On the other hand, their detractors claim that Harry is Meghan’s useful idiot, a ‘pussy-whipped’ dolt who deserves the nickname ‘Blow Jobs Harry’ as he has fallen under the spell of a brighter but ultimately ruthless spouse who is using him and will discard him when she is through milking the situation for all she can get out of it. Theirs is a harsh assessment, but they maintain that Meghan is a lone wolf who disguises her motives with charm as she develops what Nikki Priddy called ‘strategic’ relationships for her own advancement and self-aggrandisement. They cynically believe that whenever she is ready to move on, she does it with such alacrity that it must raise doubts as to whether her connection with them was ever as deep nor as heartfelt as they thought it was. Until then, though, she is so wonderful that she seems too good to be true.
Her detractors claim that no one who is sincere makes such a show of being extravagantly loving and self-abnegating the way she does. Some of them even disparage her acting ability, stating that she consistently behaves in such an extreme, over-the-top, hyper-emotionalistic, actressy way, even as she is covering Harry with love, that she comes across more as a parasite clinging to a tree than someone who is sincere emotionally. They say that she substitutes effusiveness for profundity, and that her main talent is not even her acting ability but her energetic ruthlessness. Rather than praise her for the consistency which is one of her more pronounced characteristics, they regard it as proof that her whole life is an act. Off that hypothesis, it doesn’t matter whether she is behind a camera, in front of it, or even in front of an audience of one; as long as there is someone to play to, she does so from a script (which might be written for her when she is in front of the camera, but at all other times she writes herself), projecting an image that is self-serving for the duration the act works in her favour. They believe that she uses people to achieve her goals, and that her interest in others lasts only as long as their presence provides her with the opportunities and rewards she requires from them. They do not accept that her independence of spirit is a quality; they regard it as evidence of something altogether more ominous.
Despite their scepticism, her critics cannot avoid conceding that Meghan develops intense relationships, some of which last for years, and that the people with whom she is involved invariably sing her praises for the duration of the relationship. Although she does have a pattern of ghosting people when relationships sour, her supporters feel that this is not because she is the ruthless opportunist her detractors regard her as being, but because she is a sweet, sensitive soul who prefers terminating relationships with a minimum of fuss and unpleasantness rather than sullying herself with the unpleasantness of explanations and recriminations. Irrespective of your take on the merits of her exit strategy, there can be no dispute that she has the ability to convince those with whom she is involved that she is a warm, sincere, self-denying individual who thinks only of others and never of herself, though she also expects men to make and keep her happy.
So many people to whom I have spoken have used the same words to describe Meghan that a pattern emerges. She is bright. She is opinionated and passionate in expressing her beliefs. She can be vivacious and charming. She is devoted, radiating warmth, interest, and care. She is energetic. She has a truly sweet manner and strikes people who like her as vulnerable. She is high-octane and functions at a fever pitch emotionally. She is both sensational and sensationalistic. She can be huge fun. She can be enthusiastic to the point of freneticism, but people who like that about her believe that she is delightful and sincere, though others who prefer people functioning in a lower key hear the clanking sound of an empty vessel making a lot of noise. She is very exacting and demanding. She is so upfront about what she wants that her admirers regard this as a commendable virtue indicating honesty and integrity, though her critics view it as a deplorable vice suggestive of insensitivity and bumptiousness. She is so open about being ambitious, so proud of the relish she has for the things of this world, that she comes across as honest to those who sympathise with her worldliness, while at the same time turning off others. Like her or loathe her, she is charismatic. She draws you in, and those who relate to her find her wholly convincing, while those who do not accuse her of having the feigned sincerity of a practised actress or true phoney. The two most frequently used phrases to describe her are ‘strong’ and ‘hard as nails’, but people who do not take to her also consistently say ‘there is something about her that is slightly off’. When I tried to nail down why they felt like that, they often could not articulate anything specific, though they all ended up saying that she somehow doesn’t ring true. As one of Harry’s friends said, ‘He thinks she’s so good that she’s true. I think she’s too good to be true.’
In private, Meghan complained bitterly about her critics. As Harry has confirmed in his postings, they both found it extremely painful to her to be doubted the way she often was. I am
