Meghan Markle’s now-viral twerking video may have started as a cheeky nod to motherhood, but for royal watchers, it is a controversy.

Released to mark daughter Lilibet’s fourth birthday, Meghan’s light-hearted 90-second video shows her dancing while heavily pregnant, with Harry cheerfully “dad dancing” by her side. The clip quickly surged to over 46 million views, trouncing her prior record. Critics online called it “cringe,” accusing the couple of damaging the monarchy’s global image. But in the U.S., it was lauded as “relatable”—a stark reminder of how dramatically the Sussexes’ brand now diverges from the institution they left behind.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (@meghan)

1. Sensationalized Speculation as Fact

• Headline Scaremongering: Phrases like “could spell trouble for the royal family” and “nightmare for the rest of the family” frame unconfirmed rumors (a reality show) as impending doom. There’s zero evidence such a show exists, yet the piece constructs an entire narrative around its potential fallout.
• Guilt by Association: Linking Meghan’s lighthearted birthday video for her daughter to “ruining the reputation of the royal family” is a stretch. The implication that a private couple’s personal posts actively damage the monarchy is melodramatic and unsubstantiated.

2. Hypocrisy Critique Without Nuance

• The “Privacy” Trap: The article resurrects the tired “they wanted privacy but seek attention” trope, ignoring their explicit clarification (quoted in the piece!) that privacy wasn’t their reason for leaving. This contradiction is highlighted not as context, but as a “gotcha.”
• Double Standards: William and Kate’s curated documentaries (Earthshot, coronation specials) are “modern engagement.” Harry and Meghan’s projects? “Embarrassing for the royals.” The disparity in framing reveals bias.

3. Toxic Tone Policing

• Pathologizing Normal Behavior: Meghan sharing a playful moment is labeled “utterly bizarre” (via Jennie Bond) and speculated to horrify the King. Since when is dancing during pregnancy a scandal? The moral judgment is glaring.
• Gendered Criticism: Meghan’s “twerking” is singled out as cringe/improper, while Harry’s “dad dancing” is a footnote. Her agency (46M views!) is downplayed; his role is passive.

4. Manufactured Royal “Feud” Focus

• Exploiting Rifts: The piece fixates on how a hypothetical show might “discuss their relationship with William and Kate,” feeding the media’s obsession with royal conflict. PR “expert” quotes amplify this, framing family dynamics as content fodder.
• Ignoring Agency: Harry and Meghan are depicted as reckless grenade-throwers, not individuals controlling their own narrative. Their successful content strategies (Harry & Meghan Netflix doc, Archetypes podcast) are reduced to “bombshells.”

5. Cultural Elitism

• US vs. UK “Relatability”: The article notes the video was “relatable” in the US but implies Brits find it gauche. This reinforces the tired “Meghan doesn’t understand tradition” narrative while dismissing her global appeal.
• Reality TV Shaming: Calling a potential show “Kardashian-esque” is coded disdain. The suggestion that reality TV is beneath royalty ignores how all modern royals use media – just on their terms.

Why This Matters

This isn’t journalism; it’s fearmongering wrapped in royal gossip. By framing Harry and Meghan’s personal choices (a birthday video, career moves) as existential threats to the monarchy, the media:

• Distracts from substantive royal issues (finances, relevance, colonial legacy).
• Dehumanizes them as click-generating “polarizing” figures.
• Reinforces toxic standards where royals must be “relatable” but never real, “modern” but never authentic.

The takeaway? Until they conform to rigid, outdated expectations, their every move will be spun as a provocation – even dancing in their living room.