Angela Levin appeared on camera this week and told a national audience that Meghan Markle “sees with jealousy” the Trooping the Colour ceremony, “hates” the event, and “goes absolutely berserk” watching Catherine and her children. The segment was framed as expert royal commentary. So it is fair to ask the question that expert commentary invites: what is the evidence?

The honest answer is that there is none, and the structure of the segment is built to keep you from noticing that.

The claims about Meghan’s inner life are unsourced because they are unsourceable

Levin makes a series of assertions about what Meghan feels: jealousy, hatred, berserk fury at the sight of Catherine looking well. Notice that not one of these is attached to anything Meghan said, did, or wrote. There is no quote. There is no source. There is no incident. There is only Levin’s narration of another woman’s interior state, delivered with the confidence of someone reading a transcript that does not exist.

This is the load-bearing move, so it is worth being precise about it. “She is jealous” is not an observation. It is an interpretation laid over an absence. Levin cannot know what Meghan feels watching a parade in London from a house in California, because feelings are not visible from six thousand miles away, or from six feet away. What Levin has done is decide on the motive first and then present the motive as though it were the finding.

The “biographer” credential is doing specific work here. It converts speculation into something that sounds like access. A viewer hears “royal biographer” and assumes the claims rest on sourcing, on contacts, on documented behavior. They do not. Strip the title away and the sentence “Meghan goes absolutely berserk” is exactly as evidenced as the same sentence shouted by a stranger. The credential is borrowed authority standing in for proof.

The one concrete fact offered actually undercuts the claim

To Levin’s credit, the segment does reach for a piece of actual evidence, and it is instructive to watch what happens when it does. The evidence is this: hours after the royal family attended Trooping the Colour, Meghan posted Instagram pictures of her best friend’s newborn baby.

That is the fact. Everything else is the spin wrapped around it. The post becomes “deflection,” a deliberate attempt to “get back those front pages,” proof that she “hates not being included.”

But look at what the fact actually shows. A woman posted photographs of her friend’s new baby. That is the entire event. To make it mean what Levin needs it to mean, you have to assume the timing was deliberate, assume the intent was hostile, assume Meghan was thinking about Trooping the Colour at all, and assume she experiences a friend’s child primarily as a publicity instrument. None of those assumptions is established. They are simply narrated on top of an ordinary social media post as though they were self-evident.

This is the tell of motive-first reasoning: any action fits the theory. Had Meghan posted nothing, that would be sulking. Had she posted about her own work, that would be attention-seeking. She posted about a friend’s baby, and that is deflection. A theory that every possible behavior confirms is not a theory. It is a frame that cannot be falsified, which is another way of saying it has no evidentiary content whatsoever.

The hypocrisy charge requires collapsing two different things

Levin’s sharpest accusation is the hypocrisy trap: Meghan said parents should not show children’s faces on social media, yet here she is holding a friend’s baby facing the camera. Therefore, hypocrite. Therefore, by extension, she “cashes in” on her own children and is “absolutely awful.”

The charge only works if you refuse to distinguish between two genuinely different situations. Meghan’s stated position concerns publishing her own minor children’s faces, children who did not consent and cannot consent. Appearing in a photograph with another adult’s infant, shared presumably with that parent’s blessing, is a different act involving a different person’s child and a different person’s decision. Whether you find Meghan’s privacy posture sincere or convenient, the contradiction Levin describes does not exist unless you have already decided she acts in bad faith and are looking for material to confirm it.

The same machinery produces the “perfume in her daughter’s name, the child is four, she’s cashing in” line. A product reference becomes proof of exploitation, with the motive supplied entirely by the speaker. State the underlying fact plainly and the outrage evaporates: a brand used a family name. The damning interpretation is not in the fact. It is added in the telling.

The same week, the opposite target, the identical machine

Here is what makes the Levin segment worth dwelling on rather than dismissing. It did not appear in isolation. It ran the same week that a very different corner of the internet was doing the exact same thing in the exact opposite direction, to Catherine.

At the 2026 Trooping the Colour, a section of the crowd booed as the carriage carrying the Princess of Wales and her three children passed. This happened. It is confirmed across mainstream outlets. What those outlets also establish, and what matters, is the scale and the source: the booing came from a small organized anti-monarchy demonstration staged by the group Republic, holding banners reading “Stop the Reign” and chanting “not my King” and “not my Queen.” The chants were aimed at the institution and at Charles, and they were, by the reporting’s own account, a minority drowned out by a largely supportive crowd lining the route with flags.

That is the real event. Now watch what a viral reaction video did with it. In a clip racking up sixteen million views, creator Murad Merali narrated the same footage as proof that Catherine’s “plan basically failed,” that her “popularity has plummeted,” that she and William are in “severe danger,” and that her face in a still frame revealed a woman “furious,” “fuming,” who “knows her plan failed.” The cancer recovery, in this telling, “failed.” The children were “shields” that “backfired.”

Hold that next to Levin and the symmetry is total. Levin reads jealousy into a baby photo she did not witness Meghan post with any particular feeling. Merali reads defeat into a still of a face he cannot see inside of. Levin upgrades speculation with the word “biographer.” Merali upgrades it with sixteen million views. That is a reality. That is evidence that the RF is failing.

What the Levin segment actually is

Set aside Meghan for a moment, because the back half of the conversation reveals the method with unusual clarity. Harry “has a screw loose.” He and Andrew are “both morons, no intellect whatsoever.” Andrew is “a pompous little git.” The host volunteers that he hopes to meet Andrew so he can insult him to his face, and Levin plays along. Harry is “as thick as 40 miles of unmade road.”

This is not analysis. It is sustained derogation in the costume of commentary, and it tells you what the segment is for. The purpose is not to inform anyone about the monarchy. It is to generate a feeling, contempt, and to keep generating it across interchangeable targets. Meghan, Harry, Andrew: the names rotate, the affect stays constant. Even the factual claims dropped along the way go unsourced. Harry “wasn’t invited” to Peter Phillips’s wedding, asserted flatly against his own account, with nothing behind it. The Spike Lee moment narrated as a humiliating snub, an ambiguous courtside interaction read in the single least charitable direction available, because that is the direction the segment always travels.

The standard

If you are going to tell millions of viewers that a specific named woman is consumed by jealousy and hatred, the burden is simple: show the evidence. A quote. An action. An incident. Something she actually did that demonstrates the feeling you are attributing to her.

Levin offered a friend’s baby photo and a perfume bottle, and asked the audience to read malice into both. That is not evidence of jealousy. It is evidence of a frame that arrives at the conclusion before it consults the facts, because it was never going to consult the facts. The question “what does Meghan feel” was answered before the segment began. Everything after was decoration.

You do not have to like Meghan Markle to notice this. You only have to ask the one question the format is designed to make you skip: how does she know? She doesn’t. She never did. And a biographer, of all people, should know the difference between what is documented and what is merely asserted with confidence.

The Angela/TalkTV comment field: a different ritual, same engine

The TalkTV comments run a different script. Less devotional, more catechism. The phrase “she hates the Royals / she’s jealous” appears dozens of times, near-verbatim, with no supporting incident attached to any instance. “Meghan hates everyone and everything.” “She is jealous of William and Catherine.” “Jealousy always on MM, but WHY?” The repetition is the mechanism. A claim asserted fifty times by fifty accounts feels established, even though fifty unsourced assertions contain exactly as much evidence as one. This is manufactured consensus: volume standing in for proof.

What’s striking is the comment field generates its own escalating “facts” in real time:

The Spike Lee story builds itself in the thread. Watch it happen across the comments. Early versions: “Harry said something rude.” Then it firms into “Harry used Spike’s name on a Facebook account.” Then “Spike asked William at the BAFTAs to make him stop.” Then “blackface phase on that account.” Then a lip-reader appears in the comments saying the exchange was actually cordial, Lee asked if Harry was rooting for the Knicks, Harry said yes. The cordial version, the one that would deflate the whole “humiliating snub” frame, sits there with no engagement while the snub version multiplies. The audience is collectively authoring a backstory that the segment only gestured at, and the version that survives is the one that flatters the existing hostility.

The “rent-a-kids / not their children / DNA test” material is the dark engine underneath. This thread is dense with it: “these are rent a kids,” “she has no children with Harry,” “frozen eggs, maybe the kids are Down syndrome which is why she hides them,” “transference of Meghan’s spirit to babies.”

The dissenters are present and they’re informative. A minority pushes back: “you make drama out of nothing,” “why give her airtime, you’re aiding her,” “Spike and Harry’s conversation was cordial per lip-readers,” “why on earth would Meghan be jealous of an event where the whole family got booed?”