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.
Related Stories
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.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I like this piece. A lot of the commentary I’ve seen in response to this poll focuses on misogyny and racism which are obviously factors but ignore, IMO, really the critical ones which is that Meghan Sussex joined the British Royals at a time where groups of people collectively hating one person on social media could reach insane proportions and that a feedback loop was also created in her case by the entire UK Media creating,I would say, and additionally legitimising, sustaining and amplifying this hatred. You don’t see that for people who hate Zoella or Taylor Swift, the media aren’t sitting right in the middle of those anti-fandoms, sourcing talking points, egging them on.
The closest I got to seeing someone point this out, on the social media I have seen, was a post stating that the UK media treated Diana somewhat similarly (there was more balance and no social media anti-stans). The UK media have decided that Meghan is a legitimate target (the less discussed reasons for that are their typical treatment of British Royals in the last 30 years, her making a point of refusing them access, she and her husband taking them all to court) and they also believe that they are entitled to exploit her existence as they wish for content despite the implied promise to leave her alone if she stepped back and despite the fact she owes the British public nothing.
I think that second part is also often overlooked including here where I have seen it claimed that they are upset that she didn’t just disappear after she stepped back. They are not upset about that at all? Even if she had literally winked out of existence (as Diana effectively has) they would have continued to write about her obsessively (as they did Diana for years after she died). When Meghan wasn’t much in public there were endless pieces asking where she was.
There are many woman and woman of colour who have ended to the victims of irrational hate campaigns on the internet but what those haters don’t have is the entire media ecosystem of a large English speaking nation , pretty much as one, feeding into that and supporting them. And the template is so seductive I can see it gaining traction for Brooklyn Beckham and Adam Peaty for non-British audiences even though those people are barely even celebrities in the UK?
The worse thing is instead of wondering who is drip dripping these ‘family feud’ storylines into their consciousness, Americans (I think) let it make them more angry with Beckham and Peaty. The real villains– The Mail, The Sun et al– get clean away….
Queen Camilla begged Willian not to marry Kate, a sweet, pretty but pedestrian lower-middle-class daughter of a shop assistant mother and maternal great-grand-daughter of a coal miner because, in British snob culture, she lacked the essential royal ‘ingredient’ ‘noblesse oblige’ which comes with birth and cannot be taught.
Knowing this, a weak William dumped Kate for a time and fervently pursued beautiful aristocrat Isabella Gough-Calthorpe, for whom he was reported to have fallen in a huge way, proposing three times and being rejected each time. He then meekly crept back to Waity Katey. There followed an alleged dalliance with another aristocrat, Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondely at the time of Louis’ birth.
It does not take a lot of imagination to understand why the palaces are spending vast sums spinning stories to not allow talented and alpha American woman of colour, Meghan Sussex, whom they forced out of the royal family, to be seen as better than underperforming and alleged racist Kate who was one of those named as questioning the likely colour of Archie’s skin.
The future of the monarchy hangs on Kate’s marriage enduring and no expense will be spared in influencing all agencies against Meghan, Harry and even Oprah Winfrey whose brilliant truth-disclosing interview with the Sussexes sparked so much ongoing controversy and damage to the royal image.
Ranker’s model is based on self selected, online participants, which is the opposite of what is required for reliable polling. Its results are entertainment oriented, crowd-sourced opinions—not representative samples of the U.S. population.
With this polling model, people can create multiple accounts and groups can coordinate mass participation and a company like Ranker can be influenced to produce a false narrative, not because it is corrupt, but because its structure makes narrative manipulation easy, cheap, and often invisible. It is said that crowd-sourced rankings should never be treated as evidence of public opinion.
It is not suggested that the royals could be involved in manipulation as evil as this but it has to be noted that they have gone to any lengths to create their distorted ant- Sussex narrative and it is also disturbing that five of the eight ‘most disliked’ celebrities are connected to team Sussex.
I will never tire of your ‘spot on’ analysis of the public caricature created of the Sussexes by the media, particularly Meghan. I just hope and pray that the suit of armour they have built for themselves will continue to be enough to sustain the noise..
The obsession in this site with the Princess of Wales is sooooo crazy
Surely not. This site is an honest window into the corruption and spin used to promote a disillusioned but sweet woman, Kate Middleton. sucked into the royal vortex and used comparatively to degrade Meghan Sussex with whom Kate Middleton, exposed as racist inclined, is secondary by achievement and particularity.
Another good read from what is quickly becoming my favourite blog.
2 examples I’d like to add:
A comment section on a youtube documentary entitled “The most hated couple in Britain” read ‘I know who the new most hated couple are…Harry and Meghan!” Guess who the subject of the documentary was? Fred and Rose West.
A live stream on Youtube covering a completely different individual suddenly made reference to Meghan by saying “this reminds me of Meghan Markle, y’know, with the self-important narcissism, right?” Guess who the subject of that live stream was? Gypsy Rose Blanchard, a woman who manipulated her boyfriend into murdering her mother.
The way she lives in these people’s heads rent free needs to be studied