Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we're tackling
something pretty substantial. Yeah, a big one.
We're trying to piece together the incredibly
complex story of Rachel Meghan Markle, her life,
her career, and that huge shift into becoming
the Duchess of Sussex. And beyond, really. Exactly.
From American actress to British royalty, and
now, maybe more than anything, a global media
player and entrepreneur. It's definitely a story
that needs a deep dive, like you said, because
the sources cover these massive shifts, not just
in jobs, but in her whole public identity. It's
a real transformation. Right. It's not just a
simple biography. No, definitely not. We're looking
at, I think, a kind of strategic evolution. And
to get it, you really need to look at it in phases.
Okay, so how should we break it down? I think
four main parts make sense. First, her early
life, that initial activism, the acting career,
you know, the foundations. Right before everything
changed. Then that intense, pretty short period
as a working royal from about 2018 to 2020. Third,
the big stepping back moment and the launch of
Archwell. That's crucial. Her pivot point. Exactly.
And finally, this current phase, the entrepreneurial
media -focused era we're seeing now post -2020.
That structure feels right. Because if you only
look at her as, say, the actress from Suits or
only through the royal lens. You miss the bigger
picture. Yeah, you miss that thread, that drive
that seems to connect all these different stages.
So our goal here is really to connect those dots
using just the material we have in front of us
to understand how the woman who left the royal
family is now, well, using that global platform.
The crown kind of gave her. Yeah. Inadvertently
or not, it's about understanding the current
setup by looking at where it all started. So
let's dive in. Los Angeles. Let's go back to
the beginning. OK, so the absolute basics. Rachel
Megan Harkle, born August 4th, 1981, Canoga Park,
Los Angeles. But her identity, which became such
a huge part of her story later, it was complicated
right from the start. It really was. She explicitly
identifies as mixed race. Her father. Thomas
Markle Sr., Caucasian, and her mother, Doria
Ragland, African American. She's often quoted
as saying, you know, I'm half black and half
white. And her parents split up quite early.
Yeah, when she was six. She grew up mostly in
L .A., and the sources are clear she has a very
close relationship. with her mother. Which contrasts
sharply with her father and half -siblings. Very
sharply. Estranged is the word used. And that
estrangement, as we know from all the media coverage
and legal stuff later, became a massive, massive
point of contention. And her father's job gave
her a glimpse into the world she'd later enter.
Yeah, he was a successful lighting director,
director of photography, so she actually spent
some time on sets as a kid. Apparently she visited
the set of Married with Children sometimes. Wow.
That must have been an interesting education
in showbiz. A unique perspective, for sure. Gave
her a kind of front row seat to the industry
machine. So moving into her school years, we
see these early signs of advocacy. Long before
the U .N. speeches or anything like that. Absolutely.
She went to Immaculate Heart High School, which
is an all -girls Catholic school. And there's
that story, which is pretty well known now. The
Procter & Gamble letter. Exactly. At 11 years
old, she and her classmates wrote to Procter
& Gamble about a dish soap ad. They lobbied them
to change the language to be gender neutral.
And they actually did it. That's incredible.
At 11. It really is. It shows this focus on language,
on equity, and frankly, an understanding of how
to make change happen, even back then. That focus
seems to carry through to university. She went
to Northwestern. Yeah, a top school. Graduated
in 2003, double major in theater and international
studies. So not just acting, but this serious
interest in global affairs, too. Which almost
took her down a completely different path, right?
Almost. She actually pursued politics or diplomacy.
First, got an internship at the U .S. Embassy
in Buenos Aires, junior press officer. Wow. Yeah.
She even thought about taking the foreign service
officer test aiming for the State Department.
But apparently she didn't score quite high enough
to go down that route. Imagine how different
things might have been. Totally different trajectory.
So she pivoted back to acting. And that early
acting career, it sounds like the classic Hollywood
struggle. Yeah. But with this added layer related
to her identity. Yeah, she talked about it being
tough to get roles, specifically because she
was mixed race. How did she put it? She described
herself as ethnically ambiguous, said she wasn't
black enough for the black roles and not white
enough for the white ones. Caught in the middle.
So that forced her to really hustle for work.
Absolutely. Yeah. Any work she could find. And
we know she did the usual teenage jobs, waitress,
nanny, yogurt shop. Right. But what's really
interesting and I think telling are the side
gigs mentioned in the sources. The creative ones.
Yeah. Freelance calligraphy. Yeah. Teaching bookbinding.
These weren't just random jobs. They were skilled
crafts. And resourceful. Incredibly resourceful.
It shows this ability to generate income in different
ways using specific skills. And you can kind
of see a line from that to, you know, the multi
-platform Archwell setup years later. It's about
strategic independence. Okay. So specific roles.
Her first screen credit. it was General Hospital.
Yeah, as a nurse. Interestingly, a show her father
had also worked on. And then the one people might
remember before Suits, Deal or No Deal. Right.
She was one of the briefcase girls, did 34 episodes
between 2006 and 2007. It paid the bills. Until
the big one, Suits. That was the game changer.
Playing Rachel Zane, the paralegal, started in
2011, stayed for seven seasons. And that meant
relocating, right? Pretty much. Living in Toronto
for nine months a year for filming, that's a
serious commitment. And this is where she started
earning serious money as an actress. Oh, definitely.
The sources estimate around $50 ,000 per episode.
Which, you know, works out to roughly $450 ,000
a year just from the show. Plus film work on
the side. Yeah, she did some films during that
time, too. Got paid $187 ,000 for Remember Me,
about $171 ,000 for The Candidate. And she had
other income streams even then. Before she shut
down her social media and her lifestyle blog,
The Pig. Right, The Tig. Yeah. Estimates suggest
she was making around $80 ,000 a year just from
endorsements and things like that. So the key
takeaway here is she was already successful,
financially independent, and pretty business
savvy long before royalty came into the picture.
Okay, so now we get to the chapter that really
put her on the global stage in a totally different
way. But before Prince Harry, her personal life
wasn't really tabloid fodder, was it? Not really,
no. She was successful, independent. She dated
Trevor Engelson, a film producer, for... Quite
a while, since 2004. They got married. Yeah,
married in Jamaica in 2011, but then divorced
in 2014. After that, she dated Corey Vichiello,
a chef. But that ended in May 2016. Pretty standard
stuff for someone in her position. Nothing prepared
her for what came next. Which started just a
couple months later, mid -2016, meeting Prince
Harry. Reportedly through Instagram initially,
then a blind date was set up in July 2016. And
things moved fast. It got intense. Really fast.
Unbelievably fast. The relationship went public
in November 2016. And just eight days later,
eight days, Harry released that statement through
his communications secretary. Which was pretty
unusual, right? That kind of official statement.
Highly unusual. Directly calling out the media
abuse, the Internet trolls, the wave of abuse
and harassment she was already facing. It showed
he was protective, definitely. But it also just
underlined the insane pressure they were under
from day one. Their first big public outing together
was the Invictus Games. September 2017, yeah.
And the engagement wasn't far behind. Announced
November 27th, 2017. And that meant huge changes
for her, personally and professionally. Massive.
Retirement from acting announced immediately.
Started the process of becoming a British citizen.
And there were religious steps, too. Yes. She
was baptized and confirmed into the Church of
England in March 2018, ahead of the wedding.
Which was May 19, 2018. St. George's Chapel.
A global event. Absolutely huge. Redefined the
modern royal wedding in many ways. And there
was that detail that came out later about a private
ceremony. Ah, yes. Her claim about exchanging
vows privately with the Archbishop of Canterbury
in their garden three days before the official
wedding. But that wasn't legally binding. No,
the Archbishop later clarified it wasn't a legal
ceremony. But the fact they wanted that private
moment, separate from the public spectacle, maybe
says something about their relationship with
the institution versus their personal connection.
Marriage meant titles, of course. Instantly.
Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Sussex. also
Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel. And
interestingly, she's the first person ever to
hold the title Duchess of Sussex. And she got
her own coat of arms. She did, designed specifically
to reflect her background, blue for the Pacific
Ocean, golden rays for California sunshine, and
quills representing communication, words anod
to her writing and advocacy, presumably. Very
personalized. So newly married, where did they
live? They didn't stay at Kensington Palace long,
did they? Started off small, relatively speaking,
at Nottingham Cottage, which is on the Kensington
Palace grounds. Then they moved to Frogmore Cottage
in Windsor. And that move caused a stir. The
refurbishment costs. Yeah, that was the first
big public money controversy for them. The Crown
Estate handled the refurbishment using funds
from the sovereign grant. That's the money the
government gives the monarch for official duties
and upkeep. How much was it? The figure reported
was 2 .4 million pounds, and there was significant
public backlash about using taxpayer money for
what was seen as a private home. So how did they
deal with that? Well, eventually... Prince Harry
repaid the sovereign grant for all the costs
that went beyond basic restoration and maintenance.
The sources say the repayment was offset against
rent they were due to pay anyway, but the point
is they paid it back. An attempt to manage the
optics, maybe. Definitely. Trying to show some
accountability, especially with the tabloids
scrutinizing every penny. And amidst all this,
they were starting their family. Right. Son Archie,
born May 2019, then daughter Lilibet in June
2021. The sources also mentioned some difficult
personal experiences around that time, too. Yeah,
she spoke publicly about suffering a miscarriage
in July 2020 and also having postpartum preeclampsia
after Lilibet was born. A lot of intensity packed
into those years, public and private. Which all
leads up to the break, January 2020. The announcement
that shook the foundations, stepping back from
senior royal roles. Megxit, as the Kress instantly
called it. Their stated aim was to balance their
time. Yeah. Between the UK and North America,
find a new way to work. But the specifics got
ironed out later, right? In the formal review.
Exactly. The key points confirmed in March 2021
were. They'd stop doing official royal duties,
stop receiving the associated public funding,
confirming that financial independence goal.
But they kept the HRH titles. They retained them.
Yes, her royal highness, his royal highness.
But they agreed not to use them. That was a crucial
part of the deal. So technically royal, but not
functionally royal in the same way. Pretty much.
A unique status. Their last official gig as a
working royal couple was the Commonwealth Day
Service, March 9th, 2020. And then they left
the UK. Moved to Southern California initially
and then bought their current home in Montecito,
that big estate, Ribbon Rock, in June 2020. That
royal chapter slammed shut and the next one began
almost immediately. So this next phase is all
about building something new. outside the royal
structure. Yeah. And the heart of that is Archwell.
Archwell Inc. Yeah. And it's important to understand
what it is and isn't. It's not just a typical
foundation. Okay. It's based in Beverly Hills
and it's set up as this hybrid organization mixes
for -profit businesses with not -for -profit
work. And the name, Archwell. Very symbolic.
Inspired by the Greek word arch, which means
source of action. Apparently that word also inspired
their son Archie's name. So it's all about purpose,
origin. driving action. But it's not just about
purpose. There's some serious business structure
behind it. The sources mention multiple companies
being set up. Oh, yeah. Right after stepping
back early 2020, they incorporated like 11 different
companies and a trust all in Delaware. Delaware.
Why Delaware? That sounds specific. It's very
specific. Delaware is known for its corporate
friendly laws, lower taxes, strong privacy protections
for company owners. It's where huge corporations
set up shop for those reasons. It's sometimes
called a domestic tax haven. So this wasn't a
casual setup. This was high level corporate strategy
from the get go. Absolutely. Companies like Orinoco
Publishing, Pika Publishing. Yeah. These are
likely set up to hold specific assets like book
rights, meteor rights, keeping everything compartmentalized
and. legally protected. That level of planning
right away, it kind of contrasts with the narrative
of just wanting privacy, doesn't it? It's just
a dual track, maybe seeking personal privacy
while simultaneously building a very public,
very protected commercial empire. And that empire
quickly attracted massive deals. Netflix being
the biggest. Huge. Signed in September 2020,
a five year deal reportedly worth a lot of money.
And our sources say it was renewed in August
2025. That's the bedrock of their media output.
What came out of that deal? Well, the big one
was the docuseries Harry and Meghan in 2022.
Caused a global stir, gave their side of the
royal exit. More recently, there's the lifestyle
series With Love, Meghan, which premiered in
2025 and apparently got renewed right away. So
the Meghan brand clearly still has pulling power
on screen. But not everything worked out with
Netflix. No. There was that animated series,
Pearl. She was executive producing, pitched it
back in 2018. A young girl inspired by historical
women. Netflix canceled it in May 2022, part
of wider cuts they were making. And the audio
side with Spotify, that also hit a snag. Yeah,
that was interesting. Big multi -year deal announced
December 2020 for Archwell Audio. Her podcast,
Archetypes, launched August 2022. I remember
that. lots of big name guests yeah serena williams
mariah carey but it only ran for one season 12
episodes the whole spotify deal was officially
canned in june 2023 shows that even their names
don't guarantee success for every project exactly
needs more than just brand recognition to sustain
these things long term but publishing seems more
consistently successful for her The Bench. Her
children's book, yeah, came out in 2021 based
on her view of Harry's relationship with Archie.
How was that received? Critically. A bit mixed.
Some found it a bit sentimental. But commercially.
Huge success. Went straight to number one on
the New York Times bestseller list for children's
picture books. That Megan effect again? Absolutely.
It translates interest into sales, whatever the
reviews say. Beyond these big media deals, she's
also moving into investments in consumer brands.
Reversifying, yeah. Back in December 2020, she
invested in Cleverblends, a coffee company. More
recently, it looks like a focus on lifestyle
ethical brands. August 2024, an investment in
Sesta Collective. That's a handbag brand using
weavers in Rwanda. November 2024, investing in
a hair care line called Highbrow Hippie. And
then her own big brand launch, American Riviera
Orchard, or rather, as ever. Right. It got renamed
pretty quickly in early 2025. Seems like a strategic
tweak, maybe for broader appeal or clarity. But
yeah, that's her personal lifestyle brand, tapping
into that whole Montecito aesthetic. So the output
continues. More Netflix shows planned. Two more
announced, one on lifestyle, one on polo. And
she's launching another podcast series, Confessions
of a Female Founder, with Lemonada Media in March
2025. It doesn't stop. And to manage all this,
you need top representation. Definitely. They
signed with the Harry Walker Agency for Speaking
Gigs back in June 2020, and she personally signed
with WME William Morris Endeavor in April 2023.
That's a huge Hollywood talent agency. These
aren't the moves of someone stepping back from
the spotlight, are they? They're the moves of
someone building a major global business needing
that top -tier infrastructure to run it. Okay,
let's talk about the advocacy side. Because this
wasn't something that just started when she became
royal. No, not at all. She had a track record
well before Harry. She was involved with One
Young World as a counselor from 2014, global
ambassador for World Vision Canada, traveled
to Rwanda for their Clean Water campaign, worked
with UN women as an advocate. And she wrote about
specific issues, too, like menstrual health.
Yeah, penned an op -ed for Time magazine about
that in 2017, focused on issues that often get
overlooked. Though even that early advocacy faced
some scrutiny. The UN speech. Ah, yes. The sources
mentioned that her 2015 speech for UN women included
lines very similar, almost identical, to a speech
Eleanor Roosevelt gave back in 1951. So questions
about originality versus maybe... borrowing influence
exactly is it paying homage amplifying a message
or is it something else that kind of tension
authenticity versus strategy seems to be a recurring
theme once she was in the royal family her first
big uk charity project was very specific very
specific and very community focused tied to the
grenfell tower fire tragedy she collaborated
with survivors from the hub community kitchen
the cookbook together together our community
cookbook yeah published in 2018 a really practical
project and the money raised went to specific
causes. Yeah, the proceeds were distributed quite
strategically. 8 ,000 pounds went to My Grateful,
which helps refugees in the UK. 10 ,000 pounds
to Himmah, which runs food banks. And importantly,
the Shalom Kitchen, a joint Muslim and Jewish
community kitchen, shows that targeted approach
to philanthropy. Then, after stepping back and
returning to the U .S., That political neutrality
required of royals that went out the window.
Completely. We saw her find her political voice
again. And remember, before she married Harry,
she'd been pretty outspoken. Right. She'd criticized
Trump in 2016. Yep. And expressed disappointment
about Brexit the same year. She even recommended
a Noam Chomsky book, Who Rules the World, in
2017. Pretty overtly political stuff. Things
she absolutely could not have said as a working
royal. No way. So back in the U .S., she jumped
back in, urged voter registration ahead of the
2020 election. Many saw that as implicitly anti
-Trump, pro -Biden, given the context. Her big
policy push seems to have been paid family leave.
Very consistent on that. Wrote that open letter
to Schumer and Pelosi in October 2021. And she
used that really specific personal detail, the
Sizzler salad bar. Yeah, saying she grew up relying
on a $4 .99 Sizzler salad bar. It was a way to
frame her support, grounding it in an experience
of, you know, financial pressure, making it relatable.
Was her lobbying just focused on Democrats? Interestingly,
no. She actually reached out to Republican senators,
too. Specifically mentioned are Shelley Moore
Capito and Susan Collins, trying to position
paid leave as a bipartisan issue, even though
it's pretty polarized in the U .S. She also supported
other causes. Yeah, voice support for Katonji
Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination, partnered
with Moms Demand Action on Gun Safety Laws, more
overtly progressive stances. And all this advocacy
combined with her profile. translates into actual
economic power, the Megan effect. It's undeniable
a real economic phenomenon. Remember the Strathberry
handbag story from 2017? She carried one and
sales exploded. Orders just soared for the Scottish
brand. When she announced her pregnancy wearing
a dress by Karen Gee, an Australian designer,
the designer's website crashed from the traffic.
That's serious influence. And she used that influence
for charity while she was a royal too. Very effectively.
Guest editing British Vogue in September 2019.
the Forces for Change issue, became the fastest
selling issue in the magazine's history. Wow.
And then she leveraged that visibility to launch
the Smart Set Capsule Collection. For the charity
Smart Works. Right, which helps unemployed women
get back into work. It was a buy one, donate
one model. The Megan effect was so strong, the
collection provided enough clothes for the charity
for an entire year in just 10 days. 10 days.
That's incredible speed. It really shows the
power she wields commercially and how it can
be harnessed, which explains the recognition
she's received. Time 100 most influential in
2018 and 2021. FT's 25 most influential women
in 2022. OK, we can't really talk about her story
without diving into the intense scrutiny, the
controversies and her legal. battles against
the press. The biggest one was the case against
Associated Newspapers, right? Definitely the
most high profile. That lawsuit against the publishers
of the Mail on Sunday filed in 2019. It was all
about them publishing parts of that private letter
she wrote to her father. A very personal letter.
Handwritten, very personal. The legal fight was
long, very bitter, but she ultimately won. In
2021, the high court ruled and the Court of Appeal
upheld that the newspaper had invaded her privacy
and infringed her copyright. And the damages
awarded were? Mostly, yes. Just one pound for
the privacy invasion. That wasn't about the money.
It was about the principle, the legal acknowledgement
of the breach. But there was a separate payment
for copyright. Yeah, confidential, presumably
much larger, some for the copyright infringement.
And A &L had to print that front page statement
acknowledging her win on Boxing Day 2021, a significant
victory for her. But during that same case, something
came out that complicated the privacy narrative,
the Finding Freedom biography. Right. She'd initially
deny cooperating with the authors of that unauthorized
but generally positive biography. But then she
had to admit later in the court process that
her aide, Jason Nauf. Her communications secretary
at the time. Yes. He had provided information
to the authors with her knowledge and approval.
Specific points she wanted included. And the
newspaper used that against her. A &L definitely
jumped on it. Argued it showed she was selective
about privacy fighting tooth and nail against
negative coverage. While simultaneously. You
know, feeding information for positive stories
through back channels. It highlights that tricky
balance between controlling your narrative and
genuinely seeking privacy. She won other legal
battles, too, against paparazzi. Yes, successful
actions against Splash News and another agency,
X17. These were over unauthorized photos, drone
shots, helicopter shots of her and Archie at
their private homes, both in the UK and later
in Montecito. She drew a hard line on protecting
her family's private space. And that led to a
pretty radical stance against her. The Bureau
engagement policy announced in 2020, basically
cutting off four specific British tabloids, the
Daily Mail, the Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily
Express, along with formal warnings about harassment.
That's a declaration of war, really, in PR terms.
This confrontational approach extended to the
Oprah interview fallout, too, with Piers Morgan.
Yeah, after the interview aired in 2021 and Piers
Morgan made those comments questioning her mental
health struggles and claims of suicidal thoughts.
Uh -huh. She complained directly to the CEO of
ITV, the network that aired his show. Her complaint
was one factor in the huge number, over 57 ,000
official complaints to Ofcom, the UK regulator,
about his comments. That Oprah interview itself
was explosive. Her claims about lack of support,
contemplating suicide. It polarized global opinion.
Damaging claims against the institution met with
strong defenses from others. And just before
that interview aired. Another controversy blew
up, the bullying allegations. Timing was everything,
wasn't it? Claims surfaced, originating from
Jason Naufagen back in 2018. He alleged her behavior
had led to two personal assistants quitting and
had undermined a third staff member. How did
the palace respond? Buckingham Palace took it
seriously enough to hire an outside law firm
to investigate. Apparently around 10 former staffers
cooperated. Was it a report ever published? No.
The palace announced they had reviewed the situation
and made changes to HR policies, but... They
kept the report itself confidential, citing the
need to protect the privacy of those involved.
And her response? Her team vehemently denied
the allegations, called it a calculated smear
campaign, timed specifically to discredit her
right before the Oprah interview aired. So you're
left with these two starkly different narratives.
But is the narrative of widespread public dislike
accurate? There's data suggesting otherwise.
That's a really important point from the sources.
Studies, like one from Bot Sentinel, analyzed
online negativity. They found evidence suggesting
a lot of it might be coordinated. Coordinated?
How? Well, Bot Sentinel estimated that maybe
70 % of the negative content about Harry and
Meghan originated from a relatively small number
of accounts, just 83 highly active interconnected
accounts. Wow, only 83? Yeah. If that's accurate,
it suggests the public backlash might be significantly
amplified, maybe even... manufactured by a small
but dedicated group rather than reflecting genuine,
broad public opinion. Even the royal family seemed
to acknowledge the level of online abuse. They
did. They brought in new social media guidelines
in 2019 specifically aimed at curbing the abuse
directed at both Meghan and Catherine, Duchess
of Cambridge. Still, some high -profile individual
attacks continued. Jeremy Clarkson's column.
That 2022 column in The Sun was shocking, saying
he hated her on a cellular level, describing
violent fantasies. It crossed a line for many.
What was the official outcome of that? IPSO,
the UK press regulator, investigated. They ruled
the column was sexist, used derogatory language
about her sex, but they rejected claims it constituted
harassment or was racially discriminatory. So
a mixed ruling, but the damage was done. And
even now, after leaving the royal fold, there
are conflicting reports about her working style.
Yeah, recent reports mention varied experiences
from staff who've worked with her at Archwell.
Some describe her as lovely, genuine. Others
apparently found her cold, withholding. There
are mentions of staff needing time off, even
therapy, after working there. It suggests a high
-pressure environment, perhaps? Consistent scrutiny
follows her. Lastly, that trip to Nigeria in
May 2024. That seemed... It was interesting.
It was part of honoring the Invictus Games. She
spoke about discovering she has 43 percent Nigerian
ancestry, received chieftaincy titles, Ada Mazi,
Adeta Kumbo. And it got a lot of positive press,
didn't it? Yeah. Extensive, largely positive
international coverage. And it immediately sparked
discussion. Could that hybrid model they originally
wanted, mixing some official duties with commercial
independence, have actually worked? Could it
have benefited the crown even? That was the question
being asked. Seeing the global interest they
generated on that trip made some people wonder
if the monarchy missed an opportunity by not
finding a way to keep them partially involved.
So when you pull it all together, from the young
actress doing calligraphy on the side to make
ends meet, to this global figure heading up Archwell,
managing these huge Netflix deals, building brands
for Montecito via Delaware companies, What's
the through line? I think it's that relentless
drive, maybe. And a real focus on strategic control,
whether it's controlling her career, her finances,
her public image, or fighting legally for her
privacy. It's been an absolutely massive journey.
Huge highs, like the bestseller book, The Charity
Impact, and incredibly difficult lows. The online
hate, the family estrangement playing out publicly,
those intense legal fights. Before we wrap up
with a final thought, there's one last little
knowledge nugget from the sources that's quite
unexpected. Oh, yeah. In 2021, she and Prince
Harry actually received... an award, the Change
Champions Award, from a UK charity called Population
Matters. Population Matters. Why? Specifically
for their decision to have only two children.
The charity framed it as a choice contributing
to a smaller, more sustainable global population.
Wow. OK, that adds another layer to their public
positioning, framing a private family decision
as global advocacy. Exactly. Very on brand in
a way. All right. So let's leave our listeners
with something to think about pulling all this
together. Here's the provocation. OK. The Duchess's
life, especially since leaving the UK, seems
defined by these two powerful, almost contradictory
forces. On one side, you have constant expensive
legal action. Remember the one town damages?
Yeah. The drone lawsuits, all fiercely protecting
her privacy. The legal firewall. But on the other
side, you have this simultaneous massive increase
in public output. Books, podcasts, Netflix shows,
the as ever brand. It's relentless. Right. More
public facing than ever in some ways. So the
question for you, the listener, is. What does
the highly planned, commercially driven, corporately
shielded nature of her current public life? This
global brand run from Montecito, structured through
Delaware. Actually, tell us about what stepping
back from the public eye really means in today's
world. Can you truly step back? Or is it more
about stepping out of one kind of public life,
the institutional royal one, and stepping into
another, perhaps equally public but commercially
controlled one? Is that the only way to operate
at that level of fame? Yeah, a question to ponder.
Thank you for joining us for The Deep Dive. Until
next time.