Meghan Markle has allegedly been caught in a dramatic outburst, reportedly throwing dishes and having a complete emotional meltdown after being denied the cover of British Vogue.
According to these sensational claims, Meghan was left in tears and shouting when informed she wouldn’t be featured on the magazine’s front page. The disappointment stemmed from high expectations within her team that she would land the prestigious cover. When that didn’t materialize, the reaction was said to be explosive.
The issue in question was focused on commemorating 50 years of London Pride—a significant milestone celebrating the LGBTQ+ community. Yet, according to reports, Meghan seemed to believe her own image should have taken precedence.
The entitlement suggested here is hard to overlook. Imagine being the editor, Edward Enninful, tasked with putting together a powerful and meaningful edition, only to face a tantrum over not choosing a celebrity cover. It’s no surprise that, if these stories are true, he may have decided not to work with her again.
What stands out even more is the apparent contradiction in her behavior. In 2019, Meghan reportedly turned down a Vogue cover, stating it would be boastful. At the time, she framed herself as a selfless, modest figure who wanted to uplift others. Yet now, we’re told she’s throwing a fit when not being featured. The shift is jarring, and the inconsistency, if true, paints a confusing portrait of her public image.
It’s difficult not to contrast this situation with the conduct of the Princess of Wales. Could anyone imagine Catherine smashing crockery over a missed magazine opportunity? Of course not. Catherine has long demonstrated that royal life is not about personal fame but about service and duty. When she appears on magazine covers, it’s a recognition of genuine public impact—not a demand for attention.
As the coverage pointed out, had Catherine ever behaved in this way, she would have been shredded by the press. But when it comes to Meghan, she often escapes criticism by framing it as part of a broader cultural or racial bias. This pattern has become familiar and, some argue, increasingly frustrating to the public. The moment allegedly reflects Meghan’s broader approach to life after leaving the royal family—rather than creating something original, she often tries to attach herself to already established platforms.
If she truly craved magazine recognition so badly, why not launch her own publication? With a major Netflix deal in hand, she could develop shows that reflect her values and talents. But perhaps, as critics claim, it’s easier to push for inclusion in existing spaces than to build something from the ground up. A seasoned professional would have acknowledged the significance of the Pride edition and gracefully asked about future opportunities. Instead, she reportedly reacted with the petulance of a child denied a treat.
This could explain why Meghan has seen so much staff turnover and increasing social isolation, even in Hollywood circles. One can only wonder what Prince Harry must think—watching his wife react so intensely over something as relatively minor as a magazine cover. Does he ever reflect on how her behavior compares to the dignity and composure of his own family? It’s difficult not to imagine the late Princess Diana’s reaction to such scenes.
Meanwhile, the working royals carry on with quiet strength. King Charles and Queen Camilla continue their duties despite personal health struggles. William and Catherine manage to fulfill royal responsibilities while raising their children with care and grace. They demonstrate that being a royal isn’t about building a personal brand—it’s about upholding an institution, one grounded in service above self.
That’s why the monarchy remains strong, while the Sussexes seem to drift further from relevance. The British public has a keen eye for authenticity, and they can distinguish between substance and spectacle. They see real dignity in the royals who continue to serve, and they grow weary of those who appear to crave only the spotlight.
