The Rise and Fall of M&H: How Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Became Victims of Their Own Brand

If you’re a watcher of the royal family or just someone fascinated by celebrity secrets, you might want to sit down. Meghan Markle has finally revealed why she and Prince Harry call each other “M” and “H.” On its surface, it’s an innocuous detail, a cute pet name exchanged in private. But in the hands of the media, particularly late-night television, those two letters became a symbol of something much larger—a turning point in public perception of the Sussexes.

Since stepping back from royal duties, Meghan and Harry have made their intentions clear: they plan to balance their time between the United Kingdom and North America. A bold declaration of independence, if you will, complete with free speech, unlimited breadsticks, and, apparently, private monikers. “We were just on a letter basis,” Meghan explained about their nickname system, hinting at a coded, clandestine early romance. Cute. Relatable. Human.

Enter Stephen Colbert. For years, Colbert had been a safe harbor for progressive darlings. A late-night host wielding satire like a sword, he defended Meghan and Harry against the British tabloids’ voracious appetite for scandal. He had applauded their bravery in leaving the monarchy, spotlighting their battles against institutional coldness and racism. But lately, something shifted. Colbert didn’t just pivot; he pirouetted into takedown mode, leaving jaws on the studio floor and social media ablaze.

In a monologue that blended savage humor with cultural commentary, Colbert zeroed in on what he saw as a carefully curated victim narrative. Gone was sympathy; in its place was gleeful dissection. He mocked their glossy Netflix docuseries Brick by Brick, highlighting overproduced slow-motion gazes and the pretense of “raw honesty” beneath royalty-free piano music. “Their truth comes in 4K,” he quipped, “with dramatic lighting.” Audiences roared.

But perhaps nothing hit harder than the ridicule of the Sussexes’ infamous pet names. M&H, once a glimpse into their intimacy, became the punchline of a joke that cut deeper than most. What was intended as charming now read as calculated PR, a staged attempt to humanize themselves while simultaneously monetizing vulnerability. The crowd devoured it, and for many, the honeymoon phase of public support for Meghan and Harry was over.

Colbert didn’t just lampoon a nickname. He highlighted a fundamental tension in the Sussex brand: the gap between image and intent. The couple had transitioned from royal rebels to Hollywood moguls. Sympathy had been replaced by scrutiny, and their curated vulnerability now rang hollow.

For years, Meghan had portrayed herself as a woman under siege. Tales of palace mistreatment, whispers of racism, and claims of mental health struggles dominated headlines. Oprah’s exclusive sit-down reinforced these narratives, painting Meghan as a wounded figure navigating an oppressive institution. Yet as Colbert pointed out, these moments were meticulously polished. Every tear, pause, and anecdote seemed carefully staged, pre-approved for maximum emotional impact. Vulnerability had been weaponized into a product, a high-definition, glossy narrative packaged for public consumption.

This is where M&H becomes emblematic. Two letters, once intimate, now shorthand for the Sussexes’ overexposure and strategic self-presentation. Colbert’s timing was perfect: he mimicked their delivery, exaggerated the romance, and turned their affection into a punchline that encapsulated the public’s growing sense of fatigue. If a late-night liberal ally was laughing at them, what did that say about general public sentiment?

Critics noted that the Sussexes’ business ventures only exacerbated the perception. Multi-million-dollar deals with Netflix and Spotify, guest appearances, podcasts, and high-profile interviews positioned the couple as influencers more than rebels. What was meant to be a critique of intrusion into royal privacy morphed into a demonstration of selective exposure. Claim privacy while signing exclusive media deals? Fine. But don’t expect the world to look away.

Even sympathetic audiences began shifting. Not because Meghan and Harry were dishonest, but because authenticity had been polished into performativity. Their pain, once relatable, became aspirational. Every story was framed, every detail curated. The girl who once wanted to be heard was now a media mogul controlling the narrative with precision.

M&H, the nickname, encapsulates this paradox. It’s a microcosm of the Sussexes’ public life: intimate in theory, but calculated in practice. It highlights the broader issue of celebrity branding, where vulnerability is currency but only if packaged for consumption. The public doesn’t just crave honesty—they crave unfiltered honesty. When every moment is curated, it breeds skepticism rather than empathy.

Consider the recent backlash over Meghan’s revelations about the royal family asking Harry about their baby’s skin color. Even longtime supporters questioned the framing. Was it offensive? Was it racist? The debate shifted focus from the act itself to the way it was presented. In the public’s eye, the Sussexes’ stories were no longer raw accounts but meticulously constructed narratives, designed to elicit a reaction while maintaining the aura of victimhood.

Piers Morgan’s response typifies this sentiment. Long an outspoken critic, Morgan dismissed Meghan’s claims of suicidal ideation as suspect, highlighting a broader fatigue with the Sussexes’ storytelling. The royal rebels had become media moguls; the wounded underdogs, influencers in designer suits. Their love story, once a defiant escape from monarchy, began to resemble a corporate pitch with a romantic subplot. All it took were two letters: M&H.

Yet the critique isn’t entirely personal. Colbert and others weren’t attacking Meghan Markle the person—they were dissecting her presentation. They held up a mirror to the strategies behind her public persona, exposing the theatricality inherent in every interview, photo, and statement. M&H became shorthand for overexposure, the point where charm tips into calculated marketing. It became a symbol of the widening gap between intention and perception.

There’s a cultural lesson here. Audiences, even sympathetic ones, are increasingly allergic to inauthenticity. They can detect the difference between someone sharing trauma and someone selling it. Meghan’s brand, once defined by resilience and relatability, now walks a fine line between storytelling and product placement. Every heartfelt pause, every anecdote, every carefully staged moment risks being read as strategic rather than sincere.

Colbert’s takedown crystallized this tension. It wasn’t just comedy—it was cultural commentary, a reflection of growing public sentiment. Vulnerability, when too pristine, rots from the inside. The Sussexes’ media strategy—polished, curated, monetized—had begun to undermine the very empathy it sought to generate. And M&H, the simplest symbol of intimacy, became a shorthand for everything that had gone wrong.

In the end, the Sussexes’ journey from royal rebels to Hollywood moguls illuminates the challenges of modern celebrity. Authenticity sells, but only if it feels earned. When every tear is perfectly timed, every detail approved for consumption, the public begins to wonder: where does the person end, and where does the brand begin?

M&H isn’t just a nickname. It’s a cautionary tale. Two letters, once symbols of love and connection, now represent the perils of overcurated vulnerability in the age of media omnipresence. For Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, the lesson is stark: in the court of public opinion, authenticity is king. And when that authenticity is polished to a veneer of perfection, even the most loyal audiences will start laughing—and the applause will fade.

In the high-definition, carefully staged world of the Sussexes, it turns out that sometimes, less really is more. Vulnerability without polish resonates; polished vulnerability invites scrutiny. M&H, once a whisper of intimacy, has become a roar of irony, a cultural shorthand for the perils of turning love into a brand. And as Colbert’s monologue reminded us, no one—no ally, no celebrity, no royal—is immune from the sharp gaze of satire, especially when that satire holds up a mirror to carefully curated truth.

Full video: