, rather than applying the same lens to other lifestyle personalities who also lean into the aspirational. From Martha Stewart to Joanna Gaines, countless figures have built entire brands around making everyday life moments appear more curated and enchanting. Where is Brown’s strong condemnation of them? By singling out Meghan, Brown’s critique feels less like journalism and more like a personal vendetta—or a strategy to capitalize on the “Meghan controversy” that inevitably drives clicks and headlines.
5. Failure to Adapt
   Brown rose to media prominence in a time when monthly magazines and society columns shaped cultural conversations. Now, in an era dominated by social platforms, TikTok trends, and streaming giants, she runs the risk of sounding anachronistic. Her stance assumes that success must follow a linear, traditionally sanctioned route—precisely the mentality that Meghan and Harry seemed determined to escape. If Brown were more in touch with modern content markets, she might see how their pivot to Netflix is simply a savvy move in a rapidly evolving landscape.
6. Lack of Empathy or Nuance
   Finally, Brown’s critique doesn’t account for the complex personal reasons behind Meghan and Harry’s decisions: mental health, relentless media harassment, and a desire for autonomy. Painting Meghan’s path as a reckless sprint toward Hollywood deals is a disservice to the multifaceted reality of being a highly scrutinized biracial woman navigating royal expectations. Brown’s diagnosis glosses over those deeper human components.

Conclusion
Tina Brown might still possess a formidable legacy in publishing, but her reading of With Love, Meghan and the Sussexes’ broader cultural strategy reveals how out of step she is with current trends and values. Rather than offering thoughtful insight into how today’s audiences connect with new media, she relies on tropes of “how things used to be done,” inadvertently showcasing her own resistance to change. At best, Brown’s critique highlights a generational divide in understanding how celebrity, royalty, and influencer cultures intersect in 2025—and at worst, it underscores just how out of touch she has become in a media landscape that no longer heeds the rules of the past.