There’s something about Meghan. The distinct duchess continues to polarise us

March 30, 2026 — 7:30pm

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

Save this article for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime.

As a bona fide pop culture enthusiast, I haven’t been able to avoid reading about the coming Australian “tour” by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The 44-year-old Californian remains one of the most polarising public figures of the modern era.

On balance, the reaction to her every action is incredibly visceral, from clumsily retaining the “duchess” title after actually stepping back from royal duties to the constant plethora of outsider narratives and thousands of self-styled opinions.

The optics haven’t been great – who can forget the cringy Oprah interview; the Markle family dynamic; the seemingly bland Netflix series and docos (sorry, never watched); the personal reinvention to As Ever jam-maker and those pesky reports of behind-the-scenes friction? These are just a few things that have shaped public perception.

For me, this isn’t about taking sides – there are thousands doing that already – but rather unpacking the reasons why public opinion remains incredibly divided on the wife of the king of England’s second son.

The intensity of feeling around her is unusual, even by royal standards. Few others attract such passionate loyalty and equally passionate irritation. The question isn’t just whether people like or dislike her. The fascination isn’t just about who she is, it’s more about what she represents. To supporters, she embodies disruption: an outsider who entered an ancient institution, challenging hierarchy, racism and race identity, mental health and autonomy. For them, her decision to “step away” from royal life read as independence.

But to detractors, the same actions are landing differently. They see this same ambition being presented as altruism; the “requested privacy” while pursuing visibility seems inconsistent and odd. Retaining a royal title while rejecting royal constraints is a major bugbear for monarchists.

What fuels the divide is that both sides are interpreting the same limited material. That’s why the reaction is so strong: she’s a Rorschach test. People look at her and see completely different things.

Part of the friction lies in the reported narrative that Meghan arrived as an outsider: an actress, divorced, mixed-race, confident and ambitious and, for many, that felt refreshing. She was loved back in 2016. I remember being in London and covering the Harry and Meghan wedding in 2018 – live crosses, stories, social media grabs and radio interviews supplied to whoever wanted them. The city went gaga. (I’ve got a H&M tea towel, teaspoon and mug to prove it.)

The monarchy had always been criticised for being an insular “firm”, but when Meghan appeared – self-possessed, media-savvy and determined – it seemed reinvented and relevant. Initially, that confidence was interpreted as modernisation, and boy, many of us lapped it up.

But not so fast. It was a short-lived confidence that, in light of “Megxit” (circa 2020 and their move to the US), was quickly recast as calculation tinged with self-promotion. Her husband Harry also invited opprobrium and ridicule. But when it comes to vitriol, Mrs Harry seems to have borne the brunt.

Critics see their rejection of the royal institution as a petulant demonstration of ingratitude: biting the hand that fed them. Supporters see it as brave defiance: an attempt to drag the royals into the 21st century. But optics matter, and wanting a foot in both worlds is just indulgent.

Travelling their own path – once they’d eschewed royal responsibilities – would have been a much cooler and classier path for them both.

There is also this issue of communication. Meghan tends to do it in big, elevated language, talking purpose, impact, philanthropy, compassion and global change. That style leans towards rah-rah Hollywood messaging, so what might feel normal in celebrity culture feels inflated when attached to jam, flower petals and candles.

Another factor is an often paradoxical “origin” story. Meghan is frequently framed as someone who “came from nothing”. Sure, that narrative is compelling, but she didn’t exactly grow up in public housing (like this humble writer), so that also often invites scrutiny.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Why Harry and Meghan are staying quiet over Andrew’s arrest

There’s also an intangible element: relatability. Meghan often positions herself as both vulnerable and exceptional – wronged yet influential, private yet conspicuous, independent yet title-bearing. Audiences prefer a clearer identity. Is she a royal? A celebrity? A philanthropist? A media entrepreneur? She appears to be all of them, which can read as strategic reinvention or, to critics, opportunistic repositioning.

But perhaps that’s the real answer? Meghan Markle isn’t universally disliked, she’s just universally interpreted. To some, she represents independence and reinvention. To others, she embodies contradiction and calculation.

So, in a landscape hungry for heroes or villains, and as Meghan gears up for an appearance at a girls’ retreat in Coogee (oh, to be a fly on the wall), she remains something more complicated. And that, more than anything, will keep the conversation alive.

Melissa Hoyer is a writer and social commentator.

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

© The Age