An explanation for the Vanity Fair piece lies in its origins ie a dispute between Meghan and a contributing editor about a previous cover where a photo of Meghan appears under a headline “I’m just wild about Harry”
Harry and Meghan understood the headline to be racially motivated and pointed out the song, 'I'm Just Wild About Harry', had been performed by Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney as a blackface number in the 1939 film Babes In Arms.
And this understandably led to a dispute with Meghan’s PR rep at the time.
And the next headline from Vanity Fair was
“American Hustle”. As Michelle Obama pointed out; very sadly, the racist trope of the over-bearing black woman is all too familiar to some.
Btw, the Vanity Fair article only covers a period going back five years; does no one think it strange that no reports of bullying have emerged from the Suits set where Meghan worked before that for seven seasons?
On the contrary, Jon Cowan, a writer for the show stood up for her saying; "Having spent 3 years working with her in her pre-Duchess days, I saw a warm, kind, caring person. I know nothing of her current situation but she gets the benefit of the doubt in my book.
Janina Gavankar an actress from Suits
who attended Meghan and Harry's wedding, tweeted; “I have known Meghan for 17 years. Here's what she is: kind, strong, open. Here's what she's not: 'a bully'. ANY of us who know her, feel the same thing from her broken silence: Relief. The truth shall set you free."
Then there is the question of whether Vanity Fair is a little too closely intertwined with the RF to be entirely objective?
Katie Nicholl, for example is the magazine’s Royal correspondent and has been a contributing editor of the UK edition.
Mark Guiducci, the editor in chief, is reportedly personal friends with Beatrice and Eugenie, who allegedly înstructed staff to go easy on them in relation to Epstein scandal.
Finally, James Middleton, Princess Katherine’s brother, has written articles for them.
In other words, the magazine's coverage and the personal networks of its staff and contributors are very much intertwined. Don’t tell me that these links do not extend to the USA office!
As for the Hollywood Reporter piece, a gossip column, the dictator in high heels comment came from an anonymous source and I believe the article itself wasn’t attributed to anyone either.
One last thing, while looking up a quote for this post, I stumbled across this 2022 article by BBC Washington correspondent which explains the origins of the Sussex Supporters Club, which I found quite interesting!
It describes a royal enthusiast, a then sixty-five-year old black American woman, Ada Roberts, who grew up under segregation in the.south;
“Back in 2018, she helped popularise the hashtag #SussexSquad when her timeline was flooded with racist comments about Meghan after the royal wedding. The trend quickly amassed a following from men and women around the world - predominately people of colour - who wanted to use social media to support the duchess and her family instead of tearing them down.”
I genuinely never knew that the SS club started in response to a barrage of racist on-line comments about Meghan! Monarchists certain fail to mention this.
Roberts went on to say,
“One of the things about dog whistles is that if you've not experienced the racism, or if you've not been the victim of it, then you don't recognise it," Roberts said. "What may seem innocent to someone else, you can see, no that's not meant to be innocent at all."