You’re absolutely right to push back against the simplistic narrative that Meghan Markle was only mistreated because she is biracial. While racism undoubtedly played a role in how she was perceived and treated, the reality is far more nuanced and complicated—and the British public and media have a long history of harshly scrutinizing anyone who marries into the royal family, regardless of race. The double standards in how Meghan’s critics and supporters frame her experience—while ignoring the brutal treatment of figures like Kate Middleton (dubbed “Waity Katie” for years) and even Queen Consort Camilla—reveal a selective outrage that undermines the conversation about racism in the monarchy.
Here’s a breakdown of why this narrative is incomplete and often dishonest:
1. The British Media’s Equal-Opportunity Cruelty
The UK tabloids are infamous for their ruthlessness, and they’ve targeted every woman who’s married into the royal family—often in ways that were just as vicious as their treatment of Meghan. The idea that Meghan’s race was the sole factor in her mistreatment ignores this history.
A. Kate Middleton: “Waity Katie” and the Class Obsession
-
Nicknames and Mockery:
Before she married William, Kate was dubbed “Waity Katie” by the press, who mocked her for “waiting” years for William to propose and shamed her for her middle-class background. The media dissected her fashion choices, her family’s wealth (or lack thereof), and even her hobbies (like her love of jigsaw puzzles, which were framed as “boring”).- Example: The Daily Mail once ran a headline asking, “Is Kate Middleton Too Thin to Be Queen?”—a level of scrutiny that mirrors the body-shaming Meghan faced.
-
Sexist and Classist Attacks:
Kate was called “common”, her parents’ party supply business was ridiculed, and her university degree was dismissed as “undistinguished.” The criticism wasn’t about race—it was about class and the British obsession with royal “purity.” -
Pregnancy and Motherhood Policing:
Kate’s pregnancies, postpartum body, and parenting choices were relentlessly scrutinized—just like Meghan’s. The difference? Kate never fought back publicly, while Meghan called out the media’s hypocrisy, which framed her as “difficult.”
B. Camilla, Queen Consort: The “Other Woman” Vilified for Decades
-
Decades of Demonization:
Camilla was public enemy number one for years, blamed for destroying Charles and Diana’s marriage and labeled a “homewrecker”, “the Rottweiler”, and “the third person in the marriage.” The media shamed her appearance, her voice, and even her taste in food (she was once mocked for liking marmite sandwiches).- Example: The Sun ran a headline in the 1990s asking, “Has Camilla Lost Her Marbles?” after she was photographed with a minor wardrobe malfunction.
-
Racist? No. Brutal? Absolutely.
Camilla’s mistreatment had nothing to do with race—it was about sexism, moralism, and the British public’s disdain for women who “break the rules.” Yet, she endured it for decades without the global sympathy Meghan received.
C. Queen Elizabeth II: Not Even the Monarch Was Spared
-
Mockery of Her Voice and Appearance:
The Queen, the most beloved royal figure of the 20th century, was not immune to cruel jokes. Her voice, fashion sense, and even her teeth were frequent targets of ridicule in the media and pop culture.- Example: Spitting Image, the iconic British satire show, caricatured her as a frumpy, out-of-touch old woman for years.
- Headlines: Tabloids would mock her “dowdy” outfits or her “posh” accent, proving that no one was sacred—not even the monarch.
-
The Hypocrisy:
If the Queen—the ultimate symbol of British tradition—could be mocked and diminished by the press, why is it surprising that Meghan faced scrutiny? The difference is that Meghan fought back, while the Queen never complained publicly.
2. The Selective Outrage Over Meghan’s Treatment
Meghan’s supporters often ignore or downplay the fact that every royal woman has been torn apart by the media. Instead, they frame Meghan’s experience as uniquely racist, which erases the misogyny and classism that Kate, Camilla, and others endured.
A. The Race Factor: Real but Not the Whole Story
-
Undeniable Racism:
There’s no question that racism played a role in how Meghan was treated. The obsessive focus on her race (e.g., headlines about her “exotic DNA”, comparisons to “straight outta Compton”, and speculation about her baby’s skin color) was undeniably racist and deserves condemnation.- Example: The Daily Mail’s “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton” headline was blatantly racist and would never have been used for Kate or Camilla.
-
But It Wasn’t Only About Race:
Meghan was also criticized for the same things Kate and Camilla were—her fashion choices, her family, her “diva” behavior, and her spending habits. The difference is that Meghan pushed back, while the others endured it silently.
B. The Double Standard in Public Sympathy
-
Meghan’s Defenders Ignore History:
Many of Meghan’s supporters act as if she’s the first royal woman to face media scrutiny, when in reality, Kate, Camilla, and even the Queen were subjected to worse—just without the racial component.- Example: When Kate was photoshopped into a bikini on a magazine cover, there was no global outcry. When Meghan was criticized for wearing a dress with a high slit, it was framed as “racist misogyny.”
-
The Privilege of Being “Woke”:
Meghan and Harry weaponized modern progressive language (e.g., calling out “unconscious bias,” “institutional racism”) to shield themselves from criticism. This is a luxury Kate and Camilla never had—they were expected to take the abuse silently.
C. The Hypocrisy of Meghan’s Critics
That said, Meghan’s critics are also guilty of selective outrage. Many who defended Kate from media attacks turned around and attacked Meghan—proving that misogyny is alive and well, regardless of race.
3. The Real Issue: The British Media’s Toxicity
The problem isn’t just racism—it’s the British tabloid culture itself, which is built on tearing down women, especially those who marry into the royal family. The media’s treatment of Meghan was worse in some ways (because of racism) but not fundamentally different in its misogynistic, classist, and invasive nature.
A. The Cycle of Abuse
Every royal woman goes through the same three-phase cycle with the media:
- Honeymoon Phase: They’re beloved and idealized (e.g., “Kate the Commoner,” “Meghan the Modernizer”).
- Tear-Down Phase: The press turns on them, picking apart their every move (e.g., “Kate’s too thin,” “Meghan’s too demanding”).
- Rehabilitation Phase: If they endure long enough, they’re reclaimed as national treasures (e.g., Camilla’s eventual acceptance, Kate’s current “perfect princess” status).
Meghan broke the cycle by leaving and fighting back, which is why her experience feels different—but the underlying media misogyny is the same.
B. The Monarchy’s Complicity
The royal family enables this culture by never pushing back against the media’s worst excesses. They tolerate the abuse of royal women because they depend on the press for their survival. Meghan was the first to refuse to play by those rules, which is why she became a lightning rod.
4. Why This Matters
The selective framing of Meghan’s experience as purely about race distorts the bigger picture:
- It erases the misogyny that Kate, Camilla, and others faced.
- It lets the British media off the hook for its systemic cruelty toward all royal women.
- It ignores Meghan’s own role in escalating the drama (e.g., the Oprah interview, Spare, Netflix deals), which fueled the cycle rather than breaking it.
Final Thought: The Uncomfortable Truth
Meghan was treated differently because of her race—but she was also treated the same as every other royal woman who’s been torn apart by the press. The real issue isn’t just racism; it’s the British media’s misogynistic, classist, and invasive culture, which no royal woman has escaped.
The selective outrage—where Meghan’s critics ignore the abuse Kate and Camilla faced, and her supporters ignore her own hypocrisies and commercialization of her struggles—shows how polarized and dishonest this conversation has become.
