Thomas Keller, the renowned chef behind Michelin-starred restaurants like The French Laundry and Per Se, has delivered a sharp critique of Meghan Markle’s Netflix cooking series *With Love, Meghan*. Known for his high standards and commitment to authentic culinary experiences, Keller didn’t hold back in his assessment of the show, calling it a lavish display of wealth that fails to resonate with its intended audience.
Keller’s criticism extends beyond mere culinary preferences. It taps into a broader societal issue about the disconnect between celebrity-driven media and the realities of everyday life. The core of his argument centers on the show’s overwhelming opulence—the perfectly styled sets, extravagant ingredients, and celebrity guest appearances—which, in his view, create a stark contrast to the daily lives of most viewers. Rather than fostering a shared experience through the universal language of food, Keller argues the show reinforces a sense of exclusivity and distance, alienating the audience rather than connecting with them.
He points out that the show’s focus on luxury and extravagance creates a clear barrier between Markle and her viewers. This, Keller believes, undermines the very purpose of a cooking show, which should be a platform for sharing culinary traditions, fostering cultural exchange, and uniting people through food. Instead, the show seems to prioritize an image of wealth and privilege over the genuine exploration of food as a means of building connections.
Keller contrasts Markle’s approach with successful culinary programs like *Chef’s Table* and *Salt Fat Acid Heat*, which have been praised for their authenticity and cultural exploration. These shows, he suggests, manage to bridge the gap between the culinary world and their viewers by focusing on the passion, artistry, and cultural significance of food—without resorting to displays of wealth. They celebrate the diversity of culinary traditions and the stories behind them, creating a sense of shared human experience that transcends geographic and socioeconomic divides.
The problem, according to Keller, isn’t just the show’s aesthetic but its underlying message. Markle’s series prioritizes the projection of a luxurious lifestyle over the genuine exploration of culinary arts. The food itself seems secondary to the curated image of wealth and status. For Keller, this is a missed opportunity—food should be a tool for connection and community-building, not just a prop to elevate someone’s image.
Keller’s critique also reflects a broader societal concern about the growing gap between celebrity culture and everyday life. Markle’s consistent association with luxury brands and high-end experiences—while understandable given her success—has alienated some viewers who feel she is out of touch with their struggles and aspirations. Keller’s comments highlight the need for media that is both aspirational and relatable, celebrating success without sacrificing authenticity or connection.
The show’s gleaming kitchen counters, lavish dining settings, and star-studded guest list, Keller argues, fail to resonate with the ordinary struggles and joys of everyday people. While visually stunning, the show lacks the warmth, authenticity, and sense of community that are essential to a truly successful culinary program. Ultimately, Keller’s critique isn’t just about a cooking show—it’s a commentary on the societal implications of celebrity culture and the need for media that better reflects the diverse experiences of its audience.
