In the ever-shifting landscape of Meghan Markle‘s public image, new insights have emerged that challenge her proclaimed dedication to animal rights and humanitarian efforts.
A detailed Reddit post, backed by past interviews, suggests that Markle’s actions often diverge sharply from her stated values, raising doubts about the genuineness of her advocacy.
In 2018, former agent Gina Nelthopp-Cowen shared her experiences with Markle in an interview with the Daily Mail.
This interview faced significant pressure from Markle’s team to retract, yet it remained unchallenged in court, which adds to its credibility.
Nelthopp-Cowen recounted an incident where Markle was offered a complimentary stay at the luxurious Jumeirah Carlton Tower in London but declined due to the presence of a caged parrot.
Instead, she chose to stay at Soho House, a decision that seemed more aligned with personal preference than a genuine concern for animal welfare.
What’s particularly puzzling is that shortly after, Markle promoted a stay at the now-closed Grosvenor House, part of the Jumeirah brand owned by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai.
This Sheikh has been linked to serious human rights violations, including the abduction of his daughters and threats against his former wife.
Such associations cast doubt on Markle’s commitment to human rights, especially since she previously refused to stay at the Dorchester Hotel due to its ownership by the Bruneian Sultan, notorious for his own human rights abuses.
Markle’s selective approach to humanitarian issues raises eyebrows.
If her principles were genuinely anchored in human rights, she would likely be aware of the Jumeirah brand’s connections to the Dubai regime and its troubling record.
Her refusal to stay at the Dorchester, primarily because of the Sultan’s endorsement of strict Sharia law, starkly contrasts with her acceptance of accommodations linked to a regime with its own human rights challenges.
This pattern of selective concern isn’t limited to human rights; it extends into the realm of animal welfare as well.
Back in 2013, Markle posted a picture of foie gras on Instagram, proudly flaunting it with hashtags like #foodie and #nomnomnom.
The foie gras industry is notoriously cruel, and her apparent enjoyment of this delicacy raises questions about her awareness or concern for animal rights at that time.
Moreover, Markle’s dietary choices, including her consumption of meat, leather, and fur, alongside her investment in Clever Coffee—an enterprise accused of ties to Chinese slave labor—further complicate her claims of ethical consumerism.
These contradictions paint a picture that is hard to reconcile with her public persona as a compassionate advocate.
Her history with pets also reveals inconsistencies.
In 2017, Markle’s dog Guy suffered broken paws, which are often associated with neglect or abuse.
Additionally, she left behind a five-year-old dog named Bogart when she moved to the UK, an act many perceive as abandonment.
This behavior starkly contrasts with her self-styled image as a caring animal lover.
Perhaps the most controversial moment came when Markle wore diamond earrings gifted by a Saudi Sheikh during her tenure as a working royal.
This occurred shortly after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, an act allegedly orchestrated by the Saudi government.
By accepting such gifts amidst global outrage, Markle appeared to overlook the ethical ramifications of her choices.
As Meghan Markle and Prince Harry champion the cause of protecting children from online abuse, their past actions and contradictions merit closer examination.
Markle’s earlier assertions regarding her commitment to animal welfare and human rights seem increasingly hollow when juxtaposed with her real-life choices and affiliations.
