Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

The reviews are coming in for Meghan's podcast 'Confessions of a Female Founder'ions of a

1000 replies

LaBarruci · 08/04/2025 16:54

Not listened to the first in Meghan's podcast series, a conversation with the founder of Bumble, Whitney Wolfe Heard, but the Mail has collated all the press reviews so far, with links. The Guardian, Telegraph and i-Paper are unanimous: the podcast is cloyingly dreadful.

The reviews for Meghan Markle's latest podcast are in! Two stars for Confessions of a Female Founder https://mol.im/a/14584193 via https://dailym.ai/android

OP posts:
Thread gallery
39
Andthispointstowhatexactly77 · 09/04/2025 12:08

Serenster · 09/04/2025 10:37

For clarity, I certainly will not be listening to the podcast as I have better things to do with my time. But I don’t understand what is so heinous about her creating one!

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with her creating a podcast either! Good luck to her. It’s good to see the attention given to a small, women-founded platform ike Lemonada, too.

The bit I take issue with is that apparently people - reviewers and people on MN - aren’t allowed to have an opinion about it.

Also, just in reponse to @Nominative I believe Meghan was saying she had suffered from postpartum pre-eclampsia - i.e. she experienced it after she had given birth, not before. That is rare, and very serious, as the “cure” for pre-eclampsia is delivery of the baby. If you develop it after childbirth then it’s much more difficult to manage (it’s what Lady Sybil died of in Downton Abbey - she had a seizure after giving birth).

That’s a very fair response Serenster.
I agree about Leonada too.

Of course people are allowed to say what they like on Mumsnet within the rules and express an opinion about the podcast. Just as it’s my right to point out if, imho, the criticism is objective, measured and proportionate, or not, and if the criticism is about the podcast itself, without any other agenda attached.

I think what I and some pps are saying on this thread is that the amount of criticism she receives, even for something as innocuous as jam-making, or pod-casting, is out of all proportion to the “product” itself.

Partly this is because sm comment follows all of the press articles which generate clicks and advertising revenue. And partly because it’s somehow become acceptable to bash her. And I find that distasteful.

If truth be told I don’t particularly care for M’s style of presentation but I choose to spend my time watching and buying things I like, not things I loathe! Ultimately, it is a choice. She isn’t forcing anyone to listen to her podcast or eat her jam! But their very existence is enough to rile people and that is hard to understand.

Reetpetitenot · 09/04/2025 12:46

Andthispointstowhatexactly77 · 09/04/2025 08:51

Great post Vera99. 👏

I also don’t understand the posters on here saying she trashed the UK and take the fact that she wanted to leave as a personal affront!

I don’t go in for all of that jingoistic nonsense! Just because she didn’t enjoy her individual experience at the Palace, doesn’t mean she has rejected every British person!

In the first place, living abroad is no picnic, even without a language issue. Secondly, the British tabloids are particularly vile. And thirdly, in other areas of Mumsnet, a woman would be applauded for being a confident, assertive, self-starter, who knows her own mind, for setting boundaries with the in-laws, and for taking her own happiness and that of her children seriously.

If you take the word “royal” out of the equation, if Meghan had posted on Mumsnet that she had started a new job in a company run by a dysfunctional family, where the main players had competing offices and egos, where she was required to dress modestly and and behave in a certain rigid way, where they all have to observe ridiculously antiquated rules, and the managers were overwhelmingly white in make up and outlook, and the firm promulgated values which had one set of rules for men, and another set for women, then we would all be shouting “run for the hills”! 😄

Edited

She and Harry implied racism, then rowed back - this on a global stage, implicating the rf and the British Public.

She wasn't 'forced' to wear modest, neutral clothing. I. Fact her wardrobe doesn't appear to gave changed much since her 'flight to freedom' (except her wardrobe during her brief stint within the rf certainly fit better and was ironed). I didn't notice Meghan being particularly observant of any rules, antiquated or otherwise. The managers 'overwhelmingly white' because, well, the UK is overwhelmingly white. She refused the help of Lieutenant Colonel Nana Kofi Twumasi-Ankrah. You don't start a job with a new company and immediately start complaining about the other staff, the rules, the way the business is run (should have done her due diligence - showed what a rubbish business woman she is, even back then). If you think things could be done better, you watch, learn, suggest - you don't bully your staff and have them sobbing at their desks.

Living abroad may be no picnic - I've done if myself with very little help or support. Meghan didn't exactly give it a chance, now, did she?

The public and even the tabloids were supportive when Harry and Meghan married.

LipglossAlly · 09/04/2025 13:07

Would it be possible to focus on the subject of the thread? Is there anything that Mumsnet can do? There are already hundreds of threads allocated to her PAST experience in the RF. This is not one.

Meghan has moved on with her life, and the subject of this thread in particular is her new podcast. What is your take on the podcast then?

BunnyLake · 09/04/2025 13:12

Spectre8 · 09/04/2025 10:05

Maybe she didn't want to me tio it. Just like Kate doesn't want to me tion her type of cancer or helsth issues.

People can open up and discuss things when they are ready to. Who is a young to tell someone when the right time is.

Woukd you have a pop at your close ones if they went through something but only spoke about years later? Would you say oh why are you brining it up now and not at x time when you should have.

Re your last paragraph I guess it depends how much you trust that person’s word from past experiences. Some people you know in life you can trust what they say 100%, but there are others where, your first instinct might be to think hmm ok, not sure but I’ll nod along anyway, especially if they are in the company of someone else who offered up their experience first. I have absolutely no idea if M is being truthful or not but that’s the issue really isn’t it?

CathyorClaire · 09/04/2025 14:22

It's not that rare, though, is it?

Dunno.

Rachel seems to though:

news.sky.com/story/meghan-reveals-huge-medical-scare-after-childbirth-13344325

Mylovelygreendress · 09/04/2025 14:35

LipglossAlly · 09/04/2025 13:07

Would it be possible to focus on the subject of the thread? Is there anything that Mumsnet can do? There are already hundreds of threads allocated to her PAST experience in the RF. This is not one.

Meghan has moved on with her life, and the subject of this thread in particular is her new podcast. What is your take on the podcast then?

Moved on with her life ? She clings to her title and any other piece of Royal life she can !

MrsFinkelstein · 09/04/2025 14:48

Serenster · 09/04/2025 10:37

For clarity, I certainly will not be listening to the podcast as I have better things to do with my time. But I don’t understand what is so heinous about her creating one!

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with her creating a podcast either! Good luck to her. It’s good to see the attention given to a small, women-founded platform ike Lemonada, too.

The bit I take issue with is that apparently people - reviewers and people on MN - aren’t allowed to have an opinion about it.

Also, just in reponse to @Nominative I believe Meghan was saying she had suffered from postpartum pre-eclampsia - i.e. she experienced it after she had given birth, not before. That is rare, and very serious, as the “cure” for pre-eclampsia is delivery of the baby. If you develop it after childbirth then it’s much more difficult to manage (it’s what Lady Sybil died of in Downton Abbey - she had a seizure after giving birth).

Just to clarify about post natal PET - it's still a known complication of pregnancy up to 6wks after delivery, all the cases I've seen have been within 48hrs of birth.

Usually delivery resolves the condition - but in the case of Lady Sybil she had been suffering PET at the end of pregnancy and during labour, she then developed eclampsia after delivery (because the posh Obstetrician didn't deliver her sooner - which may have stopped the eclampsia developing).

Post delivery PET is fully managed by medication to lower the BP. It's when it's not (in the case of Lady Sybil) then it can be deadly.

Post natal PET is rarer because it should be picked up (& treatment started) ante-natally or during labour, and close monitoring (& treatment if reqd) of the mother after delivery.

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 14:50

vera99 · 09/04/2025 06:27

All the royals are like that—“Butler, put the toothpaste on, Sir,” and fussing over those bloody pens, all the bloody time. Harry’s just being one of them; the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Apart from St Anne of course - hallowed be her name.

strange isn't it that once the PR is taken from them they appear to be arrogant twats.

Do royalists never ponder that maybe they are all arrogant twats living a craefully curated PR driven public life/
Oh, and it's almost not their fault they're arrogant twats; it would be virtually impossible to be brought up with the level of deference and sycophancy that these people bizarrely attract without becoming arrogant.

MrsFinkelstein · 09/04/2025 14:51

RedRosesPinkLilies · 09/04/2025 12:07

I think it’s strange because Harry is the father of both children
If she had it in her first pregnancy- then I’m sure we would have heard - but she was discharged quickly from hospital
If her first pregnancy didn’t precipitate a problem with pre eclampsia and Harry was still the father - then I think pre eclampsia is unlikely in the second.
Very old medical knowledge- I’d really like someone to educate me otherwise

Either way, I’m absolutely sure we’d have known about it before now if she really had pre eclampsia that Drs were worried about

I actually don’t care if that makes me seem mean. I dislike anyone appropriating medical conditions without realising how serious they actually are.

It's rare to develop in subsequent pregnancies if you've never had it before, but it's not unknown. Her risks in general would have increased because of her age.

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 14:51

BemusedAmerican · 09/04/2025 09:48

Isn't it nice to know that William carries on with public appearances even though they aren't all over the news. Sounds like William is showing up and doing good.

how do you know he's showing up anywhere if it's not in the news/

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 14:54

MrsFinkelstein · 09/04/2025 14:51

It's rare to develop in subsequent pregnancies if you've never had it before, but it's not unknown. Her risks in general would have increased because of her age.

does seem odd that it's never been mentioned before

CathyorClaire · 09/04/2025 14:58

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 14:51

how do you know he's showing up anywhere if it's not in the news/

Duke of Doolittle hasn't had an entry in the Court Circular since 27th March (coinciding nicely with the start of the Easter jollybobs).

No doubt he's flat out behind the scenes though 😏

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 15:03

CathyorClaire · 09/04/2025 14:58

Duke of Doolittle hasn't had an entry in the Court Circular since 27th March (coinciding nicely with the start of the Easter jollybobs).

No doubt he's flat out behind the scenes though 😏

yes, he apparently does loads of work and meets lots of people but does it secretly for reasons unknown.
No doubt hard at work supporting his wife . if only they could afford a member of staff or 2 they'd be able to have the odd day off

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 15:04

CathyorClaire · 09/04/2025 14:58

Duke of Doolittle hasn't had an entry in the Court Circular since 27th March (coinciding nicely with the start of the Easter jollybobs).

No doubt he's flat out behind the scenes though 😏

oh and someone will be along till tell you they don't update the CC anymore due to security ( and the risk of the public realising they're paying £150 million a year for not much)

vera99 · 09/04/2025 15:14

You can check out their "work" https://www.royal.uk/media-centre/court-circulars William last entry was 27th March in Aberdeen. Kate 19th March - but H&M. A nice diversion from the elephant in the room.

RedRosesPinkLilies · 09/04/2025 15:50

@MrsFinkelstein Thanks. That’s pretty much what I thought.

BemusedAmerican · 09/04/2025 16:11

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 14:51

how do you know he's showing up anywhere if it's not in the news/

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

MrsFinkelstein · 09/04/2025 16:12

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 14:51

how do you know he's showing up anywhere if it's not in the news/

Because it's posted on his IG page.

MrsFinkelstein · 09/04/2025 16:13

CathyorClaire · 09/04/2025 14:58

Duke of Doolittle hasn't had an entry in the Court Circular since 27th March (coinciding nicely with the start of the Easter jollybobs).

No doubt he's flat out behind the scenes though 😏

The younger Royals don't tend to keep the Court Circular updated, but they do post all their visits on IG. Easily available to everyone to view.

Vespanest · 09/04/2025 16:21

Quick skim read both the positive and negative have a similar theme that Meghan is not a good vessel for shining a spotlight on the guest.

vera99 · 09/04/2025 16:25

MrsFinkelstein · 09/04/2025 16:13

The younger Royals don't tend to keep the Court Circular updated, but they do post all their visits on IG. Easily available to everyone to view.

I suppose expecting any real level of public accountability is too much to ask—what with their army of staff and courtiers managing their appointments, appearances, and endless formalities. After all, when you're casually handed an extra £45.8 million through the Sovereign Grant, and simultaneously acting as a slumlord in Cornwall, you might start to wonder: why bother keeping the peasants informed about your goings-on? Transparency, it seems, is beneath the Crown—especially when the coffers are overflowing.

BemusedAmerican · 09/04/2025 16:37

IG seems more legit. You can actually see them in action and even hear them rather than read it.

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 17:03

MrsFinkelstein · 09/04/2025 16:12

Because it's posted on his IG page.

so not behind the scenes but publically announcing it?
Does he put all of his "work" on his ig?

Mightymoog · 09/04/2025 17:05

vera99 · 09/04/2025 16:25

I suppose expecting any real level of public accountability is too much to ask—what with their army of staff and courtiers managing their appointments, appearances, and endless formalities. After all, when you're casually handed an extra £45.8 million through the Sovereign Grant, and simultaneously acting as a slumlord in Cornwall, you might start to wonder: why bother keeping the peasants informed about your goings-on? Transparency, it seems, is beneath the Crown—especially when the coffers are overflowing.

WHY do people not want them held to account?
I just don't get it
The dodgy finances, the shady relationships; why are people happy for them to carry on lik this.
The extra money is astounding.

Dalky · 09/04/2025 17:06

vera99 · 09/04/2025 07:33

I’m not arguing that Harry and Meghan are flawless, or that people aren’t allowed to criticise them — of course they are. But there’s a real difference between fair criticism and the obsessive, often unhinged level of coverage they get (St Justine et al) especially compared to other royals. That’s what I find frustrating.

Sure, they’re public figures, but they’re not the only ones. And yet somehow they attract ten times the outrage. I mean, Andrew did far worse and yes, there was backlash — but the fact is, the tabloids aren’t running daily hit pieces about him, are they? No one’s frothing in the comments over how often he breathes or whether his PR team got something wrong. That kind of energy just isn’t there in the same way.

As for the bullying claims — they should absolutely be taken seriously. But it's hard to ignore how quickly they were seized on by the press, especially when the so-called “multiple sources” all came from within an institution that clearly wasn’t thrilled about Meghan in the first place. That doesn’t mean she’s innocent, but it does mean we should probably apply the same scrutiny to the people making the accusations.

And on the “they’re always in our faces” line — let’s be honest, a lot of this media saturation is driven by the people complaining. If every podcast or article sparks 200 angry comments and 15 new threads, of course it’s going to keep going. It’s a feedback loop. If people genuinely ignored them, they’d fade out of the headlines pretty fast.

Look, I don’t think they’re perfect, and no, Meghan doesn’t seem like a natural business genius. But the gleeful tone some people take when discussing every misstep she makes is telling. And if we’re going to criticise them for being out of touch or entitled, fine — but let’s not pretend it’s just about their “work ethic” or PR. There’s clearly more going on under the surface in how people react to them versus others.

As for the bullying claims — they should absolutely be taken seriously. But it's hard to ignore how quickly they were seized on by the press, especially when the so-called “multiple sources” all came from within an institution that clearly wasn’t thrilled about Meghan in the first place.

This is a very disingenuous comment trying to twist the facts of 'multiple sources' of bullying reports and is a shocking attempt to silence the voices of victims who have either experienced or witnessed disgracefull treatment by MM - to such an extent that some have been hounded from their livilhoods and others have had to resort to profressional help to alleviate the mental injury inflicted.

As we all know there have been numerous independent investigations undertaken by very credible publications who have reported the distress of dozens of victims and witnesses - presenting a persistent and consistent pattern of MM bullying staff stretching nearly a decade on either side of the pond and seemingly ongoing.

Most recently, just last month Vanity Fair published their expose following an investigation into MM behaviour in LA.

Six months before that The Hollywood Reporter collated the accounts of over a dozen past and present staff (including one senior current executive).

Prior to that both The Times newspaper and Valentine Low's book 'Courtiers' documented MM's appalling treatment of staff in the UK.

Then there was the BP Bullying Investigation - which didnt publish results.

And prior to that we had the Director from the Reitman's shoot speaking up publicly about her mean treatment of colleagues - and this was before she met PH.

Its very clear what sort of 'character' MM is - even if you choose to go so low as to negate and attempt to silence the tranche of her victims within BP.

The hypocracy of gushing about living a life focused on love, joy, kindness, community, compassion etc when in reality she is abusive to staff, colleagues, family and friends is now very transparent.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.