Meghan Markle Slammed Over Her ‘Duchess’ Obsession as Critics Call It ‘Ridiculous And Absurd’
Meghan Markle, the actress who fell in love with a prince, married him in a fairytale wedding, and emerged as Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, is a character arc straight out of a dream. Carrying that title with pride is only natural. What becomes difficult to reconcile, however, is repeatedly insisting on a life independent of the monarchy while continuing to hold tightly to the very identity it created. That contradiction is where the charge of hypocrisy finds its footing.
That is exactly what two prominent royal commentators have now weighed in on, following a Harper’s Bazaar profile that reignited long-running discomfort over how closely Markle still clings to her duchess status. Writing in The Guardian, columnist Arwa Mahdawi remarked, “Meghan may be a resident of Montecito, California, but she is still the Duchess of Sussex, and she won’t let us commoners forget it.”
Her comment refers to a moment described in the profile itself. During the interview, journalist Kaitlyn Greenidge recalled arriving at a friend’s home in New York, where a house manager formally announced, “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex,” despite the fact that only the two women were present in the room. Mahdawi responded to this by writing in her column, “The woman so keen on authoring her own next chapter apparently continues to insist on being called by a title she received via marriage from an institution she seems to disdain.”
Mahdawi also pointed out that despite Harry and Meghan’s very public exit from royal life, they continue to hold tightly to their titles. When Harry was asked by Anderson Cooper in 2023 why they did not renounce those titles, his response was, “What difference would that make?” Acknowledging that Markle was treated unfairly by both the British press and certain sections of the royal family, she argued that both truths can coexist.
“One can acknowledge that Meghan was treated poorly while also noting that she and Harry seem awfully keen to enjoy all the privileges of royalty, without many of the responsibilities,” she wrote. The tension, Mahdawi suggested, lies in the Sussexes’ repeated pursuit of awards, titles, and accolades, including their recent 'Humanitarians of the Year' honour. “I can think of a few words for people like that – and it’s not ‘duchess’ or ‘duke’,” she said.
A similar critique came from the known anti-Sussex journalist Tom Skyes, who took to the Daily Beast to pen down his thoughts. He described Markle’s continued use of her title as strategic rather than sentimental. "Markle’s frantic insistence on the title of Duchess is an attempt to imprint her family’s royal connections on the public before their inevitable removal,” he wrote. Sykes noted that while Markle’s Harper’s Bazaar profile was seemingly designed as a statement of independence, the element that caught everyone’s attention was once again her title.
He added that the moment when Markle was introduced as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” to a lone journalist was only part of the pattern. According to Sykes, the article also described Markle insisting on the same formal introduction while meeting schoolchildren at the La Brea Tar Pits. “It was absurd and ridiculous,” he wrote. Sykes went further, arguing that Markle’s behaviour now appears to be more about branding. He suggested that with future changes expected under Prince William, the removal of titles is no longer unthinkable. “Meghan’s strategy is to use the titles more, not less, across the private, commercial, and PR planes of her existence,” he wrote, adding that the same applies to her increased use of the surname 'Sussex.'