The Duchess of Sussex has been attacked by all sorts over the years. Loudmouths, has‑beens, professional contrarians, and people who seem to treat cruelty as a hobby. And when you line them up, one after another, something becomes painfully clear: the louder the hatred, the darker the mess behind the person shouting. It looks an awful lot like a pattern - the more vicious the commentary, the more troubling the commentator.
Let’s start with Laurence Fox. He’s spent years barking at Meghan with a kind of rage that feels wildly out of proportion to anything she’s ever said or done. And while he’s been busy calling her every name under the sun, he’s also been dealing with his own real‑world problems … including being charged under s.66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in March 2025. Nothing to do with Meghan, of course … but it does make his moral grandstanding look rather flimsy.
Then there’s Jeremy Clarkson, who wrote that infamous Sun column in 2022 saying he hated Meghan on a “cellular level” and fantasised about her being publicly humiliated. More than 25,000 people complained. IPSO upheld a sexism complaint, calling his language discriminatory. And this wasn’t even his first brush with grotesque commentary; he once made a “joke” about Princess Diana’s death. When someone’s humour leans that way, maybe their opinions on others aren’t worth much.
Piers Morgan is now pretty much only famous for making Meghan his personal obsession. His tirade after the Oprah interview generated 54,595 Ofcom complaints, one of the most complained‑about programmes in Ofcom’s history. But long before that, he was sacked as editor of a national paper for publishing fake photos of British soldiers abusing Iraqis. Yet he still positions himself as the guardian of truth.
Katie Hopkins has hurled insults at Meghan for years, but her own record is a catalogue of cruelty. The High Court ordered her to pay Jack Monroe £24,000 for libellous tweets that caused serious reputational harm. She’s mocked children’s names, sneered at people who are overweight, and built a career on punching down. When someone’s brand is nastiness, their attacks say more about them than their target.
Across the Atlantic, Candace Owens, one of America’s most controversial right‑wing commentators, known for conspiracy theories and inflammatory claims, has joined in too. She’s currently facing a defamation lawsuit brought by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron over allegations about Brigitte’s identity. Again, nothing to do with Meghan. But it does raise questions about why people with such chaotic public records feel so confident judging her.
Then you have the long‑time provocateurs. Jan Moir, whose 2009 column about Stephen Gately generated more than 25,000 complaints. Richard Littlejohn, censured by the Radio Authority for saying the police should have “turned the dogs” on protestors and “if that had failed, brought out the flamethrowers.” These are people who’ve made careers out of pushing boundaries of decency and then acting shocked when the public pushes back.
Some cases are even more disturbing. Angela Levin, who’s spent years attacking Meghan, was told about Jimmy Savile’s sexual abuses of paralysed young girls - and didn’t report it. That’s a moral failure of pretty staggering proportions.
And then there’s Victoria Hervey, who defends Prince Andrew with a zeal that borders on surreal. She’s smeared Virginia Giuffre repeatedly, even after the Epstein survivor's death. When someone chooses to stand shoulder‑to‑shoulder with a disgraced prince rather than with victims, it tells you everything you need to know.
Finally (for now - I haven’t mentioned people like Samantha Markle or Dan Wootton): Andrew Tate. A man who has attacked Meghan while facing serious charges in multiple countries. He’s currently detained in the US while contesting extradition to Britain, where authorities have charged him with offences including rape and trafficking. Romanian prosecutors have also indicted him on charges including trafficking minors, money laundering, sex with a minor, and witness tampering. When someone with that kind of legal landscape attacks Meghan, well, I take it as a character reference.
The people who attack Meghan the most fiercely aren’t calm, balanced observers. They’re individuals with histories of cruelty, controversy, discrimination, defamation, or in the most serious cases, criminal charges. Their obsession with her isn’t about her behaviour. It’s about their own. And when you look at this parade of rage‑merchants, defamers, and men now facing the gravest criminal charges, a simple truth settles in: these are not people any decent person would choose as their company.