X Close

Why Meghan’s podcast failed Will she ever escape her Cinderella story?

Archetypes failed not for lack of trying (Chris Jackson/Getty Images)

Archetypes failed not for lack of trying (Chris Jackson/Getty Images)


June 29, 2023   6 mins

In a tiny variation of the origin story of America, another British empire has crumbled within a few years of attempting to set up shop on US soil. Archewell Audio, the brainchild of Meghan Markle and (the artist formerly known as) Prince Harry, is officially kaput on Spotify — as is the Sussexes’ $20-million deal to create podcasts on the platform. The CEO of a top Hollywood agency reportedly trashed the Duchess at Cannes: “Turns out Meghan Markle was not a great audio talent, or necessarily any kind of talent”. And Spotify executive Bill Simmons ripped into the Sussexes on his own podcast. “The Fucking Grifters: that’s the podcast we should have launched with them,” he said. “I gotta get drunk one night and tell the story of the Zoom I had with Harry to try and help him with a podcast idea. It’s one of my best stories.”

I, for one, eagerly await the big reveal. But it’s hard to imagine that whatever Harry suggested could be worse than what Archewell ultimately produced. Apart from a 33-minute holiday special, released in December 2020, the couple’s sole Spotify output was Archetypes, which described itself as an effort to “investigate, dissect, and subvert the labels that hold women back”. Having listened to it, I can confirm: the above is less a mission statement than a strategy akin to the one employed by high-school students looking to pad the word count. (“Webster’s dictionary defines an archetype as ‘a very typical example of a certain person or thing.’ In this essay I will…”.) Meghan appears in conversation with women who, like her, have done extremely well for themselves — the first two episodes feature Mariah Carey and Serena Williams — but who, like Meghan, can still pluck a narrative about being held back by misogyny from even the most stratospheric level of success.

The Archetypes post-mortem has included damning allegations about Meghan’s lack of involvement, including that she pawned off the actual interviewing onto a producer and then recorded herself asking the questions later. Andy Cohen, host of The Real Housewives, who appeared in the final “binary breaking” episode (so-called because, unlike previous episodes, this one had men in it), has described this as “an insane rumor”; from the perspective of a famous person, like him, it is. It’s very clear, listening to the podcast, that Meghan did indeed interview her celebrity guests. It’s equally clear, however, that these are the only guests she talked to.

The academics, journalists, or even just less-famous celebrities whose voices are included on Archetypes were apparently pre-recorded with a producer, with Meghan’s reactions spliced in afterward — sometimes with unintentionally hilarious results. “I mean, isn’t that all so interesting?” Meghan coos, after a lengthy diatribe from the episode’s featured professor about “women and femmes and minoritised people” and “normative social constructs and normative social patterns”. (If by “interesting” you mean “indecipherable”, then yes, very.) And yet, the podcast needs these voices, not only to give it the gloss of a serious exploration of its subject matter, but to counteract the substanceless quality of Meghan’s interviews with fellow celebs.

Of course, Meghan is very busy and important and not obligated to talk to anyone she doesn’t want to; of course, she’s entitled to only speak with people as famous as she is, while leaving her producers to deal with the rabble. But this is undeniably at odds with the relatable image she’s been attempting to sell since Megxit, whether it’s one-on-one with Oprah or to millions of viewers on Netflix: the image of the royal princess turned humble truth-teller. Meghan (who, lest we forget, started out as an actor) is not so much an engaged host as playing the role of one, and hence Archetypes is not so much a podcast as an incredible simulation thereof. You know that saying about a stupid person’s idea of a smart person? This is like that, except it’s a narcissist’s idea of what it would be like to be curious about other people’s lives. When news broke this week that Harry’s own favourite (albeit sadly unrealised) podcast idea was to interview Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump about their childhood trauma, was anyone surprised? At the end of the day, the Sussexes invariably circle back to the only topic either of them are interested in: themselves.

Not that I blame them. This is, if nothing else, a solid business strategy: the relentless commitment to monetising one’s own life story is itself archetypal of the modern age, not to mention classically American. And despite the entertainment value of Bill Simmons describing the couple as “grifters”, this is not quite the right word for what Meghan is, nor for what she tried to do with her now-defunct podcast. Grifters are typically in it for the money, but the nature of the Spotify contract more or less meant that she could have farted into a microphone for an hour and still get paid, but Archteypes is what she made. She chose the podcast medium; she chose this particular format. Perhaps it is worth asking why.

Is it just that this type of vaguely woke social commentary is cheap and easy and ubiquitous, the lowest-hanging fruit on today’s cultural landscape? Or is it that in our attention economy, wading into the shallowest point in the culture wars — where the activism of the keyboard warrior meets the relatability of the lifestyle influencer — is one of the few ways left to make a name for yourself that doesn’t involve reality television?

Other creators — almost always women — have tried in various ways and forms to leverage this approach to content. Sometimes it works, at least for a while: remember when Hannah Gadsby’s audience-scolding anti-comedy special Nanette was the most celebrated cultural product of 2018? Sometimes, as with Chelsea Handler’s Netflix documentary about reckoning with her white privilege, it’s an unmitigated disaster: the Rotten Tomatoes rating for Hello, Privilege. It’s Me, Chelsea is a dismal 11%. It helps when the creator, or host, is willing to make it personal, and on this front, there are glimpses within Archetypes of what could have been a successful product — one that interwove Meghan’s own struggles with its broader feminist theme.

The problem, in the end, is not Meghan’s story. It’s Meghan herself.

A hallmark of the best podcasts, and what is sorely missing from Archetypes, is a sense of intimacy. The content of an enjoyable podcast is often secondary to the connection you feel with it, whether it’s a sense of sitting in on a lecture from an expert who is passionately obsessed with his subject — as in My Favorite Murder or The Rest Is History — or of overhearing a conversation between interesting people who are also interested in each other — as in Blocked and Reported, or The Unspeakable.

To be clear, Archetypes failed not for lack of trying: Meghan dutifully mimics the format of other, better podcasts, leaning into the microphone and addressing the audience in a direct, confessional tone. But these moments are so obviously scripted — in the sense that a practised actress with a trained voice is reading lines off a page — that they ring hollow. The overall impression is of somebody who knows all the words, but can’t hear the music; a person more concerned with image than connection; a woman who wants to present herself as relatable while speaking only to people as famous as she is. It’s ironic, for someone who fled the UK to escape the constraints of a highly managed life. She seems more boxed-in than ever.

There’s an interesting moment, in the final episode, when Meghan laughingly declines Andy Cohen’s offer to develop a Real Housewives-style series just for her. It’s interesting because, in some ways, this does actually seem to be what she wants: to be the simultaneous hero, author and star of her own life story, reclaiming her narrative in the manner of a Kim Kardashian or a Paris Hilton (also a guest on Archetypes). But to do this, and to make it entertaining, would require ceding control of her image — and it would require being unscripted, sloppy and real in public in a way that she’s clearly uncomfortable with. The Real Housewives do not care what you think of them. The Sussexes clearly do. Harry is currently fighting three lawsuits with British newspapers.

It’s no surprise that Meghan was drawn to the idea of podcasting, the dream of a conversation over which she has total control. But for Archetypes to work, its host would have had to recognise that the point of interviewing other people is to tell their stories, not to use them as a vehicle for telling, and retelling, your own. But even Meghan’s dialogues with celebrity guests have a funny way of circling back to become all about Meghan herself — her Cinderella story, her identity struggles and her yearning to be affirmed and accepted, first by Hollywood and then by the Royals.

And here, though evidently without meaning to, the podcast does manage to fulfil its promise on one front: if you were looking for a 12-hour portrait of the archetypal narcissist, you could not do better than this.


Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her latest novel is You Must Remember This.

katrosenfield

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

98 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

As fine a hit piece as I’ve ever read. The problem is no matter how tedious and self-absorbed the Sussexes become, they still seem to find an audience. Does that say something about them or about a significant chunk of society?

Brian Lavin
Brian Lavin
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

But they don’t find an audience – her podcast was cancelled.

I don’t really know anything about Megan and what’s his name, but after reading this article my first thought was that I’d like to read about what happened at Spotify that they invested $20 million in an obvious train wreck. Who got fired?

Rob J
Rob J
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Lavin

They find an audience on here alright! There are more comments on here than on many an UnHerd article, and plenty of them begin with ‘who cares?’ but go on for many, many words. People keen to assure you that they don’t care usually do care, and their time would be better spent trying to work out why they care than frantically trying to convince people of the contrary.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob J

And I read the piece. Shame on me. Like driving past a traffic accident.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

Exactly!

b blimbax
b blimbax
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I didn’t read any of the article, nor any of the comments, not even yours. And i’m typing this with my eyes closed.

b blimbax
b blimbax
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I didn’t read any of the article, nor any of the comments, not even yours. And i’m typing this with my eyes closed.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

Exactly!

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob J

Well said.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob J

And I read the piece. Shame on me. Like driving past a traffic accident.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob J

Well said.

Rob J
Rob J
1 year ago
Reply to  Brian Lavin

They find an audience on here alright! There are more comments on here than on many an UnHerd article, and plenty of them begin with ‘who cares?’ but go on for many, many words. People keen to assure you that they don’t care usually do care, and their time would be better spent trying to work out why they care than frantically trying to convince people of the contrary.

C. Lavy
C. Lavy
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Deleted

Last edited 1 year ago by C. Lavy
Harry Phillips
Harry Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

“..they still seem to find an audience.”

Do they?

I can’t imagine anybody normal actually listening to this nonsense, and certainly don’t know of anybody that’s read “Waaah!”

She could have been such a glamorous addition to the Royal family. Trevor Phillips said recently that she had blown a massive opportunity to add diversity (for want of a better word) to the aristocracy and give ethnic groups a horse in the race. Harry was already very popular, but those days are long gone – he just looks weak and henpecked now. They would have done a great job of opening hospitals and waste recycling plants.

Throw in an extravagantly funded royal wedding, and people’s irritation at their rejection is palpable.

The slow fade to obscurity is already underway.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

Perfectly summarised. The sooner they disappear from view the better; unfortunately, great swathes of the msm still think we’re interested. One might’ve thought the same about this article; hopefully it’s part of the last rites.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

Meghan is quite beautiful. I thought, at the time of the wedding, that she would find being a Royal quite similar to being an actress: total focus on appearance and performance. A lot of time spent on costume, hair, and makeup, some rehearsals, and then the Big Scene every day or so.
Didn’t work out, though.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  Cynthia W.

She wanted it on her terms only. It seems to have stuck in her craw that she might have had to obey a few rules of engagement.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

On a personal note, being the father of a young daughter, that’s what concerns me personally – the victimhood based culture that dominates a class of women, who are ironically also highly privileged, leads to a very entitled and arrogant attitude.

Essentially, you are perfect irrespective of whether you have any skills or bring anything to the table, and end up with a huge superiority complex and resentment towards being corrected or told to do something.

I have seen it way too often in young or even middle/ high level female Oxbridge type employees, an intense refusal to accept any feedback or inclined to take it personally. Arguably, in my opinion, women do tend to be oversensitive about criticism, but usually, man or woman, you get used to it as you age or enter the workforce. Doesn’t seem to be happening with this generation and class of women.

Ronald Bell
Ronald Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

She wanted to be the star of the show rather than what she was in Suits – one of the cast.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Ronald Bell

I think that’s the key.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Ronald Bell

I think that’s the key.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

Yes, I overestimated her professionalism.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

On a personal note, being the father of a young daughter, that’s what concerns me personally – the victimhood based culture that dominates a class of women, who are ironically also highly privileged, leads to a very entitled and arrogant attitude.

Essentially, you are perfect irrespective of whether you have any skills or bring anything to the table, and end up with a huge superiority complex and resentment towards being corrected or told to do something.

I have seen it way too often in young or even middle/ high level female Oxbridge type employees, an intense refusal to accept any feedback or inclined to take it personally. Arguably, in my opinion, women do tend to be oversensitive about criticism, but usually, man or woman, you get used to it as you age or enter the workforce. Doesn’t seem to be happening with this generation and class of women.

Ronald Bell
Ronald Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

She wanted to be the star of the show rather than what she was in Suits – one of the cast.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

Yes, I overestimated her professionalism.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Cynthia W.

Guess, Meghan didn‘t want to be in a mere supporting role, standing in the second row of THE balcony and being out-glammed by her sister-in-law nearly every time. She yearned for a leading role as Ambassador of the Commonwealth, her wedding veil gave us a clue, instead her main task was grindingly boring openings of schools and hospitals… Funnily probably her best “performance” was their trip to Africa, but she blew it afterwards by feeling sorry for herself, telling the world, that she felt she wasn’t “thriving”…

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago

Good points. She may have thought she was now the diva instead of a typical employee of The Firm.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago

Good points. She may have thought she was now the diva instead of a typical employee of The Firm.

Magali
Magali
1 year ago
Reply to  Cynthia W.

But not as beautiful as Kate, and I think that’s the rub.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Magali

I think it’s a toss-up, going strictly by photos.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Magali

I think it’s a toss-up, going strictly by photos.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  Cynthia W.

She wanted it on her terms only. It seems to have stuck in her craw that she might have had to obey a few rules of engagement.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Cynthia W.

Guess, Meghan didn‘t want to be in a mere supporting role, standing in the second row of THE balcony and being out-glammed by her sister-in-law nearly every time. She yearned for a leading role as Ambassador of the Commonwealth, her wedding veil gave us a clue, instead her main task was grindingly boring openings of schools and hospitals… Funnily probably her best “performance” was their trip to Africa, but she blew it afterwards by feeling sorry for herself, telling the world, that she felt she wasn’t “thriving”…

Magali
Magali
1 year ago
Reply to  Cynthia W.

But not as beautiful as Kate, and I think that’s the rub.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

Agreed. I think Meghan squandered the unique opportunity she was afforded as a member of the royal family to do some good in the world—especially in the role granted her by the late Queen of supporting women’s education in Commonwealth countries. She was sadly too shallow and ignorant to appreciate the great gift of such a position and how it could enable her to both do something useful and have a glamourous, high-profile lifestyle.

james goater
james goater
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

“…too shallow and ignorant…” — a perfect summation. Heartily agree. It is very hard to imagine how things could improve for this pampered pair.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

Well said in a nutshell.

Magali
Magali
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

She never had an interest in doing good in the world.

Middle March
Middle March
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

I don’t think she even understands the value of the Commonwealth in promoting democratic values in tenuous parts of the world. Women’s education could have been a substantive role for her. Instead she did a podcast.

james goater
james goater
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

“…too shallow and ignorant…” — a perfect summation. Heartily agree. It is very hard to imagine how things could improve for this pampered pair.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

Well said in a nutshell.

Magali
Magali
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

She never had an interest in doing good in the world.

Middle March
Middle March
1 year ago
Reply to  DA Johnson

I don’t think she even understands the value of the Commonwealth in promoting democratic values in tenuous parts of the world. Women’s education could have been a substantive role for her. Instead she did a podcast.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

She should do well as a fashion infuencer and the face of Dior. I suspect that’s where their income lies. However, income aside Harry needs something to actually”do”. He was happy in the military and very upset when he was forced to leave. So what can he do to feel fulfilled?

Harry Phillips
Harry Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Royals are usually figureheads for various military regiments and charities I understand. H was heavily involved with Invictus previously, but I’m not sure how all that works since they “stepped back”.

Silly sod should have thought of that before he started jumping to his wife’s every whim. I’m sure Californian gardens need a lot of looking after.

Nuria Haering
Nuria Haering
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Dior announced she does not have a contract with them. That was just PR put out by Meghan’s team.

Chris Dale
Chris Dale
1 year ago
Reply to  Nuria Haering

A stupid mistake then by Markle and her team

Chris Dale
Chris Dale
1 year ago
Reply to  Nuria Haering

A stupid mistake then by Markle and her team

Harry Phillips
Harry Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Royals are usually figureheads for various military regiments and charities I understand. H was heavily involved with Invictus previously, but I’m not sure how all that works since they “stepped back”.

Silly sod should have thought of that before he started jumping to his wife’s every whim. I’m sure Californian gardens need a lot of looking after.

Nuria Haering
Nuria Haering
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Dior announced she does not have a contract with them. That was just PR put out by Meghan’s team.

Alan Kaufman
Alan Kaufman
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

How could the royal family have become more interesting by adding someone who looks Italian and claiming that she’s black?

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

Perfectly summarised. The sooner they disappear from view the better; unfortunately, great swathes of the msm still think we’re interested. One might’ve thought the same about this article; hopefully it’s part of the last rites.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

Meghan is quite beautiful. I thought, at the time of the wedding, that she would find being a Royal quite similar to being an actress: total focus on appearance and performance. A lot of time spent on costume, hair, and makeup, some rehearsals, and then the Big Scene every day or so.
Didn’t work out, though.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

Agreed. I think Meghan squandered the unique opportunity she was afforded as a member of the royal family to do some good in the world—especially in the role granted her by the late Queen of supporting women’s education in Commonwealth countries. She was sadly too shallow and ignorant to appreciate the great gift of such a position and how it could enable her to both do something useful and have a glamourous, high-profile lifestyle.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

She should do well as a fashion infuencer and the face of Dior. I suspect that’s where their income lies. However, income aside Harry needs something to actually”do”. He was happy in the military and very upset when he was forced to leave. So what can he do to feel fulfilled?

Alan Kaufman
Alan Kaufman
1 year ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

How could the royal family have become more interesting by adding someone who looks Italian and claiming that she’s black?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

What it says is that the fascination of the Monarchy endures. Harry’s recent court case against MGN can be seen as his battle to preserve a monopoly over Royal stories, true or false.

James Sullivan
James Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

To be fair, a train wreck finds an audience too.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

They have blind followers in the same was as the guardian hates the MCC – its purely the need toidentify with the “other” that keeps them in the sights of the weak minded an dneedy – think Che Guevara or Red Army FAction T shirts lol

Brian Lavin
Brian Lavin
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

But they don’t find an audience – her podcast was cancelled.

I don’t really know anything about Megan and what’s his name, but after reading this article my first thought was that I’d like to read about what happened at Spotify that they invested $20 million in an obvious train wreck. Who got fired?

C. Lavy
C. Lavy
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Deleted

Last edited 1 year ago by C. Lavy
Harry Phillips
Harry Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

“..they still seem to find an audience.”

Do they?

I can’t imagine anybody normal actually listening to this nonsense, and certainly don’t know of anybody that’s read “Waaah!”

She could have been such a glamorous addition to the Royal family. Trevor Phillips said recently that she had blown a massive opportunity to add diversity (for want of a better word) to the aristocracy and give ethnic groups a horse in the race. Harry was already very popular, but those days are long gone – he just looks weak and henpecked now. They would have done a great job of opening hospitals and waste recycling plants.

Throw in an extravagantly funded royal wedding, and people’s irritation at their rejection is palpable.

The slow fade to obscurity is already underway.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

What it says is that the fascination of the Monarchy endures. Harry’s recent court case against MGN can be seen as his battle to preserve a monopoly over Royal stories, true or false.

James Sullivan
James Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

To be fair, a train wreck finds an audience too.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

They have blind followers in the same was as the guardian hates the MCC – its purely the need toidentify with the “other” that keeps them in the sights of the weak minded an dneedy – think Che Guevara or Red Army FAction T shirts lol

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

As fine a hit piece as I’ve ever read. The problem is no matter how tedious and self-absorbed the Sussexes become, they still seem to find an audience. Does that say something about them or about a significant chunk of society?

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago

Another thing which strikes me about the Sussexes is how impatient they are.
I initially had a alot of sympathy for Meghan and thought it must be tremendously hard for a young(ish) person used to the cut and thrust of showbusiness to come into an ancient, slow-moving and conservative institution alien to your culture. Understanding the demands and serving was always going to be a challenge – even with the greatest commitment to the cause.
But I don’t think she ever wanted to understand. There was no understanding – or even willingness to understand – that there are things greater than you. And that change is most sustainable when it is slow, well thought-out and incremental, taking everyone with it. This is something the Royals do better than almost anyone else and it is how the institution keeps going even after 1000 years.
This “I want it and I want it NOW” attitude was always going to be Meghan’s undoing in the end. You can make a big splash and get people interested for a short period (by publicly insinuating that your in laws are racist, for example) but for long-term success, she had to follow that up with something with a real grounding, prepared and polished over a long period of time. But no – it all has to be quick, it all has to be NOW, she has to be in the spotlight ALL THE TIME.
The best thing now would be to completely disappear for a couple of years, SLOW DOWN, put a proper, meaty project together…or commit themselves wholly and entirely to one specific cause and start making babysteps that are unglamourous at first but will at some point quietly come together to form something meaningful and lasting.
And in so doing, look at Kate and Will for inspiration: taking on early years development and homelessness…huge projects which will occupy them for decades but have the potential to properly change the system…and people’s lives for the better. “Impactful” as the Sussexes might say.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Aldo Maccione
Aldo Maccione
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Basically, devote yourself to a relatively silent and dedicated life of charitable service….
Oooooooh, the irony is soooooo delicious.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Aldo Maccione

The biggest irony will be that – if they manage to pull off something impressive and long-term – then America could yet be won over. Americans love comeback kids.
That is an “IF” the size of Utah though…the Sussexes have dug themselves into such a huge popularity hole on both sides of the pond (if not globally) that the turnaround is going to be that much harder to achieve now. Own fault, no sympathy there.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I’m not sure the Americans really understand and value quietly getting on and doing stuff without wanting awards and recognition in the way we do (or used to). This is what Jimmy Carter’s – admirably – been doing for the past four decades. The US still see him as a loser. They like brash talk and self-promotion, where our first instinct would be distrust and ridicule.
Frankly, I don’t much care what the Americans make of H&M. Just as long as they keep them and they don’t come back over here.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Jimmy Carter is a fine example of what Christianity should be but rarely is – love in action.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Amen. He’s a good and honest man. As a presidential candidate in1976, his then-scandalous admission that he had “lusted in his heart” for other women showed this too.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Amen. He’s a good and honest man. As a presidential candidate in1976, his then-scandalous admission that he had “lusted in his heart” for other women showed this too.

Middle March
Middle March
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Tell that to the American ladies at my American church who are patiently suffering through a week of Vacation Bible School with a horde of excited, rambunctious kids.

We understand it. It’s what so many of us do.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Carter is more widely admired than you might think. Sure, old punching bags are often embraced fondly after they age or leave the ring, in America and elsewhere, but there’s something more to it with Jimmy. He is known to many on both sides of the aisle as our best ex-president.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
0 0
0 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Carter’s policies were poor and he had no understanding of economics or foreign policy. That’s why he’s considered a poor president. He would have performed overall much better if he’d never been president and devoted himself to all the Christian works stated here.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  0 0

Gerald Ford was some great statesman? I acknowledge that Carter was not a very successful president overall. That’s one of the reason’s he’s a great ex-president in particular. Certainly better than Nixon (both in and out of office), who, like Carter, was highly intelligent in a general sense. Can you name recent U.S. presidents who had a strong understanding of economics and history? (Hint: Not GWB or Reagan or Trump).

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  0 0

Gerald Ford was some great statesman? I acknowledge that Carter was not a very successful president overall. That’s one of the reason’s he’s a great ex-president in particular. Certainly better than Nixon (both in and out of office), who, like Carter, was highly intelligent in a general sense. Can you name recent U.S. presidents who had a strong understanding of economics and history? (Hint: Not GWB or Reagan or Trump).

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Jimmy Carter is a fine example of what Christianity should be but rarely is – love in action.

Middle March
Middle March
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Tell that to the American ladies at my American church who are patiently suffering through a week of Vacation Bible School with a horde of excited, rambunctious kids.

We understand it. It’s what so many of us do.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Carter is more widely admired than you might think. Sure, old punching bags are often embraced fondly after they age or leave the ring, in America and elsewhere, but there’s something more to it with Jimmy. He is known to many on both sides of the aisle as our best ex-president.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
0 0
0 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Carter’s policies were poor and he had no understanding of economics or foreign policy. That’s why he’s considered a poor president. He would have performed overall much better if he’d never been president and devoted himself to all the Christian works stated here.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Not this American. And I’m an unapologetic Anglophile.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I’m not sure the Americans really understand and value quietly getting on and doing stuff without wanting awards and recognition in the way we do (or used to). This is what Jimmy Carter’s – admirably – been doing for the past four decades. The US still see him as a loser. They like brash talk and self-promotion, where our first instinct would be distrust and ridicule.
Frankly, I don’t much care what the Americans make of H&M. Just as long as they keep them and they don’t come back over here.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Not this American. And I’m an unapologetic Anglophile.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Aldo Maccione

The biggest irony will be that – if they manage to pull off something impressive and long-term – then America could yet be won over. Americans love comeback kids.
That is an “IF” the size of Utah though…the Sussexes have dug themselves into such a huge popularity hole on both sides of the pond (if not globally) that the turnaround is going to be that much harder to achieve now. Own fault, no sympathy there.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Traditional royal family (like QEII) : actually do stuff, set an example, strong sense of duty
Harry and Meghan : just talk about stuff, want to be “role models” – never actually get their hands dirty – no sense of duty or obligation to balance their privileges
I’ve said it before: H&M have almost turned me into a royalist. I’ll never forgive them.

Kerie Receveur
Kerie Receveur
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I cant stand the Sussexes, but be very wary indeed about W&K. They are almost as “woke” as the other two.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Well said. I would guess the impatience comes from the American culture which demands instant everything, like fast food. I too held out my compassion for a long time but gradually found myself unable to feel it any more.

Aldo Maccione
Aldo Maccione
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Basically, devote yourself to a relatively silent and dedicated life of charitable service….
Oooooooh, the irony is soooooo delicious.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Traditional royal family (like QEII) : actually do stuff, set an example, strong sense of duty
Harry and Meghan : just talk about stuff, want to be “role models” – never actually get their hands dirty – no sense of duty or obligation to balance their privileges
I’ve said it before: H&M have almost turned me into a royalist. I’ll never forgive them.

Kerie Receveur
Kerie Receveur
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I cant stand the Sussexes, but be very wary indeed about W&K. They are almost as “woke” as the other two.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Well said. I would guess the impatience comes from the American culture which demands instant everything, like fast food. I too held out my compassion for a long time but gradually found myself unable to feel it any more.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago

Another thing which strikes me about the Sussexes is how impatient they are.
I initially had a alot of sympathy for Meghan and thought it must be tremendously hard for a young(ish) person used to the cut and thrust of showbusiness to come into an ancient, slow-moving and conservative institution alien to your culture. Understanding the demands and serving was always going to be a challenge – even with the greatest commitment to the cause.
But I don’t think she ever wanted to understand. There was no understanding – or even willingness to understand – that there are things greater than you. And that change is most sustainable when it is slow, well thought-out and incremental, taking everyone with it. This is something the Royals do better than almost anyone else and it is how the institution keeps going even after 1000 years.
This “I want it and I want it NOW” attitude was always going to be Meghan’s undoing in the end. You can make a big splash and get people interested for a short period (by publicly insinuating that your in laws are racist, for example) but for long-term success, she had to follow that up with something with a real grounding, prepared and polished over a long period of time. But no – it all has to be quick, it all has to be NOW, she has to be in the spotlight ALL THE TIME.
The best thing now would be to completely disappear for a couple of years, SLOW DOWN, put a proper, meaty project together…or commit themselves wholly and entirely to one specific cause and start making babysteps that are unglamourous at first but will at some point quietly come together to form something meaningful and lasting.
And in so doing, look at Kate and Will for inspiration: taking on early years development and homelessness…huge projects which will occupy them for decades but have the potential to properly change the system…and people’s lives for the better. “Impactful” as the Sussexes might say.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

The entire premise of her podcast was just bizarre. She wanted to invite fantastically successful female celebrity guests who clearly had vaulted over any patriarchal hurdles that might have hampered lesser women.
Presumably the idea was to demonstrate to the audience that Meghan sat alongside these empowered girl-bosses as an inspirational feminist icon.
Meghan, that wanna-be feminist role model – though “give up your day job and marry a Prince” does seem a somewhat regressive message to offer up as a feminist in 2023.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Considering Hillary Clinton, how Kamala Harris (allegedly) got her break in politics, or the tropical background of female celebrities, “marry a prince” Meghan probably fit in well.

Of course, there are capable women. During COVID , for instance, I read stories about women who did a good job designing track and trace software or managing vaccine strategies.
But not the kind of women who they would be looking for, I suspect. Just like Thatcher never seems to make it to the “50 most inspirational women” lists.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Considering Hillary Clinton, how Kamala Harris (allegedly) got her break in politics, or the tropical background of female celebrities, “marry a prince” Meghan probably fit in well.

Of course, there are capable women. During COVID , for instance, I read stories about women who did a good job designing track and trace software or managing vaccine strategies.
But not the kind of women who they would be looking for, I suspect. Just like Thatcher never seems to make it to the “50 most inspirational women” lists.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

The entire premise of her podcast was just bizarre. She wanted to invite fantastically successful female celebrity guests who clearly had vaulted over any patriarchal hurdles that might have hampered lesser women.
Presumably the idea was to demonstrate to the audience that Meghan sat alongside these empowered girl-bosses as an inspirational feminist icon.
Meghan, that wanna-be feminist role model – though “give up your day job and marry a Prince” does seem a somewhat regressive message to offer up as a feminist in 2023.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago

The problem with Megan (apart from her obvious narcissism) is her complete lack of a sense of humour. She’s unrelatable and high-handed. She’s totally swallowed her own myth, a worst-case scenario of that very American sense of self-belief triumphing over reality.
She’s a ‘C’ list actress. She got lucky. She ended up inside the British Royal Family FFS. That’s a rich seam of stuff to mine if she wasn’t so damn humourless.

net mag
net mag
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

“C-list” ?
I think you are being rather kind …

net mag
net mag
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

“C-list” ?
I think you are being rather kind …

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago

The problem with Megan (apart from her obvious narcissism) is her complete lack of a sense of humour. She’s unrelatable and high-handed. She’s totally swallowed her own myth, a worst-case scenario of that very American sense of self-belief triumphing over reality.
She’s a ‘C’ list actress. She got lucky. She ended up inside the British Royal Family FFS. That’s a rich seam of stuff to mine if she wasn’t so damn humourless.

Graeme Archer
Graeme Archer
1 year ago

despite the entertainment value of Bill Simmons describing the couple as “grifters”, this is not quite the right word for what Meghan is.

You’re right, that isn’t the word. There is a perfect word to describe Megain. It’s just unprintable.
Great piece.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Archer

Her and Sir Lewis Hamilton are the marriage of the future?!!!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme Archer

Her and Sir Lewis Hamilton are the marriage of the future?!!!

Graeme Archer
Graeme Archer
1 year ago

despite the entertainment value of Bill Simmons describing the couple as “grifters”, this is not quite the right word for what Meghan is.

You’re right, that isn’t the word. There is a perfect word to describe Megain. It’s just unprintable.
Great piece.

Davey M
Davey M
1 year ago

You don’t even need to be dimly aware of the subject matter to recognise that Kat Rosenfield is one of the best writers out there.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
1 year ago
Reply to  Davey M

Some fine lines, such as ‘a narcissist’s idea of what it would be like to be curious about other people’s lives’. I thought the concept of an actor’s simulacrum of a podcast hit the nail on the head.

Last edited 1 year ago by Judy Englander
Judy Englander
Judy Englander
1 year ago
Reply to  Davey M

Some fine lines, such as ‘a narcissist’s idea of what it would be like to be curious about other people’s lives’. I thought the concept of an actor’s simulacrum of a podcast hit the nail on the head.

Last edited 1 year ago by Judy Englander
Davey M
Davey M
1 year ago

You don’t even need to be dimly aware of the subject matter to recognise that Kat Rosenfield is one of the best writers out there.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Those of us who know certain Norfolk circles can assure readers that Harry’s p***y whipping and her woke and patronising lack of humour and bird brained arrogance, caused her to be the butt of serious p**** taking on her first meeting there with Harry’s mates, and their urging him not to make the relationship serious… the rest, as they say, is history… her nickname up there is ” Vegan Darkle”!!!

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Those of us who know certain Norfolk circles can assure readers that Harry’s p***y whipping and her woke and patronising lack of humour and bird brained arrogance, caused her to be the butt of serious p**** taking on her first meeting there with Harry’s mates, and their urging him not to make the relationship serious… the rest, as they say, is history… her nickname up there is ” Vegan Darkle”!!!

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
1 year ago

Thanks for listening to these podcasts, thus saving us the trouble.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
1 year ago

Thanks for listening to these podcasts, thus saving us the trouble.

Edward Seymour
Edward Seymour
1 year ago

” . . . (the artist formerly known as) Prince Harry”. The article was worth it for this alone!

Edward Seymour
Edward Seymour
1 year ago

” . . . (the artist formerly known as) Prince Harry”. The article was worth it for this alone!

R S Foster
R S Foster
1 year ago

Meghan was never British, and made little or no effort to “join in”…and Harry has explicitly rejected everything about himself that was, and poured buckets of ordure on everything about us, and especially on his sorely tried family and on the memory of his recently departed Grandmother. It is a gross insult to us, and especially towards them to suggest there is anything even slightly “British” about their failed efforts to become Hollywood A-listers! Kindly withdraw this appalling slur and gross insult to our hard won reputation for extreme emotional continence…

R S Foster
R S Foster
1 year ago

Meghan was never British, and made little or no effort to “join in”…and Harry has explicitly rejected everything about himself that was, and poured buckets of ordure on everything about us, and especially on his sorely tried family and on the memory of his recently departed Grandmother. It is a gross insult to us, and especially towards them to suggest there is anything even slightly “British” about their failed efforts to become Hollywood A-listers! Kindly withdraw this appalling slur and gross insult to our hard won reputation for extreme emotional continence…

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
1 year ago

I’m wondering whether the “grifting” industry is getting so crowded these days, that the underwhelming Sussexes are simply pricing themselves out of the market.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Barton
Ian Barton
Ian Barton
1 year ago

I’m wondering whether the “grifting” industry is getting so crowded these days, that the underwhelming Sussexes are simply pricing themselves out of the market.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Barton
Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

When I first started listening to Joe Rogan’s podcasts, he was often talking to a person I didn’t know. It could take an hour or more before I could even guess what the person was known for, because the two of them would just chat about topics of mutual interest. There was no big sell either of a personality or a product. The enjoyment was in listening to two interesting people speaking honestly, agreeing at times and disagreeing at others.
I’m sure Harry and Meghan have contempt for Rogan and feel that, if this supposed idiot could make millions on Spotify, so could they.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Joe Rogan? Really!

Magali
Magali
1 year ago

Joe Rogan sucks as much as H&M.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Joe Rogan? Really!

Magali
Magali
1 year ago

Joe Rogan sucks as much as H&M.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

When I first started listening to Joe Rogan’s podcasts, he was often talking to a person I didn’t know. It could take an hour or more before I could even guess what the person was known for, because the two of them would just chat about topics of mutual interest. There was no big sell either of a personality or a product. The enjoyment was in listening to two interesting people speaking honestly, agreeing at times and disagreeing at others.
I’m sure Harry and Meghan have contempt for Rogan and feel that, if this supposed idiot could make millions on Spotify, so could they.

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
1 year ago

Respect our privvvvvvvvaaaaaaaaccccy!
The South Park episode was just delicious, must see if not already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8_5LDkZwY

net mag
net mag
1 year ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

Thank you for that !

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  net mag

full episode here – empty trash can – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjdo7wyUVE4

Last edited 1 year ago by Justin Clark
Justin Clark
Justin Clark
1 year ago
Reply to  net mag

full episode here – empty trash can – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjdo7wyUVE4

Last edited 1 year ago by Justin Clark
net mag
net mag
1 year ago
Reply to  Justin Clark

Thank you for that !

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
1 year ago

Respect our privvvvvvvvaaaaaaaaccccy!
The South Park episode was just delicious, must see if not already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8_5LDkZwY

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago

One look at Harry’s face tells you that intimacy may be something of a no-go area these days.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 year ago

One look at Harry’s face tells you that intimacy may be something of a no-go area these days.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

“Meghan (who, lest we forget, started out as an actor)”

Ah, was she known as Melvin or something? I never knew she had transitioned.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

“Meghan (who, lest we forget, started out as an actor)”

Ah, was she known as Melvin or something? I never knew she had transitioned.

James Sullivan
James Sullivan
1 year ago

Savage and brilliant.

James Sullivan
James Sullivan
1 year ago

Savage and brilliant.

rick stubbs
rick stubbs
1 year ago

I didn’t really care and don’t know why I read this, but it was good reporting that moved beyond snark while not abandoning it…

rick stubbs
rick stubbs
1 year ago

I didn’t really care and don’t know why I read this, but it was good reporting that moved beyond snark while not abandoning it…

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago

In fairness to Mariah Carey as well as a good set of pipes she really screwed over her record company – who’s mysogeny was revealed at that time. Never mind the Sex Pistols and their Rock n Roll swindle perhaps only Motley Crue did it better than La Carey, who like the 4 original members of the Crue was an ordinary working class American. The same cannot be said of the Williams sisters despite their awesome careers and Markle, famous for er, what was it now?

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago

In fairness to Mariah Carey as well as a good set of pipes she really screwed over her record company – who’s mysogeny was revealed at that time. Never mind the Sex Pistols and their Rock n Roll swindle perhaps only Motley Crue did it better than La Carey, who like the 4 original members of the Crue was an ordinary working class American. The same cannot be said of the Williams sisters despite their awesome careers and Markle, famous for er, what was it now?

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago

I thought the idea of her blowing off into a microphone has merit. I would gladly pay to hear that. Jospeh Poujol enjoyed great success and became the toast of Paris, after all. They could call it Fartytypes.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago

I thought the idea of her blowing off into a microphone has merit. I would gladly pay to hear that. Jospeh Poujol enjoyed great success and became the toast of Paris, after all. They could call it Fartytypes.

Mash Mallow
Mash Mallow
1 year ago

Can’t wait to see the movie.

Mash Mallow
Mash Mallow
1 year ago

Can’t wait to see the movie.

Mark Goodwin
Mark Goodwin
1 year ago

If Meghan recorded herself farting into a microphone for an hour, I’d listen to it…otherwise.

Mark Goodwin
Mark Goodwin
1 year ago

If Meghan recorded herself farting into a microphone for an hour, I’d listen to it…otherwise.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Meghan keeps generating plenty of ‘copy’ for journalists so she and her husband will fufill a function for some for some time. Even if just a mini little occasional moment of ‘hate’ to feel better.

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

It might help if she and hubby stopped pushing fatuous broadcasts.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I do so like the way you get downvoted nowadays whatever you say, however uncontroversial and inconsequential, as here. Since my comments often seem to generate similar I can sympathise, although actually think it something of a badge of honour to be downvoted by those who obviously haven’t read and thought about the comment, even when I ask those who disagree to say why rather than just click that button!

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Maybe you like to explain how their broadcasts (and JW’s comments) are so insightful and relatable.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

AR where did TP, or myself, say M’s broadcasts are insightful and reliable?
I think you rush how quickly you read and respond. sometimes.
Why though are you so interested in Meghan? Isn’t it easier to just ignore? Amazed you’ve taken time to watch her Podcasts, but fair play. I haven’t and wouldn’t. Can’t imagine they do much harm but life has more important stuff.

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

You didn’t that’s the point, you introduced a strawman that journalists are hateful towards her.

“I think you rush how quickly you read and respond. sometimes”. From someone who clearly hasn’t read the article.

“Why though are you so interested in Meghan? Isn’t it easier to just ignore? Amazed you’ve taken time to watch her Podcasts, but fair play. I haven’t and wouldn’t. Can’t imagine they do much harm but life has more important stuff”.

…and yet here we both are 🙂

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

Indeed, albeit I didn’t read the article beyond the headline, which was enough to deduce ‘here we go again’, whereas suspect you did?
You also suggested it would help if she/hubby stopped making fatuous podcasts. I can’t comment as haven’t watched them so defer to you on what they are like (You do know that’s time you’ll never get back?). .
As regards the strawman – you got slightly wrong end of the initial comment. She generates ‘copy’ and even you seem to have watched her podcasts sufficiently to comment on them. I did add I suspect this has a cathartic benefit for some.

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I didn’t need to watch/listen to them (fortunately), just read snippets from transcripts etc. and it was laden full of Critical Theory nonsense. What is one to do but laugh at a “princess” that metaphorically has no clothes.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

Reading snippets from transcripts for shows Meghan is putting on…that is dedication. I suspect you have a form of acute addiction here AR. There must a Hotline you can phone for counselling.

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Like you on UnHerd, a glutton for punishment. Hysterical.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Like you on UnHerd, a glutton for punishment. Hysterical.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Raiment
Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

So judgemental- just from snippets? Surely if you wanted to understand the source of your “hate”, if you were curious, you would investigate, you would try to figure out what it is that you actually don’t like about her. Or is there a lurking bias in your own head that prevents you from opening your eyes,
thoughts and heart toward what another person ( in this case – Meghan) is saying.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

Reading snippets from transcripts for shows Meghan is putting on…that is dedication. I suspect you have a form of acute addiction here AR. There must a Hotline you can phone for counselling.

Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

So judgemental- just from snippets? Surely if you wanted to understand the source of your “hate”, if you were curious, you would investigate, you would try to figure out what it is that you actually don’t like about her. Or is there a lurking bias in your own head that prevents you from opening your eyes,
thoughts and heart toward what another person ( in this case – Meghan) is saying.

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I didn’t need to watch/listen to them (fortunately), just read snippets from transcripts etc. and it was laden full of Critical Theory nonsense. What is one to do but laugh at a “princess” that metaphorically has no clothes.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

Indeed, albeit I didn’t read the article beyond the headline, which was enough to deduce ‘here we go again’, whereas suspect you did?
You also suggested it would help if she/hubby stopped making fatuous podcasts. I can’t comment as haven’t watched them so defer to you on what they are like (You do know that’s time you’ll never get back?). .
As regards the strawman – you got slightly wrong end of the initial comment. She generates ‘copy’ and even you seem to have watched her podcasts sufficiently to comment on them. I did add I suspect this has a cathartic benefit for some.

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

You didn’t that’s the point, you introduced a strawman that journalists are hateful towards her.

“I think you rush how quickly you read and respond. sometimes”. From someone who clearly hasn’t read the article.

“Why though are you so interested in Meghan? Isn’t it easier to just ignore? Amazed you’ve taken time to watch her Podcasts, but fair play. I haven’t and wouldn’t. Can’t imagine they do much harm but life has more important stuff”.

…and yet here we both are 🙂

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

I made no comment on their podcasts, in which I have no interest but assume are neither insightful nor relatable (except to a very few), and I called JW’s comment ‘inconsequential’. Good to have you confirm what I said about downvotes etc though!

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Have an upvote

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Have an upvote

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Raiment
j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

AR where did TP, or myself, say M’s broadcasts are insightful and reliable?
I think you rush how quickly you read and respond. sometimes.
Why though are you so interested in Meghan? Isn’t it easier to just ignore? Amazed you’ve taken time to watch her Podcasts, but fair play. I haven’t and wouldn’t. Can’t imagine they do much harm but life has more important stuff.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Raiment

I made no comment on their podcasts, in which I have no interest but assume are neither insightful nor relatable (except to a very few), and I called JW’s comment ‘inconsequential’. Good to have you confirm what I said about downvotes etc though!

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

I second that cognition!

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Maybe you like to explain how their broadcasts (and JW’s comments) are so insightful and relatable.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Price

I second that cognition!

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

It might help if she and hubby stopped pushing fatuous broadcasts.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I do so like the way you get downvoted nowadays whatever you say, however uncontroversial and inconsequential, as here. Since my comments often seem to generate similar I can sympathise, although actually think it something of a badge of honour to be downvoted by those who obviously haven’t read and thought about the comment, even when I ask those who disagree to say why rather than just click that button!

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Meghan keeps generating plenty of ‘copy’ for journalists so she and her husband will fufill a function for some for some time. Even if just a mini little occasional moment of ‘hate’ to feel better.

V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago

Ha…love the way Meghan winds the right up…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

whoosh!

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

What do ‘right’ or ‘left’ have to do with it? I have scant regard for these two spoilt, narcissistic human beings.
And I’m a semi-left uber-liberal…

Last edited 1 year ago by Jane Awdry
V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

To clarify, I love the way Meghan Markle upsets many on the right. Just mentioning her name is like lighting some kind of emotional touch paper. It’s just too easy…
I don’t think mentioning her has same effect on left-wingers. I suspect the socialist left are mainly indifferent, while the liberal left (in the main) probably quite like her – given the liberal, progressive values she espouses.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

Sure – nothing the left loves more than royalty, castle-life, entitlement and unearned privilege; and the right hates tradition, titles and elites.

V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Think I’m gonna get blocked by UnHerd for my message saying the right get easily wound up by Meghan Markle. For the record, Boris Johnson has a similar effect on the left. How you react at emotional level to either of these two figures seems to define what side you’re on in so-called culture wars.

V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

To clarify, it looks like my original comment on this timeline was reviewed but not removed.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

I understand knee-jerk reactions on political grounds, I just think the MM issue is not political, nor racial – she’s equally offensive to all sides. Her supporters are those who buy her victimhood story – credulous. Once you see and understand narcissistic manipulations, it changes everything. I can’t stand her, nor BJ or DT – not because of politics – they don’t have any true position or values beyond their own self aggrandisement – but because of their ability to corrupt and manipulate. Before you clock them, narcissists are often highly persuasive and attractive as they have a lifetime’s experience in pure self PR.

V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

To clarify, it looks like my original comment on this timeline was reviewed but not removed.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

I understand knee-jerk reactions on political grounds, I just think the MM issue is not political, nor racial – she’s equally offensive to all sides. Her supporters are those who buy her victimhood story – credulous. Once you see and understand narcissistic manipulations, it changes everything. I can’t stand her, nor BJ or DT – not because of politics – they don’t have any true position or values beyond their own self aggrandisement – but because of their ability to corrupt and manipulate. Before you clock them, narcissists are often highly persuasive and attractive as they have a lifetime’s experience in pure self PR.

V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Think I’m gonna get blocked by UnHerd for my message saying the right get easily wound up by Meghan Markle. For the record, Boris Johnson has a similar effect on the left. How you react at emotional level to either of these two figures seems to define what side you’re on in so-called culture wars.

Anakei Ess
Anakei Ess
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

I love the way the left rush to defend a woman who was born into comfortable circumstances, went to the best schools, had over-seas holidays, used her father, her uncle, ( for the intern position) her first husband, her chef boyfriend, friends and acquaintances, and finally Harry, to parlay a little talent into spectacular social climbing, and still call her a ‘progressive’ and a ‘feminist’

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

Sure – nothing the left loves more than royalty, castle-life, entitlement and unearned privilege; and the right hates tradition, titles and elites.

Anakei Ess
Anakei Ess
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

I love the way the left rush to defend a woman who was born into comfortable circumstances, went to the best schools, had over-seas holidays, used her father, her uncle, ( for the intern position) her first husband, her chef boyfriend, friends and acquaintances, and finally Harry, to parlay a little talent into spectacular social climbing, and still call her a ‘progressive’ and a ‘feminist’

V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago
Reply to  Jane Awdry

To clarify, I love the way Meghan Markle upsets many on the right. Just mentioning her name is like lighting some kind of emotional touch paper. It’s just too easy…
I don’t think mentioning her has same effect on left-wingers. I suspect the socialist left are mainly indifferent, while the liberal left (in the main) probably quite like her – given the liberal, progressive values she espouses.

Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

They are all sheep, just following without bothering to look where they are going.

I joined this periodical during the time of Covid, & then it was indeed very reassuring. However, I’m neither right not left and I try to keep my biases out of my observation of the world. However the views and the incessant one sidedness of these articles especially on Megan in Unherd just throw light to the narrowmindedness and sheer anger of the readers. They seem so affronted, why? On behalf of the royalty? The British press?

This girl has been hurt and has let the world know she is hurt . The hurt clearly ran deep. Can no one here work that out? So this girl, with or without her privileges is working life out, some of it happens to be in publicity, is that reason for such vehement judgment? To those sheep who follow a dogma of hate, you are lazy and should question your own motives and intentions first.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

whoosh!

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

What do ‘right’ or ‘left’ have to do with it? I have scant regard for these two spoilt, narcissistic human beings.
And I’m a semi-left uber-liberal…

Last edited 1 year ago by Jane Awdry
Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
1 year ago
Reply to  V Reade

They are all sheep, just following without bothering to look where they are going.

I joined this periodical during the time of Covid, & then it was indeed very reassuring. However, I’m neither right not left and I try to keep my biases out of my observation of the world. However the views and the incessant one sidedness of these articles especially on Megan in Unherd just throw light to the narrowmindedness and sheer anger of the readers. They seem so affronted, why? On behalf of the royalty? The British press?

This girl has been hurt and has let the world know she is hurt . The hurt clearly ran deep. Can no one here work that out? So this girl, with or without her privileges is working life out, some of it happens to be in publicity, is that reason for such vehement judgment? To those sheep who follow a dogma of hate, you are lazy and should question your own motives and intentions first.

V Reade
V Reade
1 year ago

Ha…love the way Meghan winds the right up…