Meghan Markle just tried to take on Princess Kate again – won’t end well for the Sussexes

Meghan Markle has once again found herself at the centre of a debate about royal publicity, timing and the increasingly complicated relationship between the Sussexes and the British Royal Family. As the Duchess of Sussex attracts attention through public appearances, lifestyle content and commercial projects, questions are being raised about whether her latest media activity risks being interpreted as an attempt to compete with Catherine, Princess of Wales.

The timing has attracted particular scrutiny. Meghan’s recent appearances, including a high-profile dinner in Mayfair with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai and a series of lifestyle-related posts, have drawn attention while Catherine has continued her own public engagements.

Former Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has reportedly suggested that the overlap deserves attention, adding to speculation about whether the Sussexes and the working royals are competing for the same news cycle.

However, there is an important distinction between the timing of public appearances and proof of deliberate rivalry. Neither a social media post nor a commercial launch establishes that Meghan intends to overshadow Catherine. Nevertheless, the perception of competition has become difficult to separate from the wider story surrounding the two women.

For the Sussexes, that perception presents a serious communications challenge. Every public appearance can become a comparison between Meghan’s independent life and Catherine’s position within the monarchy, even when their activities serve different purposes.

The danger is that the more the two are framed as opponents, the harder it becomes for either side to control the narrative.

A renewed battle for the headlines?

Meghan’s public profile has evolved considerably since she and Prince Harry stepped back from their roles as senior working royals in 2020.

The couple subsequently developed independent projects spanning media production, charitable work and commercial ventures. Meghan has also pursued lifestyle-related initiatives, presenting a public image that combines personal interests with entrepreneurship.

That approach differs from the traditional communications model followed by working members of the Royal Family. Official royal engagements are generally organised around charities, public institutions and established responsibilities, with the Palace controlling much of the information released about those activities.

The Sussexes, by contrast, have greater freedom to determine the timing, format and commercial direction of their projects.

That independence can be an advantage. It allows them to reach audiences directly, develop their own brands and pursue interests that might not fit within the formal structure of royal life.

But it also creates a problem when their activities take place alongside major royal engagements.

If a Sussex announcement appears just as Catherine is undertaking a significant public visit, commentators may interpret the overlap as a calculated attempt to divert attention. Even if the timing is coincidental, the comparison can quickly become the dominant story.

This is particularly true in an environment where royal coverage is driven by competition for headlines, social media engagement and audience attention.

The resulting narrative can be difficult to escape. Meghan’s supporters may view criticism of her publicity strategy as evidence of unfair treatment, while detractors may interpret every new project as another attempt to remain connected to royal prominence.

For the Sussexes, the challenge is not simply attracting attention. It is ensuring that the attention reinforces the identity they want to establish.

Why comparisons with Princess Catherine remain so persistent

Catherine occupies a fundamentally different position from Meghan.

As the Princess of Wales and the wife of Prince William, heir to the throne, she has a formal place within the monarchy’s future. Her public appearances are connected to her responsibilities as a working royal and the expectations attached to that position.

Meghan, meanwhile, is no longer a working member of the Royal Family. She and Harry have pursued their own projects while retaining their royal titles.

That distinction means the two women operate under different rules, obligations and expectations.

Catherine’s role involves representing the monarchy, supporting selected organisations and maintaining a public presence consistent with her position. Meghan’s activities are shaped by her own choices, including her commercial interests and independent media work.

Comparing the two as if they were competing candidates for the same job therefore risks oversimplifying the situation.

Yet their shared history makes the comparison almost inevitable.

Both women married into the Royal Family, attracted intense international attention and became subjects of relentless media scrutiny. Their public images have also been shaped by competing narratives about tradition, modernisation, family relationships and the responsibilities associated with royal life.

Since Harry and Meghan’s departure, those narratives have increasingly been presented as a contest between two households.

That framing may generate clicks, but it does not necessarily reflect the intentions of either woman.

There is no publicly established evidence that Catherine regards Meghan as a direct competitor, nor is there conclusive evidence that Meghan’s recent activities were deliberately scheduled to undermine the Princess of Wales.

The continuing speculation says as much about the media environment surrounding the Royal Family as it does about the women themselves.

Catherine’s public role is built around institutional continuity

One reason Catherine remains such a prominent figure in British royal coverage is the nature of her position.

As a senior working royal, she participates in engagements linked to public service, charitable organisations and the monarchy’s long-term responsibilities. Her public image is inseparable from the institution she represents.

Supporters of the monarchy often value the continuity that such appearances provide. Royal engagements can bring national attention to organisations that might otherwise struggle to reach a broad audience, while offering opportunities to recognise volunteers, community leaders and people working in difficult circumstances.

Catherine’s own experiences have also influenced public discussion of her role.

Her health challenges and the periods when she reduced public engagements brought attention to the personal pressures that can accompany royal life. Her return to public duties has consequently attracted considerable interest, although the details of her medical circumstances remain private beyond what she and the Palace choose to share.

For many observers, that experience has reinforced the importance of balancing public responsibilities with personal wellbeing.

It would nevertheless be unfair to suggest that a person’s health struggles should become a measure against which another woman’s professional or personal choices are judged.

Catherine and Meghan have different lives, and neither needs to diminish the other for their respective work to have value.

The difficulty arises when public discussion reduces them to rival personalities instead of recognising that their roles are fundamentally different.

Can lifestyle branding compete with royal duty?

Meghan’s lifestyle projects have created a separate route to public visibility.

Commercial products, online videos and carefully produced images can reach audiences quickly. They also allow a public figure to establish a more personal relationship with consumers than is usually possible through formal institutional communications.

For a celebrity entrepreneur, this can be an effective strategy. A product launch can generate immediate attention, while lifestyle content can create a recognisable visual identity and encourage audiences to return for future releases.

But the same approach can produce diminishing returns if the audience becomes more interested in the publicity surrounding a project than in the product or idea itself.

In Meghan’s case, the royal connection can be both an asset and a liability.

Her association with the monarchy guarantees that many announcements will attract international coverage. At the same time, it means that commercial activities are often interpreted through the history of her departure from royal duties.

A lifestyle video can therefore become a debate about royal etiquette. A product announcement can generate arguments about privilege. A public dinner can prompt speculation about whether the Duchess is attempting to regain influence in Britain.

Those reactions may help maintain visibility, but visibility is not the same as a successful commercial reputation.

If Meghan wants her independent ventures to be judged on their own merits, she may need to ensure that the substance of the work consistently receives more attention than the question of how it relates to Catherine.

That would mean allowing products, partnerships and charitable initiatives to speak for themselves rather than allowing every launch to become part of a wider royal rivalry.

The Nottingham visit adds another layer of symbolism

Prince Harry and Meghan are preparing for a joint visit to Nottingham, the city where they undertook their first official engagement together as an engaged couple in 2017.

The location carries obvious historical significance. At the time, the couple represented a new chapter for the monarchy, attracting enthusiastic crowds and considerable international interest.

Their return takes place under very different circumstances.

The Sussexes are now independent public figures, while their relationship with other members of the Royal Family remains the subject of persistent speculation. Revisiting Nottingham inevitably invites comparisons between the optimism surrounding their engagement and the difficulties that followed.

Some observers may interpret the trip as an attempt to reconnect with the British public. Others may regard it as a straightforward visit to a place with personal and historical meaning.

Without clear evidence of a different intention, neither interpretation should automatically be treated as fact.

Nevertheless, the timing means the visit could become part of the broader discussion about the Sussexes’ public identity.

If the trip attracts extensive coverage alongside Catherine’s engagements, the media may present the overlap as another episode in a supposed contest for royal attention.

That could overshadow the actual purpose of the visit, including any charitable or community-focused activities planned for the day.

For the Sussexes, the most effective way to avoid that outcome would be to keep the focus on the substance of their work rather than engaging with comparisons they cannot fully control.

The British public is not a single audience

Claims that Meghan has lost the patience of the entire British public should be treated cautiously.

Public opinion about the Sussexes is divided, and views vary according to political outlook, attitudes towards the monarchy, personal experiences and perceptions of the media.

Some people remain critical of Harry and Meghan’s public accounts of family tensions, believing that private disagreements should not have become the subject of interviews and commercial publications.

Others sympathise with the couple, arguing that they were entitled to leave an institution they considered incompatible with their personal wellbeing. Some are largely indifferent to the dispute and prefer the Royal Family to concentrate on public responsibilities rather than family disagreements.

Catherine also attracts a broad range of reactions, although her institutional role gives her public appearances a different significance.

It is therefore difficult to establish that a particular publicity strategy has either succeeded or failed without reliable evidence about audience responses.

Social media engagement, newspaper headlines and the number of people discussing a royal figure do not necessarily reveal whether the public approves of that person.

A controversial announcement can generate enormous attention while leaving opinions unchanged. Equally, a quieter initiative may strengthen credibility among a smaller but more committed audience.

For Meghan, the central question is whether her projects are building durable interest in her independent work or simply renewing the familiar cycle of debate about her relationship with the Royal Family.

That distinction will matter far more in the long run than whether a particular announcement temporarily dominates the news.

Why a perceived PR battle could backfire

If the Sussexes allow their public image to become defined primarily by comparisons with Catherine, they risk becoming trapped in a contest they cannot meaningfully win.

Catherine’s position within the monarchy is established by her marriage to Prince William and his place in the line of succession. Meghan’s public standing, by contrast, increasingly depends on her independent activities and the success of the projects she chooses to pursue.

The two women are therefore judged according to different criteria.

Catherine’s effectiveness is often assessed through her work as a senior royal, her support for charitable causes and her ability to represent the institution. Meghan’s independent ventures must demonstrate their own appeal, relevance and commercial or charitable value.

Attempting to compare them solely in terms of headlines or public visibility overlooks those differences.

There is also a reputational risk in appearing preoccupied with another person’s success. If every major Catherine engagement becomes an occasion for speculation about Meghan’s intentions, the Duchess may find it harder to establish a narrative centred on her own priorities.

The same applies to the wider Sussex brand. Harry and Meghan have repeatedly sought to present their post-royal lives as an independent chapter. A continuing focus on perceived rivalry with the Waleses could undermine that message by keeping the Royal Family at the centre of their public identity.

That is why the most effective strategy may be the simplest: concentrate on their own work, explain its purpose clearly and resist allowing every coincidence of timing to become a confrontation.

A royal rivalry may be good for headlines, but not for reconciliation

The persistent framing of Meghan and Catherine as opponents has consequences beyond publicity.

It encourages the public to interpret every appearance, photograph and announcement as evidence of a deeper struggle. It can also make reconciliation within the wider family more difficult by turning private relationships into a continuing competition for public approval.

Neither woman can control every headline written about her, but both are affected by the environment in which those headlines appear.

For the Royal Family, the continued attention surrounding the Sussexes can distract from official duties and charitable work. For Harry and Meghan, it can make it harder to build an identity that is not defined by their former institutional roles.

A more constructive approach would acknowledge that the two households have different responsibilities and that their future paths do not need to mirror each other.

Reconciliation, if it becomes possible, would depend on personal trust, boundaries and a willingness to address disagreements away from the cameras. It would not be achieved through competing publicity strategies or by attempting to dominate the same news cycle.

Nor should a successful project by one woman automatically be interpreted as a defeat for the other.

The real test for Meghan is what comes next

Meghan’s recent media activity may continue to attract considerable attention, particularly while the Sussexes prepare for their return to Nottingham. The symbolism of that visit, combined with the continuing fascination surrounding Catherine, is likely to keep questions about royal rivalry in the headlines.

But the long-term outcome will depend on more than timing.

If Meghan’s independent projects establish a clear identity and demonstrate lasting value, she may be able to reduce the extent to which every announcement is measured against the Princess of Wales. If the coverage continues to focus overwhelmingly on comparisons with the Royal Family, the distinction between her own ambitions and the institution she left behind may remain blurred.

For Catherine, the challenge is different. She must continue fulfilling her responsibilities while managing the personal demands of public life and the intense scrutiny attached to her position.

Neither woman’s future needs to depend on defeating the other.

The claim that Meghan has deliberately attempted to take on Catherine again remains an interpretation rather than an established fact. Yet the wider communications problem is real: a public narrative built around rivalry can become difficult to escape, especially when every new appearance is treated as another move in an ongoing contest.

The Sussexes may be able to generate headlines through carefully produced content, commercial launches and symbolic visits. What they cannot guarantee is how the public will interpret those activities.

Ultimately, a lasting reputation is built through consistency, credible work and a clear sense of purpose.

If Meghan wants her independent career to flourish, the strongest response to comparisons with Catherine may be to stop treating the comparison as the central story. The more her work can stand on its own, the less power the royal rivalry narrative will have over her future.

And if the Sussexes hope to improve their standing in Britain, they may find that genuine progress comes not from competing with the future Queen, but from demonstrating that they have built a meaningful life beyond the competition altogether.