The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[Mbruno]

Here’s another review from Time Magazine.

Is a Royal Primer on Entertaining That Couldn't Be More Boring

Harry and Meghan keep promising their fans authenticity but delivering impersonal performances of perfection

time.com

This part at the end of the article is pretty scathing. “And yet, now that they’ve escaped the Firm, it’s as though the Sussexes have constructed an equally rigid propaganda machine to serve their purposes rather than those of the Crown.”

You can see the reviews for "With Love, Meghan" on the US-based review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes,

It looks like the show is not doing very well with the reviewers getting a so-called "rotten" aggregate rating.

 

[shady lady]

You can say the reviews for "With Love, Meghan" on the US-based review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes,

It looks like the show is not doing very well with the reviewers getting a so-called "rotten" aggregate rating.

IMDB - used by film and television fans worldwide - rate it 2.5 out of 10.

 

[Toledo]

IMDB - used by film and television fans worldwide - rate it 2.5 out of 10.

That's a very high rating.

Considering the fact the show was filmed on a rented house/studio with an army of staffers doing the prep work before she arrived, can't wait for the 100-episode celebration.

In the show she mentions her surname now is Sussex and not Markle. I could not find in the California public records anything on this legal change. I assume it's more of a stage name situation than a legal name change.

Now, anyone knows if this name is approved within the UK's royal website? The filming took place last year and, all of the sudden, we are taken by surprise on this development.

 

[Hallo girl]

It is not unusual for the RF to use the title as a surname when they do not wish to push the title, as an example I am sure Williams children at school are George Wales etc just as William and Harry used Wales as a surname in the military. I don’t think it requires any legal classification as it is being done for simplicity not for any dubious reason.
If I could add I think people were surprised that she said it not what she actually said. What they sign in legal documents is another matter I have no idea.

 

[Mbruno]

That's a very high rating.

Considering the fact the show was filmed on a rented house/studio with an army of staffers doing the prep work before she arrived, can't wait for the 100-episode celebration.

In the show she mentions her surname now is Sussex and not Markle. I could not find in the California public records anything on this legal change. I assume it's more of a stage name situation than a legal name change.

Now, anyone knows if this name is approved within the UK's royal website? The filming took place last year and, all of the sudden, we are taken by surprise on this development.

In the UK, a person who holds a title normally uses the title designation as surname. For example, George Spencer-Churchill, Marquess of Blandford, would be called socially "George Blandford" rather than "Spencer-Churchill". You see it in the first Downton Abbey movie too where King George V calls Edith's husband "Hexham" and calls Robert "Grantham".

I believe that, in British passports, the photo page actually lists the given name(s) followed, in the surname field, by the full title (for example, "Marquess of Bath" or "Duke of Norfolk"). Only the personal details page of the passport includes then the "real" family name (for example, Thynn or Fitzalan-Howard).

Honestly, I was surprised though that Meghan "corrected" her friend to note that her name is "Sussex" now.

EDIT: BTW, I don't think that makes any sense in the USA where foreign titles of nobility are not legally recognized. Unless it is a stage name thing, as you said, or if Meghan legally changed her name in California, which doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Maryrose]

You can see the reviews for "With Love, Meghan" on the US-based review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes,

It looks like the show is not doing very well with the reviewers getting a so-called "rotten" aggregate rating.

I'll be honest with you I think a lot of people are just giving bad reviews for the sake of giving a bad review/thumbs down. I think the Sussexes are so divisive between those cheering them on and those hoping they fail miserably. The viewership numbers for the series is going to be what counts.

 

[RoyalNight]

Mindy Kaling’s face says everything.

 

[FigTree]

Watch first episode.

Some thoughts. I freely admit I speak as someone who adores the BBO look. I do jam, curd, baking, cooking. I'd do candles if I had time. Bath salts. All of it.

1. I loved the aesthetic of the show. I am a total seagrass, wicker, modern vintage type. Loved the pantry. But even that isn't consistent.

2. There's a lot going on. Cooking, candle making, bath salts. A little confusing.

3. I liked her friend. I was so uninterested when they were talking about their friendship though. I wanna see what you are making/doing The mansplaining to him was irritating.

4. Its all very an idiot could do this. Nothing is special about any of it...or at the same time inspiring. Also the life conversation with guests isn't interesting.

More a Nigella vibe would maybe work for her. But it needs to be more focused. It's trying to do a lot.

Also she comes across hit or miss. Some of her comments...but other times she is fine.

Episode 2. I like Mindy. Is she actually kidding about the rainbow of fruit. Who hasn't done a version of that of they spend anytime with children.

It looks cheap. There should have been a party.

Edit: Episode 3 is very good. And there we have it. It being a Meghan meets...someone who is actually extremely talented, works. Maybe that will work for her. Not her doing anything because her talents are limited.

 

[shady lady]

Review from the Times

Welcome to MegWorld, you’ll need a translator

archived 5 Mar 2025 09:54:32 UTC

archive.ph

 

[Maryrose]

Watch first episode.

Some thoughts. I freely admit I speak as someone who adores the BBO look. I do jam, curd, baking, cooking. I'd do candles if I had time. Bath salts. All of it.

1. I loved the aesthetic of the show. I am a total seagrass, wicker, modern vintage type. Loved the pantry. But even that isn't consistent.

2. There's a lot going on. Cooking, candle making, bath salts. A little confusing.

3. I liked her friend. I was so uninterested when they were talking about their friendship though. I wanna see what you are making/doing The mansplaining to him was irritating.

4. Its all very an idiot could do this. Nothing is special about any of it...or at the same time inspiring. Also the life conversation with guests isn't interesting.

More a Nigella vibe would maybe work for her. But it needs to be more focused. It's trying to do a lot.

Also she comes across hit or miss. Some of her comments...but other times she is fine.

Episode 2. I like Mindy. Is she actually kidding about the rainbow of fruit. Who hasn't done a version of that of they spend anytime with children.

It looks cheap. There should have been a party.

Edit: Episode 3 is very good. And there we have it. It being a Meghan meets...someone who is actually extremely talented, works. Maybe that will work for her. Not her doing anything because her talents are limited.

Thank you for a very honest review. Not sure of your feeling about the couple but I appreciate you taking the time to point both the positives and negatives in the episodes. Every episode is not going to please everyone. Like I said previously she is going to face much harsher criticism and everything will be picked apart much more so than any other person with a similar concept.

 

[Hallo girl]

Watch first episode.

Some thoughts. I freely admit I speak as someone who adores the BBO look. I do jam, curd, baking, cooking. I'd do candles if I had time. Bath salts. All of it.

1. I loved the aesthetic of the show. I am a total seagrass, wicker, modern vintage type. Loved the pantry. But even that isn't consistent.

2. There's a lot going on. Cooking, candle making, bath salts. A little confusing.

3. I liked her friend. I was so uninterested when they were talking about their friendship though. I wanna see what you are making/doing The mansplaining to him was irritating.

4. Its all very an idiot could do this. Nothing is special about any of it...or at the same time inspiring. Also the life conversation with guests isn't interesting.

More a Nigella vibe would maybe work for her. But it needs to be more focused. It's trying to do a lot.

Also she comes across hit or miss. Some of her comments...but other times she is fine.

Episode 2. I like Mindy. Is she actually kidding about the rainbow of fruit. Who hasn't done a version of that of they spend anytime with children.

It looks cheap. There should have been a party.

Edit: Episode 3 is very good. And there we have it. It being a Meghan meets...someone who is actually extremely talented, works. Maybe that will work for her. Not her doing anything because her talents are limited.

I agree with some of your points, although lifestyle programmes are not my thing I might have been more drawn in with an interesting guest. All I know about the first guest, I cannot recall his name, is that he is a make up artist , all other conversation was about his connection to Meghan. Maybe a Deep dive into his background or something. It was all emphasising how long they had been friends. With a dig at the past.
They did cook but it was a one pot meal, nothing too exciting or different about it, it is a lifestyle so miss out the cooking or make it something different or adventurous.
I also agree we seemed to jump across different stuff.

 

[Erin9]

Review from the Times

Welcome to MegWorld, you’ll need a translator

archived 5 Mar 2025 09:54:32 UTC

archive.ph

Wow. The author really didn’t like the show, but put together a review that was anything but boring. I think “hate watched” is applicable here.

I haven’t watched, but I’m gathering there’s some of Meghan’s “word salad” going on here, based on some of the quoted dialogue in the review and the author’s reactions to it, which was entertaining to read, but quite critical of Meghan.

An interesting part of the sum up: “It’s bursting with the sort of authenticity that only comes when the director shouts, “Action!” It’s like a soap without a plot, a play without a script, just the random musings of an indulged actress.” Ouch.

 

[Katymcwaity]

Edit: Episode 3 is very good. And there we have it. It being a Meghan meets...someone who is actually extremely talented, works. Maybe that will work for her. Not her doing anything because her talents are limited.

It seems episode 3 is the stand out one for many. Although I don’t think thats what Meghan had in mind….her guests more interesting than her. Maybe the future lies in something like this, ask interesting, talented people to come over and ask them all the interesting questions, making it about them. Again, its not original, not groundbreaking but also not about the couple. ( it would still get snidey remarks) I guess the podcast was a prototype which had too much Meghan in it for some and didn’t work.

 

[Maryrose]

IMO all these negative reviews by the media may not have the effect that they believe. People who are supporters of the Sussexes are going to be fans of the show, the products etc and non fans will more than likely not. As for the middle of the road people they may be more supportive of her because people like an under dog and when you have the media, irrelevant commentators, podcasters slamming someone left and right it could have the opposite effect.

 

[FigTree]

I've been watching it. At home ill. There is more good stuff with a Mexican chef. The first two episodes seem the weakest. But it remains that it is at its best when she isn't the focus. I can see what Harry saw in her. I can also see what other people dislike about her. She would have never fitted in with that milieu in England. They couldn't give a flying anything about that stuff.

 

[Katymcwaity]

Wow. The author really didn’t like the show, but put together a review that was anything but boring. I think “hate watched” is applicable here.

I haven’t watched, but I’m gathering there’s some of Meghan’s “word salad” going on here, based on some of the quoted dialogue in the review and the author’s reactions to it, which was entertaining to read, but quite critical of Meghan.

An interesting part of the sum up: “It’s bursting with the sort of authenticity that only comes when the director shouts, “Action!” It’s like a soap without a plot, a play without a script, just the random musings of an indulged actress.” Ouch.

Yep, the reporter ripped the podcast to bits too albeit very funny as long as you’re not Meghan

 

[soapstar]

IMO all these negative reviews by the media may not have the effect that they believe. People who are supporters of the Sussexes are going to be fans of the show, the products etc and non fans will more than likely not. As for the middle of the road people they may be more supportive of her because people like an under dog and when you have the media, irrelevant commentators, podcasters slamming someone left and right it could have the opposite effect.

I honestly don’t think the reviews will make middle of the road people more supportive of her. When she launched her podcast a few years ago, there were tons of negative reviews and that didn’t move the needle on her popularity. So I don’t think these reviews will have any impact. Those who like her will continue to like her, those who don’t like her will probably feel the same, and the rest of the world just doesn’t care enough about her to have an opinion.

 

[Hallo girl]

IMO all these negative reviews by the media may not have the effect that they believe. People who are supporters of the Sussexes are going to be fans of the show, the products etc and non fans will more than likely not. As for the middle of the road people they may be more supportive of her because people like an under dog and when you have the media, irrelevant commentators, podcasters slamming someone left and right it could have the opposite effect.

Are you saying that the negative reviews are because it is Meghan and not that it isn’t that interesting a programme for some.
Or are you inferring that diehard fans will watch regardless of the content.
Who are the irrelevant commentators, ?Surely everybody is entitled to their view and to express it, or is that only if you have positive feedback.

 

[shady lady]

Are you saying that the negative reviews are because it is Meghan and not that it isn’t that interesting a programme for some.
Or are you inferring that diehard fans will watch regardless of the content.
Who are the irrelevant commentators, ?Surely everybody is entitled to their view and to express it, or is that only if you have positive feedback.

Yep. Well said.

There are probably people out there who like MM, or don't mind her or couldn't care less about her, but think her show is crap. And vice versa.

Everyone's view counts.

 

[Kenya]

Edit: Episode 3 is very good. And there we have it. It being a Meghan meets...someone who is actually extremely talented, works. Maybe that will work for her. Not her doing anything because her talents are limited.

The Town & Country review said the exact same thing: Meghan Markle Shines in With Love, Meghan When She’s the Student

As for ratings, I suppose we won't know the actual numbers for a while, until Netflix eventually releases them. The good news for Meghan is that she's #6 in the Top 10 Shows in the U.S. Today. Neither Polo nor Heart of Invictus ever made it into the Top 10, so it reflects well on Meghan that her show did.

With good word of mouth, it's possible she could get higher, though you'd suspect that the highest rankings for a show will be in the first day or two. FWIW, the #2 show (a comedy special) was released yesterday and obviously did better than Meghan's show. And the #3 and #5 shows (a movie and a true crime docuseries) were released two weeks ago, so it's a little surprising that Meghan's show didn't rank higher than them.

For anyone who's on Reddit and interested in the reviews, r/RoyalsGossip has a thread that's aggregating all the reviews. I think it's up to around 15 or 16 (there are one or two that aren't numbered). So far the split is about 5 favorable/10 unfavorable.

 

[Maryrose]

I think there is a lot of review bombing on different sites but that is also different from articles in media that are not thrilled with the series. I most definitely agree with soapstar about people who like her will watch her show etc. I also think there has been some time between her podcasts and this series that people aren’t as invested in the whole Harry, Meghan and the royal family “feud” so maybe you are right soapstar that it’s not going to make any difference to the people who aren’t following this.

 

[Alison H]

However, why the negativity elsewhere? Surely if a person is trying to develop something on TV, whether it’s a lifestyle show, cookery show or anything else the natural thing for onlookers is to hope that the project succeeds.

This is a human being that is being criticised, not some murderous evil alien life form. The negativity is so overwhelming that I sometimes despair that this woman, an ex actress who earned her own living, a wife and mother who loves her family, is ever going to be given what we in Australia call ‘a fair go’. Ever, whatever she tries.

If the programme's no good - and I haven't watched it, so I can't comment - then it's no good. Surely reviewers can't be expected to say that every TV programme, book, film and song which is released is brilliant, just because "a person is trying to develop something". They're all trying to develop something!

Regarding the surname issue, I personally find it irritating when the media continually refer to Kate Middleton, Sarah Ferguson, etc. It doesn't happen so much with Sophie, for some reason. A lot of women still change their surnames on marriage. If someone chooses to do that, then people should respect it. No-one refers to Victoria Beckham as Victoria Adams, for example.

 

[FigTree]

It will absolutely how someone first got to know that person and the name they were first known as.

That essentially is it. There is no alterior motive or anything.

Yeah but she was never know as Victoria Adams really. Always Posh Spice. And people still call her that.

 

[irish_royalist]

Meghan's tv show reminds me of those banal shows on Food Network by presenters like Ina Garten or Ree Drummond - very little content presented by people who aren't exactly chefs but they look nice and are fine to have on in the background while you're doing something else. If she manages to get a slot on Food Network I guess it could be worthwhile.

 

[Ghost]

It will absolutely how someone first got to know that person and the name they were first known as.

That essentially is it. There is no alterior motive or anything.

Yeah but she was never know as Victoria Adams really. Always Posh Spice. And people still call her that.

I believe that in Sophie’s case there are two things that play into it: first, at the time of their courtship and marriage they were just not of much interest for the press (it was the glorious time of the nineties with all the Diana tragedy and Fergie peak of ridiculousness), and that by the time that internet became the thing and SEO became an instrument she was well into the name Sophie Wessex.

For Catherine the thing might be also twofold: first that their courtship was long and she was for a long time under the Middleton name on the internet (again, SEO), second, there is still the tag for Diana as princess of Wales. True, it’s starting to change a bit, she’s more often called the Princess of Wales now.

For Meghan, as the courtship was a blitz in royal time, she was more easily morphed into the Duchess of Sussex for SEO purposes.

 

[Maryrose]

Are you saying that the negative reviews are because it is Meghan and not that it isn’t that interesting a programme for some.
Or are you inferring that diehard fans will watch regardless of the content.
Who are the irrelevant commentators, ?Surely everybody is entitled to their view and to express it, or is that only if you have positive feedback.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. Like I said there is a lot of review bombing by people who don't like her. They are also the ones that attack any charity that they support and yes it also happens to other royals too ( AKA keyboard warriors). Here in the USA there are a couple of podcasters that drop Meghan's name IMO to get their own coverage. ( Megan McCain, Bethany Frankel).I think her diehard fans will watch and be supportive regardless of content like I think the people who can't stand her will watch an episode to rip it apart.IMO that is how divisive the entire situation has become and for some reason she is bearing the brunt of the situation whereas I think Harry has nowhere near the hatred she gets and he wrote a book. If only we could give each other positive feedback and constructive, well meaning advice the world would be a much happier place .

Meghan's tv show reminds me of those banal shows on Food Network by presenters like Ina Garten or Ree Drummond - very little content presented by people who aren't exactly chefs but they look nice and are fine to have on in the background while you're doing something else. If she manages to get a slot on Food Network I guess it could be worthwhile.

Oh how funny. I love Ina and Ree. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Somebody]

Harry's brand is a little less about himself and a little more about the causes he supports, such as Invictus. Although their semi-royal tours still are very much about themselves even if they are profiled as being about Invictus or other charity work.

 

[Alison H]

If only we could give each other positive feedback and constructive, well meaning advice the world would be a much happier place .

Very true. But reviewers don't do that. It must be devastating if you've spent years working towards getting a big part in a theatre show, and then the next day's papers all say that the show was let down by your bad singing/acting, or you spend years trying to get your first book published and then the reviewers all say that it's boring. But it's the way it goes.

 

[Kenya]

I think there is a lot of review bombing on different sites but that is also different from articles in media that are not thrilled with the series.

The reviews included in the thread are from noted and reputable publications like Forbes, Time, the Telegraph, Variety, and the Toronto Star. There are a handful of reviews from reputable pop culture sites like Mashable and The Wrap. IIRC, it was the pop culture site reviews that were the most favorable to her.

 

[Maryrose]

The reviews included in the thread are from noted and reputable publications like Forbes, Time, the Telegraph, Variety, and the Toronto Star. There are a handful of reviews from reputable pop culture sites like Mashable and The Wrap. IIRC, it was the pop culture site reviews that were the most favorable to her.

That’s interesting. Wonder if it’s more a generational thing on how people are relating to her and her way of entertaining. ( I haven’t watched it yet).