Skip to main content

Meg's Vogue Cover: 15 Women to Admire?


Early on Monday Vogue UK released an image of its September issue, edited by the Duchess of Sussex.

The issue features 15 women Meg feels are "forces for change", most of with some connection to the entertainment industry.

There are no businesswomen on the cover, no scientists or researchers, and only one woman who holds public office.

(There is, however, a tiny mirror, so if you've founded a company, are developing lifesaving drugs, or are a member of Parliament or Congress, you can see yourself next to Christy Turlington and Gemma Chan.)

Not on the cover, but reportedly inside the magazine, is the sole A+ celebrity.

That's Michelle Obama, exclusively interviewed by Meghan. Michelle's motives in agreeing to the interview are unknown.

Vogue for change

There's certainly some irony in using Vogue UK as a medium to affect "change", since it's raison d'ĂȘtre is to sell a constantly updated carousel of clothing, shoes, and make-up and perfume to well-off Western women, as well as offering the occasional plastic surgery suggestion.

It's a little like an issue of Car and Driver that focuses on bicycling.


To the left, to the left

Meg's choices (and the choices of Vogue UK editor Edward Enninful - he might have suggested Salma Hayak, whose husband heads one of Vogue's largest advertisers) hew sharply to the leftish end of the political spectrum, including a couple of women who have raised questions about the necessity of a monarchy.

That may not be good for sales.

It's certainly a turnoff for traditional monarchy lovers, the sort of people who rushed to buy the 2016 issue of Vogue UK featuring the Duchess of Cambridge.

And it may not bring in a new audience, either.

"Go woke, get broke," has affected a number of name brands, such as ESPN, which lost viewership when it strayed away from sports towards politics.

People who are interested in progressive politics are probably already reading The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, or Vox online for free, and may not be eager to spend 4 pounds for a paper copy of Vogue UK.


What do you think of Meghan's Vogue UK cover?


Comments

Julia said…
Where are the queen and Princess Anne - women far closer to Meghan who certainly have been forces for change. Ungrateful and selfish are words that come to my mind for Meghan because without the royal family, she would be nothing.
Ties right in to this new DM article just published that isn't holding back - KerPow! Gloves seem to be off. Going to be a very interesting season ahead.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7295371/JAN-MOIR-cause-Meghan-Markle-supporting-Foundation.html

JAN MOIR: The cause Meghan Markle is mostly supporting is the Me, Myself and I Foundation
By Jan Moir for the Daily Mail
Louise said…
I can't summarize the Vogue cover any better than this:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7295371/JAN-MOIR-cause-Meghan-Markle-supporting-Foundation.html

"You have to wonder how a woman, whose jarring demands for privacy make the ultra-secretive Bilderberg group look like a desperate boy band, can suddenly disport herself across a magazine and a website that is read and devoured by millions."

A must read opinion piece.
Louise said…
Nice job on the photoshopping of $mirkle to remove her facial fat and elongate her neck. And such a lustrous wig!

The Gucci dress that she is wearing is already posted to Meghan's Mirror. But no, there is no relation between $mirkle and Meghan's Mirror shopping site. heh, heh.
Now! said…
They might have said no.

I assume Beyoncé said no too.
Now! said…
Edward Enninful must have been horrified at the fashion Meg's been walking around in. You would think he could have called in some dresses for her to wear to recent events, if only to protect his own reputation ahead of the issue's release.
Louise said…
The Queen had hardly been an agent of change. She remains a constant in a world that has rapidly changed around her.. and that's why we like her.

Louise said…
Sussex Instagram states that $mirkle has been working on this for the past eight months.

This means that while $mirkle was not performing her Royal duties pre and post partum, she did have time and energy for her own vanity projects. So much for "maternity leave".

Also read somewhere that Jane Goodall, who is interviewed by Harry for this issue and who last week did some PR for the $hmirkles, actually shares a PR firm with "her highness".

Lastly, the buzz leading up to this stated that $mirkle would be photographed in Frogmore... what happened to that?

Julia said…
I do think the queen has been an agent of subtle and necessary change - whilst remaining a symbol constancy and values at the same time a careful and vital balancing act. It would be something beyond the understanding of 'of the moment Markle' who will date as fast as the dresses she wears.
Ann Christensen said…
I think the cover lacks glamour, beauty, style or artistry. Looks a little like the wanted posters wall of the local post office.
Lady Luvgood said…
I agree Ann, the cover is not artistically appealing, and the mirror one is especially jarring. I wouldn’t buy the magazine, I predict it will tank.
gabes_human said…
Nutty, I’ve been lurking for some time as every comment I submitted wound up lost in cyberspace. I have added Chrome to my iPad just to join you and the other erudite ladies. Let’s see if it works... .
gabes_human said…
OMG, it worked. Now y’all just try to shut me up.
Sessy said…
I think the best part is that Meghan "thought it would be boastful to appear on the cover herself" A not-so-subtle dig at the Duchess of Cambridge who, along with Pippa, cleaned up the mess Meghan made (look at me being clever and alliterate) during Wimbledon. Perfect way to say 'thank you'.
Even after seeing her endless parade of poorly fitted, inappropriate outfits, Edward Enninful still went with this decision to "collaborate" with her.

Leaves one to wonder why that is, and who is calling in favors for what.
Amanda said…
Is she so stupid to not realise that people are noticing the only times she comes out of "maternity leave" is for flash self indulgent appearances??
Girl with a Hat said…
torontopaper1 has a new tweet on Twitter. "Silence was only a veil. The truth surfaces. The wait is almost over".
Louise said…
I am certain that Enninful's only concern is to increase readership.

This issue will be widely read, even if only for the same reason that drivers slow down to gawk at car crashes.
SwampWoman said…
Welcome! Nice to 'see' you!
SwampWoman said…
Oh, my gracious! Sounds like a threat. Popcorn, anyone?
Girl with a Hat said…
for those who aren't familiar with toronto paper1, people are saying that it's someone Markle knows and who has some insider information about the situation.
Louise said…
But so far, everything that Torontopaper1 has posted has turned out to be a big nothing burger.
SwampWoman said…
Louise, that's why I'm just passing around popcorn and not jello shots. It almost sounds like a "Bish better have muh money!" threat.
MommaBear said…
Omg! Yes! Every bloody, and witty (at least I’m my own head) comment I’ve made has gone poof too! So I’m trying this.
50 and counting said…
Diana was also onthe cover of Vogue, back in the day. Slam your sister in law and your husband’s dead Mum in one sentence. Classy.
Anonymous said…
Nutty, I'd like to think that Anne said something more than "no", and I'm quite certain that HMTQ has no cause to speak to mm at all.

Perfectly said, @Julia.
Anonymous said…
That dress is just so not right for her current body shape, either. Kate could own that dress. MM just looks like a chubby little frump in it (as would I, not fat-shaming, just saying, only certain people can wear that $4,000+ dress).
Anonymous said…
MM: As classy as she is original and clever.
Anonymous said…
I'm going to look on the positive side of this: at least it's a chance to hear from Michelle Obama, Salma Hayek, Christy Turlington, Jane Fonda (really??), and Gemma Chan, and it's nice that MM has been there to shine a light on them because otherwise they'd have just remained nose-to-the-grindstone unknowns and their fabulous works to change the world would have gone unrecognized, and then where would we be?
Aquagirl said…
I’m a bit confused. I had initially read that she was guest editing, then heard that she wasn’t. Very uninspired cover & the magazine is bound to piss off the taxpayers when they learn that THIS is what she was doing on her ‘maternity leave’. Not surprised about the mirror. What else would you expect from a narcissist?
Aquagirl said…
Ha! Ha! 😆😆😆
Anonymous said…
I'm a bit confused: why now Amal? Has that soured, too?
Aquagirl said…
I usually don’t have a problem posting my comments. The exception is when the # of comments gets very high (such as the recent ones that have had over 200 comments.)
Aquagirl said…
I think that, at this point, anyone who would agree to participate in a project that is related to MM is not doing themselves any favors. I really wonder why Michelle Obama agreed.
Aquagirl said…
@Louise: I believe that TP1 does have info on MM. However, TP1 has always been clear that these messages were meant for MM, not anyone else. TP1 is also
not going to reveal anything. That’s up to the BRF and/or the press.
Aquagirl said…
New article up on the DM. Vogue cover closely resembles Australia’s 2016 book, ‘The Game Changers’ which also features 15 women on the cover & which MM helped produce. People are not happy, but what would you expect from someone who has never had an original idea in her life?
Aquagirl said…
The comments on the Jan Moir article are being moderated and they’re still absolutely BRUTAL.
Kat said…
@Elle, Reine des Abeilles, but HMTQ and MM are so close according to all this ridiculous articles I've seen this week. I think I saw at least 5 in the last 2 days stating how close they are, and how HMTQ prefers her over Kate.
Every time I see one of those I wonder how many more MM has had planted to try and make her look more popular in the family.
Anonymous said…
As is Jameela Jamil it turns out. She said this about the Queen’s breasts after meeting her: 'It’s like a bottom on her chest. They’re gigantic'.
Anonymous said…
And then this:

'It's extremely disappointing': Meghan Markle's Vogue issue about 'trailblazing' women has a VERY similar cover to an Australian book the Duchess helped produce - and the authors aren't happy. Australian authors Samantha Brett and Steph Adams have been inundated with messages from people alerting them to the similarities between the latest issue of UK Vogue and their own book.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7296215/Vogue-issue-guest-edited-Meghan-Markle-looks-like-Australian-book-helped-produce.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed
News
Kat said…
If I saw this cover in the checkout line while getting groceries I would not pick it up at all. If it had been a group shot of all these women, maybe, but this collage makes it look like MM didn't decide until the last minute and they used whatever pictures they could get.
Anonymous said…
And in the end, she just copied what someone else had done...
d.c. said…
I’m surprised by the lack of Serena Williams and Amal Clooney, and why isn’t Michelle Obama on the cover?

I’m not terribly thrilled by that cover design, which, as several other posts above have noted, copies the cover of the book she was published in (she’s on the cover as one of 15 women; and wrote a 1 or 2-page essay for it). There’s articles saying they gave her many copies of that book, too, and she approved the cover, so she can’t act like she didn’t know she copied it. The authors/publishers are apparently not happy about the British Bogue cover copying of their concept/design.
Charlie said…
This cover is epitome of Hollywood "wokeness". "We're woke, and important, please by our clothes/movie/music, for social justice of course". Instead of explaining their foundation, how it will work, what society or environmental problems they will work with, she parades women, 99% from entertainment business, to show that she has support from someone who are a little bit more than instagram influencer.
Actually, one guy did it two days ago, James Charles posted a video two months after his sexual misconduct scandal, where Kardashians and other celebs chose make up for him (obviously from their make up lines)
I'm sure, she didn't even choose these people, it did Vogue itself.
I think Michelle Obama agreed for an interview, because they both strike for a celebrity/influencer life with Barack, I don't blame them, nothing wrong with it, but Michelle clearly uses an opportunity for pushing her boundaries even more, which makes Meghan here being used, and not vice versa.
OzManda said…
And she has pissed more people off

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7296215/Vogue-issue-guest-edited-Meghan-Markle-looks-like-Australian-book-helped-produce.html
Rut said…
Of course she copied someone else. Meghan Markle is a person who "feeds of other people". She takes credit from other peoples words, ideas, work. The man who photographed her for Vouge said Meghan wanted her "freckles to show". Because Meghan is very proud of her freckles. It was her loving father Thomas who made her proud of her freckles. When Meghan was little, and Im sure complained about her freckles, he used to comfort her by quoting "the old saying"; "a face whitout freckles is like a night whitout stars" Meghan grew up beliving those words were written by him to her. I read somewhere Meghan even copywrited those words when she was only 14 years old. Who even thinks about doing that? That says a lot about her personality. Now she is almost 40 and still goes on and on about freckles. It came from Thomas, not her. The feministthing she did when she was 11, was not her idea. That was a schoolproject. No choices in her life have been made with a thought of feminism. Still, she claims to be a feminist. She says she is a humanitarian and uses the photos from when she went to India and Africa for "charitywork" But she really didnt do any charity work did she? She was just a model, having her pictures taken standing beside locals. She had her planeticket paid for, her hotel and food paid for, by the World Vision charity. That is NOT doing charity. That is taking money from a charity. She was not a star in USA, still she behaves as if she were when she is out and about with Harry. ( Im sure Harry belives she was a star in the USA ) The name of her son, Archie, is ( was ) prince Georges nickname. She just steals and feed of other people. Most people dont see that. They just let themselves be manipulated by her personality ( and PR-people ) Yes she DID copy that Vougecover, but she is going to get away with it. It is interesting to see how far a person with her personality disorder can come. She has come really far. Because she is cute and people are stupid.
Flangalina said…
Hi nutty,
I watched this go online late last night,I also watched the speed all the negative comments on IG
removed!.. there were hundreds of them just disappeared.
So my first thought was where’s Amal,if anyone MM would have there wouldn’t have it been her?.
Is murckles becoming bad for business.
The Plot thickens!
Flangalina said…
Hi Rut,
You are quite correct,but if you dig a little deeper the words actually come from a song also
she said Banki Moon the head of the UN at the time gave her a standing ovation when in reality
He was sitting firmly in his seat.
It’s these little white lies which go with her NPD are turning into whoppers,it smacks of desperation
to give herself credibility all done whilst she “dating her Prince”.
I for one have too say I am British and a heavy taxpayer and I’ve always had a interesting and curious
fascination for our monarchy.Im a bit of a history buff but all this is starting to leave a very nasty lingering taste in the mouth.
Lottie said…
What do you think of Meghan's Vogue UK cover?

Ordinary and predictable, much like Meghan Markle
Sans Nom said…
First time to comment but a long time lurker. Love your blog Nutty and all the comments posted. Thank you all.

Wondered if this guest editing stint was purposely to give her another rope to hang herself (plagiarism).
Unknown said…
Hi All

Just typed a long comment and it vanished. So here is a condensed version.

I bought magazines regularly around the 1990 period but stopped from 2000 on. They have become way too pricey. Also, substance was lacking in the articles, more fluff than reality. The internet provides almost everything that magazines cover. Purchasing data to access the internet is 100% more on peoples mind than buying a magazine. No way is it first choice now. Magazines are a dying industry.

Also I never purchased Vogue. Too many advertisements on products that I would never buy or use. Too many offbeat articles. Too overpriced, wacky clothing. The libraries have free copies in circulation ..why pay for it.

The black and white cover is a huge turn off. Too morbid. I want colour and vitality. Also i prefer an actual face, rather than a busy throw up of various faces. Definitely would not purchase this September issue, no matter whats inside.

Jane Fonda. Cannot fathom why? I have never admired Michelle Obama. On that gravy train and still milking it.

In short, all magazines have lost my support.
Aquagirl said…
@Unknown. I stopped purchasing magazines several years ago for all of the reasons that you stated. I was recently going to the beach with a friend so I bought some as I don’t like to bring my I-Pad. They were mostly
home decor magazines, &
I literally flipped through each one in about 5 minutes. Nothing interesting to read, no new ideas. I get much more interesting content from trend reports that I receive for free via email.
I live in the US and now with all of the lies that the magazines here are printing about MM, I will probably never purchase a magazine again.
Lottie said…
@Unknown & @Aquagirl
I also stopped buying magazines years ago for similar reasons
Now i find a quick flick through at the hairdressers every 3 months is more than enough
Lottie said…
That mirror...seriously what were they thinking? it is so childish and amateurish
But a good Instagram bloggish shot...'the hook'
Reminds me of the banana fiasco

I think that Meghan Markle and Vogue are a perfect fit.
Both are full of advertising
Both are void of interesting content and are vapid & pretentious.
Both are out of touch with reality.
Both are expensive & there is not much value for money
Unknown said…
Hi Aquagirl

Yes. Most people I know also dont buy magazines. The sales are so bad that cinemas are giving out free copies to patrons, shops are binding 4 magazines together at reduced prices, to encourage sales. I know quite a few under 23 year olds, who say magazines are not on their " to buy list " and never will be.

Back to that cover, the Prime Minister of New Zealand! What on earth was she thinking? She is already a Prime Minister, for heavens sake! Someone ask her to read her resume back to herself and then give herself a few smacks.

As a mother, bringing up young women, I take great exception and offense to those unknown airheads on that cover. Granted they have a story to tell, but dont we all! There are unknown heroines all over the world, working invisibly and tirelessly, some we will never meet or encounter in a lifetime. Its when they start publicizing themselves, and associating with the likes of MM , it ruins their credibilty.
Rut said…
Yes little lies here and there and taking other peoples opinions/thoughts/ideas and making them her own and being obsessed with herself...i cant even...Im returning to the freckles now, I have freckles and I dont hate my freckles and I dont love my freckles. I just never think about my freckles. I am used to them. When there is summer I get freckles. Its normal for me. I just cant imagine me talking to people about my freckles. Saying things like " A face whitout freckles is like a night whitout stars! About myself! As if I was in love with myself. Its crazy. I am not a british taxpayer :) I grew up reading about Diana. Watching her wedding. Reading about Harry and William. When I heard Harry was getting married I watched the engagement interwiev without knowing anything about Meghan. I immediately disliked her. I felt she lied about not knowing who Harry was and everything about her just felt...."wrong". Im sorry you have to pay for that :)
hello? said…
please, she was going for the first royal to ever guest edit vogue. She wanted to make history, instead of being on the cover where Kate and Diana already have before her. This woman is just vile.
Girl with a Hat said…
Isn't she the body positive activist? Not when it comes to elderly white ladies, it seems.
hello? said…
And to passive aggressively say it's just boastful to be on the cover is a low blow to her sister in law and late mother in law. i just wish the Queen and Charles would tell her to fuck off already!
Elizabeth said…
Long-time lurker here. Migrated from some blogs that I found were becoming a bit too fanatical in their anti-MM stances.
I appreciate the articulate, intelligent and humorous discourse found here... aaand now I’m finally posting.

@Rut, I also read that about Prince George’s nickname. In addition, I read an interview with the Givenchy designer Clare Waight Keller (apparently still BFFs with MM) and it mentioned that her son’s name is Harrison. I’m eyerolling at the thought of MM believing she was original and boundary pushing with the baby’s names.
On the other hand, maybe she was taken by surprise that it was a boy and didn’t have time to really consider boys’s names?! All the decorations that were delivered to the baby shower (from
The ‘pap walk’ pics) and various images posted on social media seemed to suggest the baby would be a girl.
... I dunno, I’m feeling as gaslighted as the next person...
Louise said…
My favourite Daily Mail comment from today:

"It's all about her, wait until the marriage crumbles and Megs starts doing tell all interviews. "There were four of us in this marriage, Harry, me, myself and I, so it was a bit crowded.:"
abbyh said…
wowza.

I think about Nutty's notation that no woman of science or math is listed is good. For all the women's equality movement up from the far depths of the past, women have been making strides in what had always been traditionally men's fields.

I think about the heavy tilt into entertainment. That would be in keeping with the people Vogue is trying to be relevant to. But notice who isn't there but is known for dancing in that corner of my photo out there. Bey. Serena. Amal. All big cheeses. All supposedly big, big supporters of her when she was criticised. Poof. Not there. My question to you: Have they been Markled?

Working on this fantastic opportunity while on her maternity leave. I could see this as an on and off long term work/compilation except that she missed other events because she was on leave but could show up to TLK. That picking and choosing what would be fun versus less personal fun/opportunity to meet people perceived as worth networking with is the clearest indication she still doesn't understand that what she thinks of as small not worthy of her events are really a big deal to the people running and showing up for them. They are why people still love the person within the monarchy.

I loved the comment about how she would have put herself but it was a tad boastful. Tee hee hee. The comment reminds me of how there are a lot of people who don't understand what they are really saying when they use a double negative. She does understand it.

All the rest, the same cover, clothing not looking good on her and so on, pff. For her, that is MM business as usual.

gfbcpa said…
I am an accountant for two large medical practices. When one of them opened, the docs decided to subscribe to Sports Illustrated, Good Housekeeping and Time. The medical assistants wanted Oprah. I subscribed to all four magazines for a year and paid the subscription price. I have been with them close to five years and now we get an explosion of magazines in the office, at least 20 to 30 a month, that I never subscribed to (The Smithsonian?), sometimes multiple copies of one magazine and I haven't paid a dime for since that initial year. (Interestingly we don't get Vogue or Vanity Fair in the free pile.)
MaLissa said…
I've had problems at 100 comments - it's usually a hit and miss then. At 200, I just don't see it.
MaLissa said…
I saw that article for Australia's 2016 book. Hmmm... wonder where she got that idea... sigh. Well since no one asked my opinion ... here it is. I think she should have included regular female doctors, nurses, volunteers, teachers, care givers, and a whole host of other people - not famous people. People who do the work in the trenches. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Oh and where's her BEST FRIENDS Amal Clooney and Serena Williams or did they get ghosted?
SwampWoman said…
Cluesoea, you are so right! Amal SHOULD be there because she is protecting the rights of the people that Meghan claims to champion.
Louise said…
I saw that comment from Jameela Jamil about Queen Elizbeth... disgusting..
Rut said…
I think they had names ready for both boy and girl. Most parents look for names that are unusual, "stealing"/copying a friends/familymembers name is a big no no for most people. Her friends must have a lot of patience.
Louise said…
Aquagirl: So, if it is up to the RF to reveal whatever there is to reveal, what is the point of TP1?
I could create my own Twitter account to say "I know something but I'm not going to tell you". What's the point?
MaLissa said…
@Unknown I usually copy my post before publishing just in case :)

I also stopped buying magazines years ago - cost too much and takes up real estate plus it's not environmentally friendly.
Louise said…
For the same reason that the Prime Minister of Canada posed on the cover of Vogue and photobombed a private beach wedding in British Columbia.

They are publicity whores.
Girl with a Hat said…
I also stopped buying magazines years ago and I used to buy a lot of them. I noticed that magazines were trying to sell us an agenda in terms of lifestyle and political choices. The funny thing is that I am pretty leftist in my politics, but even I don't like to pay for this brainwashing. I prefer to read about different points of view and come to my own conclusions, rather than being manipulated into accepting them.
Lottie said…
@Ann Christensen
"Looks a little like the wanted posters wall of the local post office"

I like your idea!
Very funny
PaulaMP said…
Thank you for mentioning how Hanoi Jane is so reviled by older people as a traitor. My husband was a Vietnam vet, we will not forget her actions. Not to mention what a hypocrite she is concerning her own boob job and endless plastic surgeries. She is no example to women. Of course we are talking about Vogue, who put the fashion icon known as Kim Kardashian on their cover
Lottie said…
I think MM's friendships have a different meaning and depth than most other people.
If MM's wants to be your friend then you need to have a 'commodity of value' to her benefit....of course
Lottie said…
Thanks MaLissa x
Lottie said…
Bwhaa haaaaa..............that is hilarious...i totally laughed out loud!!
So profound...so true
Humor Me said…
Every time I read her bio line - I want to edit it to read...."self - avowed feminist."
Kat said…
@gfbcpa I actually got a free subscription to Vogue and Vanity Fair for giving feedback on free samples. Only reason I have a pile of magazines I haven't read yet.
Lottie said…
Kim and Kanye on the cover of Vogue was the death rattle for Vogue.
Now it seems that Anna Wintour won't be satisfied until she has brutally murdered & buried Vogue in a deep dark pit, before she swans out the backdoor to enjoy her much needed retirement
What a pity Anna Wintour was at the helm of a well respected magazine
Leaving a legacy 'not' to be admired
Jen said…
Her inclusion of Hanoi Jane as a "force for change" disgusts me. I disliked MM before, I despise her now.
Lottie said…
MM wouldn't know what a feminist was if it slammed her in the face
She is a faux feminist
She is also a faux humanitarian
Marrying a rich man with a title and giving up everything you say you hold dear to you...family, career, friends,home, (oh wait...that doesn't apply to the MM the narcissist) even your pets, says it all
She just likes to hear the sound of her own voice,blah blah blah.
There is no understanding or commitment to any of the issues at hand...because it doesn't revolve around her small orbit
Jen said…
@MaLissa, when there are a lot of comments, there's a "see more" button at the bottom that loads more comments...even if you commented on something at the top of the comments.
d.c. said…
Huh, that’s true. Not folks in a service profession... Weird.
QueenWhitby said…
Oh the irony - it burns.
Vogue - a magazine that exists solely to promote the superficial world of fashion and beauty.
Vogue - a magazine that projects women as objects, hangers for clothing and makeup, often at the cost of their physical and mental wellbeing.
Vogue - a magazine that turns a blind eye to the fashion industry’s exploitation of women and child garment workers, and the fact that the fashion industry is one of the biggest polluters of our planet.

Enter the DoS with yet more of her uninteresting, unoriginal, and ineffective drivel about forces for change. The irony of using Vogue (of all magazines!) as the vehicle to send out more of her “woke” SJW rhetoric is yet another spectacular own goal on her part. I can’t stop shaking my head.
Rut said…
yes of course. I read on Harry Markle blog that the editor of british Vogue is an old friend of Marcus Anderson. So...
Anonymous said…
@MaLissa, "they ran like hell in the other direction" is my best guess re Amal and Serena.
Humor Me said…
The CDAN blind is very interesting. I find it hard to believe MM got away with this "guest editing " given the RF edict "see and be seen, not heard."

And yet poor Mike Tindall gets his hand slapped for saying the truth - his children have not yet met their second cousin. (DM article today).

Anonymous said…
Also, Safari is a no-fly zone for this blog. I've tried, very poor results. So I use Firefox.
Anonymous said…
Yep, that was Jameela, inspiring the hell out of us... not to buy the magazine and give us one more valid reason to appeal for a rapid de-markling.
Anonymous said…
I can't imagine why MO agreed to do this. I don't come here to talk politics at all, so I'll skip over any bit of it, but I will say that most politicians, on all sides of the aisle, are publicity whores. I've never met or worked with one who wasn't. Even so, for MO to agree to this interview could be seen as a personal affront to the BRF going forward - esp if the markles have been dumped - so I'm surprised for that reason alone.
Hikari said…
Excellent summary of both, Lottie!

A narcissist like Meghan is an interesting breed. On the one hand, they are intolerably arrogant and convinced that they know the best way to do everything. That's how they come across. But underneath, where the sense of self is supposed to reside, they are gaping holes of emptiness. They are obsessed with being 'popular', admired, adored . . but they don't have any original ideas or convictions of their own. Everything does have to be boosted and copied from other sources to create a constructed wonderful personality for themselves. In reality they are hollow. It's really not surprising that Meg chose acting as a profession--the job that entirely consists of attempting to convince viewers that fabricated personalities are real. Well-balanced people (not to mention, those with genuine talent) have a bedrock sense of actual identity that they revert to when they are not playing a role . . and they don't forget who they really are. Someone like Meghan is constantly playing a role because there's no 'There' there underneath. If her presentation is inconsistent, it's because she tries on different roles like hats and keeps or discards them based on the reaction (ie, Instagram followers) she gets. She's so totally obsessed with her SM numbers because to her, those numbers validate her faked-up identities.

It's got to be a fraught, dark, anxious and swampy place inside the mind of Murkle. Even when she appears to be 'winning' (not currently, alas for her . .) she will never be content. She is not capable. Meanwhile, she will continue to ruin lives around her in her quest to pass for a spectacularly successful, desirable human being.
MaLissa said…
Well written article and so spot on.
Mary said…
Edward Enninful, like Me-Gain is as much a flame thrower, Vogue UK as with the US version has declining sales. He is as poor at his job as Me-Gain is. He’s a virtue signaler who got where he is based on who he knows and his political correctness.
Aquagirl said…
@MaLissa: I agree. She should’ve made it more about about up and coming women who work in the trenches. For example, the veterinarian who saved the elephant in Africa. Oh wait, she couldn’t do that because she’s pretending that woman is HER.
Aquagirl said…
@Louise: Supposedly to communicate directly with MM. She (or they-I recently heard that it might be several people from her past that were ghosted) want to remind her that her ‘secrets’ are known & will eventually be revealed.
Anonymous said…
I have suggested a compendium of marklelies as a new topic, help the press along.

Marklelies: (noun) a lie so grandiose, so vapid, and yet, so easily disproved, that it could only be told by meghan markle ("The marklelies were flying in that interview" "Duchess Skank probably marklelies in her sleep!") (verb) "She totally marklelied about _________" (<<pick one, lots to choose from).
Lurking said…
Ms. Moir goes for jugular vein. Clean up on aisle 3.
Anonymous said…
Agree with all of the above, but come on, "Meghan's Mirror" - doesn't it help the brand?
abbyh said…
I was thinking the Mike comment was that they don't want people questioning who has visited the second cousin just yet (pay no attention to that left hand) and what is happening behind the scenes is only limited to certain people but. maybe they want to start this trickle.
Anonymous said…
Correction:
Duchess Skank probably marklelies in her sleep! -- verb.
Anonymous said…
@Kat, see "marklelies" above.
Anonymous said…
@Louise I believe one of the group is Prince William. Another is either Corey or a man she dated in the past. One photo showed the inside of a restaurant and he reminded her when they were there on a date. So yes, these are messages for MM not us we are just watching.
Anonymous said…
I quit buying magazines when the ad pages outnumbered the articles. Magazines became one giant advertisement and we were paying for the privilege of looking. Something's wrong with that scenario.
Girl with a Hat said…
it's a truly dysfunctional famly where other people have to cover up for someone else's bad behaviour.
Anonymous said…
And I'm thinking that it is one more way to slip out that there's something to be hidden...
Lurking said…
That Game Changers book has Goop and Ms. Anti-Vaxxer on the cover. I'll pass. I'd rather support women who are leaders in science, medicine, human rights, law, or policy than an actress selling jade eggs you stick up your hooha after a steam or the girlfriend of Andrew Wakefield.
Anonymous said…
Also, markle's definition of ‘equality, kindness and open-mindedness’.
Lottie said…
Thanks Hikari!
I always enjoy your writing (mini novels...heehee) and the many, well laid out and clear synopsis's you make of MM's character, or lack of in her case
I agree with you about her character & her acting.
I think the reasons you mentioned are why she is not and never will be a very good actress and why she never made it in Hollywood.
MM is all about the reflection (hence the mirror..lol) of herself & severely lacks self introspection & soul.
She comes across as extremely shallow with no real depth of character or tangible emotions to draw from

I heard that when MM was young that Doria was in jail for 7 years and during this time she was with her father, who i think has overcompensated & spoilt her.
Before that she lived with her grandmother and uncle.
So in fact she has never lived for any great length of time with her mother
It explains a lot of her character
I have a feeling that as cray cray as Samantha Markle came across, she knew the truth about MM & in reflection what she was saying was pretty spot on.
Where is the book! I'd pay to read that!
Maddie said…
Me, myself and I! đŸ€ŁđŸ€ŁđŸ€Ł
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
MaLissa said…
@Jen, yes I can load more comments but after like around 100+ I publish and it just goes to the top of the article and my published comment doesn't show up. Like I said hit and miss. Sometimes it's there, other times, it's lost in the ether :)

@Elle I'm using Chrome.
Unknown said…
Rut / Elizabeth - On Archie and Harrison, as well as not being original, where I am from in the well-to-do London Home Counties, both are seen as terribly down market names. There was a blind that a member of the Royal Family had said that it was the kind of name someone in Fleabottom might have, which will make sense to Game of Thrones viewers.
SwampWoman said…
I would liked to have had Col. Lorna Mahlock featured. As the first African American woman nominated to be a Marine Corps. General, I'm sure she has an interesting story. It won't be in Vogue, of course, because she looks tough as nails (as a 30-year Marine officer, she'd have to be!) and I'm sure she doesn't suffer fools gladly. We just have to settle for featuring people pretending that they make a difference. Michelle Obama, now, she did make a lasting impression on the school children. She single handedly made school lunches inedible.
SwampWoman said…
It seems to me that a feminist should be out doing things on her own, not using a man to get what she wants. (Warning: Mounting soapbox.) A feminist shouldn't be screeching about how unfair it is that a man working in a dangerous job is compensated more than a woman that works in a daycare center. I'm really tired of so-called 'feminists' that castigate SAHMs and insist that infanticide is female empowerment. I'm all about empowering everybody to do and be the very best that they are capable of. (Kicking soapbox away.)
.
SwampWoman said…
@Elle, you have a truly devious mind. I think you're right!
Anonymous said…
Megs is already issuing public apologies and diverting blame onto the magazine. She was limited to working within their restrictions blah blah blah. Her NPD is screaming again.
KayeC said…
@gfbcpa & @Kat, so funny! I receive Architectural Digest and I have no idea why, just start showing up monthly. I must admit, I do not read much of it, but I look through all the pictures.
Avery said…
Piers Morgan really tore her a new one in this article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7298003/PIERS-MORGAN-Meghans-shamelessly-hypocritical-Vogue-stunt.html
Flangalina said…
Swamp woman
Precisely! I can not figure if it was a deliberate snub or old CLoony put his foot down
As Amal is a human rights lawyer I would have though she would have been given slot.
I am no Markle fan but I do give credence to Amal who is a self made woman and well
education who even gives lectures on law at high standing universities,my godfather
Was Robert Watson a senior barrister in the old Bailey,he always said he admired Amal’s
Mind.
Flangalina said…
I hate autocorrect sorry ladies.
SwampWoman said…
I should amend to add that I would like Col. Mahlock featured in the American Vogue (if they are talking about women who have made a difference, not who best starved their body into an androgynous clothes hanger).
Avery said…
Ooooo!!! Where? Link?
Anonymous said…
Sorry
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1159253/meghan-markle-news-latest-vogue-editor-letter-pictures
Ozmanda said…
Unknown, you are right - the names are not Regal or reflect a certain distinction - they are names you call your pet dog
marvelousmagda said…
I use Firefox, too. Seems to work. Worst part was finding a name that was not already taken.
Ozmanda said…
This is such a bad move for her on so many levels - I am seeing a lot of articles and comments that noticed that while she refused to attend events due to her wanting to be with her "fauxby", she was in fact doing the guest editing gig.

I am unsure if she is just so incredibly ignorant or doesn't care. I am leaning towards the latter
Hikari said…
We've been waiting for Smeaghan to push the boundary of tolerance past its breaking point and this may have done it. She gestated a fake baby for a year and is now staging photo ops with one and the RF did not act. But in giving herself such a high-profile platform to be both vocal and political (No and NO) and display what a fraud she really is in black and white . . . this may be It. Balmoral is a'coming.

I wonder if 'Archie' will be there so the Queen can pose for a legitimate picture with him?

Megsy incubated a magazine but I still don't think there's a baby that is hers. The RF allowed that charade to play out for far too long . . .how are they going to rectify this?
Anonymous said…
Oh, thank you, Swampy! Years of dating. Cross-examination is also a breeze, too.
Anonymous said…
My guess is Amal & George saw this spectacle de merde coming. George is Hollywood and my guess is he knew it was time to quietly and quickly walk away.
Anonymous said…
I second indplsbear. I think they Markled her. Amal and Serena both have a refined sense of self preservation thanks to living the life of a high profile celebrity. MM's days are numbered. She knows it. We know it and no one wants to be caught standing next to her when the final slide starts.
Ozmanda said…
Hikari - I get the feeling the only way out is to ship them both overseas for a "Posting" (aka get them out of the way while saving face). I think what will the destination will be is either Africa or the US. But I could be wrong:)
Wut said…
Wasn't she on the cover of Vanity Fair "boastfully" talking about her relationship with Prince Harry?
Lottie said…
I just saw this comment over at the DM

"MM has more issues than Vogue"

It made me laugh
Flangalina said…
Ladies,
It makes perfect sense,fleabottom was the town in kings landing that surrounds the royal residence.
Didn’t Peggymeggy get the name Archie from Prince George seventh of his name,house of Cambridge
As I believe it was a pet nickname given to him by PPO when he was a toddler,( they use false names on radiobands) and it stuck.So..it was something she pilfered maybe to stick the knife in to Catherine as she new early that Archie wouldn’t get a title a statues.
Everything Peggymeggy does seems to have an agenda to it which is classic narcissism,I really thought they would call him Alexander maybe or even Albert,something with Charles to honour his beloved Pa.
EFarrell said…
I agree! There are so many other older actors/entertainers that could have been included. Women that would not cause offense to a huge segment of the population. Jane Fonda is so cliche’!
Ozmanda said…
The only magazine I regularly get is Vanity Fair, although since Graydon Carter left it has gone down a few notches.
Ozmanda said…
One major omission that I see is - The Queen.
Silli_emperors said…
exactly, and that capsule collection is going to benefit SmartWorks more not the participants/designers, wasn't thrown in after the fact to offset lack of "humanitarian effort" & wearing Gucci is now OK if you are Meghan but not Catherine.

Bless her heart, surprised they haven't tried to canonize her
abbyh said…
Canonization is next week. This week is the lay up for that pitch to the world.

sarc off. What a hot mess (and more of it each day).
Anonymous said…
@Hikari, and calling all Nutties, do not miss the photo of her kneeling in that tight tweed dress while rummaging thru clothes for her Vogue shots. Just do not miss it.
Anonymous said…
I just saw this from Salma Hayek, and I just have to say this, and this is the best place to do it. Hayek said "the Duchess had been 'watching her' for some time". Oh effing please. As if the "duchess" is some impressive leader with a grand vision. NO.

The Duchess is a trashy wanna be, D list actress who screwed the right guy. She has no light to shine. She's basically a pseudo hooker who found someone dumb enough to keep paying her. I cannot pretend that she is anything other and for every "celebrity" who goes along with this gaslighting BS insults us and feeds the beast. No more Hayek for me (not that she has a real career anymore anyway because she was also a mid-list actor who screwed the right guy.)
Unknown said…
Vogue 2019 complete & utter plagiarism, hope Australian authors sue, because they would win. If they feel above all this they could donate their winnings to charity..!
Unknown said…
Plagiarized, sue..Australian authors would win..
Hikari said…
Elle,
I had the pleasure of seeing those photos. I use 'pleasure' ironically. It's just so gratifying to watch her continue to light herself on fire and say "Look how I'm shining a light on the world, all you sad un-woke lesser beings! She really put those in the magazine for all to see!

She looks like a sow stuffed with about 20 babies who's rummaging for truffles. Then I really love the second one where she's standing back up and 'Moonbump' is squashed and spreading out sideways. Gucci has to be so thrilled with how she's representing their garment . . . bet women are flocking to pay $4000 for that pretentious sack after they saw how Meg modeled it so uniquely.

I had no idea that Gucci made clothing in that size, did you?
Anonymous said…
@IndplsBear -- why do we have to suffer with her lol?

@Hikari -- that dress is something, isn't it? You know who could wear that dress and make it look good? Kate. But not megster, and the moonbump. Oy.
This photo series should forever be known as the Grasp and Claw. She still managed to get some bump and claw in for good measure, too.
Hikari said…
I particularly love how she made it a point to be captured crouching, when there was no reason for it whatsover. Who looks through clothing like that unless it's a flea market stall in Camden Town? And who would crouch like that while wearing Gucci, pregnant or not? (In her case, NOT. I christen Meg's faux gestation as a "Meghancy'. Doin' it 'her way', like she does everything else.

This is not strictly relevant to the Suxxit travesty, but I include it as an example of how a bona fide quality celebrity person treats people. 007 star Daniel Craig exercised his license to 'thrill' by dropping by a hen party-in-progress at his hotel in Scotland. He stayed for a good bit and posed for photos with the bride and her guests. At no point was hotel staff instructed to confiscate anyone's cell phone or gouge out the eyes of any civilians who looked upon Himself.

Dan Craig is a mensch . . .and also one thousand times the star that Murkle thinks she and her dim-witted husband are.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/4535659/james-bond-daniel-craig-hen-party-aviemore/
punkinseed said…
Even the mirror isn't an original idea. At all! My daughter had story books with the mirror in them. She probably fisked the idea from one of her baby's books.
Hikari said…
Does anyone else think that Ed Enninful looks like Al Roker?
Marie said…
What I found borderline tacky was the constant, casual mentioning that she "secretly guest edited" the SEPTEMBER Vogue, whether in the thank-you notes to the participants or even in the IG tribute to the photographer who recently died. We get it loud and clear, you like to humbly and modestly remind everyone that you were the "secret" guest editor of the September issue of Vogue. For someone who appears so into self-promotion, it must have been agony to keep such a secret for so long...

Popular posts from this blog

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

As Time Passes and We Get Older

 I started thinking about how time passes when reading some of the articles about the birthday.  It was interesting to think about it from the different points of view.  Besides, it kind of fits as a follow up the last post (the whole saga of can the two brothers reunite). So there is the requisite article about how he will be getting all kinds of money willed to him from his great-grandmother.  There were stories about Princess Anne as trustee (and not allowing earliest access to it all).  Whether or not any or all of this is true (there was money for him and/or other kids) has been debated with claims she actually died owing money with the Queen paying the debts to avoid scandal.  Don't know but I seem to remember that royal estates are shrouded from the public so we may not (ever) know. However, strange things like assisting in a book after repeated denials have popped up in legal papers so nothing is ever really predicable.   We are also seein...

The Opening Act of New Adventures in Retail

 I keep thinking things will settle down to the lazy days of spring where the weather is gorgeous and there is a certain sense of peacefulness.  New flowers are coming out. increasing daylight so people can be outside/play and thinking gardening thoughts.  And life is quiet.  Calm. And then something happens like a comet shooting across the sky.  (Out of nowhere it arrives and then leaves almost as quickly.)   An update to a law suit.  Video of the website is released (but doesn't actually promote any specific product which can be purchased from the website).  A delay and then jam is given out (but to whom and possible more importantly - who did not make the list?).  Trophies almost fall (oops).  Information slips out like when the official date of beginning USA residency.  (now, isn't that interesting?) With them, it's always something in play or simmering just below the surface.  The diversity of the endeavors is really ...