This article reports that Meghan Markle allegedly “hated every second” of her 16-day royal tour in Australia, even though it occurred at the peak of so-called “Megmania,” when public interest in the Duchess of Sussex was at its height. Meghan Markle “hated every second” of the 2018 Australia tour, or so the headline says. The claim—plucked from a resurfaced royal expert commentary—has reignited widespread backlash online, with over a thousand public comments full of disdain, sarcasm, and, in many cases, cruelty. But the real story isn’t about one royal tour. It’s about how a narrative, once ignited, becomes impossible to extinguish.

The 16-day trip across Australia was widely covered as a success at the time. Massive crowds, enthusiastic press, and headlines about “Megmania” seemed to suggest that Meghan and Prince Harry were a modernizing force for the monarchy. But as with much in royal reporting, hindsight was weaponized. Now, this trip is recast as “pointless,” and Meghan is painted as an ingrate who scorned public duty.

The comments tell the story. Not of what happened in Australia, but of what the public wants to believe. “Ungrateful cow,” wrote one user. “She wanted the perks, not the work,” said another. Multiple commenters insisted the Aussies “hated her too,” and some even repeated long-debunked rumors—such as Meghan throwing tea at staff—without hesitation.

This wasn’t a discussion; it was a pile-on.

What stands out most is how visceral and repetitive the resentment is. Meghan is mocked for her alleged ambition, her race, her American background, her clothing, her voice, her perceived self-interest. There’s little effort to grapple with whether the criticisms have merit. It’s enough that she’s different—that she didn’t conform, didn’t stay silent, didn’t remain grateful.

Even if Meghan had expressed discomfort with the rigid schedule or ceremonial aspect of royal engagements, would that make her uniquely guilty? Royals throughout history, including Diana and even Prince Harry himself, have voiced frustrations with the performative and often stifling nature of royal duty. But Meghan’s critiques are not allowed complexity. They’re labeled betrayal.

When public figures, especially women, are painted in this light, it becomes nearly impossible to challenge the narrative. Even silence is weaponized. Every resurfaced comment becomes confirmation, every misstep a morality tale. The Australia tour was once a moment of triumph. Now, it’s retroactively rewritten as a spectacle of entitlement.

This isn’t just about Meghan. It’s about the cost of deviating from the script, and the double standard that punishes some for the very same doubts others are permitted to voice. It’s also a stark lesson in how online mobs can define a legacy—not based on fact, but on feeling.