We can add Vogue Magazine to the list of things Duchess Meghan has ruined for good (previous entries include but are not limited to: The Monarchy, common decency, Suits seasons 1-7, Wimbledon, Princess Diana’s legacy, baby showers, and Michael K’s rich fantasy life). As previously reported, Meghan guest edited the September issue of British Vogue featuring 15 “changemakers” but not the kind that walk around ballparks and arcades with those belts filled with nickels and dimes. Instead of using her unprecedented opportunity to highlight the glory of pretty clothes on pretty ladies, she used her platform to shove her COMMUNIST AGENDA down everybody’s throat in a move Piers Morgan called a “shamelessly hypocritical super-woke Vogue stunt“, which just so happens to be the name of my band!
According to E!, Meghan’s issue (that’s the name of my upcoming novel about a woman who gives birth to a metaphor) featured 15 “brilliant female changemakers who have had a laudable impact in recent times and who are set to reshape society in radical and positive ways in the future“. To make matters worse, in the issue which is titled “Forces for Change“, she allowed her subjects’ freckles “into the photos” for “us to see ‘beauty in real people, in real situations’”. Excuse me while I barf. Have you ever seen a freckly face before? They are disgusting.
Turning down an opportunity to appear on the cover herself—”In the end, she felt that it would be in some ways a ‘boastful’ thing to do for this particular project,” Edward Enninful, British Vogue‘s Editor-in-Chief, said—she, instead, put the spotlight on “the women she admires,” including Yara Shahidi, Gemma Chan, Salma Hayek, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and climate change campaigner and student Greta Thunberg, among many others.
Meghan also interviewed Michelle Obama for the issue. And she’s not even the first lady anymore! E! Reports that many people were not happy with Meghan’s choices, saying “the critics got into formation and quickly had their fangs out”.
There were those on Twitter who wanted to know why Meghan hadn’t included Queen Elizabeth II among her list of trailblazers, or even “a doctor or nurse, a teacher, lawyer,” as another wondered. Others wondered why Meghan had skipped out on meeting President Donald Trump during his recent state visit, citing her maternity leave for the absence, but was able and willing to devote the entirety of said leave to the issue, not to mention interviewing the former First Lady.
Look, I can deal with a couple of freckles, but a LADY DOCTOR? These people are insane. One royal commenter took issue with her inclusion of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on the grounds that it was a political statement. Others saw the issue as proof of Meghan being fame hungry, anti-British, and accused her of “politicizing the Royal Family“. As if the mere notion of a “Royal family” isn’t inherently political in and of itself.
The ellipsis… the “dot dot dot” that inspires the greatest practice of patience in this digital era.
And then it appeared, EE’s [Edward Enninful, British Vogue’s editor-in-chief) reply: “Yes! I would love for you to be my guest editor.”
Sitting on my sofa at home, two dogs [NAMES REDACTED] nestled across me, I quietly celebrated when the words appeared on my screen.
Sheesh, it’s no wonder that when Prince Harry was interviewing Jane Goodall for the issue, he stated unequivocally that he only wants to have a maximum of two children! According to Elle, he says it’s because he’s worried about the environment, but that would be a political statement, and as we know, the Royal Family doesn’t do those. So it must really be because he’s hoping to move in on Jane before he gets too entrenched in his current marriage.