Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Why is Meghan hated?

1000 replies

YourBrickTiger · 07/10/2025 13:26

I have very strong views about the Royals especially Camilla, however I am genuinely interested and want to find out more as to why Meghan Markle seems to be so hated. I'm asking in case there is something I have missed. I do read up as much as I can and watch shows from 'both sides' of the argument, but there is nothing that I have seen so far that warrants the level of sheer hatred geared towards her - I don't mean on here necessarily, but on social media in general. She cannot do ANYTHING without a swarm of people descending on her like vampires to tear her apart.

She isn't an adulteress, she's not a paedophile or sex offender, she isn't lazy, she seems to genuinely care about people in need.....and from what has been shown, she genuinely loves Harry and is just trying to make a life with him. He left the UK to start a life away from a nest of some awful people, his mother died when he was 12, his uncle is a sex offender, there is racism and a rigid set of rules within that family where he won't be king anyway so what is wrong with him leaving?

I'm not starting this to start an argument I am genuninely interested in why she is so rabidly disliked and why? Maybe I will start to feel differently if there is more of a reason but at the moment I cannot see one?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
jumpingthehighjump · 08/10/2025 12:03

the fact is that I have seen plenty to know it’s godawful and shite

In YOUR opinion.

Opinions differ

BananaPeels · 08/10/2025 12:05

SynysterGates · 08/10/2025 11:56

these threads are like ground hog day. the same stuff over and over again.
posters desperately trying to pretend they don't hate her. pretending that Meghan does not have it worse that over rf women when it comes to online hate.
just look at this supposedly Royal family topic. really it is just a Meghan bash topic.
even mn hq are part of it, look how many times a thread is moved from somewhere else , where it might get a more mixed type of posts. yet they move it here , its all about the clicks.

Edited

But no one hates her on here though. It gets to the point of ridiculousness of people aren’t allowed to have opinions on someone without being accused of hate. She’s in the public eye and has put strong opinions into the public sphere which people are allowed to discuss

. I don’t think she’s behaved well herself at all times and I think she’s also had a lot of unfair press on other issues. The 2 can exist at the same time. Doesn’t mean I hate her at all. I am sure if I met her she’d be perfectly lovely.

Aethelredtheunsteady · 08/10/2025 12:17

chunkybear · 08/10/2025 11:38

I really get pissed off that she’s using my country, my RF and my monarchy, public money to lie, cheat, bully, sell herself with, etc … not going through the list of things again, a country that she’s slated, lied about, manipulated and treated dreadfully, and off the back of everything she’s greedily gobbled up, she’s expecting to carve name for herself off the back of it all!! Before she slept with and snagged the dim prince, she wasn’t on anyone’s radar, the RF and her marriage is all she’s got and she exploits it - that’s what I really get annoyed about, and so what if I call her out on this on threads about her or both of them?

Edited

Before she met Harry she had a significant role on a successful tv show, a successful lifestyle blog, was an ambassador for various charities and had spoken at the UN. So she was on plenty of radar’s due to her own work (rather than accident of birth). To dismiss all her achievements and reducing her to sleeping with Harry (because you had to put sex in there, not just before she ‘met/married/dated etc’) shows your misogyny.

Mylovelygreendress · 08/10/2025 12:23

YourBrickTiger · 08/10/2025 09:40

Yes but William HAS to keep his mouth shut. But again why the defence? Why not just take Harry at his word?

Because things he said were proven to be untrue .

Whatacircus · 08/10/2025 12:24

The rewriting of history continues. Just for the record.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/01/met-police-officers-fired-after-sharing-racist-joke-about-meghan

Neil Basu: 'The threats against Meghan and Harry are disgusting and very real...... if you had seen the stuff that was written and receiving it, the kind of rhetoric that is online..... you would feel under threat all the time.

Question: So you were convinced that there was a genuine threat to Megan's life on more than one occasion, on several occasions?

NB. Absolutely. We had teams investigating and people have been prosecuted for those threats.'

Just two samples of the hatred directed towards Meghan which is continued on threads like this and the many others on this forum alone. All help contribute to a perception of someone which can lead to very serious consequences.

Threads on here giving details of incidents and perpetrators being jailed when they happened were either largely ignored or challenged with whataboutery.

Compton article was first published in the American edition of a British publication and repeated by many others.

The myth that she was welcomed as a breath of fresh air is regularly repeated. There were many, many threads on here alone removed for racist and nasty commentary long before any engagement was announced. Some of those who tried to show balance were piled on and subsequently stopped posting. Is she perfect? Of course not. Does she deserve the hatred or to be detested as she is by some? No.

Met police officers fired after sharing racist joke about Meghan

Pair sacked for gross misconduct after posting ‘abhorrent and discriminatory’ content on group chat

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/01/met-police-officers-fired-after-sharing-racist-joke-about-meghan

Indianrollerbird · 08/10/2025 12:26

Catpuss66 · 08/10/2025 11:09

Can you give me your source, my interpretation was that she was told by the royal household was stopping her children getting titles which would have had an impact on security the child received. Think only human to think that decision was based on his heritage as it was never said about Williams children any of them.

None of William’s children would have automatically received titles as they wouldn’t have been grandchildren of the reigning monarch when born. Letters Patent were issued when Catherine had her first pregnancy. The letters were to ensure that if Catherine’s first born was a girl, she would be heir presumptive and would not be bumped down the pecking order by subsequent male children. The letters also conferred prince and princess titles on William’s children because they would become the next in line to the throne. There was no reason to do any of this for Harry’s children (who were born after 3 spares were already born to Catherine). His children got their titles when their grandfather became monarch, as per convention . None of that had any impact on royal security, which is determined by RAVEC, not the royal household.

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 12:30

Indianrollerbird · 08/10/2025 12:26

None of William’s children would have automatically received titles as they wouldn’t have been grandchildren of the reigning monarch when born. Letters Patent were issued when Catherine had her first pregnancy. The letters were to ensure that if Catherine’s first born was a girl, she would be heir presumptive and would not be bumped down the pecking order by subsequent male children. The letters also conferred prince and princess titles on William’s children because they would become the next in line to the throne. There was no reason to do any of this for Harry’s children (who were born after 3 spares were already born to Catherine). His children got their titles when their grandfather became monarch, as per convention . None of that had any impact on royal security, which is determined by RAVEC, not the royal household.

There was no real reason for the Sussex kids to not have letters patent too since they, as you say, would have got them anyway at some point.

Convention isn't really a reason for them not to just get them at birth.

How much other stuff has been convention in the RF but has changed over the years?

It just seems mean to quote convention for this, but change convention for other things.

Rattlerange · 08/10/2025 12:41

Like many, I thought ‘oh Harry has a gorgeous new girlfriend’. I had no idea she was mixed race, (and we are a mixed race family) only realised after the engagement.

I thought she was a great addition to the RF and she seemed to adore Harry. I felt so much sympathy for her with her toxic family trying to ruin the lead up to her wedding. I did side eye at her assertion she knew nothing about him though.

I thought they did the right thing moving back to her home country when she realised she couldn’t settle in the UK and Harry always said he didn’t like the UK anyway, so it seemed like an amazing opportunity for them both to move away from the goldfish bowl and start anew.

However, she was unable to maintain the facade after the marriage, every utterance from her is either nasty or contrived. She is a bully and a liar and we have seen it in realtime from her very own mouth, nothing to do with racism or because of her complaints about the RF. In fact, I think they are lucky she is gone.

I went from being an admirer, (and I did initially compare her positively to Catherine) to realising she is a fraud, boastful and egocentric and extremely manipulative.

It was horrendous how they publicly set the dogs on William and Catherine, that is unforgivable, no one can abide bullies. She is as toxic as her dreadful family.

Indianrollerbird · 08/10/2025 12:41

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 12:30

There was no real reason for the Sussex kids to not have letters patent too since they, as you say, would have got them anyway at some point.

Convention isn't really a reason for them not to just get them at birth.

How much other stuff has been convention in the RF but has changed over the years?

It just seems mean to quote convention for this, but change convention for other things.

Er no, the very real reason for letters patent in William’s children’s case was to completely break the sexist rule around females being bumped down the pecking order. I assume you agree with that. Letters patent aren’t just issued indiscriminately, they require consultation with Parliament. There was zero need for that with Harry’s children, they are not the immediate heirs to the throne and Harry stopped being the spare when George was born. There are plenty of things that aren’t fair - Princess Anne being usurped by her younger brothers for example. If you want to act like a grown up, you educate yourself about the family you have married into, and accept the conventions you have taken on and the massive privileges you still receive in compensation. Or don’t marry into the royal family.

wordler · 08/10/2025 12:41

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 12:30

There was no real reason for the Sussex kids to not have letters patent too since they, as you say, would have got them anyway at some point.

Convention isn't really a reason for them not to just get them at birth.

How much other stuff has been convention in the RF but has changed over the years?

It just seems mean to quote convention for this, but change convention for other things.

Actually they weren’t necessarily guaranteed the Prince/ss titles because if Charles had died before his mother then Archie and Lily would never have been grand children of the monarch.

The late Queen had 11 great grandchildren by the time she died. Before Charles became King, Archie and Lili were in exactly the same boat as everyone else except the Wales children.

And they were only different because the rules of primogeniture changed just before George was born.

BananaPeels · 08/10/2025 12:42

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 12:30

There was no real reason for the Sussex kids to not have letters patent too since they, as you say, would have got them anyway at some point.

Convention isn't really a reason for them not to just get them at birth.

How much other stuff has been convention in the RF but has changed over the years?

It just seems mean to quote convention for this, but change convention for other things.

No reason for them to have them though.

no one makes such a fuss about Princess Anne or Prince Edward’s children

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 12:46

BananaPeels · 08/10/2025 12:42

No reason for them to have them though.

no one makes such a fuss about Princess Anne or Prince Edward’s children

So what? They wanted their children to be princes and princesses from birth, what difference does it make to deny them that and say they have to wait because it's convention?

Anne and Edward have gone against convention, where's the criticism for them?

wordler · 08/10/2025 12:46

Also if Harry had been a girl his children would have never been given the title of Prince/ss at all. The rule is still only grandchildren through male children are given those titles.

chunkybear · 08/10/2025 12:47

jumpingthehighjump · 08/10/2025 12:03

the fact is that I have seen plenty to know it’s godawful and shite

In YOUR opinion.

Opinions differ

Perhaps but reviews and viewing figures support my opinion

Charlenedickens · 08/10/2025 12:51

I don’t hate her, hate is a strong word, and I don’t think many people hate her either, sure some over involved weirdos, but find the word hate is over used, with all the juvenile haters crap.

i dislike her , and his, behaviour and am intrigued by them both, i find it interesting, how two people can have so much, so so much, and get it so wrong, time and time again,

I also really dislike the bullying commentary, which I believe to be true, a micro example would be her laughing at the model who fell at the fashion show. It shows an inherently nasty trait. I am also not convinced she married Harry just for love as you seem to think and do beleive part of what she was interested in him for was the rise in fame and fortune.

but mainly I find it quite interesting, I don’t recall ever seeing people behave like they do. I don’t think it is Harry who wanted to live in montecito, and hang about with a listers, I think that was all Megan, I also think Megan egged Harry on, played to his very obvious mental health issues, enabled his paranoia, to get him to leave, but he is an adult and bears responsibility for his own actions.

overall, no, no hate here. No hate in anyone I know. Mainly disdain, disgust, fascination, curiosity.

Aethelredtheunsteady · 08/10/2025 12:53

Whatacircus · 08/10/2025 12:24

The rewriting of history continues. Just for the record.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/01/met-police-officers-fired-after-sharing-racist-joke-about-meghan

Neil Basu: 'The threats against Meghan and Harry are disgusting and very real...... if you had seen the stuff that was written and receiving it, the kind of rhetoric that is online..... you would feel under threat all the time.

Question: So you were convinced that there was a genuine threat to Megan's life on more than one occasion, on several occasions?

NB. Absolutely. We had teams investigating and people have been prosecuted for those threats.'

Just two samples of the hatred directed towards Meghan which is continued on threads like this and the many others on this forum alone. All help contribute to a perception of someone which can lead to very serious consequences.

Threads on here giving details of incidents and perpetrators being jailed when they happened were either largely ignored or challenged with whataboutery.

Compton article was first published in the American edition of a British publication and repeated by many others.

The myth that she was welcomed as a breath of fresh air is regularly repeated. There were many, many threads on here alone removed for racist and nasty commentary long before any engagement was announced. Some of those who tried to show balance were piled on and subsequently stopped posting. Is she perfect? Of course not. Does she deserve the hatred or to be detested as she is by some? No.

Honestly - if the amount of emotional energy people expounded on bullying Meghan online was directed towards those in society who actually are harmful (like billionaires interfering with democracies for personal gain) maybe we’d actually see some change. What has she actually done to deserve this?

I’m sure she isn’t perfect - nobody is. She may even be unpleasant. I don’t know, never met her. But I’m not basing my opinion on her from a tabloid hate campaign. I can very well believe there have been credible threats on her and have a horrible feeling a lot of people on this (and similar) threads would cheer that on.

To be honest I quite admire how she carry’s on. If I was the subject to a worldwide press hate campaign and knew that my every action would be dissected online I’d be a complete recluse. Fair play to her for living her life.

Ilostmyhalo · 08/10/2025 12:55

For me its all of the lies, smoke and mirrors around the children and 'pregnancies'. I don't hate her, just think she is very false, fake (one minute she is black then she is white), I do on occasions feel a bit sorry for her - she cannot do anything without so much hate and ridicule following in her footsteps.
She would be better off living a quiet life with her children and 'H' and living her best life - out of the public gaze.

chunkybear · 08/10/2025 12:58

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 12:30

There was no real reason for the Sussex kids to not have letters patent too since they, as you say, would have got them anyway at some point.

Convention isn't really a reason for them not to just get them at birth.

How much other stuff has been convention in the RF but has changed over the years?

It just seems mean to quote convention for this, but change convention for other things.

Possibly because if Charles or equivalent died before the Queen then the Sussex. Children would never have the Prince/SS titles?

xanthomelana · 08/10/2025 12:59

I genuinely had never heard of her (never watched suits) and didn’t know she was mixed race either. I don’t hate her but I do find her annoying, a clip I saw from her show where she corrects the presenter about her name was cringy, it wasn’t so much what she said it was how she said it. I don’t think we are used to seeing the royal family publicly cash in on their status like this pair have either. Sure Andrew has done it but never publicly and to the extent that Harry and Meghan have done all whilst asking for privacy. There’s no denying she’d be a Z list actress without him in tow and it does seem like she’s married for money. I don’t think it’s anything to do with racism for most people, it’s just there’s something about her that’s not genuine.

Aethelredtheunsteady · 08/10/2025 13:00

Ilostmyhalo · 08/10/2025 12:55

For me its all of the lies, smoke and mirrors around the children and 'pregnancies'. I don't hate her, just think she is very false, fake (one minute she is black then she is white), I do on occasions feel a bit sorry for her - she cannot do anything without so much hate and ridicule following in her footsteps.
She would be better off living a quiet life with her children and 'H' and living her best life - out of the public gaze.

Why have you quoted pregnancies?

Meghan Markle has always been very open about being of mixed heritage and how it impacted on her getting cast in roles. Would you like to explain what you mean by ‘one minute she is black then she is white’?

CurlewKate · 08/10/2025 13:02

Ilostmyhalo · 08/10/2025 12:55

For me its all of the lies, smoke and mirrors around the children and 'pregnancies'. I don't hate her, just think she is very false, fake (one minute she is black then she is white), I do on occasions feel a bit sorry for her - she cannot do anything without so much hate and ridicule following in her footsteps.
She would be better off living a quiet life with her children and 'H' and living her best life - out of the public gaze.

“pregnancies”?

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 13:03

I don’t think we are used to seeing the royal family publicly cash in on their status like this pair have either.

Maybe they should do it in far off countries instead where we're less like to see it?

Re: Peter Philips and the Chinese advert for Guangming Food Group. He was happy to cash in on his Royal connections, just a bit further away.

Hoolahoophop · 08/10/2025 13:03

CrimsonStoat · 08/10/2025 12:46

So what? They wanted their children to be princes and princesses from birth, what difference does it make to deny them that and say they have to wait because it's convention?

Anne and Edward have gone against convention, where's the criticism for them?

But I want doesn't get. I want my Children to be Prince/Princess, but as my Mother and Father are not King and Queen they, sadly, are not.

You cant really equate Anne and Edward choosing not to take the cake that they are entitled to with Harry and Megan asking for cake that is not rightfully theirs.

Though I do agree totally, the hate for Meghan is totally unreasonable. She is not evil incarnate and should not be treated as such. But bless her she doesn't help herself.

Baital · 08/10/2025 13:05

wordler · 08/10/2025 11:44

The rule about titles was set over a hundred years ago that at the great-grandchild line ONLY the eldest son of the eldest son of the male heir to the throne (Prince Charles at the time) would be entitled to the Prince title.

So sticking to that convention you would have:

Prince George
Lady Charlotte
Lord Louis
Lord Archie
Lady Lilibet

Until the point that Charles became King and then all his grandchildren would be upgraded to the Prince and Princess title automatically.

The ONLY reason the rules were changed for William’s children to make all of them Prince / Princess from birth was because just before George was born the rules for primogeniture changed to allow a female child to hold her place in the line of succession and not be passed over by her male siblings. So on the chance that the first born was going to be a girl and would have ended up as they heir with a lesser title than a younger brother they made a one off exception.

So Archie not having a Prince title at birth was just the regular rule at the time - no slight on his heritage.

Also security is not linked to titles - it’s given to both Royal and non royal people if the security services identify a certain level of risk based on intelligence information.

So both those assertions in the Oprah interview were completely false - Oprah is partly to blame here - her research team should have checked in that prior to broadcast and either edited it out or asked Meghan for a clarification.

This has been explained many times - the people who don't understand are the people choosing not to understand...

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.