Andrew Tate’s Scorching Take on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry: Victimhood, Manipulation, and the Erosion of Masculinity

In a viral sitdown that ignited social media, Andrew Tate delivered one of his most unfiltered critiques yet—this time targeting Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Known for his unapologetic opinions and relentless provocations, Tate did not tread lightly. He used a flamethrower where others might use a polite whisper, dissecting the couple’s public persona, their influence, and the broader cultural narratives they symbolize. What he said was shocking, polarizing, and, depending on whom you ask, brutally honest.

Tate began with Meghan Markle. While mainstream media often portrays her as a victim of relentless racism, Tate sharply rejected that narrative. He argued that Markle’s claims of discrimination are overblown, even laughable. “She’s lighter than me, and I’ve never cried about racism,” he asserted. According to him, the idea that Meghan is disliked because of her skin color is false. Instead, Tate claims the source of public disdain lies in her behavior: smugness, condescension, and an uncanny talent for playing the victim.

Drawing from his own experience as a person of color, Tate challenged the racial framing of Meghan’s story. He argued that using race as a shield against criticism is not only disingenuous but a deliberate strategy. “People dislike Meghan not because of her background, but because she is dislikable,” he said flatly. This argument, he contends, exposes a cultural shift in which truth is subordinated to perception, and accountability is avoided under the guise of oppression.

Tate’s takedown did not stop at Meghan. He placed Prince Harry under an even harsher microscope. According to Tate, Harry’s downfall is self-inflicted. Once a royal soldier, known for his courage and independence, Harry has allegedly traded his royal armor for public therapy sessions, Netflix specials, and Oprah interviews. Tate paints a picture of a man estranged from his family, detached from his roots, and fully consumed by a partner who never embraced royal life. “Harry fell in line. He wasn’t dragged—he chose it,” Tate explained, describing Harry’s transition from the monarchy’s rebellious wild card to a figure emblematic of what he sees as modern emasculation.

At the heart of Tate’s critique is masculinity itself. He frames Harry as a cautionary tale, a man whose submission to a partner and public narrative has led to the erosion of his identity, dignity, and respect. To Tate, this isn’t simply a royal drama; it’s part of a broader societal shift where traditional male virtues—stoicism, strength, and independence—are devalued, and vulnerability and victimhood are celebrated above all else. In his view, Harry’s personal choices are a microcosm of the modern West’s failure to uphold these traditional ideals.

Tate’s commentary extends beyond individuals. He situates Meghan and Harry within a cultural critique of the times. According to him, Meghan is not an exception but a blueprint for a new breed of public figures: narcissists cloaked in empowerment, influencers disguised as victims, and individuals who value optics over authenticity. In this environment, victimhood becomes a currency, and fame can be built on drama, division, and buzzwords rather than talent or service. Every public tear, every scandal, every personal revelation is, in Tate’s analysis, a strategic move to control the narrative, turning adversity into opportunity and criticism into publicity.

Markle’s alleged mastery of narrative, Tate asserts, has allowed her to craft a persona immune to accountability. The public, wary of being labeled a bigot or insensitive, hesitates to question her. This has, in Tate’s eyes, contributed to the couple’s rebranding: Meghan as the empowered, wounded heroine, and Harry as the dutiful, but increasingly diminished, royal. Tate emphasizes that Meghan’s real power lies not in her talents or charitable endeavors, but in her ability to manipulate perception. “She doesn’t need truth to be powerful. She just needs a story people are too afraid to question,” he said.

In Tate’s framing, Harry’s vulnerability is not merely a personal issue—it’s symbolic. He argues that men today are conditioned to prioritize emotions over resilience, and that a culture that rewards perceived weakness while punishing strength is producing a generation of domesticated men. The Prince of Wales’s younger son, once a soldier who carried the legacy of Princess Diana and royal duty, now appears in Tate’s critique as a cautionary tale for all men: the costs of surrendering one’s identity to another’s narrative.

The social ramifications of this critique are substantial. Tate asserts that the fear of being labeled a bigot has created an environment where public discourse is stifled. Authenticity is punished, and narratives are carefully curated to avoid confrontation. In this world, Tate says, Meghan thrives, wielding identity politics and emotional storytelling like a weapon, converting criticism into power. “She used her race, her tears, her Hollywood charm—everything—to control the narrative,” Tate claims.

His commentary also critiques the broader media ecosystem. According to Tate, journalists and public figures often prefer curated headlines and performative wokeness to genuine inquiry. Truth is replaced by optics, and inconvenient facts are buried. Tate argues this has enabled Meghan to leverage the royal family’s global prestige into a personal brand, turning historical institutions into a backdrop for personal reinvention. Meanwhile, Harry, he insists, bears equal responsibility for his own undoing. By choosing to participate in this public narrative, he traded his legacy for a platform that glorifies emotional vulnerability over traditional duty.

Tate doesn’t shy away from controversy. He repeatedly hammers the racial narrative, positioning it as a manipulative tool rather than a genuine grievance in Meghan’s case. He asserts that while some individuals may face real racism, Markle’s experiences, as she has presented them, do not constitute an exceptional or systemic case. In Tate’s view, her story is a carefully constructed projection designed to elicit sympathy and shield her from criticism. This, he claims, is emblematic of a larger cultural problem: the rise of identity as a mechanism of power rather than a reflection of lived experience.

The impact of Tate’s words has been polarizing. Critics of Meghan and Harry have hailed him as a truth-teller, someone willing to challenge the narrative that others fear to confront. Conversely, supporters of the Sussexes have condemned his rhetoric as toxic and unnecessarily provocative. Regardless of one’s stance, Tate’s framing of Meghan as a master manipulator and Harry as a cautionary tale of emasculation has ignited discussion about free speech, masculinity, and the influence of public narratives in shaping perception.

At its core, Tate’s argument is a warning about the erosion of tradition, accountability, and truth. He portrays Meghan as the ultimate 21st-century influencer: someone who monetizes victimhood, manipulates perception, and leverages culture to craft a seemingly untouchable persona. Harry, by contrast, represents the cost of succumbing to these forces—a man who sacrifices heritage, respect, and identity for the sake of alignment with another’s narrative.

In his own words, Tate frames this not as a scandal confined to the royal family, but as a symptom of a global cultural shift. Public figures, he argues, no longer act from authenticity or duty but from optics and strategic storytelling. Victimhood has become a tool for power, and accountability is increasingly marginalized. Within this context, Meghan Markle’s success is not an aberration; it is the logical result of a society that prioritizes image over substance and narrative control over truth.

Finally, Tate positions himself as both commentator and exemplar. Having faced deplatforming, social media bans, and widespread condemnation, he claims to have experienced firsthand the consequences of challenging dominant narratives. He asserts that freedom of speech no longer guarantees the ability to question accepted truths, particularly on issues of race, gender, and public reputation. In this sense, his critique of Meghan and Harry is also a broader commentary on modern society, where truth is subordinate to perception and silence is enforced through fear.

In sum, Andrew Tate’s takedown is not merely about a royal couple; it is a cultural indictment. Meghan Markle, in his analysis, is the blueprint for a new breed of celebrity—strategic, performative, and untouchable. Prince Harry, conversely, is the cautionary tale of a man who sacrificed duty and identity in pursuit of personal validation. Their saga, Tate insists, is a reflection of a society in which narratives are manufactured, masculinity is under siege, and authenticity is increasingly punished. Whether one agrees or not, his commentary forces a hard look at the intersection of power, perception, and personal responsibility in the age of modern media.

Full video: