### Meghan Markle’s Pattern of Appropriation: A Closer Look at the Controversy

In the ever-evolving narrative of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, one theme has emerged that raises eyebrows and stirs debate: the alleged pattern of idea theft and creative appropriation by Meghan.

As we sift through the evidence, it becomes clear that there's more than meets the eye in the glamorous world of the Sussexes.

For those who have been following the royal saga, this isn't just a passing observation; it's a troubling trend that seems to be gaining momentum.

The audacity of Meghan's actions, particularly regarding her creative ventures, is nothing short of staggering.

What once appeared to be simple coincidences now looks like a well-orchestrated plan to borrow from others while claiming originality.

Take, for instance, her speech at the United Nations in 2015.

Meghan stood before an audience and echoed the sentiments of Eleanor Roosevelt with striking similarity, merely swapping out the word “peace” for “equality.”

Is this inspiration or outright plagiarism?

For many observers, the line between the two has been crossed.

Then there was her much-discussed British Vogue cover in 2019.

Meghan curated a collection of black and white portraits of influential women, a concept that mirrored the book “The Game Changers,” which she had previously contributed to.

Samantha Brett, a co-author of that book, even felt compelled to speak out about the similarities.

It raises the question: how often can one borrow from others before it becomes blatant appropriation?

Her children's book, “The Bench,” also sparked controversy.

While Corinne Averiss claimed there were no similarities to her work, the timing and concept felt suspiciously aligned.

It's hard not to wonder if this is just another instance of creative borrowing masked as innovation.

Let's not forget the podcast “Archetypes.”

Meghan presented the concept of archetypes as if she were breaking new ground, despite Caroline Myss having published a comprehensive book on the topic nearly a decade earlier.

The sheer audacity is breathtaking, leaving many to question the authenticity behind Meghan's ventures.

And then there's her recent foray into the lifestyle brand arena.

Starting with American Riviera Orchard, which seemed like a pale imitation of Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop, Meghan's attempts at creating a unique brand have been met with skepticism.

When that didn't pan out, she rebranded to As Ever, only to be accused of stealing a coat of arms from a small town in Mallorca.

The irony is palpable: a woman who champions authenticity is seemingly unable to create anything original.

What's particularly disheartening is the impact on small business owners.

Individuals like Mark Kolsky and photographer Jen have poured their hearts into their brands, only to see Meghan swoop in and appropriate their ideas without a second thought.

This raises an important question: where is the accountability for someone in her position?

In stark contrast, we have the likes of Catherine, Princess of Wales, who builds genuine initiatives and focuses on meaningful causes.

Catherine doesn't need to mimic others; her efforts are rooted in authenticity and purpose.

This juxtaposition highlights a fundamental difference in approach between the two women.

Meghan's Netflix series also appears to follow a similar pattern.

With Emma Weymouth having successfully hosted her cooking show since 2015, Meghan's sudden interest in lifestyle content feels like a calculated move rather than a genuine passion project.

It's as though she's crafting a cheap imitation of something authentic.

What's baffling is how Meghan continues to evade scrutiny for these actions.

Towns like Mallorca lack the resources to challenge her legally, leaving them vulnerable to her appropriations.

It's a classic case of the powerful overshadowing the small and the creative.

The ramifications of Meghan's behavior extend beyond individual creators; they reflect poorly on the monarchy as a whole.

Each time she engages in these questionable practices, it tarnishes the royal family's reputation.

Even though she's no longer a working royal, she still wields her duchess title to promote these ventures, further complicating the royal narrative.

The reality is that Meghan could use her platform for genuine good.

Instead, she opts for a path that prioritizes attention over authenticity.

If only she recognized the value of originality and the importance of crediting those who inspire her, she might find greater respect from the public.

As we continue to observe this unfolding story, it's essential to hold individuals accountable, especially those who claim to champion originality and empowerment.

The message being sent to younger generations is concerning: that success can be achieved through imitation rather than hard work and creativity.

This ongoing saga serves as a reminder that true royalty and leadership come from creating one's own path.

As we look to the future, let's hope for a return to authenticity and integrity in all forms of expression.