I recently came across a scathing comparison made by former Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter between the beloved Princess Diana and Meghan Markle, who seemingly tries to position herself as royalty in her own right. Carter’s insights reaffirm what many have suspected for years—there is simply no comparison between these two women.
Carter, who helmed one of the world’s most prestigious magazines for 25 years, recalled his interactions with Princess Diana. He described her as highly engaged and full of thoughtful questions during their conversations. Just picture that—Diana, deeply interested in others, asking insightful questions about Jackie Kennedy’s experiences with the royal family, reflecting on her own struggles with genuine curiosity. That is emotional intelligence.
Even as she navigated her very public marital breakdown, Diana carried herself with dignity and grace. Who could forget her iconic Revenge Dress moment at the Vanity Fair party that Carter co-hosted? That off-shoulder black Christina Stambolian dress wasn’t just a fashion statement—it was a masterclass in silent but powerful messaging. Diana knew how to use imagery and symbolism, but she did it with elegance.
Contrast this with Carter’s assessment of Meghan. When she was first suggested for a Vanity Fair cover in 2017, his response was blunt: “I have no idea who that is.” Keep in mind, this came from a man who had been shaping cultural conversations for decades. At the time, Meghan was a supporting actress on a cable TV show—not the global icon she and her PR team have since tried to retroactively make her out to be.
But the real character reveal came during Meghan’s Vanity Fair interview. According to Carter, she was taken aback when asked about Prince Harry, responding, “Excuse me, is this going to be all about Prince Harry? I thought we were going to talk about my charities and philanthropy.”
Imagine Diana ever making such a statement. Diana didn’t need to trumpet her charitable efforts—her actions spoke for themselves. She visited AIDS patients at a time when fear and stigma were rampant, walked through active landmine fields to raise awareness, and shook hands with lepers without hesitation. Meghan, on the other hand, has often been accused of seeking recognition for her philanthropy rather than letting the work stand on its own.
Carter’s verdict on Meghan is damning: “This woman is slightly adrift on the facts and reality.” That’s not just idle gossip; it’s a professional assessment from a media veteran who has profiled some of the most influential figures in history. Over the years, Meghan’s narrative has been riddled with inconsistencies—from her claim that she and Harry secretly married before their royal wedding (debunked by official records) to her assertion that Archie was denied a title due to racism (which misrepresented royal protocol).
The list goes on. Meghan claimed she was silenced by the palace, yet she had a platform at the UN, was featured in Vogue, and was actively encouraged to pursue charitable work. The pattern is clear—revisionism, embellishments, and a victim narrative that crumbles under scrutiny.
Several years into their post-royal life, what have Harry and Meghan actually accomplished? A Netflix documentary that boiled down to six hours of grievance-airing, a memoir that revealed more about Harry’s frostbite than his meaningful contributions, and a lifestyle brand that seems perpetually coming soon. Meanwhile, Prince William and Princess Catherine have carried on Diana’s true legacy—dedicated to service, showing up, and supporting meaningful causes without making it about themselves.
Even as she battles cancer, Catherine has displayed remarkable dignity. She announced her diagnosis on her own terms, has taken the time she needs for treatment, and hasn’t used her illness to garner sympathy or attention. That’s what true royalty looks like.
Carter also reflected on what Diana’s response to the current royal rift might have been. He suggested she would be devastated by Harry’s estrangement from his family, saying, “Anytime someone comes between siblings, that’s a disaster.” The implication is clear—he sees Meghan as the wedge that drove Harry away from his family, his country, and his responsibilities.
And what about Harry? Once a beloved prince, dedicated to veterans and continuing his mother’s humanitarian work, he now seems like a shadow of his former self. Gone is the cheeky, down-to-earth Harry who charmed the public. Instead, he has become a supporting player in Meghan’s Hollywood ambitions.
Carter’s observations underscore a fundamental truth: Diana understood that being royal wasn’t about personal gain. It was about service, about using her platform for the greater good, about duty. Even when she felt betrayed by the institution, she never abandoned her commitment to causes that mattered.
Meghan, by contrast, appeared to view royalty as a global stage for her personal brand. When she realized that being a working royal required following protocols, putting duty before personal ambitions, and sometimes taking a backseat to more senior members, she orchestrated an exit strategy disguised as a quest for “privacy.” Yet, the Sussexes have remained in the public eye, engaging in endless self-promotion.
Despite relentless attacks from the Sussexes, King Charles and Queen Camilla have maintained their composure. Even as Charles undergoes cancer treatment, he continues to fulfill his royal duties when possible. That’s the difference between those who understand the monarchy as an institution of service and those who see it as a stepping stone to personal fame.
The working royals have faced tremendous challenges—the Queen’s passing, multiple health crises, and a reduced number of senior royals. Yet, they soldier on, upholding the values of duty and continuity. Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan continue their cycle of grievances and carefully curated “authenticity,” as seen in their latest Netflix project, With Love, Meghan.
Carter’s assessment cuts to the heart of Meghan’s miscalculation. Before meeting Harry, she was a moderately successful actress with a lifestyle blog. Respectable, yes, but hardly the global humanitarian she later positioned herself as. Unlike Diana, who earned her platform through years of dedicated work, Meghan expected royal status to grant her instant credibility.
Diana’s impact wasn’t about photo ops or PR campaigns—it was about real change. She shifted global attitudes on AIDS, mental health, and landmines. She raised her sons to understand both privilege and responsibility. Only one of them seems to be carrying that legacy forward, and it isn’t the one living in California.
