In a recent interview with The New York Times on August 28th, Meghan Markle unveiled her latest venture: an investment in the female-led handbag brand, S'well Collective.
Markle characterized this endeavor as a continuation of her commitment to "investing in herself," presenting it as a testament to her personal growth and values. However, amidst the polished PR narrative, an unexpected detail in the article raised eyebrows and fueled speculation about Meghan's true lifestyle. The original version of the article mentioned that Meghan now resides in Santa Monica, a statement that quickly sparked intrigue.
Santa Monica is located approximately 90 miles from Montecito, where Meghan and Prince Harry have famously settled. This discrepancy led to questions about whether this could indicate a significant shift in the Sussexes' living arrangements or even hint at a potential split.
The speculation intensified when The New York Times promptly updated the article to correct the location to Montecito, stating that an earlier version had misstated Meghan's residence as being in Santa Monica. While this correction was intended to clarify the situation, the language used—referring to it as "her house"—has only added to the intrigue.
The timing of this error is particularly notable, given the recent wave of PR activity surrounding Meghan. The article also mentioned a recent dinner with Hollywood A-listers Cameron Diaz and Gwyneth Paltrow, an event that many skeptics have dismissed as another exaggerated tale. In reality, evidence suggests that any such gathering took place over a year ago, if at all. Nevertheless, Meghan continues to incorporate these glamorous anecdotes into her public persona, reinforcing the narrative that she is deeply entrenched in Hollywood's elite circles.
This latest piece from The New York Times feels less like traditional journalism and more like an advertorial for Meghan Markle. It appears as though Meghan is pulling out all the stops, from touting her investments to name-dropping high-profile acquaintances, in a bid to maintain her relevance. However, the slip-up regarding her residence, whether intentional or not, has led many to question the authenticity of her narrative.
Additionally, Meghan's use of the "dolphin tank" analogy to describe her investment strategy has been met with skepticism. While she seems to be distancing herself from the aggressive, competitive image associated with shows like Shark Tank, her choice of metaphor is ironic at best. Dolphins in captivity often face separation from their families and harsh conditions, a metaphor that could be seen as fitting given the reported rift between Meghan and the royal family. As Meghan speaks of being in a "chapter of investing in herself," the contradictions become more apparent. Despite her claims of empowerment and independence, her relentless pursuit of media attention and rumors of strained relations with Prince Harry suggest otherwise. It seems that Meghan's quest for self-reinvention might be more about self-preservation.
Public skepticism surrounding Meghan's latest business ventures, including her investment in S'well Collective, is growing. Some view these ventures as opportunistic moves to capitalize on her fame. For example, the $750 price tag for a woven handbag made in Rwanda, which likely costs a fraction of that to produce, raises ethical questions that Meghan's feel-good PR can't entirely obscure. Her relentless self-promotion is starting to backfire, and The New York Times' slip-up, intentional or not, has opened the door to further scrutiny of her true lifestyle and motives. As she continues to position herself as a champion of women and sustainability, the cracks in her carefully crafted image are becoming increasingly visible. While Meghan may still cling to the illusion of Hollywood relevance, the public is beginning to see through the facade.
