Duchess Meghan’s podcast was ‘a smack in the face for Harry,’ you guys

I’m so disappointed in the British media! As soon as the Duchess of Sussex’s Archetypes podcast dropped, I was on tenterhooks waiting for the onslaught of “Meghan has blind-sided the Palace” stories. Where are the “Archetypes is a slap in the face to our poor Queen” narratives? Is Salt Island okay? They’re probably breathing a sigh of relief that Episode 1 wasn’t explicitly terrible for them, or maybe they’re just saving their biggest tantrums for the Sunday papers. What we’ve gotten in the meantime is Angela Levin making an absolute clown out of herself, and Richard Fitzwilliams tries to gaslight Meghan about her experiences. (Note: Levin does suggest that Archetypes was “a smack in the face for Harry and a punch towards the Royal Family,” so there you go.) Some dumb highlights:

Royal commentator Angela Levin also pointed to the hypocrisy of the remarks, suggesting that Meghan ‘would still be a D-list celebrity if she had not married a prince’. She also said Meghan had come across ‘ungrateful and a victim’ when she had ‘so many chances others had not’, adding that many royals are ambitious and have had success both in their own careers and in terms of raising money for charities.

Ms Levin continued: ‘She would still be a D-list celebrity if she had not married a prince. She aligns herself with them [Serena Williams and next podcast guest Mariah Carey], but they have done brilliantly and overcome difficult childhood, whereas she has married a prince and spent a lot of money. She thought it was normal to be ambitious and only when she started dating Harry did she realise that it was not welcomed. My goodness, that is a smack at Harry and a punch to the Royal Family. Harry told her about life in the Royal Family, but she obviously did not want to listen. The Royal Family is about ambition in sense of duty and giving. It is not about getting to the top. Why is everything so hard for her? Because she won’t accept where she is and make the best of it. She has had a nanny when most could not. She has said will see the real her, well she needs to justify the ambition claim she is making.’

Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams also described Meghan’s remarks on ambition as ‘curious’.

He told MailOnline: ‘She undoubtedly feels she has been singled out. The interview was about The Misconception of Ambition, but the implication here is that after she dated Harry she feels she was picked on. She was ambitious beforehand and did well in Suits but that is not top league television.

‘There is surely nothing wrong in being ambitious and being royal, in fact the role positively encourages a member of the royal family to be ambitious to help those in need. Diana was very ambitious, her charitable work and her public profile were synonymous, ultimately fatefully so, but she did immense good. Meghan argues ambition is discouraged in women and gives no acknowledgement of the enormous advances made by the #MeToo movement. This is simplistic. There is nothing wrong with self-promotion if the results, as with Diana, benefit others. If you define ambition as “a strong desire or determination to succeed”, many royals are ambitious. You naturally want to succeed in your endeavours.

‘Essentially however, this is a very negative view of women, we all know they have been breaking the glass ceiling for many years now. Her podcast, with a fascinating guest famous for her ambition on the tennis court, totally ignores this.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“This is a very negative view of women” – that’s what Meghan is saying, you f–king moron. That it f–king sucks to call women “ambitious” as a pejorative. And now all of the royal women are going to fall all over themselves to say that they too are “ambitious.” We’ll be hearing about how Diana, Kate, Sophie, Anne, Camilla and even the Queen are all ambitious… but ambitious in the right way, meaning the WHITE way, not like pushy, American, Black Meghan. As for Levin… I am begging the Mail and everyone else to simply stop quoting Levin, she is completely deranged. I saw her tweets yesterday – it was like watching some QAnoner slowly confronting the fact that their whole malignant, conspiracy-laden world was a lie.

Spotify released this too. Very cute. It’s nice that Meghan wore something which Kate can easily copy. Kate absolutely took screenshots and added this to her lookbook!

Photos courtesy of Spotify and Instar.

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

144 Responses to “Duchess Meghan’s podcast was ‘a smack in the face for Harry,’ you guys”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    Angela Levin is such a crusty, racist, salty old B. I can’t even with her. She’s just a complete deranger at this point (has been for a while.)

    And I don’t think Fitzwilliams listened to the podcast, LOL.

    As for who thought Meghan’s ambition was a bad thing? The Firm did and the RRs did, that’s the whole point. Her ambition was a bad thing, it wasn’t the “right” (or white) kind of ambition, she was described as pushy, as controlling, as trying to make everything about her, etc. That’s what she was talking about. It was pretty clear.

    I am telling you, I am learning so much about people’s critical thinking skills after reading some reactions to this podcast.

    • ELX says:

      Angela Levin is clearly a deeply troubled, emotionally disturbed person, but she ought not be allowed to spew malevolent nonsense unchecked. The only real response to her at this point is to ask her to seek help from a psychiatrist.

      • Lexistential says:

        Ooof. I bet she would resist therapy. It would take actual commitment to an institution to get Levin to remotely cognitively concede that she is a way out there whack job.

      • Gabby says:

        Spray holy water on Levin and watch her dissolve in a green puddle of smelly ooze. And @Becks, Fitzwilliams probably prepared his “review” of Meghan’s podcast weeks ago, pretending he had listened to it.

      • KFG says:

        Pretty sure AL is just a drunken racist who is obsessed with Harry..

      • Karel Walsh says:

        I always reply to her tweets and advise her to get help. To me she is fixated with Harry and had elevated the brief time she spent with him into a relationship. She is like a jilted lover.

      • Debbie says:

        @ELX: Oh come now, you know that if they didn’t allow demented, emotionally disturbed people to write in England, they’d hardly have a media system. Just ask Piss Morgan.

        P.S.: I said “hardly” so, not all.

      • PrincessK says:

        Levin is definitely heading for a nervous breakdown since she took over the mantle from Morgan. She tweets non stop about Meghan and appears on any show that will have her. Very pleased that Tom Sawbrick of LBC challenged her when she said Meghan was whining, and then he retorted but you are whining…Lol!

    • Nic919 says:

      Are they really going to bring up Diana as an example of an ambitious royal woman? Because there are still people who remember how she was slammed for her ambition.

      I suppose kate is ambitious too, but in the social climber way. She was a literal nobody until she dated William so why must we insult Meghan, who had an actual public profile. Levin is such an old bigot they need to take her out to pasture.

      • SarahCS says:

        CarolE was ambitious, Khate less so, she went along with the plan.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Kate’s only ambition was to marry William. She barely held a job during their entire courtship before they married, and she’s hardly done anything since, apart from giving birth to the heir and two spares. Yes, she has her Early Keen Years Institute, but we’ll see how long it takes before they produce anything worthwhile. Angela Levin wrote that Camilla was never ambitious to have a career. Sophie, yes, you could say that she was ambitious, founding her PR firm until she got caught in that sting operation talking smack about the Royal Family. Princess Anne’s ambitions had nothing to do with the Royal Family and everything to do with her desire to win a medal at the Olympics.

      • SarahLee says:

        I think ambitious was bad for Meghan because of Kate. Kate is not ambitious. She got her goal of marrying William. Now, she’s done. She’s got no other goals in life. And even William was probably more Carole’s goal than Kate’s.

      • anne says:

        “…many royals are ambitious and have had success both in their own careers and in terms of raising money for charities.”

        Um….name one. Not a single one of them is “ambitious” and NONE of them have had success in “their own careers” because none of them have actual JOBS. That’s why almost every single royal has been implicated or outright shown to be doing sketchy sh*t for money.

    • MakeEverydayCount says:

      The British Media response to the podcast was just rabid and once again was a poor reflection on their country. At this point they keep proving Meghan point over and over again.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      I don’t have to say anything. You said it all. Meghan and Serena explained why their ambitions were viewed negatively against men, the BRF, the BM. I’d even say Kate’s ambition to be Queen was given a pass because ambition isn’t a bad thing for women. It’s only a bad thing for black women trying to break into white institutions.

      • Lexistential says:

        Kate’s ambition to be Queen means she’ll do as she’s told– by William, Carole, the RR’s, courtiers. She has to fall in line, or pay the consequences with severe media shaming like Diana and Meghan. Their ambition versus Kate’s ambition is a case of personal integrity versus social status.

      • Hopey says:

        I have a feeling that kkkHATE was one of those women M had in mind when she lamented those women who “made themselves small,” in order to get the approval of the men-in-grey……er…..I mean: the approval of those in power over them.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate’s ambition was to marry a rich man and that was viewed as acceptable for a woman.

    • Blue Nails Betty says:

      To be fair to the naysayers, Meghan once sent an email at 5:00 am. Can you imagine the horror….at discovering your newly royal boss actually works? /extremesarcasm

    • ExCrownEstater says:

      My first comment EVER. I worked at the Crown Estate for over a decade and when I made some suggestions to my head of department to improve how it ran. My direct boss, who was lazy as f* was furious. He called me in and said “I know you are a very ambitious woman but…”. I was in a state of shock, I’ve never been very ambitious, not that it’s good or bad, I just wanted to help the dept work better. I’ve never told this to anyone since I left the CE and moved back to Canada.

      • GrnieWnie says:

        When working at a British-style institution, I made a complaint about a decision that had been made because I felt it led to an obviously biased outcome, and I wanted to bring that to their attention in case they hadn’t considered this. The Brit who made that decision was furious, FURIOUS, with me. It was insane. Never again will I work for Brits.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        ExCrownEstater, I can relate to what you’re saying. It’s exhausting trying to get positive something done and doing it in such a way that the (male) boss thinks it his idea. The only positive thing I can say about that is that you end up with some great people skills–especially diplomacy.

        I think realizing there is a better way of doing something and speaking up is a part of ambition. Please don’t think that being ambitious is negative in any way.

      • Jais says:

        I feel you, ex crown estate. Being called ambitious for trying to make a system work better seems strange. It’s not like you were necessarily ambitious for you own self promotion but you were technically ambitious in your vision…to make something work better. It’s maddening that they used that word against you like it was negative. No doubt you were right. Also, nothing wrong with ambition for your own self either. Having ideas apparently equals ambition.

      • Bisynaptic says:

        Oh, please tell us more! What kind of suggestion did you make?

    • Lorelei says:

      Meghan’s ambition was a bad thing because she was actually effective and successful and she made the Cambridges look bad in comparison.

      The fact that the Black duchess was so clearly superior to the others in that family made her ambition something that needed to be stamped out.

    • ElleE says:

      Levin always with the “D list” thing.

      She had no knowledge Of our celebrity culture in the US she’s basically saying that every hard-working actor on any syndicated show including Suits, is on some fictional “D list” because she hasn’t read a US celebrity gossip column since Liz Smith hung it up.

  2. Christine says:

    So the “true” royals are ambitious because they *checks notes* were born into the role

    • Maida says:

      And the one example who WASN’T born into the role is . . . Diana. Whose ambition to serve others went down so well with the BRF, right?

    • TheFarmer'sWife says:

      How much “ambition” does it take to wake up every morning in a house you don’t have a mortgage on, with a staff you don’t have to pay out of pocket for, wear clothes you also didn’t pay for and do a “job” that is just showing up and smiling and acting interested in “whatever” for twenty minutes waving to whoever else has shown up because they’ve got nothing better to do with their time. Four houses with how many bathrooms, dozens of helicopter trips, and vacations every month–not to mention closets full of sister-wife polka dot dresses–is this ambition? No. “I declare this community centre open” is not a job, nor is it in any way ambitious or service of any kind. The people who were responsible for doing the hard work necessary to see such places built should have the honour. The royals are nothing more than a grift funded by the average Josephine and Joe working multiple jobs trying to make it until the next pay cheque.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        TheFarmer’sWife, do you suppose devising ways to get more vacations fit in during the year is ambition? That’s the only thing I can think of.

  3. Stacey Dresden says:

    They are so gross. I respect Meghan and can’t wait to hear the podcast.

  4. Jais says:

    The BM are trying to “forget” that Meghan was ever called ambitious in negative way. Or act like it never happened. Gasp, we never called her ambitious and if we did, it was in a positive way. The receipt of headlines with Meghan labeled as ambitious with a very negative tone is inescapable. But the BM is going to say “why we never ever did such a thing over and over” in hopes that people will believe it and some will. But the receipts are sitting right there.

    • Steph says:

      Squad already had the receipts of the headlines negatively calling her ambitious. It’s great to see.

    • equality says:

      Exactly. It’s in the usage of the word. Most people equate “ambitious” with looking to be famous or to make lots of money and not with charity work. For people who make their living using words the BM seem pretty ignorant about word connotations.

  5. girl_ninja says:

    Levin delusional:

    ‘would still be a D-list celebrity if she had not married a prince’. She also said Meghan had come across ‘ungrateful and a victim’ when she had ‘so many chances others had not’,

    The success that Megs had before meeting and falling for Harry was made by her hard work. So the ‘chances others had not’ is due to Meghan. I truly the believe that the way Meghan worked hard, hustled and had so many interested she would have had a lifestyle empire like Goop. I loved The Tig and still miss it.

    Levin wouldn’t even have a voice had she not glommed onto Harry and his story. Awful woman.

    • MeganC says:

      Meghan would never have had a Goop-like empire because she didn’t step into wealth and fame via nepotism. Paltrow would be nothing without her parents.

      • girl_ninja says:

        I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I think Meghan’s ambition, drive and hard work would have propelled her far. The way she made appearances on the morning talk shows and her work with so many other personalities was so impressive. Paltrow got lucky, Meghan fought for all that she has.

      • equality says:

        @girl_ninja I agree. There are many who have become famous on SM without famous parents and even without being a known actor like Meghan.

    • Lizzie says:

      Wonder what Levin would be if she didn’t make a career out of reporting royal gossip? Dlist blogger is my guess.

    • The Old Chick says:

      It’s racism pure and simple. It’s not even being hid. The biracial woman had so many more chances than any other biracial person and she should be grateful and accept the abuse and lies because that’s all she deserves. Literally that is what deranged Levin is saying.

    • Snuffles says:

      I imagine if Meghan never married Harry, she would have continued to be a very successful influencer with a number of side ventures (fashion, beauty, lifestyle, health and wellness, etc.)and a very strong philanthropist profile. She would still be a multi-millionaire even without an international profile.

    • Lorelei says:

      @GirlNinja the fact that they keep falling back on the whole “No one would even know who Meghan was if she hadn’t met Harry!” is insane. It’s like, and your point is…?

      No one would know who Kate was if she’d never met William. No one would know who William was if he hadn’t been born to famous parents. No one would know who the Queen was if she hadn’t happened to pop out of the “right” uterus. And on and on. It’s *the most* ridiculous argument and none of them seem to realize this.

      (Not to mention that plenty of people HAD heard of Meghan pre-Harry because of her career, but literally no one would ever have heard of the rest of them. Ever.)

    • JDMyrick says:

      I love it how Levin mentions that Meghan spent lots of money but FAILS to mention it was her own money she was spending. Did she forget the charitable projects Meghan did from Startup to actual running and raising money for? So as a royal Meghan would be labeled ambitious in very best was possible, but because she is a Black American woman, this is not allowed.

  6. usavgjoe says:

    Those people and that family just won’t learn. We have the receipts!
    You go Meghan, loved the podcast… you and Serena speak your truths.

  7. MsIam says:

    I will agree it was a punch towards the palace, A much deserved, much needed punch. Meghan has moved on y’all and I am here for it.

    • Hopey says:


      D@mn straight it was!
      If those sycophants think that “punch towards the palace” was bruising, what are they gonna do when Harry’s book comes out? M’s little revelations during this next 12 weeks is just the warm-up act. They better brace themselves and stock up on smelling salts.

  8. Amy Bee says:

    These people are trying to rewrite history. Meghan was attacked for being ambitious. They implied that she was marrying Harry to get money and status due to the fact she didn’t come from a well off family and was a Dlist actress. At least Angela has finally admitted why the British establishment and the Royal Family didn’t like Meghan and she reveals their true feelings about her now.

    • Lorelei says:

      Even using “D-list actress” as an insult is so stupid. There are, what, something like eight billion people on this planet? Most of whom are nobodies (you guys know what I mean!). The fact that Meghan was on a successful tv show and had tons of fans in numerous countries is impressive on its own. Only a very tiny percentage of actors and actresses can make their living acting without having to supplement it with other jobs, like waiting tables. Meghan was actually extremely successful as an actress, even though she wasn’t an A-list movie star.

      These people are too moronic to realize that all of their petty little arguments only serve to make Meghan look better, and make them look ignorant.

      • Blessed says:

        Plus all of Meghan’s followers of ‘the Tig.’ 3M followers, meanwhile Devil Levin has a little more than 50K. She and all of the rota are nobodies outside of Britain.

  9. SusieQ says:

    Fitzwilliams can miss me with his whole quote about the “enormous advances of the #MeTOO movement.” The US, at least, has made sure that women will have a much harder time, because we can no longer control our reproductive destinies.

  10. Lizzie says:

    They are truly deranged. The rr appear to have made up out of whole cloth that since Meghan is ambitious she is planning to run for US President.
    And they have the nerve to cite Diana’s ambition. Yes she was admired worldwide but the rf and rr hated her for the result of her ambitions, her success.

  11. Case says:

    “Meghan ‘would still be a D-list celebrity if she had not married a prince.'”

    Yeah, and Kate would be a total unknown if she hadn’t married into the royal family. Same for Diana. The difference is, two of these women chose to do something with their platform and privilege, while the other chooses to do photoshoots pretending to work.

  12. OriginalMich says:

    Angela Levin makes me very uncomfortable. I honestly believe the woman is mentally ill.

    • Jais says:

      She makes me very uncomfortable too. I don’t know that I think she’s mentally unwell so much as deeply racist with a lot of malicious intent. It sounds unwell and deranged whenever she speaks but that’s because racism is a deeply toxic well from which to source. There’s a lot of jealousy there too.

    • Christine says:

      I could not agree with you both more if I tried.

      Imagine listening to the podcast, especially with Meghan’s achingly earnest intro with her 11 year old self being a badass. Imagine being anyone, much less a woman, who listens to one hour of Meghan and Serena, and devolves into something almost rabid. It’s deeply uncomfortable, and I can’t believe anyone is paying this woman to foam at the mouth about Meghan, of all people on the planet.

      • Lorelei says:

        The fact that people keep giving Levin a platform is disturbing. If anything, she should be another random racist b!tch who lives her life trashing Meghan online. Shame on anyone who publishes her words, lending her any credibility.

      • Airat says:

        To add to Christine’s consternation, Angela was on the twitter space we held to discuss the issues Meghan and Serena raised . Some women…and even a few men shared their views and similar experiences . For her to express something so parochial and shallow after listening to that intellectual session beats me hollow. I actually pity her because her ‘evilness’ is beginning to consume her and l am not sure of how she ,together with other ‘Royal experts’, will handle the forthcoming episodes because Meghan will continue to throw what they will see as darts (which to those of us that are normal and objective are her opinions and anecdotes).

  13. WiththeAmerican says:

    It really rankles how they act like they worshipped Diana and hold her up against Meghan when actually they treated Diana like dirt until she died as a result of their feeding frenzy (and petty Charles palace pulling security, no doubt).

    Meghan isn’t perfect, Diana wasn’t perfect. But both work to elevate others and make positive change. That’s simply a truth these crazy racists refuse to acknowledge. They are the problem and always have been.

    • Deering24 says:

      WiththeAmerican, that is a particularly insufferable tactic known as “heartbeat props.” Folks rag on people until they are dead–then they want to canonize them. Right-wingers love to quote MLKJr–but when he was alive they hated his guts and called him everything but a son of God. 🤮🤮

  14. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Ok. So let’s say all those women were ambitious and tried to step out of their man’s shadow. Each time, those women got smacked down. One difference was the racism—the bigoted gaslighting and danger Meghan was put in. But the biggest difference is, ONLY TWO OF THEM FOUGHT BACK! And the women of the world respect the hell out of Diana and Meghan for it because they relate to that drive to push back on inequality, admire it, take inspiration from it, and hope to make moves in their own lives just like it. England wants to keep women down and in their place and accepting of the status quo and these Murdoch acolytes do the devil’s bidding in upholding the patriarchy. Because notice: if you elevate women, the power structure men enjoy and ww benefit from completely crumbles. And they’re terrified of that. Abolish the monarchy, give back the sh*t you stole, and pay every descendant of people your country has exploited and wronged reparations.

  15. Brit says:

    Harry and Meghan really bring out the crazy in people. They are that angry because two adults have control and autonomy over their own lives and don’t care for the press bullying and harassment? At this point, the press over there need to stop but they won’t because their hubris and need for control won’t let them. How long is the bitterness going to continue? Because it’s not sustainable and it’s already old.

    • Lizzie says:

      I have to disagree, it’s the British tabloids that bring out the crazy with there constant lying and violent imagery.

  16. Eurydice says:

    Yes, of course. The right way for women to be ambitious is to follow the rules and give to others. And Diana was ambitious…ultimately, fatefully so? Like being ambitious is the reason she died?

  17. C-Shell says:

    Honestly, a restraining order should be put in place against Levin. At least the Fail referred to her as a “royal commentator” and not an expert, as they termed Fitzwilliams. This talking point among the 🤡🤡🤡 that Meghan’s claim to fame is as a second rate actress in a lower tier TV series is so reductive and deliberately obtuse. I’m heartily sick of these cretins’ pathetic attempts to erase Meghan, who’s achievements and impact surpass everything the BRF can point to (with the possible exceptions of Liz, Philip and Charles).

    • Deering24 says:

      Doing series TV is hard-ass work. None of these folks would have lasted a week doing what Meghan did.

    • Lorelei says:

      @C-Shell, ITA with everything you said, but to your last sentence— even Liz, Charles and Philip were able to do anything that they did because of who they were born to or who they married. Meghan made her own success 100% on her own.

  18. Owlsyn (Ableism is Not Cool) says:

    The international clean water crisis could be solved tomorrow if we could figure out how to turn the tears of the British media in to potable water.

    • Christine says:

      Word. I really wonder if any of them feel the shame they absolutely should feel, when they are trying to fall asleep. I could not live with myself, it’s been half a decade, at this point.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Christine, god, you’re right about how long it’s been— this November will mark the sixth anniversary of “Harry’s girl is straight outta Compton” and everything that followed. There are a considerable number of people who have been spending their days publicly hating and trashing Meghan for SIX YEARS.


  19. Deanne says:

    Angela Levin should consider intensive therapy. She’s seriously disturbed. The mental gymnastics these “ commentators” do to always twist every single thing Meghan says and does into something negative is mind boggling. Seeing H and M thriving seems to literally be driving them insane.

  20. Lux says:

    So easy to use Diana as an example but what about the other modern royal woman? Duchess Keen’s singular ambitions are well known (and they have nothing to do with Early Childhood), and Fergie’s multiple endeavors in the publishing world are not to be ignored. I don’t say this to be catty but those women used their resources to achieve what they wanted to do. I don’t disagree with Fitzwilliams in that the royal women ARE ambitious, but just provide us with concrete examples and not some random definition which points to all their charitable endeavors. Ambition is very often centered around the self, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to achieve something to improve your circumstances or make your mark in the world.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Lux, I agree that Fergie has shown ambition by authoring books. She, infortunately, was a grifter, too. Now, KHate is another matter. I’m just uncomfortable with the idea that a social climber who, if she’s determined enough, gets her guy and from then on just does whatever she’s told. I just don’t see social climbing as ambition, but as determination used in a very, very narrow way.

  21. Jessica says:

    As The Princess reminded us, the same people holding up Diana as a paragon today were slapping her down, sneering at her, undermining her and questioning her sincerity during her lifetime — her brother’s eulogy explicitly addressed the media treatment of her, though it’s often remembered for its swipes at the Royal Family. Diana was treated as a threat to the monarchy just as Meghan and Harry are now. Diana was helped by being a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, certified aristocrat, but even that armour didn’t help her out much when the vultures decided to attack her character and pick apart everything she did. These people made her life hell and then called her self-pitying and attention-seeking when she dared to put her own side across and shape public perception in contrast to their constant criticisms — exactly as is happening with Meghan now. Meghan as a Black American woman can’t even benefit from the small slithers of goodwill Diana’s privilege afforded her. It’s so irritating to watch these weirdos rewrite history. Angela Levin is a barking mad nutjob and not even worth addressing. It’s embarrassing that she continues to receive a media platform.

  22. B says:

    The funniest thing about the British Press is how they constantly take all the criticism levied at them and then pretends like its aimed at the British Royal Family. Both Meghan and Serena spoke about the press and specific headlines that affected them. How is this about the royal family or Diana?

  23. Jay says:

    And if we do suddenly see a spate of stories about Sophie and Kate’s “secret ambitions”, it will not only feel forced and false, but it will once again prove Meghan’s point, that for her, it was used as an insult.

  24. Rapunzel says:

    They’re already crowing about her podcast being a flop. Dailyfail headline: “‘Banalities, absurdities and self-aggrandising Californian platitudes’: Critics don’t hold back in their reviews of Meghan Markle’s first Archetypes podcast” Those critics can eat sh-t.

    Current main DailyFail headline is calling Meghan a liar: “Royal sources say they do not recall a ‘fire’ in baby Archie’s hotel room during couple’s South Africa tour – but say staff DID unplug a smoking heater”

    That story goes on to add “one source told the Daily Telegraph that any announcement about Archie being at risk of fire – or having to cancel an event about people forcibly removed during Apartheid – would have overshadowed the couple’s work.”

    Which is It? There was no fire or there was a fire and we had to not say anything and continue like nothing happened?


    • Eurydice says:

      Meghan said the heater caught fire. The hotel staff said they unplugged a smoking heater. What other explanation does the DM have for why the heater was smoking? Was it relaxing with an after-sex cigarette?

      • Becks1 says:


      • equality says:

        If there was a fire and somebody else had already put it out then the heater might still be smoking. So the truth but only part to make it appear Meghan lied.

      • Hopey says:


        D@mn straight it was!
        If those sycophants think that “punch towards the palace” was bruising, what are they gonna do when Harry’s book comes out? M’s little revelations during this next 12 weeks is just the warm-up act. They better brace themselves and stock up on smelling salts.

      • Hopey says:


        I’m always perplexed at folks who seek to legitimize the lying tabloids by giving them the benefit of the doubt when they try to counter what H&M say.

        Meghan said in the podcast that after the first event, when she and H got into the car to return to the residence, they were told: “there was a fire in the baby’s room.”

        I expect the royal sycophants in the uk to try to “recollections may vary” the h3ll outa that statement but none of those commenting were there. Meghan and Harry were.

        So whats this iffing about?: “If there was a fire and somebody else had already put it out then the heater might still be smoking….”

        M said she and her husband were T.O.L.D: THERE. WAS. A FIRE. which was subsequently extinguished.

        Argument done.

      • equality says:

        @Hopey Not really sure why you are on a rant about what I said. I wasn’t saying Meghan was lying. I was saying that the reporters were muddying the waters by just telling part of the story. I was in NO WAY giving tabloids the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure they know the whole story and chose to report just one aspect.

      • Christine says:

        LMAO, Eurydice!

      • Deering24 says:

        And smoke is still lethal. Sheesh.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      This is a massively successful debut. It’s currently trending No.1 and No.2 on Spotify, depending on the country, and has the UK media in a python grip chokehold. Well done Duchess Meghan.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, its a huge success. The NYT was talking about it. the people at Spotify are thrilled I’m sure. I laugh at all the people who listened to it just to tear it down – Meghan and Spotify don’t care why you listened to it. They cared that you listened to it.

        And following up with Mariah Carey basically guarantees that people are going to tune in again.

        And that is with very little promotion besides that minute teaser in March.

      • Lorelei says:

        It’s hilarious that they’re helping her numbers with their hate-listening. Reminds me of MAGA’s Starbucks “boycott” in which they went in all weekend saying “Donald Trump” when the barista requested their names for their drinks. Starbucks made so much extra money that weekend 😂

    • MsIam says:

      The critics they are referring to are themselves obviously. Dumb @sses. And yes, Meghan and Harry being concerned about their child should come first, especially in a situation where he could have been harmed. They moved them to different quarters for God’s sake so that means there was quite a bit of smoke. The nanny was upset, why wouldn’t Meghan be?

    • aquarius64 says:

      I was wondering when the BM was going to try to discredit the Archie story. Even if Meghan released a nanny cam tape of the incident they will say it was fake. The meltdown will be epic when Harry’s book crimes out.

    • Athena says:

      How did we as a society get to this place where people are called liars when they share their lived experience. Why would Meghan say it if it didn’t happen? How many people would she have to rope into this “ lie”?

      It’s like at work when someone calls in sick and another person makes some comment that they’re probably just taking a day off. It’s a thing now in our lives not to believe what we are told. Where is this trend going to lead us?

  25. Rapunzel says:

    A smack in the face and a punch to the BRF?

    Anyone else sick of this violent imagery being used with respect to Meg? Its gross. They are just using these words to paint her as the aggressive, bullying, black woman. So transparent.

  26. Sunshine says:

    Never forget that Levin is a Charles and Camilla tool. So is Firtzwilliam

  27. Bettyrose says:

    IDK why but last night I browsed through all the historical articles about Harry on CB. And in hindsight they read like he’s preparing for Meghan. One unfulfilling romance after another while he talks about wanting children and devoted himself to charity work. At one point, several years pre Meghan, he declares that men too need to be active in championing global rights for girls. All, ahem, without Meghan’s influence. That’s who Harry already was.

    • Christine says:

      I’ve been weeding through all of the articles about the royal family, and the first half of 2016 on CB is illuminating. Meghan never had a chance. Here is just one example of how the narrative about Willnot changed when Meghan arrived on the scene. This was pre-Meghan.


      The British media was salivating for anyone other than a direct heir to massacre hourly, and Meghan appeared like an answer to their biggest prayers.

      • Lorelei says:

        Seriously, Meghan was a godsend for the Cambridges…until she wasn’t. I LOVE that Harry and Meghan emerged from this entire debacle as the clear winners, and the ones with obvious integrity.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah William should thank his lucky stars every day that Meghan entered the scene when she did. The press was starting to turn on him and Kate. We see that happening even now – if Meghan and Harry are out of the public eye for a few weeks, the press starts to turn on W&K. and by “turn on” I just mean report more objectively/critically. The RRs are bored and ticked that they are sitting on big stories and can’t write them. If I were W&K I wouldn’t feel too confident that those stories are never going to be written.

        I mean, here, this article – the post is about an article from Camilla Tominey, and she’s ripping Kate apart. My how things changed. Gee wonder why.


      • bettyrose says:

        Wow! one forgets how the media was turning on the Cambridges. They really should be sending Meghan flowers. But the Harry articles are definitely a more enjoyable romp down memory lane. It’s amazing how much he was changing before our eyes well before Meghan came on the scene. He wanted something. He was seeking something. It wasn’t obvious yet (hence ongoing rumors of a rekindled romance with Cressy) but then he found it. Meghan did not change Harry. He evolved into a man ready for a woman like Meghan. (We all know that already, but just saying in response to the awful misogynoir comments still be spewed by the rota).

      • Christine says:

        The Harry articles are so much more fun, except for the incessant Cressida/Chelsey true love forever ones.

        Those crack me up, though, since all signs pointed to Harry being into blondes. Oh, how the times have changed.

        Remember “honks for Harry”? Ahhh, the Ginger Prince has always been the best of them.

    • Duchess of Hazard says:


      You’re so right. I always say that Harry told people what he wanted from the jump: he never liked living in the UK (or was at least, fed up) stated that his future wife would have to be willing to work and be a full partner in what he was looking to do. Said it for YEARS. People just didn’t want to listen.

      It’s no coincidence that Harry married a foreigner in this case. Meghan was his door marked exit. People are mad that he… acted in what he was saying from the time he was touring Afghanistan and the Caribbean.

  28. L4Frimaire says:

    I saw some clips from UK television and some of these sick puppets were spitting mad. I thought one of them was gonna stroke out.The actual podcast is not that controversial and the way they discuss ambition is not remotely incendiary. They are very upset because she just casually, with humor, call out some of their BS like the “ straight outta Compton “ article, or that she and Serena are very good friends, not just acquaintances. They are so afraid of the little truth nuggets she’ll drop, like the heater incident with Archie, or how she calls out how continuously insulted her by calling her ambitious. They pissed she knew exactly what they meant and now they’re trying to reframe it that, once again, her ambition wasn’t the right kind. Again, they try to reduce her to just some actress, and act as though she did nothing else, such as UN women. However, they’ll be listening every week.

  29. Aerohead21 says:

    Listening to it. It’s really great. It also has NOTHING to do with Harry or the Royals. I find it funny they want to make it about them when it’s really about trying to change the stereotypes around an entire gender. It’s so much bigger than the Royal family and not even close to targeting anymore one specific group.

  30. equality says:

    Sophie was ambitious with her PR firm and it crashed. Ed was ambitious with his production company and it bombed. If being royal adjacent is SO helpful in getting recognition why can a son and daughter-in-law of the Queen not be successful? PH being the son of Diana (the royal reject) is far more helpful than royal connections. And, FYI, Levin, the royals are so “ambitious” for charity to justify their gravy train existence, not from any feelings of empathy.

  31. Blue Nails Betty says:

    “ The Royal Family is about ambition in sense of duty and giving. It is not about getting to the top.”

    Tell me you don’t know a damn thing about British royal history without telling me you don’t know a damn thing about British royal history.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Bwaahaaahaaa!! Right? It’s all been about the greater good with this family. Certainly no scheming, backstabbing, banishment, or straight up murder to climb to the top.

    • Christine says:


    • Debbie says:

      Of course it’s not about getting to the top, otherwise some people would demand that others bow to them and call them by exalted names like “your majesty” or “His Royal Highness.” Oh my God, that “Highness” bit alone tells everyone that it’s totally about getting to the top. Who are they kidding?

  32. N. says:

    They’re just hoping to pit Harry against Meghan, which is never going to work. They are never going to understand that she didn’t marry Harry just to become a member of the royal family. As a working actress for years, it’s also obviously mentally and spiritually crucial for Meghan to BE herself in her real life, not to act a role and have no voice of her own. The royal family only wanted Meghan the actress – not the real person. Oops.

    • lanne says:

      “They are never going to understand that she didn’t marry Harry just to become a member of the royal family.”

      You nailed it. Kate wouldn’t have married William had he been William the Butler, or William the Candlestick Maker.

      Meghan married Harry IN SPITE of the fact that he was a member of the royal family. Not because of it. Those heffas don’t realize that the royal family is NOT the be-all and end-all they themselves believe it to be. If being a member of the royal family meant that I had to hang out with idiot sex offenders like Pedo Andy, just plain idiots like Edward, and racists like Brooch Bitch ofMichael, I’d say “no thanks!”

      The royal family didn’t want Meghan to be an actress–they sneered at her because she was an actress. They didn’t want her at all–she was supposed to be the “side piece,” not the Lady of the Manor. They were too cowardly to openly admit it, and thought they could simply “get rid of her” after the fact, preferably in disgrace, as a message to any other brazen hussy who DARED think she could bag a prince.

      • N. says:

        Ianne: Oh I agree 100% that they condescended on everything about Meghan including her profession. I meant that they expected her to ACT as if she was OK with being vilified, scapegoated and denied any voice or agency, as long as it was in service to the Queen and the Firm etc. The insult is really to Harry, that nobody would ever want him for himself and that anyone who married him would become the family scapegoat – you’d think they would grasp why he wanted to leave but they’re too vile, selfish and conniving. I agree that they actually thought they could run her off (like Diana) and keep Harry – fools!

  33. Athena says:

    I didn’t take Meghan meaning as ambition to advance herself but ambition in terms of her work. The charities she wanted to support, the youth initiatives and commonwealth initiatives she wanted to support, and work done as a member of the firm. Her work agenda as compared to those of other working Royals was too ambitious. Her ambition to do good was presented to her as a negative thing. Levin is deliberately misunderstanding Meghan’s meaning.

    Commentators like Levin were expecting Meghan not to deliver on the Spotify podcast. Now that she has, they’re pi**ed.

    • tamsin says:


      Right! I think that is what Meghan is talking about. A general view of ambition is to reach the top of the heap, so to speak. Serena’s ambition was to be a great tennis player- that means winning tennis tournaments. Along the way, she has inspired many. Meghan’s ambition, I think, is to do well in acting so that she could make a contribution to helping humanity- which she is doing. To make a contribution to make the world a better place is certainly ambitious, and an ambition worth having.

  34. Over it says:

    I wish someone would smack these carnival of royal experts clown commentators in the face.These fools are exhausting.

    • Anna says:

      Oh Meg is smacking them already. And they know it, that’s why they are so pisses. I loooved the subtle snark Meg allowed herserf in the podcast. To me it sounds like she was able to process everything, heal and now she’s like „can you imagine what those as&&oles think and say?!”. She’s no longer their victim, and now she will show the world how screwed their POV is.

  35. tamra says:

    She is the ONLY self made millionaire out of the whole miserable lot! That must really pi$$ them off! LOL

  36. Aiglentine says:

    No one knows if she would still be a “D-list celebrity“ had she not met Harry, so Levin has no business saying that. Also, no one needs to be grateful for being treated rudely or even abusively. Respect is earned.

    • Christine says:

      To your point, remember the years where the British media was ravenous for Pippa and Harry to be a thing?

      Pippa. Not even a D-list celebrity (which Meghan wasn’t, D-list is on Bravo or Teen Mom, you giant assholes).

      Can you even imagine what a gigantic pile of dung this situation would be now, if both Middleton sisters had bagged a Wales prince? Who would they blame for every single thing?? Probably Scotland, speaking from a historical perspective.

  37. CheChe says:

    Meghan is on a level that that the BM have no real abilities to process. The simple way out is to attack with nonsense. In real life we avoid crazy talk. The same should be done online.

  38. Athena says:

    Chris Ship wrote an article for ITV in which he pretty much verbatim repeated Meghan’s story about the fire. He made no disclaimer, no comment about how the reporters did not know. He simply reaped what she said. The only snarky comment was that at event following the fire incident, Meghan and Harry made an impromptu walkabout, which to me read, how concern were they if they added something to the event that wasn’t on the agenda. I take it as Chris Ship who was there, confirming this happened.

    • equality says:

      I’m sure the nanny would be hyper-vigilant after the occurrence so there wouldn’t be a great need for concern. The not wanting to go was probably to recover from the shock and maybe once they arrived and met with people their nerves were settled. I’m sure they kept in contact with the nanny or had someone checking in with her. And how does he know it was “impromptu” and not something they were scheduled to do that he was unaware of?

  39. tali says:

    Levin’s an old biddy but I think Fitz makes a fair point. Service > self promotion.
    Though who in the royal family has been “ambitious” since Diana?

  40. Silent Star says:

    I’m really confused what the “advances in the MeToo movement” have to do with any of this? Is Levin trying to say that the Megan is somehow insulting the work of MeToo movement?? I can’t see the connection.

  41. Bisynaptic says:

    “The Royal Family… is not about getting to the top.” HAHAHAHAHAH… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  42. blunt talker says:

    The British people as a whole look like salivating pitbulls everytime Meghan breathes-on the world stage this makes them look like the evil racist beings that a lot of people over the world think they are-they act like they just had a heart attack over this podcast-this was gentle compared to what other podcasts talk about-how ungrateful the Brits are to no longer have to pay for the Sussexes-they can’t even look a gift horse in the mouth-they now have more money to spend on other royals doing their jobs-the racist feelings from some Brits are making the people the world over take a second look with a sense of the words coming out of their mouths makes Meghan’s statements seem very true-Tyler Perry said it best with his birthday wishes-he has been looking and observing how she has been treated by the UK press and the royal family and is undeerstanding what Meghan went up against-the system in the UK is set up for Meghan to fail-if you cannot move on with life in the UK without smearing the Sussexes you prove M and H right-the Shitgibbons/shitstains of the UK are looking like funky donkeys

  43. Maria says:

    So exciting that the podcast is here!
    I loved Lainey’s comment that Meghan’s hair is a little ‘messy’ and undone in the photos, meaning that Meghan will get real in her podcasts
    How interesting to have Mariah Carey as a guest! Excited to see what the interview with her touches on

  44. Bisynaptic says:

    It’s not just Meghan and Harry—Levin is a total fasci reactionary.

  45. phlyfiremama says:

    The “victim narrative”, as so many are quick to use to excuse their vindictiveness (yes, looking at some of my fellow dlisters), is one successful tactic the media has used. She IS a victim. I’m pretty sure NOBODY could foresee the vehemence of the reactions to her presence, and just the FACT that there was such an odious response to her caught everyone except the tried and true racists off guard.