Bower: Meghan Markle was ‘hysterical’ about her 2017 Vanity Fair cover

It’s really, really funny to watch Salt Island obsess over Sussex minutiae constantly. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex exited Isla de Saltines officially in March 2020. Meghan only moved to London in the fall of 2017. She spent less than three years there and they will pick apart every single moment she spent there. And then some. Today we’re talking about something Meghan did before she even moved to London and before she and Harry got engaged. Meghan appeared on the cover of the October 2017 issue of Vanity Fair, which was released in early September of that year. The interview was conducted in June 2017, as Meghan was still working on Suits in Canada at the time. Meghan went on the record about dating Harry and how they’re in love and really happy together. You can read the VF piece here.

As everyone said at the time, no one in the palace was mad about the Vanity Fair cover story. Meghan didn’t spill any secrets and it served as a preview of coming attractions, meaning Harry and Meghan’s engagement, which would become official several months later. There were no stories about how Meghan’s VF piece “blindsided the palace” or “how dare this American speak about a prince of the realm.” That was because – I still believe – Meghan only agreed to the Vanity Fair cover story because she had the palace’s permission. If the palace had said no, she probably would have turned it down. Well, this history is being reanalyzed by Tom Bower in his new book, Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsors. Bower’s take is very stupid.

Meghan Markle called her PR team in hysterics after Buckingham Palace reacted with ‘fury’ to her Vanity Fair interview about Prince Harry, a bombshell new book has claimed. Tom Bower, journalist and author of ‘Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsors’, says Meghan was ‘ecstatic’ when she was asked to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair’s September 2017 issue and do an interview with the magazine. But when the magazine ran with the headline ‘Wild About Harry’ on its cover – focusing on Meghan’s relationship with the British prince rather than her work as an actor, activist and philanthropist – Bower says the Palace was taken aback. Within hours of the magazine’s pre-publication copies being sent to Buckingham Palace, Bower says Meghan phoned her PR firm and ‘hysterically’ told them of the Palace’s fury.

Bower reports that Meghan was furious that the piece was not more focused on her philanthropy but says this was due to the fact Vanity Fair researchers were unable to substantiate two key stories she had told about her activism as a young child. Keleigh Thomas Morgan, a partner at Meghan’s PR firm Sunshine Sachs, organised the interview, which was conducted by Sam Kashner – a long-standing contributing editor at Vanity Fair, who admitted before the interview that he had no idea who Meghan was.

According to Bower, Kashner was told Meghan was under strict orders from both Harry and her PR firm to steer clear of sensitive subjects – such as race, Donald Trump and her relationship with the prince. The interview was done at Meghan’s home. Bower says Kashner was uneasy knowing that Meghan had been told to be careful with what she told him.

‘Both knew that a lot was riding on the interview, and both understood that the critical issue of Harry had been vetoed,’ Bower says in his new book, according to The Sun newspaper. ‘Meghan spoke, he realised, knowing that she had the winning ticket but avoiding giving an impression of triumphalism.’

Pre-publication copies of Vanity Fair’s September 2017 edition were released to Megan’s PR agency and Buckingham Palace. Her unexpected openness about Harry took the Palace by surprise, Bower writes.

‘Like a thunderclap, the interview triggered sensational reactions: Meghan had used her relationship with Harry to promote herself,’ he says. ‘The Hollywoodisation of the royal family had sealed Meghan’s fate as Harry’s fiancée.’

According to Bower, within hours of the pre-publication release, Meghan rang Ken Sunshine and Keleigh Thomas Morgan telling them of the Palace’s ‘fury’. She said the agency should have had her comments about her relationship with Harry removed, raising fears she would fire them over the cover. Ken Sunshine reportedly told Vanity Fair’s editor that he would have to ‘deal with the Queen on this’. Ken Sunshine was told that Meghan only got the cover ‘because of who she was likely to marry,’ Bower writes, and not on her own merit.

[From The Daily Mail]

Something I’ll note, for the record, is that this is the first time anyone has ever claimed that “the palace” had an issue with Meghan’s VF cover story. In all of the accusations lobbed at Meghan, all of the stories written about her since the Sussexit, all of the completely random gossip about what Meghan did or said at various times, we’ve never heard “and the palace was so mad about her Vanity Fair interview!” Which means that, despite whatever nonsense Bower reports, it wasn’t seen as any big deal within the palace communications offices, likely because they approved it from the start. At this point (June 2017), Harry had already made it known that Meghan was “the one” and that he planned to propose. Meghan was already “in the royal fold” in some sense, and working with Kensington Palace’s communications office on certain issues.

What’s also notable is that… the whole reason the cover was timed for that moment wasn’t about the royals at all, she was on the cover to coincide with the new season of Suits. Meghan was a private citizen, an actress, doing press for her show. Anyway, I doubt Meghan was hysterical about any of it. She knew what she said in the interview and she had been around long enough to know what the headline would be.

Cover courtesy of Vanity Fair, additional photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

66 Responses to “Bower: Meghan Markle was ‘hysterical’ about her 2017 Vanity Fair cover”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Laalaa says:

    You know, I would be furious because of the title – here she talks about work and projects, recognizes she is in a relationship and then the title is WILD ABOUT HARRY.

    • Bookie says:

      I came here to say the same thing. IF this story is true, and that’s a big IF, I would be furious too that the title focused on my boyfriend. You’re right in that it is incredibly sexist and diminishes her accomplishments.

      • SarahCS says:

        You don’t have to look far to find an endless list of amazing women being credited as wife of/gf/of, etc. The only one I enjoyed was a rare moment of turning the tables when in the aftermath of the Notre Dame fire, Francois Pinault donated a large sum to the rebuilding efforts and was credited as ‘Salma Hayeks husband’.

    • Jasper says:


  2. Lili says:

    All i can say is this book is not for me its the equivalent to a book saying the earth is flat.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Yes @ Lili. Bower is as unhinged as the rest of them but on steroids! His articles that he is dragging up an article printed in 2017 is certainly a sign that he has nothing on Meghan.

    • Lorelei says:

      Seriously. Does anyone know when this damn book will actually be released? Because then at least we won’t have these constant “excerpts” on a daily basis. It’s so tiresome.

  3. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Yes, she only got the cover because of whom she was dating. And, yes, she essentially steered clear of Harry stories and spoke about her other works. So, yes, Vanity Fair blindsided her with the cover title, making it seem like she told tales out of turn and that her relationship with him was the focus of the piece. So I can believe people were blindsided and that she was upset because it made it seem like she was trading on her relationship for fame. All this says to me is that she was wise to how this would be perceived and that Vanity Fair did her dirty. Just because you couldn’t verify something that was out there, doesn’t mean you go back on a promise to your subject to be sensitive about issues he or she would rather you tread lightly on. The title of the piece wasn’t her fault, their lazy research department wasn’t her fault, and if she was upset that they pulled a switcheroo, well they knew that would be the case and did it anyway. VF comes off badly in this.

    • equality says:

      All kinds of amateur researchers have located the interview Meghan gave concerning the P&G issue. This makes VF researchers look worse than pathetic if they couldn’t.

      • kirk says:

        VF researchers or Tom Bower? Dude promotes himself as investigative journalist, but we don’t learn anything about Chuck’s bucks, Chuck selling honors for cash, or Chuck cozying up to charity donors from Bower’s 2018 book on Chuck. Bower couldn’t investigate his way out of a paper bag.

    • MeganC says:

      Accusing the research department at Vanity Fair of being lazy is ridiculous. Also, Meghan knew she was being interviewed because of her relationship with Harry and I doubt anyone was surprised by the headline. This was her soft introduction to the royal watchers and royal rota.

      • equality says:

        As I said, they couldn’t find a nick interview that all kinds of amateurs have found. That’s no reason to call them lazy? How about incompetent then?

      • Jais says:

        Incompetent or lazy. Take your pick but when people on Twitter can fact check better than VF then yeah that looks bad.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Well that’s why this story doesn’t make sense. VF were obviously interviewing her due to her raised profile & it was probably part of a roll out of her as Harry’s wife to be so why would the palace be upset especially as their engagement was announced shortly after. Harry had already made a statement confirming their relationship a year earlier so not like she was speaking out of turn.

        If there’s any truth to this take- she might not have liked the prominence given to the relationship in the profile compared to her career & activism. She wouldn’t be first actress to complain about that big deal. Idea vanity fair couldn’t find details of the P&G ad or her activism is laughable seeing as there was a nick news segment on it, she did interview with Larry king on her UN women work AND vanity fair did a whole article on her teenage activism like marching against Iraq war in 2019!

        I always wondered why vanity fair went heavy on the hit pieces against Meghan during the smear campaign given her 2017 exclusive with them & this garbage explains why. If the VF journalist had an issue with Meghan, he certainly was singing a different tune in 2019. Maybe still hoping for access then.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        I was being generous about the so-called fact-checkers. How’s this: co-conspiratorial and willfully incompetent.

    • Julie says:

      About the Vanity’s researchers. I have a problem believing that they lack such basic capacity to do their work with all that is available online. Meghan also had team working for her, including the palace. This make me wonder who were Vanity’s contacts since facts check includes talking to people. Could it be possible that the firm already were against her?

      • MissMarirose says:

        No, I just think that the claim about researchers is nonsense meant to imply that Meghan lied in her interview. We’ve all seen the video of her interview as a kid after writing a letter to an ad company (?). Anything else could have been written as “Meghan claims she also …” etc. It’s not like magazine fact checking is that thorough. Vanity Fair has run stories with less.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Agree @MissMarirose, the claim is nonsense and meant to imply she lied. We don’t know if the two things that Bower is talking about even came up during the interview. Let’s say they did. The fact checkers wouldn’t actually have to research it. They could have just called, Meghan, Keeper of Receipts, up and asked for supporting documentation/video. Within minutes the fact checkers would have what they needed and go on from there. The fact checking is usually stronger for the print edition than the day to day stories put out.

        Clive Thompson, who writes for Wired, (another Conde Nast publication like Vanity Fair) NYT mag, Smithsonian, etc., wrote about Conde Nast’s fact checking-after Gwyneth Paltrow’s Conde Nast Goop deal fell through because she opposed the fact checking.
        Odds are good that Bower is just being shady and those two stories never made it into the material given to the fact checkers.

        Mistakes can still be made though. Often with dates. Look how many times outlets/people referred to Meghan’s VF cover as the Sept. issue(the Fail did in the above article). Kaiser didn’t. It was the October issue. Angelina was on the September cover.

        Bower claims that Sam Kashner said ‘he had no idea who Meghan was’ before the interview. Which, technically, could be true. Kashner may not have met her before that. If Bower said Kashner claimed he had never heard of Meghan before the interview, that would be another blatant lie. Unless Kashner was living under a rock. His area of expertise is suppose to be film & culture. Pretty sure he didn’t miss the nine months of headlines going around the world before the interview. Celia Walden did the same thing in a supposed July 2020 interview for the Telegraph with Graydon Carter, who was the editor of VF at the time of Meghan’s cover(claiming he didn’t know who she was).

        When the news broke that H & M were dating, Josh Duboff had two online articles (October 31/Nov. 1, 2016) for Vanity Fair about it. He was sourcing US mag & the Fail for his stories. Katie Nicholl did a VF story in March 2017 about H & M at Inskip’s wedding.

        The Palaces knew and sanctioned it as the official rollout of the Sussexes relationship. If anyone was mad it was the BM/RR’s since none of them got the interview.

  4. Snuffles says:

    I can totally believe the palace OKed it and then later chastised her over the contents she had no control over. And she probably told her people of the palaces response and how much shit she got.

    I don’t see how this makes Meghan looks bad. And what key stories could they not substantiate. Even her letter writing about the dish soap commercial was on record because it was a Nickelodeon news segment. Her teachers even went on record about her activism while she was a student. So, what, pray tell could they not substantiate?

    • Jay says:

      I thought the same, @snuffles – that they ok-ed the cover and then were sniffy about it behind her back. How dare that woman use Harry’s name to get on the cover ( I assume they don’t know how magazines work) and feigning outrage that you can’t see her clothing on the cover (Practically naked! Scandal!).

    • Becks1 says:

      I agree with you that the cover story was given the go-ahead by the palace (no way would she have done it otherwise, at that point she was being so careful) and the palace might not have loved the headline or whatever.

      But I don’t think there was major drama over it. If there was, we would have heard about it years ago, it would have come out during the Vogue drama or at some other point during the smear campaign. My guess is the palace’s reaction was probably, “ugh, don’t like how that turned out” and then that was it and the engagement was announced two months later.

      • Snuffles says:


        Agreed. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Take KPop group BTS for example. There have been a few instances where they agreed to a cover story, feature, etc. Did an interview and a photo shoot only for the article to end up being a hatchet job or rude and condescending.

        That this happened to Meghan is not only not surprising, it’s not her fault whatsoever.

      • Nic919 says:

        Who would tell Bower that she had an outburst anyway? The PR team that she still works with? That’s very unlikely if they want to keep their job.

        So much of this seems entirely made up and easily proved to be false, like the inability to fact check the Linda Ellerbeee Nick news segment that anyone on the internet can check.

  5. Miranda says:

    Many people are not aware of, or at least don’t really think about, the fact that the term “hysterical” has historically had misogynistic connotations. Often, people who point that out are reading too much into it. Not this time. Bower knows EXACTLY what he’s saying.

    • C-Shell says:

      This guy is really ticking all the misogynoir trope boxes isn’t he? “Hysterical,” pretty soon demanding. Frankly, I’d be a little pissed at the cover headline, too, if I were Meghan, but we’ll never know. Bower has no real source with Sunshine Sachs, but VF could well be a shady source. I have that issue, actually, and recall that there WAS no big dish about Harry, so it misrepresented the editorial content. Whatever, Meghan was and is a woman of substance, and she’ll survive this drivel as she’s done everything that’s come before.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ No @Snuffles. Meghan knew she was doing a photo shoot for the cover of VF. She worked with big time photographer, Peter Lindbergh — he has since passed away. I remember reading how Meg was very happy to work with Lindbergh, and pleased about the fact that he had no plans to airbrush out her freckles. There was even a video promo of the cover shoot. All the photos turned out great!

        Meg was certainly a pro. She’d already done a lot of fashion and hair modeling in her career. Plus, this was NOT Meghan’s first magazine cover photo. It may be the first major magazine cover, but not the first time she’d appeared on a mag cover. In any case, the cover was chiefly to help promote Suits, and it was part of Meghan fulfilling her contract to promote the show.

        Ever since Meg had begun dating Harry, she had necessarily pulled back on press interviews b/c they only wanted to focus on asking her about Harry. So the Suits production team had been understanding, and they had helped to protect her privacy. Doing the VF cover served as an opportunity to help boost the show, because they knew she was leaving and not renewing her contract for the 8th season.

    • equality says:

      “1610s, “characteristic of hysteria,” the nervous disease originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus; literally “of the womb,” from Latin hystericus “of the womb,” from Greek hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb,” from PIE *udtero-, variant of *udero- “abdomen, womb, stomach” (see uterus). Compare hysteria.”
      What women were locked away for previously because a man couldn’t control them.

    • abritdebbie says:

      Exactly @Miranda, our wombs are actually wild animals that roam the female body when not kept in its place by a child. I’ve been listening to a wonderful BBC radio documentary call 28ish days later all about the menstral cycle. The greeks had a lot of “interesting” ideas in regard to female health with lots of illnesses cause by a crazy wandering womb. If anyone can get access to it, it has been really interesting listen. Also mentions that there is no scientific basis to the thought the menstrual blood attracts wild animals.

  6. Geegee says:

    It can’t be legal for these rota trolls to write bullshit books about people that are filled with lies and smears. How do they get away with this slander for profit? It’s gross.

    • Polo says:

      Yeah it’s crazy isn’t it.
      Bower especially has been sued for liable multiple times. He’s practically known for it and I think that’s exactly what he wants.

      He wants Meghan to sue so he can then complain to Daily Mail or Piers or GB News that he’s being cancelled so he can then sell more books and strengthen his profile.

      He claimed that Serena and Meghan aren’t friends just acquaintances after she jokingly said “she doesn’t know her with” when reporters kept asking her about Meghan during press conferences . Funny enough no one picked this story up except “the express” because it’s an obvious lie.

      Bower is doing all this intentionally.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Polo I can definitely believe what you’re saying— a lawsuit will only bring more attention to Bower. But what publishing house is working with him? I understand the DM wanting to be sued because it gave them tons of content for months, but I can’t imagine a publisher feeling the same way; they don’t benefit at all. How is this guy allowed to just keep publishing flat-out lies??

    • equality says:

      You write it very carefully with your wording. He says VF couldn’t verify at the time. He doesn’t say whether his lazy a- tried to verify or not.

  7. Beenie says:

    I, too, like to pick random events from 5 years ago and then make up wild, sensationalist stories about them.

    So sure… even though we have heard NOTHING about this cover since September 2017…. let’s just say that Meghan dishonoured the queen by appearing in a magazine, the Palace was incandescent, and hysterical American Meg cried about it in one of her 47 bathrooms.

    Tom Bower, by the way, is a 75 year old man. His Jewish parents fled Czechoslovakia during WWII and he was born shortly after the war ended. A 75 year old man who has spent *most* of his career writing about politics, business and corruption…. is now obsessed with whether Meghan said the wrong thing during an interview 5 years ago when asked about her relationship with Harry. JFC.

    • C-Shell says:

      Thanks, @Beenie! I needed that 😂😂😂

    • MsIam says:

      Just to add, he’s also a bitter old man who has been sued for libel twice. He’s a real Mr. Credibility.

      ETA sorry, I didn’t see your comment above Polo!

      • Beenie says:

        You’re totally right about Bower not being credible. The guy is an absolute disgrace to the profession of journalism.

        I just wanted to point out that this senior citizen whose parents literally fled Nazi invasion and persecution now spends his days writing about whether Meg made Kate cry and if she had permission to admit she was in a relationship with Harry. His parents must be rolling in their graves. What a pathetic POS their son turned out to be.

    • sunny says:

      Everything about this comment is delightful. How these people continue to pick a part Meghan’s brief time in the royal fold is fascinating and disturbing. There is very little story here- like this all seems like not a big deal?

      On another note, what a great cover. She is gorgeous!

  8. Amy Bee says:

    What’s supposed to be the controversy here? This story is giving me the same vibes I got when Jason Knauf leaked stories before the Oprah interview about the jewelry from Saudi Arabia and the UN women event in Fiji. Trying to stir up drama to discredit Meghan. Was Jason Knauf the source for this new story?

    • SarahCS says:

      More vague insinuations – VF couldn’t verify some of her philanthropy = see, she LIES. It’s all they have.

  9. Snuffles says:

    I’m re-reading this, but it sounds like not even Meghan knew she was going to be put on the cover. Maybe she thought she would get a nice feature article instead and was shocked that they put her on the cover and highlighted her being Harry’s girl.

    • aftershocks says:

      @Snuffles, I had tried to respond to your post, but it got positioned way up-thread. I’m not sure why. Sorry. Anyway, if you see my post up-thread you’ll realize that Meghan did know she was posing for a VF cover shoot with the famous photographer, Peter Lindbergh.

      To expand on what I said up-thread, Meg had already appeared on other smaller magazine covers and features. She was very successful and busy pre-Harry:

      Meg had been on the cover of Miami Living and on the cover of an international travel magazine. In addition, she’d been featured in articles/ interviews in Elle, Glamour, Good Housekeeping, and Best Health. Also, she’d posed for pictures for Maxim, a men’s magazine.

      As well, Meghan has modeled for an online Australian fashion publication, and she graced the cover and the inside fashion editorial for a local Chicago lifestyle publication. Not to mention a bevy of other fashion and beauty related work, including for Wella haircare products, and Bobbie down cosmetics.

      Plus Meg’s fashion capsule collection with Reitmans in Canada. Along with her Tig blog and her well-curated Instagram, Meghan had a lot of irons in the fire when she suddenly met Harry. So her success and her profile were rising well before she met Harry. Her solo interview with Larry King, and the attention she got for her work in Rwanda, as well as her speech at the UN in connection with UN Women all predate Harry.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Correction to above: That should read: Bobbie Brown cosmetics. Android autocorrect is extremely annoying!

        Anyway Meghan was very booked and busy long before Harry. She was even in talks to do a cookbook or a cooking show right around the time she first met Harry. She sacrificed a lot for love. But I’m sure she feels it was all worth it for the happiness she and Harry have achieved. It’s certainly been hard-won!

  10. equality says:

    So PH’s white, blonde ex gives an interview and calls PH “damaged” and no outrage from any of them but Meghan says she loves the guy and it’s a tragedy? She had previously kept the relationship low key. They hadn’t been papped all over the place like he was with his exes either. The Middletons constantly use those royal connections and nothing again. Every minor royal uses the heck out of the connection, especially Tindall (who leaks like a sieve) but no problems for BP.

    • Jasper says:

      All this is another reason why I get irritated with all the comments about her and Harry (but it’s usually about her alone) lobbing all these “grenades” and “attacking” the RF when out of anyone who’s spoke about them they have said the least. Meghan, herself, only once, yet she’s always the one being spoken of as being the great danger to the RF’s secrets.

  11. Aurora says:

    No gainfully employed woman with philanthropic achievements would want to be on a cover with the title: “OMG, like, I love my boyfriend sooooo much!!” I’m surprised VF didn’t put some emojis on there.

  12. Noor says:

    Tom is infamous for taking so called “facts”, turn it on its head, “bowerilized” it and used it to demean his subject.

  13. Harper says:

    Thankfully, all this sludge being spewed out by Troll Bowels is nearing the end of its teenie weenie 48 hour news cycle. Wonder if he realizes that Meghan will never read his gotcha! fictionalized accounts of her life?

  14. equality says:

    I hope the next time H or M does a video for anything that they have this magazine casually in view or the cover in a frame behind them.

  15. Merricat says:

    Slow news month for the tabs without a Meghan story to embellish into unrecognizable tripe. Boris resigned, it’s hotter than Hades, the royals are jag-offs–but by all means, make something up about an incident that happened YEARS ago with the mixed-race duchess-to-be (and which passed without remark at the time).
    The Sussexes are coming up on two and a half years of freedom from the rags. Lol, life is good.

  16. SarahCS says:

    Of course she had permission and of course the palace were ok with it. At that point they they hadn’t decided to drive her off and she was doing everything by the book.

    I never cease to be amazed at how they can take a total non-event and twist it into something the bash her for and prove what a terrible person she is. How do you spend your days doing this and still sleep well at night?

  17. aquarius64 says:

    Frankly Meghan shouldn’t bother to sue this clown Bower because the receipts are there for her humanitarian causes. He’s spoiling for a legal fight as clout chasing, as that will varnish his image as a tough investigator.

  18. C says:

    Sunshine Sachs, fake philanthropy, Mean Meghan (TM), rinse and repeat. We’ve seen this all before. It means absolutely nothing and will be another nothingburger. It’s not different from the Mail repeating the same things. I’m sure the Sussexes will give this the attention it deserves: none.

  19. Maxine Branch says:

    I enjoy how the Sussexes ignore these book troll because it speaks to the trolls desperation to be acknowledged. Meghan has lead an authentic life from early childhood to present. Since the trolls cannot erase her well document history, each gutter writer tries to put their spend on her life story, an epic fail. I hope this latest book goes the way of the Tina Brown book, peak quickly then die as quickly. This man’s book is regurgitated nonsense.

  20. CheChe says:

    The greater the use of hyperbole the more it is evident the BM is merely writing on the fumes of old lies. The star factor of HM sells regardless of any veracity or content.

  21. LoryD75 says:

    Interesting how this smear story came out this wkd—to counter the bad press of Will and Kate this week with the helicopter nonsense. Also I suspect because Harry and Meghan will be in NYC today getting all sorts of attention and the Brits CANT STAND IT.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      None of them can stand the fact that Meghan is a self made woman. She has had decades of philanthropy under her belt before she married Harry. The Queen never had to question, what does she do exactly? It was there, front and center!!

  22. Isabella says:

    Hysterical is such a code word for women. That is a silencing technique. We can’t address a wrongdoing because certain people can’t stand the sound of a female voice. I doubt any of this happened.

    • AnneL says:

      Yes, this! Maybe she was upset or annoyed or frustrated that they made the headline all about her relationship and not her. So what? She was an adult actress on a successful show with a history of activism. Why should she want to be portrayed that way?

      Also, what’s with the use of the word “wild?” Yeah, I know there’s a song “Wild About Harry” but it gives a hint of “girls gone wild” to use that language. Many people have never heard that song. I know it because I’m middle aged, lol.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        Ah, that’s a much more charitable interpretation. I was thinking that ‘Mad About Harry’ would be the better option and that they went with ‘Wild’ for a low-key ‘brown people are insatiable exotic savages’ vibe, but it does seem likely it was merely garden variety misogyny plus some stupid reference to one of nine obscure things titled ‘Wild About Harry’.

        Okay, one of ten things, technically, but I doubt a writer for Vanity Fair cares THAT MUCH about the 19th century American architect from Minneapolis, Harry Wild Jones. The Tom & Jerry short is still a possibility, though!

  23. Sue E Generis says:

    So, every excerpt from this douchebag’s book steps hard on the adjectives to portray Meghan as shrieking, hysterical, tantrum-prone, lecturing. As a pretty hardcore observer of Meghan for the last 5+ years, these don’t strike me as the way she would react to things. Even her body language is very chill, gentle and purposeful.

  24. Renae says:

    The last time I recall Vanity Fair using the “Wild about Harry” cover (&/or title of story), was a dirt dig into Leona Helmsly, aka the “queen of mean”. So that cover gave me shudders.

  25. KansasGal says:

    I just came here to be superficial and say that cover photo is one of the most beautiful photos of Meghan.

  26. Well Wisher says:

    As the piece stated, Meghan was not hysterical about a nonexistent rebuke about the VF article.

  27. MikeB says:

    I guess in Tom Bower’s world brazen hussies tend to get hysterical. Question is who told him Meghan got hysterical? I doubt her PR company would have given him the time of day, that leaves Vanity Fair.
    Meghan’s P&G letter is well documented, she has never claimed the advert was changed because of her but pointed out that it was changed.
    Meghan’s friendship with Serena Williams is also well documented and would not have taken much effort to confirm, either by Vanity Fair or Bower’s researchers, instead he chose to use an off-the-cuff comment by Serena.

  28. L4Frimaire says:

    I really don’t understand the point of this anecdote. What exactly is he trying to do with it? So she didn’t like the headline. We’ve seen how Vanity Fair and their royal reporting have done Meghan dirty over the years. Never getting over their gender neutral baby story.