Duchess Meghan: ‘I have not been on social media for a very long time’

Harry Meghan Sentebale polo

Before the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Netflix deal became public, the British media was *obsessed* with the idea that Meghan and Harry would be giving “paid speeches.” The British media spun it out to make it sound like M&H would be giving speeches for millions of dollars every week, and they would only be getting paid to talk about “woke” things and royal things. It was all so asinine. It became more asinine during the pandemic, when obviously there are very few large gatherings or events where a paid speaker might come in. Besides that, Meghan seems hellbent on driving down her paid-speech price – Meghan keeps doing all of these FREE Zoom calls with various groups and media outlets and she’s spilling her own special blend of tea and making news. I mean, maybe it’s advertising for future paid speeches. Or maybe Meghan just wants to “use her voice” all the time now. In any case, she spoke (over Zoom) to Fortune’s Most Powerful Next Gen Summit on Tuesday. Some highlights from her talk:

On making tough decisions: She’s learned to, in her words, “chase her convictions with action. It’s not easy. That’s the first place all of us have to start with. Sometimes making the best decision for yourself and your family might not be the most popular one. My faith is greater than my fear. It has to be greater than whatever fears are hindering you from taking that step.”

Using her voice: “Your voice matters. You realize it more when you are not able to exercise it. Regardless of my experience over the last few years compared to anyone’s experience, you can’t take for granted the ability you have as a woman to be able to be heard, and now with the platform that people have on social media to actually have that voice heard for a larger audience, I think it’s a huge responsibility.”

She’s “avoided” social media in recent years: “For my own self-preservation, I have not been on social media for a very long time. I had a personal account years ago, which I closed down and then we had one through the institution and our office that was in the U.K. that wasn’t managed by us —that was a whole team — and so I think that comes with the territory for the job you have. I’ve made a personal choice to not have any account, so I don’t know what’s out there, and many ways that’s helpful for me. I have a lot of concerns for people that have become obsessed with it. And it is so much a part of our daily culture for so many people that it’s an addiction like many others. There are very few things in this world where you call the person who is engaging with it a user.”

How motherhood has changed her: “It’s interesting because my gut is that it makes you more courageous, it makes you so concerned for the world they’re going to inherit. So the things you’re able to tolerate on your own are not the same that you are going to put your child in a position of vulnerability for. You go every single day — how can I make this world better for Archie? That is a shared belief for my husband and I. At the same time, I am cautious of putting my family at risk by certain things. I try to be very clear in what I say and not get controversial and instead talk about things that seem very straight forward, like exercising your right to vote. I think that’s as simple as it comes and as necessary as it comes and to that point as a parent, I can enjoy all the fun and silliness and games with my son, but I wouldn’t be able to feel proud of myself as a mom if I didn’t know that I wasn’t doing my part to make it a better place for him.”

On the Netflix deal & her future: “Everything I’m doing is for Archie, our son…There’s a lot that I’m excited about — certainly in creating programming and content that is conscious and inspiring and has a call to action and is uplifting. And I’m excited to be back home in the States and hopefully as things start to open up a bit more with COVID, just to be back and engaging and interacting with people in a different way and in a way that will allow me to roll my sleeves up and really be boots on the ground back at home.”

[From People]

I think the social media conversation is connected to the “use your voice while you have it” conversation. She’s playing a bit fast and loose with authorship of the Sussex Royal Instagram, she was clearly writing the majority of the posts. And that’s fine! I always felt like she was so involved in the SussexRoyal IG because she wasn’t allowed to use her voice in the ways she had been able to before she married into that dreadful institution. IG became her outlet, and she used it, in a small way, to reclaim some of her voice. I’m still hoping that she and Harry do another Instagram to promote all of their stuff. I’ve been looking forward to that all year.

“Sometimes making the best decision for yourself and your family might not be the most popular one.” Yep. She was prepared to make the right decision, not the popular decision. And good for them. This too was a pointed comment: “I am cautious of putting my family at risk by certain things. I try to be very clear in what I say and not get controversial and instead talk about things that seem very straight forward, like exercising your right to vote.” Yes. Confirmation that she actually is being very careful in the words she uses and the statements she makes and whether or not she’s being “political.” She has no desire to be even targeted further by the British media or by Donald Trump and his Nazis.

Meghan Markle, the US fiancee of Britain's Prince Harry, attends an Anzac Day dawn service at Hyde Park Corner in London on April 25, 2018. Anzac Day commemorates Australian and New Zealand casualties and veterans of conflicts and marks the anniversary of the landings in the Dardanelles on April 25, 1915 that would signal the start of the Gallipoli Campaign during the First World War.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

return home

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

103 Responses to “Duchess Meghan: ‘I have not been on social media for a very long time’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. tee says:

    These frequent and accessible virtual events seem to be apart of Meghan and Harry’s plan to build credibility and thought leadership in these space. As someone who already pays close attention to them, it’s gotten a bit redundant tbh, but it seems like strategic brand building for the long-term goal of strengthening their support. They lost a lot when they left the RF, it’s smart for them to try to curate a new base now before they launch anything.

    • Snuffles says:

      What did they lose by leaving the institution? I see nothing but positives.

      But I do agree they are building their brand now that they are no longer twisting themselves to fit into the Royal brand.

      • Harla says:

        I agree Snuffles, they didn’t lose anything of value when they left the royal family. The tabloids would have us believe that the Sussex’s reputation is in tatters and only by engaging with them can it be restored. They were barely gone 6 months before they signed their multi year Netflix deal and it certainly seems that many others are lining up, eager to pay for their brand of inspiration.

    • Chartreuse says:

      Tee, they didn’t leave the RF, they, all three, are still part of the family. And they lost nothing and gained a lot.

      • tee says:

        they quite literally left the RF as a firm, and it’s simply untrue that they haven’t lost anything — harry has said as much. they’ve absolutely gained a lot though, and atp i’d say more than they lost.

    • Millenial says:

      The problem with thought leaders is they advocate for change without actually advocating for the change that needs to happen. So you get “empowering women” instead of telling men they need to take less power. You get “fight inequality” and “stop climate change” instead of unregulated capitalism is destroying the planet and turning America into a plutocracy.

      I’ve honestly been disappointed to see M+H doing so many speeches for the uber-wealthy, tbh. The wealthy don’t want to hear about how the system that gave them power oppresses everyone else. They want surface-level non-change with zero guilt and without having to give up any of the benefits they retain from the status quo.

      • OriginalLala says:

        *slow clap*

        you’ve put into words exactly how I’ve been feeling about H&M, and many other celeb or wealthy advocates.

      • Millenial says:

        @OriginalLala Anand Giridharadas wrote a book describing this phenomena called Winners Take All. It a good book, but he was also on several shows (NPR, Trever Noah) talking about the main points.

      • Snuffles says:

        I’m pretty sure MOST of their appearances have been for free and for non-wealthy organizations.

        Homeboy Industries
        Teenager Therapy
        When We All Vote
        Project Angel Food
        Assistance League

        And these appearances have helped give the organizations free press and a significant increase in donations. I even donated to a few of them after their appearances.

        I think Fortune had been the only appearance where people has to pay to see.

        And Harry and Meghan are some of the few who have done concrete things that help an organization make money for their causes like SmartWorks Smart Set and the Grenfell Together Community cook book. I’m sure more are in the works.

      • Nancy says:

        Wow – yes, Millenial! You’ve hit the nail on the head.

      • Myra says:

        I haven’t seen that many speeches from Meghan, personally. Nor from Harry. I have seen them in interviews and one-on-one discussions. Interviews are just that, interviews. They haven’t started doing the work as Archewell hasn’t been launched. The pandemic has delayed some of their plans. Give them time to find their footing btw. It was only this year that they left the institution and relocated to a new country, bought a new house and closed a new business deal. They don’t have superpowers.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Huh? Meghan has just done 2 talks with Fortune. Other interviews/Talks were with Girl up/UN, Gloria Steinheim re voting, When we all vote re voting, 19th reflecting on media representation& women’s vote, harry& Meghan did short intro for Times re voting/hate speech, her high school talk re BLM, Harry and Meghan talk with Malala re pandemic’s effect on girls education, Harry& Meghan interview on U.K. BHM. Harry did chats over Paralympics movie he featured in. Harry did something for 75 th V day celebrations

        All their other zooms have been connected to their charities eg talking about virtual job coaching, how they are handling pandemic, food insecurity, discussing BLM, the commonwealth, social media, Harry did a HIV conference, launch of a military charity walk etc.

        Everyone is zooming so limit to what they can do outside of that but they also volunteered with project angel food, a pre school, homeboy.

        They’ve discussed systemic racism & equality Etc & been harshly criticised for it. And frankly given how Harry’s family gained wealth & power I agree his talking on these issues is a bit off. Plus they get criticism over being political all the time so have to be careful advocating for change. I think it’s a good idea for them to do what they can practically on the ground & highlight the issues, people and orgs maybe through their charity when launched & through their Netflix programming

      • tempest prognosticator says:

        @millenial: Hear, hear! Well said.

      • Sofia says:

        The Sussexes are not super progressive and liberal in general. Compared to the rest of the family they are but in the grand scheme of things, they seem to be “safe liberals”. Like they’ll take the Biden over Sanders and Kamala over AOC or even Warren any day. They obviously do support equal rights and all that but they’re not going to start going “Tax the billionaires!”. They do benefit from capitalism as does everyone else in their income bracket.

        I always thought that Fortune like events would be what they would speak at. But they’ve done plenty of volunteering with “non rich people benefiting places” such as Project AngelFood, Homeboys and that nursery who’s name is escaping me at the moment.

      • Mumbles says:

        Millennial, Giridharadas’ book was great. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

      • bonobochick says:

        What are all the speeches for the Uber-wealthy? 🤔

        Haven’t there only been two related to Fortune Mag and all the rest with local charities and small / indie organizations?

      • tee says:

        you’re mostly right, but the brand they’re trying to build is firmly within and will rely heavily on the liberal status quo. fans will continue to be disappointed expecting anything else. yet, there is still good to be done in this sphere, even if not at a systemic or transformational scale. supporting grassroots efforts is one way to do it, and hopefully their nonprofit does some of that.

      • ABritGuest says:

        That we know of, only been 2 talks with a corporate where she might have been paid. The rest have been talks with non profit orgs like When we vote, Girl Up, Malala Fund or been with their charities& smaller orgs like the teenager therapy podcast.

        They highlighted lots of smaller charities& social enterprises when they had their Insta& they said with their new charitable venture they aimed to work with grassroot orgs on the ground doing the work so imagine that will be the case.

        And I think their new charity org will have social media I just think she won’t launch her own personal SM any time soon.

      • Zazu says:

        There’s nothing implicitly wrong with being an establishment liberal, it’s a simple observation to say they are more like the Obamas not AOC or Elizabeth Warren. If you look at their more famous friends, from the Mulroneys, to the Fosters, to Ellen DeGeneres, to Gayle King and Oprah, to Serena Williams, you don’t see any indication that they have anti establishment progressive politics. They believe it’s fine if there is a class of highly successful people who get paid millions for their work, and they don’t have a problem with that. How else do you get philanthropy?
        They believe anyone should have the opportunity to be successful regardless of racial group, sexual orientation or gender. H&M probably believe in paying their fair share of taxes. They likely believe in a social welfare system, boosted by charity and philanthropy.
        Personally, I don’t really like the idea of elite philanthropy, I want more redistrubitution through taxation. I want more equality of outcome than equality of opportunity. No one should get paid $100 million for anything if there are kids going hungry. I don’t love the ‘go get that money!’ approach. But since we don’t live in a social democrat utopia, I’m much happier for H&M to be successful and elite than say the Trump spawn.

      • MsIam says:

        @Millenial what about Harry and Meghan gave you the idea that they were going to be “burn it all down” anti-capitalists? They initially said they wanted to work within the royal family which is about as pro-establishment as you can get. I think you are wasting your time following people who were never about your agenda in the first place and I think your criticism is disingenuous. Why not spend your time following and working for someone who does? With that said, since Harry and Meghan are supposedly prohibited from speaking about politics and have gotten major shit for the mild statements they have made, I think it’s highly unlikely they are going to be discussing the tax and policy changes you mentioned.

      • katharine says:

        100 percent agree.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ OriginalLala : my disappointment about what M&H have been doing since getting to California is that is they haven’t really come up with anything concrete – no plans on how to bring about the change they talk about. And Millenia’s quote that the wealthy ” want surface-level non-change with zero guilt and without having to give up any of the benefits they retain from the status quo” seems to be on point. In Canada, we have the term “champagne socialists” to refer to people who are firmly part of the establishment (with all the benefits that brings) but who talk like socialists. I want to see M&H come up with some ideas about HOW to change things and then start doing it with their own foundation or someone else’s.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Still Sarah they haven’t launched their org yet. I don’t think it’s realistic to think that Harry& Meghan would have come up with solid solutions/plans for some of the big social issues they’ve been discussing when they’ve recently quit a job, moved twice in 5 months, have various lawsuits ongoing, are starting a new company & charity org, have existing charity commitments& have a toddler.

        Apart from whether they are actually equipped to come up with with solutions to all the issues they’ve been speaking about- some actually require political solutions that even career politicians haven’t resolved eg ensuring girls access to education

        One thing they have been talking about has been hate& misinformation on social media & they worked with civil rights groups& liaised with company ceos to encourage advertising pause. But that’s an example of where moving the needle significantly requires serious political & consumer action.

        Meghan‘s approach in the past has been to speak to people on the ground& find out what is needed. That’s how cookbook& capsule collection came about. I’m assuming they are speaking to experts particularly where they said they are interested in humane tech so guess we’ll see what they come up with.

      • Chelsea says:

        @ Millennial – im not sure how much of their conversations on gender you’ve heard but both Harry and Meghan have said repeatedly that men need to take accountability for our patriarchal systems and be a part of the solution. One example that comes to mind was when they were in South Africa talking about gender based violence last year and Harry said that fathers everywhere need to teach their sons to be better and that we need to rethink masculinity and strength and that he was doing that in his own life by respecting and protecting his wife to set a better example for his son. They’re hiring choices(they had more female staffers than other royal household by a mile) also show that they’re actually serious about wanting women in power.

        As others have noted, the majority of their appearances this have beem with grassroots organizations giving much needed spotlight to them (and in the case of camfed $), which is great, but as Harry himself said in a call with Colour of Change, philanthropy only goes so far. There has to be other changes in institutions in government and if you’re looking to people for that i would not look in the direction of the Queen’s grandson and granddaughter in law. They get pillored in the press for harmless things like saying to go vote or that systemic racism is real and white people have benefited from it, there’s no way they’re publicly explicitly calling for overhauls of government systems.

        That said: i wouldn’t call these talks about social media as just talk with no action. They did join with colour of change to get companies to boycott Facebook for continuing to allow hate speech, and from what we’ve heard about Archewell it sounds like issues relating to social media and mental health will be an essential part of it, so they’re previewing the work that will be revealed fully next year when Archewell finally launches.

  2. PEARL GREY says:

    I’m not surprised. Every comment section about her is a complete dumpster fire, with vile, racist and misogynistic comments and threats left up for all to see. Their Instagram comments were a cesspit of obsessive trolls congregating daily to spew their vitriol, no wonder they were so upset when the comments were turned off. Other social media leave the comments unchecked because they know how much the nastiness generates more clicks, views, likes, shares and followers which equals more attention and money. I know this is not a popular opinion, but I hope Harry and Meghan never return to Instagram and just use their website to promote their work, kind of like Meghan’s The Tig blog. They don’t need to compete for followers or likes because they have fans interested in their work and the press will continue to give them free promotion by reporting their every move.

    • Snuffles says:

      I am SO curious how they will handle their online presence when they get Archewell up and running!

      I’m actually really liking how they are going through the social media of the organization they are volunteering or making appearances for. It’s driving traffic and support directly to them and that is really the goal, isn’t it?

      I definitely picture a website but still wonder if they will use things like Facebook, Instagram or Twitter because, like you said, the comment sections inevitably turn into cesspits of hate. Maybe they will do it but cut off comments. Whatever they end up doing, I’m 100% certain they are putting a LOT of thought into it and will do whatever they can to create a healthy online environment.

      • equality says:

        They probably wouldn’t have to run their own social media. Like you said they can go through the charities’ sites. When they produce for Netflix, they can go through the Netflix social media.

    • Oh says:

      Harry and Meghan can return to Instagram and the they can turn off the comments. The competition was one side,Harry and Meghan are not their problem that the others are Insecure and they have no ‏authenticity

      • L84Tea says:

        Very telling is the fact that currently KP’s followers stands at 12M. It basically stopped increasing once SussexRoyal called it quits. That right there confirms that KP was buying bots, always trying to one-up the Sussex page. Now they don’t even bother.

    • Angel says:

      I can’t blame her, she got abused beyond words on social media. I wouldn’t even wish that to my worst enemy. And unfortunately the vile comments aren’t just on their social media but on every other websites and forums and platforms. This is the only site who is not hateful to Harry and Meghan and especially Meghan. Social Media sadly brought the worst from most people. One day we will have to talk about the responsibility of social media for the rise of misogyny, harassement, bullying and slander in most societies.

      • Merricat says:

        Not the rise of these things, Angel, but the exposure of these things, and a U.S. president who encourages and emboldens racial hatred and violence. The trolls who show up here may as well have “I’m A Racist” written across their foreheads. SMH.

      • Gingerbee says:

        Merricat, this is so true. There are some undercover trolls on here, always commenting

  3. Snuffles says:

    I think she is speaking up so much now because she was forced to be silent for 4 years while in that institution. It clearly upset her that she couldn’t talk about what she believed in or defend herself from the lies in the media. I think she has every right to and it must feel great to do so after all these years.

    I don’t think she’s trying to drive down her price at all. I think these platforms are also her way of getting some practice in and demonstrate and establish her value for future paid speaking engagements. Nothing wrong with that either. This will give her team concrete metrics to share with potential clients.

    She’s being very smart about this in my opinion!

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah, I think these talks are a way of demonstrating what she has to say, and also the interest in her – her talks get hundreds of thousands of views, and people have to find them, since she doesn’t have social media. You have to know where to look. I think she and Harry are being very smart and proving a point about their value.

    • Smices says:

      The Teenager Therapy talk got over 1 million hits on YouTube. Previous sessions got a few thousand. That’s demonstrating the value they can bring when they shine their spotlight on a brand.

    • PEARL GREY says:

      I think the media have gone to great lengths to paint Meghan as a gold digging money grabber who planned all along for the press and courtiers to bully her out of the royal family so she could leave and exploit her title to make billions by selling everything about herself to the highest bidder, so some are surprised that she is giving talks and video call appearances for free, because it goes against the “cash hungry Hollywood grifter” narrative they’ve been pushing for years. She has things to say and organisations that she wants to highlight and doesn’t need to be paid to do it. She will have her paid appearances in time.

      • lanne says:

        Her critics description of her “grand plan” was so illogical it was funny. Mwahahaha, I will plot from the US to marry a prince because I want all the gold and jewels, but then I shall conspire to hypnotize him into leaving said family so that we can go back to Hollywood, where I shall be the Queen of the Movies and a BILIIONAIRE!!! In the meantime, I shall speak for free to teenagers and support multiple causes without social media, and I will not give any “Burn it down” interviews for money because—wait a minute, what?” RRs are such incredible contortionists. Hey, since their meal ticket is gone, they can start the Cirque de Soleil, Royal Reporters edition!! Not like they have anything better to do.

    • Sofia says:

      Her Fortune events cost around 2k or something to buy tickets too so I wouldn’t be surprised if she was paid for it. But stuff like TeenageTherapy, When We All Vote, Malala talk etc were most likely done without fees attached because Meghan (and Harry) likes doing these things.

    • CC says:

      Yup they cover it up , that they think many do not notice.

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      How do you get 4 years? They married in May 2018, went on sabbatical from November 2019 until their final round of duties in March 2020, so it was less than 2 years total that Meghan was in ‘the institution’ – and as an active member only about 18 months, during which time she did the Vogue issue, the Grenfell cookbook, Smartworks campaign, and had a child, just to name a few non-silent contributions.

      • Becks1 says:

        Once they started dating in the summer of 2016 I think Meghan started to silence herself a lot, and definitely once they got engaged/ married she silenced herself. Yes she did major projects, but she herself says she didn’t feel like she could use her voice.

  4. Becks1 says:

    I loved what she said. I’ve noticed that in these kinds of talks she’s gradually getting more specific. We’re never going to hear her say “I hated the courtiers” but here she’s mentioning “the institution in the UK” etc. And I liked how she is making a point about her experience compared to others, but I also feel bad because you can tell she is being so careful not to come across as “whining” or being the poor little rich princess, and it makes me sad when you realize how careful she is with what she says.

    Re: the Sussex Royal IG – I always thought she was involved but wasn’t the direct person doing it. So she probably wrote a lot of the posts or captions, and then passed it off to their social media team to put it up. She may have selected some of the pictures etc, but she never actually went on IG to look at it.

  5. Harla says:

    Are you sure she’s not getting paid for these interviews with Fortune? Because they sure are charging a lot to register for them and I bet the other speakers are getting paid. I hope that she is getting paid, the buzz that she’s generating for Fortune and her incredible words certainly deserve a nice paycheck.

    • Snuffles says:

      Agreed. She probably got paid for any appearance where you had to pay to see (like Fortune). But she’s also done a lot of free appearances as well.

    • MsIam says:

      I think all of the ones that have corporate sponsors are paid. Even her talk with Gloria Steinem was sponsored by Yahoo.

  6. Aurora says:

    I’m pretty sure the last couple of events Meghan did (teen therapy & Malala Chats excluded) were paid. Participants were charged over $1k to join. I don’t think she speak for free at an event where people were being charged that much.

    • L4frimaire says:

      I also got the impression this might have been a paid event as well, just because it is a corporate forum. She is definitely being candid and speaking out more. She also avoids saying anything directly about her royal role. She says her job, the institution, her time in the UK, etc. I have only seen snippets but she is definitely out her POV and the fact that this did affect her negatively.

  7. Oh says:

    I don’t think she was writing the Sussex Royal posts .First, the comments in Sussex Royal were bullying, hate, trolls, and death threats. The comments were literally a cesspool. Second thing, I don’t think she had enough time to write the posts.

    • Abby says:

      I could see her planning the social media strategy/content, writing the posts and giving them to their social media manager, but not having anything to do with the comments and responses.

  8. RoyalBlue says:

    If she said it was a team managing the IG content, then I believe her.

    I also believe that she is showcasing her public speaking skills almost as an audition as she builds up her portfolio to launch whatever comes next. She could easily do a talk show, but before people invest in her they want to see what she can do.

    Brava duchess!

  9. Naomi says:

    Maybe off topic, but I’m fascinated with the social media aspect of this. I wonder what would have happened if H&M had met/married before 2014 – 2016, when all the racist trolls and 4chan incels came out in force, and the rise of fascist & white supremacist memes etc. How would M have been treated in 2008 or 2009? No doubt she would still have been on the receiving end of a lot of racism (among the royals, in the press) but something about social media today just made it even more frenetic and just absolutely BEYOND. I’m not saying social media did this, but that it basically poured gasoline on a lit match.

    • Becks1 says:

      Interesting thought. I also think that social media has just emboldened people. Sticking to the royals here (but you could use this same discussion for politics etc) – its easy for me, as an American, to read the comments on a tweet or IG post about the royals and think that everyone in the UK (and in the US for that matter) hates Meghan and thinks she’s a gold digger who hates the Queen. But people here from the UK say that isn’t the case, and I believe them. and most people I know in the US don’t really care about the royals. But when you look at social media, there is so much hate, and if I didn’t like Meghan, I would feel like everyone felt the same way I did. I would feel emboldened to continue with my hate, especially when RRs are stoking the fire, and you can just ignore any pushback because you got 100 likes on your tweet about how awful Meghan is, so clearly you are right.

      I think that’s why the Sussex Squad has had such an impact – you had a lot of people who are just tired of the hate aimed at Meghan and liked her and found others like them.

      • Rita says:

        Yes it definitely isn’t the case all Brits hate meghan if she was to do a Michelle Obama style becoming discussion event we British women would support her she showed her worth and body of work while in the UK with the cookbook, smartworks clothes capsule and the vogue magazine we are not all manipulated by the right wing media as you saw with Michelle we good women do support our fellow women we are just not vocal we support in a meaningful way we support the causes by selling them out.

    • Oh says:

      I feel it would be a lot better if Harry had his own social media before he married to Meghan

    • Bohemian Angel says:

      The UK was quite a different place in 2008/2009, If Meghan had come along then she wouldn’t have been subjected to such vile racism, of course there would have been some racism but not to the extent that she had to endure. I’ve said it before that Meghan really did come along at the wrong time (Or right time depending how you look at it) just after the Brexit vote where racists were finding their voices and their platforms here and enter Meghan, someone they could really lay in to, after years of going after black people, then Muslims, then Polish/ Eastern European to a lesser extent, add Trump entering the White House and promising trade deals with us and supporting white supremacy, well, that’s all the ingredients there for a very hate filled cake.
      The likes of the BNP/National Front weren’t given platforms to spill their hate, a few shows might have had them on but then there would be public outrage for allowing them to be on tv spreading their poison but now tv shows give these racists a huge platform and there isn’t any outrage anymore, this country has really changed, I honestly no longer recognise it.
      A lot changed when the Tories got in to number 10.

      • Minal says:

        Interesting observation. And what happened in 2008? The financial crisis of course and then austerity. So much of the racism is driven by income inequality. If we are serious about tackling the former, we have to start with the latter. But that seems to be a conversation that no one really wants to have.

  10. Chaine says:

    I want to believe she has a secret Insta where she is posting inspirational “live laugh love” quotes.

  11. Sofia says:

    I think she heavily influenced if not, wrote most of the captions on the account but there’s a difference between writing captions and sending them off to your team, or even posting the actual post and closing the app vs actually scrolling through the comments and seeing what people are saying.

    As for an actual instagram, I think they’re doing fine appearing on other people’s social media. It directly helps drive their engagement up but if they have their own, I would bet that the comments are either a) switched off completely and b) the comment filtering tool on instagram is utilised.

    • Abby says:

      Exactly! I believe she was a big part of what was published on their social media accounts, but I hope she didn’t have to see the vile comments and responses.

    • windyriver says:

      I agree. She said the account itself was managed by a team, not that the team was solely responsible for the content. And why would they be? SussexRoyal was the face Harry and Meghan regularly showed to the public, and one of the few ways Meghan was able to have a public voice about things she believed. From what we’ve seen of Meghan’s working style, she would have been a part of curating what appeared. Their reputations were involved.

      Most likely both she and Harry each wrote some of their own content, or sent bullet points to be covered by someone else, or reviewed final content before it was posted. They must have been part of selecting the organizations featured each month, though the team likely contributed background research, pictures, etc. Maybe the team was responsible for simple posts about their appearance at royal events. Otherwise, I assumed she meant the team handled the mechanics of their social media presence (e.g., the comments), so that she and Harry could communicate with the public but stay one step removed from the negative consequences of social media involvement that she’s been discussing.

  12. Alexandria says:

    I don’t blame her. I don’t even visit DailyFail and I can already see vicious comments on BBC Facebook and their IG. I stopped reading the comments soon after. I only go here for comments about HM.

  13. Myra says:

    Meghan is in a unique position right now where whatever she says is being picked up by multiple outlets in the US, UK and other countries. She might as well make use of her platform to lay the foundation for her charitable work. It will legitimise her work when she is ready to launch Archewell with Harry. Of course, it also helps that she gives interesting quotes.

  14. Woowaa says:

    I think she got paid. Registration fees were more than 1000 dollars

  15. Amy Bee says:

    I admire her a lot. I think it’s very brave of her to continue to speak out when she knows she’s going to be attacked for it. Same goes for Harry. I don’t think she really cares if she’s driving down her speaking price, she just wants to use her platform for good and to have the ability to use her voice. As for IG, she had stopped using social media about a year before she got married, so I think she was already recognising the damage it was doing to her when she stop posting. I know it’s hard to let go of the story that she was posting on Sussex Royal but having heard her speak yesterday, I have no reason believe that she is lying about not being the author of their IG account.

  16. S808 says:

    If she is driving down her speaking fee, I don’t think it’s something she ever really cared about. I remember on the website they stated that they wanted to work with grassroots organizations/media, (teenager podcast, girl up, the 19th*, etc) they’d be doing those things for free.

  17. Lizzie says:

    Meghan’s design and concept for the IG account was probably a battle she won with the courtiers. The massive take off of the account proved she was right in her approach and the courtiers felt humiliated that a black American woman bested them. Too bad there wasn’t someone who could look at the big picture and replace a few courtiers with Meghan. That would have benefited the RF and put her behind the scenes so Wont and Cant could shine. There were so many other options it’s kind of mind blowing that the go-to from everyone was a public smear campaign. Not a family of big thinkers.

  18. Snuffles says:

    @Millenial @Nancy @Tee @Originalla @Mumbles

    The thesis of Anand Giridharadas’s book “Winners Take All” is how the wealthy elite are using their wealth and influence to preserve systems that concentrate wealth at the top at the expense of societal progress.

    Can you explain to me why you think what Harry and Meghan are doing to fit into this thesis?

    Because so far I have seen roughly 2 possible paid speaking gigs and a just signed Netflix deal that hasn’t put out any content yet. Literally everything else they have done has been for free for a few new charities and organizations or continued support of their previous patronages.

    Also, they are a little over 6 months since leaving the Royal institution. It’s WAY too soon to come to any conclusions about what kind of impact they will have on systems and society. Most of the time they have been getting settled in California, doing some charity and probably developing Archwell all while being hindered by a pandemic. They have barely got up and running. So how can we truly judge anything at the moment?

  19. Isa says:

    Something algorithmically — in other words, Facebook and Instagram create algorithms that reward and push hatred and antagonism. The social media sites themselves are driving the storm of negativity, not the users. That’s very interesting.

    Facebook has tolerated hatred for a very long time and it’s just now occurring to me that they would deliberately create algorithms that rewarded and encouraged hatred.

    • Snuffles says:

      That would be a very interesting discussion to have. I think the algorithm adjusts to each person and what they click on and search for. If you are inclined to hate Meghan, then your suggestions will be articles, social media, etc. that align to that. The algorithms are not designed to give you a balanced view. It’s designed to cater to your personal tastes.

      For example, the ads I see when I’m online are clearly related to my searches and clicks. If I search for home organization stuff, I see ads for home organization products. If I click on an ad in Instagram, I immediately see the exact same ad popping up when I’m on Facebook. It’s the same with YouTube. I watch a lot of home decor stuff and get a lot of home decor suggestions. If I watch cute animal videos, more are recommended to me.

      I don’t know how that can be changed. Aside from taking down blatantly false information, sites creating and inciting criminal activity and obvious hate for profit accounts. Other than that, I don’t think anyone is inclined to change the direct marketing aspect of Internet algorithms.

  20. Bettyrose says:

    Watching this video yesterday, I really noticed just how poised and measured Meghan is when talking. I know she’s a trained actress but plenty of actors seem like eager pups in interviews. She’s just really good at this.

    For contrast, the interviewer, also young & well educated, clearly doing well for herself if she’s already interviewing the likes of public figures just a few years out of college, seemed to be trying hard to stay poised. No judgment, I was an associate editor at a major publisher around her age and no way was I doing high profile interviews. Good on her for landing that gig.

    (I watched a couple times yesterday and really analyzed it in addition to reading the interviewer’s LinkedIn page. That’s quarantine for ya!)

  21. CC says:

    I think what happened to meghan affected her deeply, how could it not. I really dont know how she came through the intense vileness and hatred and abuse.

    I happen to think it’s still affecting her, hence her measured response to everything. She may not look at the vileness online but I’m sure she hears about some of it.

    The simple question is what did this woman do to have all this abuse rain down on her?

    The whole mess is sickening.

    PS you all should read algorithm of oppression

    • bettyrose says:

      I agree. It’s so easy to think of Meghan as larger than life and not burdened by being human, but who wouldn’t feel ongoing hurt by those things? IDK why but the thing about her endangering Charlotte’s life with the flower girl bouquet (which I’d only heard about this week) seems like it exemplifies all of it: 1. Being careless about a child’s well being is the absolute antithesis of who she is. 2. It was her wedding! I guess I didn’t realize just how early the hate had started. 3. It was blaming her for something that – had it even been remotely true – was someone else’s doing.

      I personally have carefully culled my social media world, so I only interact with the closest of friends and family online. No gossip, no drama in my social media feeds. But with more free time in my life than usual since the pandemic, I’ve started reading comment sections more, and I find even that a bit traumatizing. It’s not about me personally, but it’s a bit horrifying how many people easily dismiss the humanity of woman and people of color in discussion threads.

      ETA: Thank you for the book recommendation! I’ve just downloaded it.

  22. Abena Asantewaa says:

    Meghan and Harry provided the content for The Sussexroyal ig, but they did not manage The Sussexroyal account and I believe her, there is a difference between providing the material to be posted on the ig, and managing the day to day running of the account. That explains why all the numerous painful insults of Meghan were left on, till the last day. I never understood why , The Sussexes never cleared or disabled the comments, it also explains why they were not allowed to own that ig, with a changed name. The only possible payment will be Fortune, the rest of their appearances have been small unknown organisations free of charge. Also there is nothing wrong in earning a living. Being rich does not mean you can’t talk about everyday issues, like; Social Media addiction, The Environment Hate Speech, or misinformation. Meghan os brave and full of wisdom

  23. BnLurkN4eva says:

    @Snuffles thanks for saying this. I was trying to think of a polite way to say just this and you did that here, so thanks. These two have been consistent, they have been doing as much as they can the things they say they will do if you read that website. They have to support themselves, which is where netflix comes in and they need security to literally stay alive, so they have be practical, but they are doing the necessary work to achieve the ends to support their advocacy for human rights, environment rights, women/girls rights, equality, etc. causes. I don’t understand why people have such unrealistic expectation of some people that they are so eager to attach the worse motives to everything they do.

    Also, progressives/liberals are going to have to decide if they want perfection, or they want improvement to even the most basic human rights – can’t have both. Well intention people MUST sometimes work with imperfect people/platforms to achieve their ends and balking at every imperfect collaboration is how progress is stopped/derailed. These two, H/M and the work they do is nowhere near the thesis mentioned, it’s unfair to put them in that category. Working to stop hate for profit is a great cause and encouraging big name companies to cease advertising with certain platforms even for a day is a good effort they supported. I expect to see more of this and I think with these two we will and whatever progress is made is certainly not going to be felt after only a few months and in the middle of a pandemic.

    Feminism has been a fight of many decades and perhaps even longer. Men are determined to hold unto their power just as much as the rich, yet women MUST work with men and have been working with men through the entirety of the feminist movement in order to see results.

    • Nancy says:

      Hi – WOC here. The incrementalism, “lesser of two evils”, arguments are exactly why we are in this mess int he first place. Working within a broken (racist, capitalist, etc) system ultimately brings greater harm than good. This has been proven many times over.

      • Snuffles says:

        Nancy- Your argument still doesn’t change the fact that it’s too soon to tell what kind of effect on society they will have.

        It’s also far too easy to complain and not come up with any solutions. Give them time to see what they do and come up with.

        Respectfully, another WOC. 😘

      • Nancy says:

        Not complaining, merely pointing out that the above arguments have merits. They are working within an existing system that has been proven not to work (as I am sure you are acutely aware of).

      • Myra says:

        But they are not politicians. They cannot change the system, only elected politicians can enact regulations to change the status quo. It’s why voting matters. At the moment, they are working with the tools that they have. Meghan has also admitted that she is now more cautious with what she says because of the risks against her family. Basically she would like to say more but chooses to censure herself, to a certain extent, in this climate.

      • MsIam says:

        But is that Harry and Meghan’s problem to solve? And I would much rather have someone with their approach than a climate change denier or a tax cheat like Trump.

      • Nancy says:

        They are very powerful and have much influence. If they aligned themselves with progressive leaders, ideals/ideas, and actions, it would certainly be a start. They could also be upfront about how they benefit from capitalism. Additionally, many people seem to have forgotten their speeches for JP Morgan.

      • Myra says:

        IIRC Harry did only one paid speech with JP Morgan, which hardly constitutes so many speeches for the uber wealthy. The expectation we place on Meghan is crazy. She is just a person, not a political entity. They have a big platform yes, but it has come with so much abuse and death threats. She has been open about how detrimental it was to her mental health and she got abuse for that too. She can’t even endorse a political party openly, hell she can’t even say ‘exercise your right to vote’ without receiving tons of shit from people and the media. And from what we know of Meghan, she does a lot of work quietly behind the scenes before she puts out something. They just started this new life in April, let’s give them a minute. What’s the rush?

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        @Nancy, you are exactly the type of progressive I am talking about. The system is broken for many reasons and alternatively working outside of the system doesn’t fix it THAT is also why we are here. Basically, you would have Meghan martyr herself for the cause, which is what it would take for her to not work within the system. She is working against forces most others aren’t facing despite her privilege. People want her dead and some are actively out there planning to harm her and her family and you think she should flagrantly flaunt the built in protection where she’s able to do some good and make some difference to tear it down and make a huge impact and destroy herself and her family in the process. For what? For who? I wouldn’t do that in her shoe, are you doing that? Good for you if you are, very admirable.

        The people who wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because according to them she was the same as Bigly wanted a revolution, so did those who voted third party, or sat it out. Here we are nearly 4 years later because the lesser of the two evils wasn’t good enough for too many, except a lot of people who should still be here alive today are not because the lesser of the two evils was unpalatable. I’m not saying I have all the answers, but until someone comes up with a way to NOT work within the system we have, while not destroying ourselves in the process, I think I will continue working with what we’ve got.

    • Nancy says:

      Working inside the system does not fix it either, so I’m really not sure why you are suggesting it does. Many progressives and POCs are actively trying to *change* the system, to reach down to the root of these issues and reform it entirely. These problems will never be solved unless this is done. It’s really overkill to say I expect her to “martyr” herself. As a WOC, I wish she would align herself with truly progressive causes and people who are tearing down the system instead of just generally advocating for change.

    • SmallTalk says:

      Hi old WOC here. It is my observation that the choices faced in life are only occasionally absolute right versus absolute wrong. The rest is shades of gray. H&M have not put themselves forth as social saviors. Nothing they have said indicates that they believe in top-down solutions. So I do not expect them to prescribe the solution to any of the issues they are working on. They are supporting grassroots organizations because that is where the solutions that work come from. A slower process but one that produces solutions from communities. For example, the “defund the police” (or redirect police funding) movement is a grassroots movement that has been growing for at least 4 years or more. Can you imagine how little credibility such an idea would have if it were presented by a celebrity activist of any description! It is not H&M’s roll to save us. We need to save ourselves. They can bring the money.

      • SmallTalk says:

        Hi Nancy–You speak of “solutions from outside the system.” H&M appear to be championing practical, on-the-ground organizations that support and improve people’s lives. Nothing about either of their past advocacy (Invictus? the UN?) has taken the form of a radical social stance. IMHO, expecting H&M to become outside of the system rebels is as unrealistic as expecting Harry to abandon his family and return to The Firm.

  24. Mariane says:

    @MILANIAL & OriginalLala what do you mean with “I’ve honestly been disappointed to see M+H doing so many speeches for the uber-wealthy”??? This is only the second time she’s doing one with fortune. You’re speaking like the tabloids hacks who were whining about their Netflix gig. You people dont want them to live off taxpayers money but dont want them to gain financial independence either😒
    They are free to do whatever they want now. How would you feel if some random person came to your office and said I want you to act a certain way?! Its strange that people expect them to solve complex issues or something or to go off grid thinking them wanting respect & privacy equals not having the right to do public appearances! They never said stop travelling or that capitalism is bad!! I dont know why CBers think they did
    The tabs have nothing but to try to twist her words. They said she called social media users addicts when in fact she was discussing how we’re consuming toxic stuff online often being unaware of what’s being recommend to them. I liked her point about junk food having warning labels and us needing a similar thing for SM.

  25. Mariane says:

    It’s sad that people are still insisting on portraying her as a controlling person and the lie about her writing all the posts for sussexroyal are one of the main topics her detractors love to focus on. Despite their cheif communications staff being American(which explains the American jargon they used) and now Meghan herself disproving this, people still want to believe the tabloids lie over her own words. I mean why would she lie?? Especially when one of the ex staff is working for the keenbridges

  26. yinyang says:

    Can I just say, Meghans face is perfection on the zoom chat with Malala. The dark lip colour balances her face so nicely. DM did an article declaring Kate the most stylish royal with most google searches of her clothes– can they just stop already. Meghan does not have the finances and frills compareable to be the best dressed royal, next they’ll be pinning a commoner wardrobe to Kates. DM is so trash to stoop so low. They treat Kate and Meghan as sports teams and relish in it, it’s disgusting, but don’t acknoweldge that they pay for all that grotesque wealth. I’ve had it with them! Get rid of the them all, including the Dailytrash.

  27. Montrealaise says:

    Hold on a sec – she’s saying that she hasn’t had a social media account for years so she “doesn’t know what’s out there” – but in the chat she and Harry had with the teens for mental health awareness, she said that she the most trolled person online in 2019 and that she found it “almost unsurvivable”.

    Don’t those statements contradict one another? How can she claim not to know what’ s going on online and yet find online comments about her very distressing?

    • Snuffles says:

      First of all, she said she was TOLD she was the most trolled person. Also, a lot of that crap that went down involved the Markles and there was no way she could seal herself off from the family drama. Especially with the tabloids publishing her private letters and inviting the family on TV to drag her.

      But was she obsessively reading Twitter and Instagram comments? Probably not. But her team and her friends were probably letting her know the gist of what was going on.

    • Myra says:

      The same way I don’t read or follow UK news media anymore and I know what they say about Meghan. I hear it from others. She said it clearly in the podcast ‘I was told I was the most trolled person in 2019′.

    • VS says:

      Next time, please read her actual words or have the curtesy to ask…….
      She was TOLD; here she said she has NOT been except SR; I hope that’s clear

  28. Nic919 says:

    While there is an argument to be made about capitalism, neo liberalism and the progressive movement, it is entirely unfair to place that burden on Harry and Meghan alone. As stated by others, they have never acted like Che Guevara and their comments on social issues have not been radical in any way. It is the tabloid media who have branded them as woke and tried to imply they are radical left wing anarchists. There is a standard of perfection being applied to them, especially Meghan, that completely removes any responsibility from the conservative and right wing forces that have set up society to benefit the rich and widen the resource gap. And everyone critiquing them because they haven’t changed the world in six months during a pandemic will also have to critique with the same gusto all members of the BRF for any cause they promote because they remain part of a system that’s even worse and that has directly caused a lot of this. Many posters here have been silent on Earthshot but suddenly join the pile on because Meghan has done a few speeches for money. It’s not hard to see who didn’t say anything critical from the post a few days ago.

    • Snuffles says:

      Exactly. It’s the British Media that is trying to paint Meghan as something radical like she’s a member of the Black Panthers wearing an Angela Davis super fro, conducting secret meeting in the basement of her new mansion plotting to overthrow the government.

      They are taking advantage of this transitional time that Harry and Meghan are in as they get settled in California and work on getting Archwell up and running. They are trying to create the narrative before Harry and Meghan can definitively do so when they are ready.

      The fact is, we don’t know what Harry and Meghan have planned. We are getting a few glimpses into what issues and causes they are interested in but nothing is fully formed yet. We don’t know if they will be the Obamas 2.0 or do their own thing. For all we know, they could come up with some game changing platforms and initiatives.

      People need to stop projecting onto them and just wait and see.

  29. Snuffles says:

    @Nancy You seem to have completely unrealistic expectations of Meghan and Harry

    Are you forgetting that Meghan merely telling people to vote and Harry saying ignore hate speech caused SUCH an uproar that tabloids were calling for their titles to be stripped from them by Parliament and a US Congressman writing to the Queen demanding the same and accused them of interfering in a foreign election like they’re Putin.

    Meghan can’t even make a benign statement like “exercise your right to vote” without people coming down on her like a ton of bricks.

    • Nancy says:

      I don’t think I have realistic expectations of them at all, I merely want them to find ways to not work within a broken system. I’d love to see them talk about how they plan to work to change it. Really happy this conversation is being had in the comments – they have such influence and I hope they use to it to denounce things like capitalism, colonialism, etc. At this point, in my opinion, giving talks and doing interviews to talk about these surface level things isn’t really helpful.

      • SmallTalk says:

        I am glad you are thinking about these systems–capitalism, neo-colonialism–and how they need to change. Just remember we are all part of these systems. We all contribute to them and we all can work for change. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for a denouncement. I can’t think of anything less effective in bringing about systematic change.

  30. blunt talker says:

    My brother-in-law and I was watching entertainment tonight discussing Meghan’s interview-he damn-I want to kiss her all over until the night closes in-She has such beautiful skin and ease about herself-I told my in-law you wish!-we both started laughing-very good interview on an important topic-don’t let social media control every aspect of your life-you should control it as you see fit to have a more balanced life.