SCROLL DOWN TO READ ARTICLE, WATCH VIDEO
In the ever-churning mill of royal gossip, few narratives have proven as enduring or divisive as the saga of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The headline “Has Harry Become Meghan’s Pet?”—a provocative salvo from royal critics—reignites the so-called “Megxit” debate, casting Harry as a subservient figure in both his marriage and the couple’s carefully curated Sussex brand. This framing, steeped in gendered stereotypes and royalist bias, demands a closer examination. Is Harry truly diminished, a pawn in Meghan’s ambitions, or is this narrative a reductive caricature that obscures a more complex reality? By dissecting the rhetoric, the cultural context, and the power dynamics at play, we can uncover what this debate reveals about modern monarchy, media manipulation, and the politics of identity.
The term “Megxit,” coined in 2020 when Harry and Meghan announced their decision to step back from senior royal duties, has always carried a gendered sting. By placing Meghan’s name at the forefront, it implicitly positions her as the orchestrator of the couple’s departure from the British royal family. The latest iteration of this narrative paints Harry as a man stripped of agency, reduced to a “pet” in Meghan’s orbit. Critics, often aligned with traditionalist royal commentators, argue that Harry’s relocation to California, his embrace of Hollywood-style ventures, and his public candor about royal life signal a capitulation to Meghan’s influence. They point to the Sussexes’ Netflix deal, their Archewell foundation, and Harry’s memoir *Spare* as evidence of Meghan’s dominance, framing her as a calculating figure who has reshaped Harry’s identity to serve her own brand.
This portrayal, however, is riddled with contradictions. To label Harry as “subservient” is to ignore his own history of rebellion against royal constraints. Long before Meghan entered his life, Harry was the “spare” who chafed against the monarchy’s rigid expectations. From his youthful indiscretions to his candid discussions of mental health struggles, Harry has consistently defied the stoic archetype of royal masculinity. His decision to prioritize his family’s well-being over palace protocol aligns more with his own values than with a narrative of Meghan’s control. Far from being a passive figure, Harry has been an active partner in crafting the Sussex brand, a venture that reflects their shared commitment to social impact, however imperfectly executed.
The “pet” metaphor also reveals a deeper cultural discomfort with a man stepping into a supporting role beside a strong, ambitious woman. Meghan, a biracial American actress with a pre-existing career and a vocal feminist stance, defies the mold of the demure royal consort. Her refusal to conform to the monarchy’s unspoken rules—deference, silence, and assimilation—has made her a lightning rod for criticism. By contrast, Harry’s willingness to champion his wife’s vision, whether through their media projects or their advocacy for mental health and racial justice, is recast as weakness rather than partnership. This framing betrays a gendered double standard: a woman leading is manipulative, while a man supporting is emasculated. Such critiques echo historical anxieties about powerful women, from Cleopatra to Yoko Ono, who are blamed for “steering” their male partners away from their destined paths.
The media’s role in perpetuating this narrative cannot be overstated. British tabloids, long invested in upholding the monarchy’s mystique, have a vested interest in portraying Harry and Meghan as errant defectors. The “Megxit” storyline sells because it taps into a potent mix of xenophobia, racism, and misogyny, with Meghan often cast as the outsider who “stole” a prince. Posts on X, a platform where royal gossip thrives, reflect this polarized sentiment. Some users echo the critics, decrying Harry’s “fall” from royal grace, while others defend the couple, arguing that their departure was a courageous rejection of a toxic institution. The truth likely lies in the gray space between these extremes, but nuance rarely makes headlines.
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE ARTICLE
Beyond the personal dynamics of Harry and Meghan’s marriage, the “subservient” critique raises broader questions about the monarchy’s relevance in a rapidly changing world. The Sussexes’ exit exposed the institution’s fragility, its reliance on carefully controlled narratives to maintain public support. By stepping away, Harry and Meghan challenged the notion that royal duty must supersede personal agency. Their subsequent ventures, while not without missteps—critics point to the irony of their privacy advocacy amidst high-profile media deals—suggest a redefinition of what it means to be royal. Rather than bowing to tradition, they’ve sought to leverage their platform for causes they believe in, from mental health to gender equity. Whether this is a savvy rebrand or a genuine evolution, it underscores the tension between individual freedom and institutional loyalty.
The “pet” narrative, then, is less about Harry’s character than about society’s struggle to reconcile modern values with antiquated expectations. To critics, Harry’s support for Meghan represents a betrayal of his birthright, a surrender to a woman who dares to challenge the status quo. To supporters, it’s a model of partnership, a man secure enough to amplify his wife’s voice. Both sides project their biases onto a couple whose choices defy easy categorization. Harry is neither a hapless follower nor a revolutionary hero; Meghan is neither a master manipulator nor a flawless trailblazer. They are, like most, navigating the complexities of love, duty, and identity under an unforgiving spotlight.
In the end, the “Megxit” debate reveals more about its narrators than its subjects. The obsession with Harry’s alleged subservience reflects a culture grappling with shifting gender roles, the decline of traditional institutions, and the power of media to shape public perception. Whether Harry and Meghan’s gamble pays off—whether their brand endures or fizzles—remains to be seen. But by daring to rewrite their story, they’ve exposed the fault lines of a monarchy, and a society, at a crossroads. The question isn’t whether Harry is Meghan’s “pet,” but why we’re so desperate to believe he might be.
