Meghan Markle’s Allegations of Being Objectified on Deal or No Deal Sparks Controversy

Before Meghan Markle rose to fame as Rachel Zane in Suits, she made her mark as a briefcase model on the popular game show, Deal or No Deal.

However, recent claims made by the former actress about being objectified as a “bimbo” during her time on the show have ignited a heated debate.

While some believe her allegations, others question her motives and credibility.

In a conversation with Paris Hilton, Markle revealed that she felt objectified while working on Deal or No Deal.

However, skeptics argue that this revelation may be an attempt to settle a score with Howie Mandel, the show's host.

Reports suggest that Markle was actually fired from the show, contrary to her claim of quitting voluntarily.

This has led to speculation that she is seeking revenge against those who did not fulfill her desires during her Hollywood career.

It has been suggested that certain briefcase models were given microphones to enhance their presence on the show.

Unfortunately, it appears that Markle was not among them.

With only 34 episodes under her belt, her tenure on the show was relatively short-lived.

Given that multiple episodes were filmed in a single day, her time on Deal or No Deal likely amounted to just a couple of months of work.

Critics argue that Markle's tendency to quit and then shift blame onto others is a recurring pattern in her life.

They claim that her entry into Hollywood was facilitated by her father and ex-husband, Trevor.

By tarnishing her past experiences and the opportunities that propelled her career, Markle is facing backlash for her bimbo claims.

This has made media companies wary of associating with her and Prince Harry.

Several other former Deal or No Deal hostesses have come forward to dispute Markle's portrayal of the job and deny any mistreatment.

They assert that they were not objectified or treated as bimbos.

Markle's critics point out the irony in her criticism of her former job, considering her use of tanning spray, fake eyelashes, and various cosmetic procedures.

In Thonbauer's book, it is mentioned that the show provided Markle with access to Hollywood parties and opportunities to meet influential individuals.

Nevertheless, numerous reviewers and critics have taken aim at her claims.

Royal biographer Angela Levin argues that Markle had the option to decline the job, but she chose to accept it, indicating her desire for the role.

Ricky Schlott of the New York Post highlights that being praised for one's looks was the explicit requirement of being a briefcase girl, and no one expected to be celebrated for their intelligence.

Hilary Rose of The Times sarcastically notes that envy can be dangerous, particularly when one dreams of living in a castle but ends up in a modest cottage like Frogmore, referring to the Sussexes' UK residence.

US commentator Kat Timpf questions the seriousness of Markle's trauma, considering it stemmed from simply opening a briefcase.

Timpf emphasizes that the briefcase girls were hired for their attractiveness, a fact they were aware of when they signed up for the job.

Richard Madeley of Good Morning Britain wonders if there is anything Markle won't complain about, highlighting the rebuttal from Claudia Jordan, Markle's former Deal or No Deal co-star.

Spectator World's Cockburn Columnist reflects on Markle's tendency to rewrite history and questions whether walking away from a job due to unsuitability is a recurring theme in her life.

As the controversy surrounding Markle's allegations continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how this will impact her public image and future endeavors.