1. Meghan’s podcast and its reception The speakers cite “two out of five stars” and mock the podcast’s content, particularly Meghan’s discussion of packaging logistics, without addressing the actual focus of the episode—entrepreneurship, identity, and re-entering the public sphere after trauma. These dismissals ignore the fact that early reviews from listeners have been mixed but not universally negative, and packaging details were metaphorical introductions—not the podcast’s substance.

2. “One-trick ponies” claim The hosts insist that Meghan and Harry have nothing to say beyond criticizing the royal family. This ignores their substantial advocacy: Harry’s Invictus Games for veterans, their joint work on mental health through the Archewell Foundation, Meghan’s past UN Women engagements, and their work with World Central Kitchen and Global Citizen. Reducing their entire post-royal career to “slagging off the monarchy” is a gross simplification.

3. “Porch pirate” and Marie Antoinette comparison Kinsey Scoffield calls Meghan’s unfamiliarity with the term “porch pirate” a “Marie Antoinette moment.” This is petty. Meghan, having spent most of her life in secure residences or Canada/the UK, reasonably may not have known that American slang. Treating that moment as elitist or fake is speculative at best.

4. Claims about the children The commentary suggests Meghan uses her children for publicity, citing an appearance on Drew Barrymore’s show. However, Meghan’s media use of her children has been notably limited—never full-face images, and only occasional references. Harry, in Spare, discusses his desire to protect their privacy, a stance that remains consistent.

5. Prince Harry’s UK visit and security concerns The rant dismisses Harry’s ongoing legal case regarding UK security protection, calling him a “ginger idiot.” The lawsuit is based on Harry’s legitimate concern for his family’s safety in light of global threats, including confirmed plots. The case itself is a legal question about precedent and policy—not entitlement.

6. “Pathological liars” accusation This statement is defamatory. There is no proof of perjury, fraud, or proven false statements that would justify such a claim. The speaker conflates media speculation with factual wrongdoing.

7. Misrepresentation of why they left They claim Meghan wanted to “monetize the monarchy” and “invite reality TV cameras into palaces.” This allegation is unfounded. The Sussexes explicitly stated in their exit agreement with the Queen that they would no longer use HRH titles or receive public funding, precisely to avoid this issue. The Netflix documentary was filmed after they had already stepped back.

8. Claims Harry is stuck, Meghan will leave him The hosts claim Harry is trapped and Meghan will abandon him. This is pure conjecture without basis in fact. Their ongoing joint ventures and family life contradict the narrative that their marriage is transactional.