From the moment Meghan Markle entered royal life, she was surrounded by what many insiders described as once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. The platform, the global visibility, the institutional protection, the prestige of monarchy — all were there. Yet critics argue that instead of adapting to the system, she attempted to reshape it around herself. Where Catherine, Princess of Wales, built her image through discipline, silence, consistency, and long-term charitable commitment, Meghan was portrayed as someone who wanted control of the narrative, the spotlight, the camera angle, and the headlines. One royal commentator bluntly described it as “a difference between service and self-branding,” a line that has since echoed across social media.

According to long-standing royal correspondents, Meghan’s presence reportedly placed enormous pressure on royal PR teams. She was allegedly demanding, selective, resistant to certain engagements, and frustrated by the reality that royal duty was not a paid performance. The role was service, not monetization. Prince Harry, critics say, reinforced this dynamic, particularly when he reportedly expressed anger that the media did not praise Meghan “enough” after official tours. Behind palace walls, insiders claimed the narrative was very different — stories of diva behavior, refusals to participate in activities, and shock at the idea that royal life was obligation, not celebrity stardom. As one former court aide allegedly remarked, “The institution wasn’t built to create stars. It was built to create symbols.”

The criticism deepened when attention turned to Meghan’s pre-royal career. Commentators frequently argue that her Hollywood success never matched the mythos later built around her name. Her acting résumé, often described as modest, became a central part of the narrative that she was always reaching for a level of fame greater than her actual platform. “Suits gave her visibility, not legacy,” one media analyst noted, “but she behaves like someone who believes she was always meant for global icon status.” This perceived gap between ambition and achievement continues to shape public perception.

In recent years, that perception has worsened. Meghan’s public image, according to critics, has suffered from fractured celebrity relationships, accusations of opportunism, and deeply damaging personal controversies — particularly regarding her estrangement from her father during his health crisis. For many observers, this created a moral fracture in her public identity. One viral comment captured the sentiment: “You can’t build a humanitarian brand while abandoning your own blood.” Whether fair or not, this narrative has taken root across digital platforms.

Now, according to multiple reports and insider claims, Meghan is executing a deliberate rebranding strategy. Her new PR team is allegedly shifting away from traditional celebrity circuits and targeting the American elite power structure — tech billionaires, media moguls, and financial dynasties. The reported focus on Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez is not about friendship but access: access to capital, platforms, production power, and influence. Netflix, insiders suggest, is no longer viewed as viable. The relationship is described as “exhausted,” “cold,” and strategically irrelevant. The new target: Amazon/MGM and the machinery of cinematic power.

The core ambition is clear: to move Meghan from celebrity into symbolic power — from entertainment figure to institutional figure. The model, critics say, resembles projects built around political spouses like Melania Trump: documentary narratives, legacy storytelling, symbolic imagery, and curated power aesthetics. The logic is simple but bold: if a narrative empire can be built around other powerful women adjacent to power, then Meghan believes one can be built around her. One PR insider summarized it harshly: “She doesn’t want fame anymore. She wants stature.”

This is where the concept of “First Lady–style identity” emerges. Not a political role, but a symbolic one — a woman positioned as a global figure of influence, authority, and narrative power. Not royalty, not actress, not influencer, but something in between: a constructed icon. Supporters see this as ambition. Critics see it as delusion. A viral comment read, “You can’t manufacture gravitas. It either exists, or it doesn’t.” Another user wrote, “You don’t erase a royal past — you either rise above it, or it follows you forever.”

Rumors of a divorce book project, life-story monetization, and personal narrative exploitation further reinforce the image of a woman who views biography as business. Everything becomes content. Everything becomes product. Everything becomes leverage. As one cultural analyst put it, “This isn’t reinvention. It’s repositioning — from monarchy to market.”

The most controversial element remains the symbolic comparison to Catherine. Critics argue that Meghan’s strategy is not just about reinvention, but competition — about proving she can surpass the Princess of Wales not in monarchy, but in influence, narrative reach, and global symbolism. One reader commented, “Catherine built trust. Meghan builds visibility. Those are not the same currency.”

In the end, the narrative converges on one central truth: Meghan Markle does not retreat. She rebrands. She reframes. She relaunches. She believes in her own star power with relentless conviction. Whether the world believes with her is another question entirely. Because while ambition can create visibility, only legitimacy creates legacy — and power investors do not buy belief, they buy value.

And that leaves the final question hanging in the air, louder than any PR campaign:
Is Meghan Markle truly becoming a symbolic figure of power — or simply chasing the illusion of one?