Meghan Markle’s “Authenticity” Problem: What Her Latest Interview Really Reveals

When Meghan Markle sat down with Bloomberg’s Emily Chang for what was billed as a casual, intimate conversation, the expectation was that audiences would see a more authentic side of the Duchess of Sussex. What unfolded, however, left many observers puzzled. Instead of reshaping her image, Meghan’s words reignited long-standing debates about her sincerity, her struggles with relatability, and whether she has truly found her voice outside the royal family.

The interview opened with light questions, such as whether there is a tension between being a duchess and being relatable. Meghan quickly dismissed the idea. “I’m just being myself,” she explained, adding that in earlier years she couldn’t always express herself freely. As an example, she pointed to wearing nude pantyhose during her time in the royal family—an accessory she joked hadn’t been fashionable since the 1980s.

To Meghan, the stockings represented a symbol of inauthenticity. “It didn’t feel like me,” she said. Today, she insists, she can speak and dress in ways that reflect her true identity. The comment may have been intended as lighthearted, but it sparked conversation for another reason: it captured how Meghan often frames small inconveniences as deeper struggles about self-expression.

The exchange also raised a question that has lingered for years: what does “authentic Meghan” truly mean?

Her critics argue that her definition of authenticity seems inconsistent. Behind the scenes, she has often been described as demanding and self-focused, while in public she portrays herself as relatable and approachable. This contrast fuels the perception that Meghan performs sincerity rather than living it.

One of the more awkward moments came when Chang asked Meghan when she feels the least like a duchess. Instead of grounding the answer in her personal life or her role as a mother, Meghan replied, “Right now, sitting here with you.” What may have been intended as playful instead struck some as dismissive toward the interviewer, who had traveled to Montecito for the discussion.

The conversation then shifted toward Meghan’s lifestyle projects, including her now-familiar themes of home, food, and personal wellness. She emphasized that her intention was to share pieces of herself and tips that make life more enjoyable. But when the interviewer suggested some critics viewed her work as “glorifying homemaking,” Meghan appeared caught off guard.

“That feels odd to me,” she said. “I don’t have time to churn my own butter, and I don’t think you get an extra gold star if you do.”

On the surface, her answer may sound harmless. Yet for many listeners, it reinforced the perception that Meghan struggles to connect with everyday people. After all, most working mothers don’t have the luxury of live-in staff or multimillion-dollar homes. A casual dismissal of traditional homemaking sounded more like detachment than relatability.

Observers point out that this was a missed opportunity. Meghan could have celebrated the dignity of caring for a home and family, acknowledging it as meaningful work. Instead, her words suggested distance from the very image she hopes to project.

There is also the issue of humor—or the lack of it. Analysts noted that Meghan rarely pokes fun at herself or engages with criticism in a lighthearted way. Instead, she leans into carefully scripted language about authenticity and intention. In an era where self-deprecation often wins public sympathy, Meghan’s refusal to laugh at herself makes her appear overly cautious and, ironically, less authentic.

The interview highlighted another contradiction: Meghan’s love of presenting herself as a book-lover and intellectual while admitting she has little time to actually read. This tension between branding and reality has become a recurring theme. Whether it’s promoting cooking but relying on chefs, or speaking about relatable struggles from within a sprawling Montecito estate, the gap between image and reality has been difficult for her to bridge.

What makes this especially striking is that Meghan’s career hinges on storytelling. From her acting days on Suits to her highly publicized interviews and podcasts, she has positioned herself as a woman with something important to share. Yet when pressed, her stories often circle back to grievances—about the royal family, the media, or the ways she feels misunderstood—rather than new insights.

The larger question raised by the Bloomberg interview is whether Meghan has missed chances to reshape her narrative. Critics note that if she truly wanted to surprise audiences, she might have chosen a more challenging interviewer or addressed her controversies head-on. Instead, the conversation felt polished but uninspiring, repeating familiar themes of authenticity without delivering clarity.

In Hollywood and beyond, authenticity is currency. Audiences reward those who take risks, show humor, and embrace vulnerability. For Meghan, however, authenticity remains an elusive brand rather than a lived experience. Each time she insists she is being herself, critics ask: which self? The careful duchess, the ambitious actress, or the California lifestyle influencer?

The irony is that Meghan’s desire to be seen as ordinary could itself be the barrier. By emphasizing relatability in carefully curated ways, she inadvertently highlights the privileges that separate her from most people. And in an industry where perception is everything, that tension may continue to overshadow her efforts to reinvent herself.

In the end, the Bloomberg interview may be remembered less for what Meghan said and more for what she didn’t: a clear, consistent definition of who she is today. Until she reconciles her public image with her private reality, the gap between authenticity and performance will remain at the heart of her story.