Recently, someone left a lengthy comment detailing all the times they felt the media bullied Meghan Markle. The Daily Mail has published numerous articles focusing on Meghan's racial background, acting career, and previous marriage. That makes sense, doesn’t it? When someone marries into arguably the most popular royal family in the world, there will naturally be a lot of interest in their ancestry, heritage, and career—just as there was with every previous fiancée.
Many people, myself included, were unaware that Meghan is mixed race. While some articles may have crossed the line, I wouldn’t necessarily categorize the Daily Mail as one of them. As for sensational headlines—when haven’t they done that? It’s a standard practice in media. This is just how the industry operates; it’s unfortunate, but that’s the reality of how media sells stories.
Now, regarding portrayals of Meghan in a negative light, that can be subjective. There were also early incidents that raised eyebrows. For instance, some of her roles in films were not particularly flattering—she often played minor characters who were promiscuous. Additionally, during the early stages of her relationship with Harry, she was reportedly calling the paparazzi and hinting at her status as his girlfriend, seeking media attention, which didn’t create the best impression.
While Harry made statements urging people to leave her alone, there were contradictions when it appeared she was actively courting media attention. The idea that the Daily Mail’s criticism of her fashion choices constitutes bullying is simply incorrect. Reporting on factual matters isn’t bias; it’s just journalism.
Regarding comparisons to Catherine, those are also subjective. Were they negative, or were they just comparisons? It’s natural to compare two women in similar roles, particularly when one has set a high standard. Meghan, it seems, was not seeking guidance, which contributed to her not meeting public expectations.
Opinion pieces questioning Meghan’s suitability for royal duties were sparked by her own choices. She entered the role without fully grasping its responsibilities and, by various accounts, was difficult to work with. If we placed her in a different context—say, a new executive at a large company who resisted guidance and created friction among the staff—most people wouldn’t defend that behavior.
The monarchy is a complex institution, but for senior royals, there are job-like expectations: dress codes, punctuality, and professionalism. This commenter mentioned that in 2019, the Daily Mail focused on Meghan's pregnancy and parenting. Well, she and Harry stepped back when Archie was just a few months old—so not much parenting coverage. The pregnancy was reported on critically, as is standard for any royal.
The Times published stories about alleged rifts within the royal family involving Meghan. That’s also standard. If there are issues among royals, it’s newsworthy. Criticism of Meghan’s behavior during her pregnancy arose because, at that time, they were working royals, partially funded by taxpayer money.
They broke traditions regarding the birth announcement, which led to public frustration. Their approach to Archie’s birth felt unconventional and rude to many, as they were still representatives of the monarchy.
Now let’s discuss the Oprah interview. Claims of racism and other allegations made during that interview sparked widespread criticism—not bullying. The statements made by Meghan and Harry were, in many instances, inconsistent with previous claims and later interviews.
Regarding Meghan's media projects, they were often met with criticism for being self-absorbed or unlikable. Her podcast, "Archetypes," was not well-received, and her public appearances sometimes raised eyebrows due to her attire.
Meghan's charitable efforts have been sporadic, with little impact reported from their foundation. The media's scrutiny of her relationship with the royal family stems from the timing of her statements, which often seem pointed or exaggerated.
It’s worth noting that Harry and Meghan’s repeated claims of media unfairness have led some to believe them, especially those unfamiliar with the full history. However, a little research reveals the truth about the situation.
As someone who wears glasses (and contacts), I’d say it’s not drastically different from makeup without glasses. If you want to make your eyes appear bigger or more prominent, shimmer shadows work well—they can create a more open look. Lighter colors help, too!
For eyeshadow placement, stick to what complements your eye shape and color. For example, warm-toned eyeshadows can enhance blue eyes beautifully. If you’re using false lashes, curl them before applying eyeliner to prevent smudging.
If you’re looking for more detailed makeup tutorials, I highly recommend checking out Wayne Goss and Robert Welsh—they offer fantastic content on makeup techniques.
