When Meghan Sussex Goes Makeup Free It’s a Problem for British Media

Katie Rosseinsky built a career out of side-glancing celebrity culture. But lately, she’s found a specialty: throwing punches at Meghan Sussex. In 2025 alone, Rosseinsky has written at least three snide feature-length takedowns, all targeting Meghan’s every move, from her Instagram return to her podcast and even her barefaced Harper’s Bazaar cover.

Other British royals receive flattering coverage when they go makeup-free. But Meghan? She’s the outlier. It’s as if the King himself issued a royal fatwa forbidding any British outlet from speaking positively about Meghan. The rules change when she shows up. That’s not journalism. It’s courtly propaganda dressed up as critique.

Meghan Gets Framed for Showing Up

When the Duchess of Sussex appeared makeup-free on the cover of Harper’s Bazaar in November 2025, the reaction from sections of the British media was swift and critical. Writing for The Independent, Katie Rosseinsky described the appearance as a “humblebrag,” suggesting that such portrayals of bare-faced beauty only reinforce unrealistic standards when the subject, like Meghan, has clear skin and youthful features.

Despite the Harper’s Bazaar shoot crediting a veteran makeup artist, the tone of the piece implied that Meghan’s presentation was disingenuous, an attempt to position herself as relatable while remaining aspirational.

This response contrasts sharply with how other royals are treated in similar contexts. Earlier in 2023, the Daily Mail ran a light-hearted feature praising royal women, including the Princess of Wales, for embracing the “clean girl” beauty trend. The piece framed minimal makeup looks as elegant and on-trend, without critique.

That contrast is especially notable given recent imagery of the Princess of Wales at the Royal Variety Performance, where her visible weight loss prompted online speculation but was largely left unaddressed in formal reporting. While health concerns should always be approached sensitively and without speculation, the stark difference in media tone—critical toward Meghan’s natural presentation and subdued in response to the Princess’s appearance—speaks to a broader editorial pattern.

Embed from Getty Images

Media Avoids the Obvious on Kate as Meghan Faces Relentless Scrutiny

In earlier years, British and American outlets did comment on the Princess’s figure. Articles from Time, ABC News, and Glamour questioned whether her pre-wedding appearance promoted unhealthy standards, even using terms like “brideorexia” see coverage and this file.

If there is now a reluctance to comment, that shift should be acknowledged transparently. If criticism of the Princess’s physical appearance is now off-limits due to her recent health treatment, that editorial standard should be made clear. But the selective application of concern—where the Duchess of Sussex remains open to intense scrutiny while others are shielded—reveals more about the press than about the subjects themselves.

Rosseinsky Mocks Meghan’s Ventures while Praising Others for the Same Moves

Rosseinsky’s framing of Meghan’s podcast and social media career illustrates the same pattern. Her coverage of Confessions of a Female Founder barely engages with the content. There is no evaluation of the structure, no attention to the guest, and no broader commentary on the genre of self-help programming for women. Instead, the review zeroes in on Meghan’s speech, branding her phrasing as “incomprehensible.” One could reasonably ask: when members of the Royal Family speak in elliptical or vague terms, who sounds more “incomprehensible”?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Feminegra (@feminegra_)

When other women in similar positions enter lifestyle branding or media, the tone is different. Their ventures are framed as entrepreneurial. Their language is “elevated” or “strategic.” Meghan’s, somehow, is always personal when it comes to certain media outlets. To them, Meghan is always performative. Always too much. The distinction is not in the action—it is in the coverage. And it continues to operate on terms the press refuses to admit.

Kate Middleton Enjoys A Pass

Earlier this year, Rosseinsky reported on Kensington Palace’s decision to stop releasing details of the Princess of Wales’s wardrobe, citing a new focus on “important issues.” The article adopted the Palace’s framing without challenge. There was no inquiry into the strategy behind the announcement, no exploration of Kate Middleton’s long-standing relationship with British fashion houses, some of which have since struggled or closed. Nor was there any commentary on how a figure so defined by public image might reposition that image without scrutiny. Instead, the shift was welcomed as a meaningful pivot toward “substance over style”—a narrative that went unexamined.

This is the same year Meghan got dragged for appearing in sweats and no makeup on a podcast episode. Again, the dichotomy is there for all to see. One woman is framed as refreshing for minimizing fashion coverage. The other is accused of manipulation for letting freckles show. Rosseinsky gives Kate the benefit of the doubt every time. Meghan never gets that grace. And it’s clear that the woman of color has to earn her coverage while the white woman gets protected by it.

Final Thoughts

This isn’t about style, branding, or podcast language. It’s about who gets punished for being visible. Writers like Katie Rosseinsky claim to speak on behalf of fairness, yet only find their fire when Meghan Sussex is involved. They turn ordinary career moves into punchlines. They rewrite beauty into arrogance. And they do it while praising other white women for doing the exact same thing.

Meghan lives rent-free in the columns of writers who only “speak their minds” when the target looks like her. And that tells you everything you need to know.