Vanity Fair’s damning dissection of the Sussexes’ five years in America could have its roots in a row that allegedly began with Meghan’s 2017 cover story in which she officially announced to the world she was ‘in love’ with Harry. 

In a savage takedown published last week, headlined ‘American Hustle, contributing editor Anna Peele spoke to ‘dozens’ of sources connected to the duo who labelled the Sussexes as the ‘most entitled, disingenuous people on the planet’.

But why did the formerly pro-Sussex publication turn against Meghan and Harry? It seems the relationship soured when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex allegedly accused Vanity Fair of publishing a ‘racist headline’ on Meghan’s cover story in October 2017. 

It was unlikely Meghan would have made the front cover of the celebrity bible off the back of her role in Suits, but when the magazine landed a major coup by securing the first interview with Prince Harry‘s then girlfriend, it was naturally a sensation. 

However, according to Valentine Low’s book, Courtiers: The Hidden Power Behind the Crown, Meghan was unhappy that, despite being a positive piece, the focus of the story was her relationship with Harry. 

She also allegedly complained that the cover line was racist, and the couple reportedly tried to have the headline on the digital edition changed. 

Perhaps this cooling of relations between Meghan and the publication laid the seeds for the latest bombshell article, which claimed that some people who worked with Meghan ended up needing therapy and that she allegedly didn’t come up with the idea for her Spotify podcast, Archetypes.

The piece also stated that the Duchess of Sussex could be ‘really, really awful’ when things did not go her way.

Over the past couple of days, many allegations about Harry and Meghan have come to light after Vanity Fair published a damning profile on the couple (pictured in August 2024)

Over the past couple of days, many allegations about Harry and Meghan have come to light after Vanity Fair published a damning profile on the couple (pictured in August 2024)

According to The Times, the couple have dismissed the allegations with sources close to the Sussexes describing them as ‘distressing’.

Meghan’s first foray with Vanity Fair began in the summer of 2017 when Meghan wanted a new PR team to help her in the U.S. 

She hired PR adviser Keleigh Thomas Morgan from New-York based agency Sunshine Sachs, whose clients have included Hollywood stars Salma Hayek, Jane Fonda and Natalie Portman.

The New York-based agency had been advising Meghan since her days as an actress on legal drama Suits, before she ditched them in 2022.

Meghan agreed to do an issue with Vanity Fair in autumn, which Kensington Palace signed off on but said that Keleigh could sort out the negotiations.

A close-up glamorous feature of the Suits actress appeared on the cover of the magazine, featuring her luscious locks and clear, freckled skin, accompanied by the headline that proclaimed ‘She’s Just Wild About Harry’.

The story quoted Meghan speaking openly about her romance with the Prince, saying: ‘We’re in love. This [time] is for us. 

‘It’s part of what makes it so special, that it’s just ours. But we’re happy. Personally, I love a great love story.’ 

It seems the relationship soured between the pair when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex allegedly accused Vanity Fair of publishing a 'racist headline' on her cover story in October 2017

It seems the relationship soured between the pair when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex allegedly accused Vanity Fair of publishing a ‘racist headline’ on her cover story in October 2017

The pair accused the magazine cover of racism because of a 1939 blackface song by Micky Rooney and Judy Garland called 'I'm Just Wild About Harry'

 The pair accused the magazine cover of racism because of a 1939 blackface song by Micky Rooney and Judy Garland called ‘I’m Just Wild About Harry’ 

Meghan hired PR adviser Keleigh Thomas Morgan and the pair allegedly had a rocky relationship in 2017

Meghan hired PR adviser Keleigh Thomas Morgan and the pair allegedly had a rocky relationship in 2017

But Duchess of Sussex was reportedly ‘unhappy’ with Keleigh and disliked the cover story, according to royal author Valentine Low.

A source was quoted as saying: ‘She was very unhappy with how that had been handled. And she was looking to throw blame in every possible direction, despite it having been a positive piece.

‘She did not like the photographs. She thought the story was negative. She was upset that it was about Harry, not about her.’

Harry and Meghan also allegedly thought the headline was 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. 

‘They [Harry and Meghan] tried to get it changed online, because [they thought] it had been racially motivated,’ said the source. ‘[Meghan] was so angry with Keleigh, she wanted to fire her.’

And although things soon cooled off between Meghan and Keleigh, there was a time when her PR adviser was cold with the former Deal or No Deal briefcase model. 

Meghan was also described as acting ‘like a Mean Girls teenager’ in the article, which was released on Friday.

She would reportedly be ‘warm and effusive’ towards employees at the start before turning ‘cold and withholding toward the person she perceived to be responsible’ when something ‘went poorly, often due to Meghan and Harry’s own demands’.

A source who worked in media projects told the publication: ‘She’s constantly playing checkers- I’m not even going to say chess – but she’s just very aware of where everybody is on her board. 

‘And when you are not in, you are to be thrown to the wolves at any given moment,’ which they say meant ‘undermining’ behaviour, adding: ‘It’s talking behind your back. It’s gnawing at your sense of self. Really, like, Mean Girls teenager.

However, producer Jane Marie, who worked with the couple during the development of Archewell audio projects, insisted to Vanity Fair that Meghan is ‘just a lovely, genuine person’. 

Elsewhere, the profile details allegations from former employees of Meghan who reportedly felt mistreated during their time working with her.

These claims, which echo accusations from her time at Kensington Palace, paint a troubling picture of a woman whose behaviour allegedly left staff ‘having therapy’ and led to allegations of ‘bullying’ behind the scenes. These allegations were vehemently denied by representatives of Meghan and Harry at the time. 

Meghan was also described as acting 'like a Mean Girls teenager' in the article, which was released on Friday

Meghan was also described as acting ‘like a Mean Girls teenager’ in the article, which was released on Friday

Despite the allegations made in the profile, staff loyal to Meghan and Harry have previously defended the couple to US Weekly magazine, describing the Sussexes as ‘caring’ bosses who give employees their children’s old baby clothes, fresh flowers and ‘care packages’.

Josh Kettler, Harry’s chief of staff who left after just three months in August last year, insisted he was ‘warmly welcomed’ by the pair and describes them as ‘dedicated and hardworking’.  

Ben Browning, Archewell’s former head of content – who was responsible for their tell-all Netflix documentary but then left before the end of his contract- says his experience at the company and with Meghan and Harry in general ‘was positive and supportive’

Their PR chief, ‘global press secretary’ Ashley Hansen, who is leaving the company to start her own firm, says they treated her with ‘the kind of concern and care a parent would express if it were their own child’ when she took time off for surgery, adding that they also sent flowers and gifts.

These positive comments came off the back of a negative piece published in the Hollywood Reporter, in which Meghan was described as a ‘dictator in high heels’.

Tom Bower, the royal author and investigative journalist, described the recent revelations as ‘devastating’ for Meghan, especially given her recent attempts to reshape her public persona as a warm, loving mother and wife. 

Having strongly denied the accusations that she bullied her staff in Kensington Palace, the revival of her image of the Difficult Duchess is a disaster just on the eve of the launch of Netflix‘s ‘With Love, Meghan’. 

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are pictured at the Invictus Games in the Netherlands in 2022

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are pictured at the Invictus Games in the Netherlands in 2022 

‘Having invested so much to re-brand herself as a loving, caring Californian mother and wife, the VF disclosures have poisoned the smiling image of the welcoming home-maker.   

Prince Harry, too, faces growing scrutiny, with experts noting his portrayal in the Vanity Fair piece as ‘lost, out of his depth, and naive.’ 

Richard Fitzwilliams, a royal commentator, warned that the couple’s reputation in the US could be severely damaged. 

‘Harry is portrayed as lost, out of his depth and naïve. Neither, according to the article, appear to understand what a successful career in show business actually involves.’

According to Fitzwilliams, the couple’s attempts to project a caring, philanthropic image through efforts like helping victims of California’s wildfires are unlikely to gain traction in light of the ongoing allegations. 

‘The Sussexes are attempting to project a caring image by helping some of those affected by the cataclysmic wildfires currently ravaging California. They won’t get far after publicity is given to this. 

‘Her With Love, Meghan cookery series is, judging from the trailer, saccharine and silly. This was postponed and is now scheduled for a release on 4th March but unenthusiastic online reaction might make the streaming giant think twice and dump it and, when their contract runs out later in the year, preserve very little of it, if any. 

‘The Sussexes have made so many accusations against the royal family. They, especially Meghan, now have a lot to answer. Nobody likes bullies, especially entitled bullies!’

He continued: ‘It speaks volumes that the Sussexes were not available for interview. This is a probing, balanced article that has been researched with interviews from the Sussexes’s admirers and detractors.

‘It also makes the case that they are now way out of their depth in showbiz. Also they are far from being admired by their neighbours in Montecito. They left Britain to escape press scrutiny. 

‘Yet in the US, they want favourable press. The article concludes there is precious little to them, with Harry wanting to reconnect with his family. I fear whilst he is with Meghan, this is unlikely to occur.’ 



Source link


There’s a dominant narrative in the media about why tech billionaires are sucking up to Donald Trump: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, all of whom have descended on the nation’s capital for the presidential inauguration, either happily support or have largely acquiesced to Trump because they think he’ll offer lower taxes and friendlier regulations. In other words, it’s just about protecting their own selfish business interests.

That narrative is not exactly wrong — Trump has in fact promised massive tax cuts for billionaires — but it leaves out the deeper, darker forces at work here. For the tech bros — or as some say, the broligarchs — this is about much more than just maintaining and growing their riches. It’s about ideology. An ideology inspired by science fiction and fantasy. An ideology that says they are supermen, and supermen should not be subject to rules, because they’re doing something incredibly important: remaking the world in their image.

It’s this ideology that makes MAGA a godsend for the broligarchs, who include Musk, Zuck, and Bezos as well as the venture capitalists Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen. That’s because MAGA is all about granting unchecked power to the powerful.

“It’s a sense of complete impunity — including impunity to the laws of nature,” Brooke Harrington, a professor of economic sociology at Dartmouth who studies the behavior of the ultra-rich, told me. “They reject constraint in all of its forms.”

As Harrington has noted, Trump is the perfect avatar for that worldview. He’s a man who incited an attempted coup, who got convicted on 34 felony counts and still won re-election, who notoriously said in reference to sexual assault, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

So, what is the “anything” that the broligarchs want to do? To understand their vision, we need to realize that their philosophy goes well beyond simple libertarianism. It’s not just that they want a government that won’t tread on them. They want absolutely zero limits on their power. Not those dictated by democratic governments, by financial systems, or by facts. Not even those dictated by death.

The broligarchs’ vision: science fiction, transhumanism, and immortality

The broligarchs are not a monolith — their politics differ somewhat, and they’ve sometimes been at odds with each other. Remember when Zuck and Musk said they were going to fight each other in a cage match? But here’s something the broligarchs have in common: a passionate love for science fiction and fantasy that has shaped their vision for the future of humanity — and their own roles as its would-be saviors.

Zuckerberg’s quest to build the Metaverse, a virtual reality so immersive and compelling that people would want to strap on bulky goggles to interact with each other, is seemingly inspired by the sci-fi author Neal Stephenson. It was actually Stephenson who coined the term “metaverse” in his novel Snow Crash, where characters spend a lot of time interacting in a virtual world of that name. Zuckerberg seems not to have noticed that the book is depicting a dystopia; instead of viewing it as a warning, he’s viewing it as an instruction manual.

Jeff Bezos is inspired by Star Trek, which led him to found a commercial spaceflight venture called Blue Origin, and The High Frontier by physics professor Gerard K. O’Neill, which informs his plan for space colonization (it involves millions of people living in cylindrical tubes). Bezos attended O’Neill’s seminars as an undergraduate at Princeton.

Musk, who wants to colonize Mars to “save” humanity from a dying planet, is inspired by one of the masters of American sci-fi, Isaac Asimov. In his Foundation series, Asimov wrote about a hero who must prevent humanity from being thrown into a long dark age after a massive galactic empire collapses. “The lesson I drew from that is you should try to take the set of actions that are likely to prolong civilization, minimize the probability of a dark age and reduce the length of a dark age if there is one,” Musk said.

And Andreessen, an early web browser developer who now pushes for aggressive progress in AI with very little regulation, is inspired by superhero stories, writing in his 2023 “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” that we should become “technological supermen” whose “Hero’s Journey” involves “conquering dragons and bringing home the spoils for our community.”

All of these men see themselves as the heroes or protagonists in their own sci-fi saga. And a key part of being a “technological superman” — or ubermensch, as the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would say — is that you’re above the law. Commonsense morality doesn’t apply to you because you’re a superior being on a superior mission. Thiel, it should be noted, is a big Nietzsche fan, though his is an extremely selective reading of the philosopher’s work.

The ubermensch ideology helps explain the broligarchs’ disturbing gender politics. “The ‘bro’ part of broligarch is not incidental to this — it’s built on this idea that not only are these guys superior, they are superior because they’re guys,” Harrington said.

For one thing, they valorize aggression, which is coded as male. Zuckerberg, who credits mixed martial arts and hunting wild boars with helping him rediscover his masculinity (and is sporting the makeover to prove it), recently told Joe Rogan that the corporate world is too “culturally neutered” — it should be become a culture that has more “masculine energy” and that “celebrates the aggression.”

Likewise, Andreessen wrote in his manifesto, “We believe in ambition, aggression, persistence, relentlessness — strength.” Musk, meanwhile, has jumped on the testosterone bandwagon, amplifying the idea that only “high T alpha males” are capable of thinking for themselves; he shared a post on X that said, “This is why a Republic of high status males is best for decision making. Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.”

This idea that most people can’t think for themselves is key to Nietzsche’s idea of the ubermensch. What differentiates the ubermensch, or superman, is that he is not bogged down by commonsense morality (baseless) or by God (dead) — he can determine his own values.

The broligarchs — because they are in 21st century Silicon Valley and not 19th century Germany — have updated and melded this idea with transhumanism, the idea that we can and should use technology to alter human biology and proactively evolve our species.

Transhumanism spread in the mid-1900s thanks to its main popularizer, Julian Huxley, an evolutionary biologist and president of the British Eugenics Society. Huxley influenced the contemporary futurist Ray Kurzweil, who predicted that we’re approaching a time when human intelligence can merge with machine intelligence, becoming unbelievably powerful.

“The human species, along with the computational technology it created, will be able to solve age-old problems…and will be in a position to change the nature of mortality in a postbiological future,” Kurzweil wrote in 1999. Kurzweil, in turn, has influenced Silicon Valley heavyweights like Musk, whose company Neuralink explicitly aims at merging human and machine intelligence.

For many transhumanists, part of what it means to transcend our human condition is transcending death. And so you find that the broligarchs are very interested in longevity research. Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Thiel have all reportedly invested in startups that are trying to make it possible to live forever. That makes perfect sense when you consider that death currently imposes a limit on us all, and the goal of the broligarchs is to have zero limits.

How the broligarchs and Trump use each other: startup cities, crypto, and the demise of the fact

If you don’t like limits and rules, it stands to reason that you’re not going to like democracy. As Thiel wrote in 2009, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” And so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the broligarchs are trying to undermine the rule of democratic nation-states.

To escape the control of democratic governments, they are seeking to create their own sovereign colonies. That can come in the form of space colonies, a la Musk and Bezos. But it can also come in the form of “startup cities” or “network states” built by corporations here on Earth — independent mini-nations, carved out of the surrounding territory, where tech billionaires and their acolytes would live according to their own rules rather than the government’s. This is currently Thiel and Andreessen’s favored approach.

With the help of their investments, a startup city called Prospera is already being built off the coast of Honduras (much to the displeasure of Honduras). There are others in the offing, from Praxis (which will supposedly build “the next America” somewhere in the Mediterranean), to California Forever in, you guessed it, California.

The so-called network state is “a fancy name for tech authoritarianism,” journalist Gil Duran, who has spent the past year reporting on these building projects, told me. “The idea is to build power over the long term by controlling money, politics, technology, and land.”

Crypto, of course, is the broligarchs’ monetary instrument of choice. It’s inherently anti-institutionalist; its appeal lies in its promise to let people control their own money and transact without relying on any authority, whether a government or a bank. It’s how they plan to build these startup cities and network states, and how they plan to supplant the traditional financial system. The original idea of crypto was to replace the US dollar, but since the US dollar is intimately bound up with global finance, undercutting it could reshape the whole world economy.

Trump seems to be going along with this very cheerfully. He’s now pro-crypto, and he’s even proposed creating “Freedom Cities” in America that are reminiscent of startup cities. His alliance with the broligarchs benefits him not only because they’ve heaped millions of dollars on him, but also because of how they’ve undermined the very notion of the truth by shaping a “post-truth” online reality in which people don’t know what to believe anymore. Musk, under the guise of promoting free speech, has made X into a den of disinformation. Zuck is close on his heels, eliminating fact-checking at Meta even though the company said it would be scrupulous about inflammatory and false posts after it played a serious role in a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.

“Even more pernicious is the fact that these guys can control the algorithms, so they can decide what people actually see,” Duran said. “The problem is not so much that people can lie — it’s that the system is designed to favor those lies over truth and reality.

It’s a perfect set-up for a president famous for his “alternative facts.”

But the underlying ideology that unites MAGA and the broligarchs is contrary to the aims of most ordinary Americans, including most Trump voters. If the US dollar is weakened and the very idea of the democratic nation-state is overthrown, that won’t exactly “make America great again.” It’ll make America weaker than ever.



Source link