Why Women Like Meghan Sussex Are Judged More Harshly Than Violent Men

A crowd-sourced celebrity poll placed Meghan Sussex, Prince Harry, and several other women with no criminal records at or near the top of the list, alongside men accused or convicted of serious violence, including sexual assault and trafficking. The contrast was so stark that even casual readers stopped to question it. Public figures accused of nothing more than being disliked ranked above individuals linked to documented harm. The result did not spark consensus. It sparked disbelief. What followed was not anger toward those women, but confusion over why they had been grouped there at all.

What the Ranker Poll Actually Measures

The ranking comes from Ranker, which relies on open voting without safeguards, weighting, or moral standards. As of December 28, 2025, more than 1.4 million votes from roughly 109,000 users had ranked 162 celebrities based on irritation rather than misconduct. The structure collapses everything into a single scale. Serious allegations and personal dislike carry the same weight, placing documented violence beside subjective annoyance and reducing real harm to a popularity contest.

Earlier versions of the list intensified that problem. Meghan Sussex and Prince Harry appeared near the top alongside men accused or convicted of sexual assault, trafficking, and abuse. The reaction was not agreement but disbelief. Viewers struggled to understand why public figures with no criminal accusations were being judged in the same moral category as people linked to serious harm.

Since then, the ranking has shifted again. It now places men such as Sean Combs, Andrew Tate, Prince Andrew, and Bill Cosby firmly at the top. That change only reinforces the underlying issue. Meghan’s earlier placement did not reflect misconduct. It reflected sexism, sustained by years of recycled tabloid narratives that conditioned audiences to respond with hostility rather than evidence.

Why Violence Is Forgiven, and Women Are Punished

The top of the list exposed a familiar divide. Men associated with physical violence, sexual assault, or exploitation appeared alongside women criticized for attitude, ambition, or visibility. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, whose ties to Jeffrey Epstein sparked global outrage toward both him and the royal institution that shielded him, now occupies the same cultural space as women disliked largely because of bigotry, internal bias, or susceptibility to false media narratives. That contrast reveals how public judgment works. Society often treats male harm as a failing that time, silence, or status can smooth over. It treats female refusal as an unforgivable breach.

Meghan Sussex has topped versions of this list in 2022, 2023, and 2024 without any allegation of criminal or unethical behavior. In the UK, recurring YouGov surveys regularly circulate her supposed unpopularity without ever identifying a concrete offense. The dislike comes first, and the justification follows. Her speech, clothing, behavior, work ethic and even the presence of her Black mother are then framed as evidence of wrongdoing. That double standard explains why Kate Middleton eating an avocado is praised as a wholesome maternity choice, while Meghan doing the same is twisted into claims about human rights abuses, environmental harm, and generational moral failure.

That bigotry has sunk to such extremes that reports claimed the current Princess of Wales would rather live near the credibly accused Andrew than Meghan and Prince Harry. The comparison exposes how warped the hierarchy of judgment has become and how the royal system benefits from, and quietly reinforces, that distortion.

British media coverage helped manufacture this outcome. Commentators like Jeremy Clarkson publicly fantasized about ritual humiliation for Meghan, rhetoric never directed at Andrew, even as further details about his Epstein associations emerged. Clarkson was rewarded for his language by Prince William appearing on his show. Men implicated in serious harm still receive restraint, distance, and quiet deference.

Final Thoughts

Lists like this do not measure conduct or consequence. They measure tolerance. None of the women (nor Prince Harry) ranked here has been accused of crimes, yet they are positioned alongside men linked to documented violence. That imbalance exposes how easily discomfort with women hardens into condemnation.

Meghan Sussex became a lightning rod not because of wrongdoing, but because she exercised choice. She spoke plainly, protected her family, and exited a system that expected silence in exchange for status. That refusal unsettled audiences conditioned to obedience, especially from women who cross lines of race, power and sexuality. What followed was not accountability but fixation.

In that light, the ranking reads less as public opinion and more as cultural leakage. It reflects media ecosystems that reward illogical grievance, polls that confuse noise for consensus, and a public trained to mistake repetition for truth. Meghan’s continued stability and success sit outside that cycle. The anger persists because it has nowhere else to go.