she learned her lesson from that and keeps her head down! Out of all of them, Sophie seems the warmest and kindest though. she’s like the older, capable woman at work who is no nonsense but is the first to notice when someone is feeling low or going through something and suggest they take the afternoon off
---
that was a buzzfeed article which, at first inspection looks like insanely unfair treatment.
Over the years, Meghan has been shamed for the same things for which her sister-in-law, Kate, has been praised.
www.buzzfeednews.com
It’s an oft-quoted article which seems to encapsulate the double standard applied to Meghan. It’s the type of “gotcha” journalism which is low brow and unintelligent though.
It doesn’t really think through, just superficially compares headlines. Plus it contributes to the problem of Kate V meghan. In Spare, Harry pretty much references this same article, while simultaneously complaining about how Meghan and Kate were pitted against each other.
it’s also comparing press coverage with Meghan over a year or so compared to Kate’s press coverage across a decade. And the comparisons don’t bear much scrutiny. If someone wanted to check every single article written about Kate, the negative and critical ones would far outnumber meghans.
for example, the first one references Kate cradling her bump. The Meghan article asks if it’s a new age thing. The daily Mail have form for making subtle, indirect criticisms for sure. But it draws from the reality that Meghan was seen constantly holding her bump, drawing attention to it and angle it towards the camera. It’s not especially toxic behaviour but it’s very Hollywood, disingenuous and it’s not what’s expected from a monarchy. Meghan was using her pregnancy to garner sympathy, positive press for herself instead of just embracing the role out of genuine altruism. People just didn’t like that.
the article linking avocados with poverty and deforestation was ridiculous. But the stories bear very little similarity. William was gifted one, then there’s an article making obscure links with meghan eating them. The comparison doesn’t really hold and the article is so ridiculous it is barely worth noticing (but again, Harry brings it up in Spare)
conparing William and Kate setting up a company to protect their trademark v the sussexes… doesn’t hold up to the test of time. Because we now know H&M had most likely been planning to leave the royal family from early 2019, and setting up companies for trademarking their titles was a step towards monetising them. Kate and Wills - to my knowledge - have not done this. The actions were the same but the motives were not. I suspect the daily Mail probably had an inkling that this is what the sussexes were intending (to monetise their brand) from pretty early on.
the comparison between William and Kate being encouraging about talking about emotions vs meghan and Harry airing their grievances publicly isn’t a fair comparison at all. Neither have anything in common. Airing dirty laundry and complaining to reporters isn’t the same as having healthy conversations in trust.
etc etc etc.
When you go through the comparisons, a lot are either plain ridiculous or don’t stand up to much scrutiny at all. And none of these articles are particularly vicious or hugely critical. Critiquing meghans choice of flowers for her bridesmaids (while also pointing out others used them) is more ridiculous and silly than personal and scathing. Hardly the vicious mob Harry portrays.
if the sussexes weren’t so obsessed (and competitive) with the reporting on them, they’d have laughed that crap off and gotten on with their lives. But they are a couple obsessed with branding and personal image. They badly want to be seen as good and best, without actually trying to be fundamentally good or the best.
