Megan Markle’s Authenticity Crisis: Candace Owens Exposes the Duchess’ Carefully Curated Persona

In the relentless glare of celebrity scrutiny, few figures have inspired as polarizing reactions as Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. From her early days as a moderately successful actress on a cable drama to her high-profile marriage into the British royal family, Markle has navigated the corridors of fame with an uncanny ability to generate both admiration and criticism. But according to outspoken conservative commentator Candace Owens, Markle’s latest attempts to redefine her public image—through podcasts, Netflix specials, and carefully staged appearances—have crossed the line from relatable vulnerability into sheer performative inauthenticity.

Owens’ critique, which has resonated widely online, paints a portrait of Markle not as a misunderstood royal navigating complex societal expectations, but as a media-savvy celebrity whose ambition and desire for recognition overshadow any claims to noble intent. “Pretend that it was for something noble,” Owens remarked. “Racism, it wasn’t. It was really because she wanted fame and she wanted wealth.” In Owens’ view, Markle’s use of the Black Lives Matter movement, her emotional interviews, and her attempt to showcase vulnerability are not about advocacy or social justice—they are calculated moves designed to bolster her celebrity profile.

One of the focal points of Owens’ takedown was Markle’s foray into podcasting with her Spotify series Archetypes. Framed as a bold and empowering exploration of societal labels placed on women, the show boasted a glittering guest list and a multi-million-dollar deal. Yet, Owens argued, the series ultimately failed because it substituted genuine discourse with performative self-portraiture. “Listeners hoping for nuance and fresh perspective were met with something altogether different,” Owens said. “It often felt more like a curated mirror for Meghan’s grievances than a platform for discovery.”

Markle’s first episode, according to Owens, epitomized this problem. What could have been a vulnerable, soul-bearing conversation instead unfolded as “scripted nonsense feminist dribble,” with high-profile female guests discussing issues that few viewers found compelling. In a bid to appear authentic, Markle even attempted a no-makeup look—a tactic intended to convey raw, unfiltered honesty. But as Owens pointed out, the execution was anything but genuine. Designer casual outfits, professionally styled hair, and carefully managed lighting betrayed the meticulous planning behind the performance. “It’s a costume,” Owens said bluntly. “The audience is over it.”

This tension between performance and authenticity has become a defining feature of Markle’s public persona. From her time on Suits, where she held minor roles and even appeared in nude scenes, to her marriage into royalty, Markle’s path has been characterized by a constant drive to elevate her status. Owens contends that this ambition, while understandable, has led to a relentless curation of image at the expense of relatability. “She wasn’t a very good actress,” Owens noted. “So she figured out how to maneuver that by marrying a prince who is, quite frankly, not as intelligent as her. And now she’s been invited into circles she never would have accessed otherwise.”

Markle’s appearances—whether on podcasts, in Netflix specials, or in public interviews—often feel like carefully staged performances rather than spontaneous, emotional moments. Owens highlighted a particularly telling example: Markle’s most recent Netflix series, With Love, Megan, which showcases the Duchess hosting friends, cooking, gardening, and sharing lifestyle tips. On the surface, the series seems intimate and approachable. But Owens and many critics perceived it as a “luxury showroom” that emphasized glamour over substance. Every angle, every piece of lighting, and every designer outfit worked to reinforce the image of a perfect, controlled life—a stark contrast to the raw, honest struggles real people face.

The contrast between perception and reality, Owens argues, extends to Markle’s broader public messaging. Attempts to present herself as a relatable figure, someone struggling with the pressures of fame and the challenges of motherhood, often come across as contrived. Social media erupted in response to Markle’s carefully curated presentations, with many users dubbing her approach “relatability cosplay.” Even minor details, such as a podcast host petting Markle’s hair or nodding empathetically, felt rehearsed and inauthentic to viewers. “How are we supposed to feel connected when everything from the lighting to the language feels choreographed?” Owens asked.

Owens also critiqued Markle’s partner in these ventures, podcast host Jaime Kern Lima, calling her a “hypewoman” rather than a rigorous interviewer. In Owens’ eyes, Lima’s overly sweet, scripted demeanor enabled Markle’s performative vulnerability instead of challenging it. Every tear, every emotive anecdote, and every quiet sigh seemed calculated to project a particular image of struggle without the accompanying risk or genuine sacrifice. “It’s manipulative,” Owens said. “She wants sympathy for struggles she hasn’t truly lived while maintaining a life of comfort and luxury.”

Even the royal connection, Owens argues, has been leveraged to create an aura of legitimacy. Markle’s proximity to the royal family—an access millions could only dream of—is repeatedly invoked to lend weight to her narrative. Yet, according to Owens, this strategy has backfired. Audiences increasingly recognize the dissonance between the hardship Markle claims and the privilege she embodies. Attempts to frame ordinary activities, such as gardening or hosting friends, as emblematic of personal growth or insight feel hollow against the backdrop of her opulent lifestyle.

Spotify’s quiet disengagement from Archetypes serves as a stark reminder that prestige and money cannot mask a lack of genuine connection. Despite a multi-million-dollar deal and extensive promotion, the podcast was not renewed, signaling that audiences were simply not engaging with Markle’s curated content. “It wasn’t offensive or outrageous,” Owens said. “It failed because it didn’t connect. It tried to be a movement but ended up as a monologue.”

The pattern extends to Netflix, where Markle’s With Love, Megan faced similar criticisms. Long shots of palatial estates, soft-focus camera work, and meticulously staged interactions created an aesthetic that critics deemed more suited to Hollywood than documentary storytelling. Owens called it “royal cosplay,” a production that loses all grip on authenticity despite its high production values. Insiders reportedly refused to participate, sensing the performative nature of the show even before it aired—a preemptive indictment of the series’ sincerity.

Underlying Owens’ critique is a deeper observation about Markle’s approach to fame: a relentless desire to control perception. Every project, whether a podcast or a docuseries, seems designed to convey a carefully engineered image rather than invite genuine dialogue. “The problem isn’t that Meghan wants to share her story,” Owens explained. “It’s that every version feels like a PR campaign, not an act of honesty. People aren’t asking for perfection—they’re asking for sincerity. But when every tear, every word, every camera angle passes through ten PR filters, the story loses its soul.”

Markle’s ambition, Owens argues, is understandable in isolation. Everyone wants recognition, success, and influence. But the relentless curation of self in service of celebrity, when combined with claims of vulnerability and authenticity, creates an insurmountable disconnect. Audiences, fatigued by repeated attempts to humanize a figure whose life remains far removed from their own, have begun to disengage. Criticism, memes, and social media commentary reflect a collective skepticism: Markle’s performances no longer resonate.

In the end, Owens’ critique crystallizes a broader cultural tension. Meghan Markle occupies a unique intersection of fame, wealth, and social influence. She has leveraged celebrity, royal connections, and strategic media appearances to maintain relevance. Yet, as Owens points out, this strategy is faltering. Attempts to convey authenticity have been met with suspicion; attempts to cultivate empathy have been seen as manipulative; and the audience’s tolerance for carefully curated vulnerability is rapidly diminishing.

Candace Owens’ analysis is not merely a personal attack—it is a commentary on the limitations of celebrity-driven narratives in a world increasingly attuned to authenticity. By dissecting Markle’s projects, appearances, and public statements, Owens exposes a paradox at the heart of modern fame: the pursuit of relatability in a life defined by privilege. For Meghan Markle, the lesson is clear, according to Owens: to be believed, one must first be real. And so far, the Duchess of Sussex has yet to cross that threshold.

Full video: