This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

LONDON — Journalist and author Catherine Mayer has pushed back against what she describes as a pattern of hostile media coverage directed at Meghan Markle, arguing that the Duchess of Sussex has been unfairly cast as a villainous figure in coverage of the British royal family since her 2020 departure from official royal duties.

Mayer, speaking to the Express, said she wrote her latest book partly out of concern that broader lessons from Markle’s experience with the British press have gone unlearned. “My fear is that the world has learned very little indeed from Meghan’s experience and that’s another reason I wrote the book,” Mayer said. She went on to question the intensity of public hostility directed at Markle specifically. “As I say in it, you don’t have to like her or watch her shows, but what on earth has she done to earn the hatred meted out to her?” Mayer said.

Mayer argued that the broader pattern of negative coverage directed at royal women carries consequences that extend well beyond any single individual. “Telling these negative stories about royal women, whipping up hostility towards them, has a long pedigree as my book shows, and it always goes badly not only for the women in question but for all women,” she said.

Drawing a historical parallel, Mayer suggested that some of the narratives constructed around Markle echo centuries-old tropes used to characterize women perceived as threats to established power structures. “It’s a way of promoting reductive views of women as scheming seductresses or witches. In that respect, some stories about Meghan resemble those circulated about Anne Boleyn,” Mayer said, referencing the second wife of King Henry VIII, whose fall from royal favor in the 16th century culminated in her execution on charges that historians have long regarded as largely fabricated.

Markle and Prince Harry stepped back from their roles as senior working royals in early 2020, relocating first to Canada and later settling in California, where the couple has since built a media and business portfolio spanning documentary projects, podcasts, books and other commercial ventures. Their departure and subsequent public statements about their treatment within the royal institution and by the British press have remained a persistent subject of tabloid coverage and public debate in the years since.

Mayer’s comments arrive amid what has been a particularly active stretch of royal-focused media coverage examining the Sussexes’ ongoing relationship with the wider royal family. Recent reporting has explored a range of related storylines, including speculation about efforts toward reconciliation between Prince Harry and King Charles III ahead of the anniversary of Princess Diana’s death, as well as continued coverage of Prince William’s approach to his relationship with his brother.

The broader media narrative around Markle has remained a subject of significant public disagreement since she and Harry first entered the royal family through their 2018 wedding. Supporters of the couple have frequently pointed to what they characterize as disproportionately negative or racially coded coverage of Markle compared with other royal women, a concern the couple themselves raised directly during their widely watched 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey. Critics of the couple, meanwhile, have argued that Markle and Harry have themselves contributed to negative public perception through their public criticism of the royal family and through commercial ventures perceived by some as capitalizing on their former royal status.

Mayer’s own background lends particular weight to her commentary on the topic. A veteran journalist and author, she has previously written extensively about the British monarchy, including a biography of King Charles III published prior to his ascension to the throne. Her broader body of work has frequently examined the intersection of gender, media narratives and institutional power, themes she has said inform her latest analysis of the coverage surrounding Markle specifically.

The comparison Mayer draws to Anne Boleyn carries particular historical resonance within British royal commentary. Boleyn, whose marriage to Henry VIII and subsequent fall from favor remain one of the most extensively studied episodes in English royal history, has long been cited by historians and cultural commentators as an early example of how women perceived as disruptive to established royal or political order have historically been recast in public narratives as manipulative or malevolent figures, regardless of the underlying facts of their circumstances.

Neither Meghan Markle nor representatives for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have issued a direct public response to Mayer’s specific comments. The couple has generally avoided direct engagement with individual pieces of royal commentary or tabloid coverage, reserving most public statements for their own official announcements regarding their charitable initiatives, media projects and family matters.

Coverage of the British royal family, and particularly of Markle’s ongoing relationship with the institution she and Harry departed in 2020, has continued to generate substantial public interest across both American and British media markets. Outlets covering the royal family regularly feature a wide range of commentary from royal historians, biographers, former palace staff and cultural critics, whose interpretations of the Sussexes’ standing within the royal family and broader public life often diverge sharply from one another, reflecting the deeply polarized nature of public opinion surrounding the couple since their departure from official royal duties.

As speculation continues regarding the future of the relationship between Harry, Markle and the wider royal family, including ongoing questions about potential reconciliation efforts with King Charles, commentary of the kind offered by Mayer is likely to remain a recurring feature of royal media coverage, reflecting broader and unresolved debates about how the British press has historically covered royal women who diverge from more traditional expectations of the institution.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8