With Love, Meghan: The Complete Series

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: THE COMPLETE SERIES

Mentions of "Joy": 21

Mentions of Flower Sprinkles: 7

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 17

Gushing Praise for Markle: Infinite

"One steps out with actresses. One doesn't marry them".

This is allegedly what His Royal Highness Prince Philip told his grandson Prince Henry of Wales when Harry declared his wish to marry American actress Meghan Markle. The Duke of Edinburgh, no stranger to whispers about his own alleged stepping out, was equally blunt when it came to what he thought of the American divorcee about to marry into the House of Windsor. He is alleged to have nicknamed the future Duchess of Sussex "DOW" or "D.O.W." as in "Duchess of Windsor". 

Say what you will about Wallis Simpson. She might have literally cavorted with Nazis; Wallis may have loathed her in-laws. She may have been greedy. However, Her Grace would never have reduced herself to publicly baking cookies or expressed confusion over the word "slurry" for streaming audiences regardless of how much money had been offered her. Wallis Windsor (using Meghan's methodology) may have danced with Hitler, but at least she never appeared on television trapsing about barefoot in her kitchen nor wearing pajamas in public.

Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and her better half, known as either "Aitch" or "my husband", opted to step down as working Royals to pursue financial independence away from the British House of Windsor. What did that entail? It entailed among other things the King's daughter-in-law openly wondering why a crêpe felt more special than a pancake, the suggestion of a secret pre-marriage child and waxing rhapsodic about the joys of edible flower sprinkles.

In short, it entailed With Love, Meghan. 

I do not know if "woefully misguided" is the best term to describe With Love, Meghan. Other terms that come to mind are "ego trip", "vanity project" and "television sludge". Boring and bizarre, With Love, Meghan never makes a case for its very existence. 

With Love, Meghan has a set pattern. Mrs. Sussex will tell the production crew who is coming and what she plans to have them do with her. Usually, she will prepare something ahead of their arrival. She will also almost always present her guest star a gift. Sometimes the gift will be when they arrive. Sometimes it will be when they depart. Once they do arrive, the guest(s) will share in the joyful work. On occasion, Meghan will share some deep thought that sounds inane. Her guest(s) will almost always tell her how wonderful she is or how wonderful it is to be with her or how wonderful it is to be doing whatever it is that they are doing. Once the specific task is completed, Meghan and her guest(s) will marvel at how joyful everything has been. The Carolina shag soundtrack aims at keeping the cool, upbeat vibe that With Love, Meghan aims at.  

Officially, With Love, Meghan has two seasons. I am in the minority in holding that it has one season split into two parts. There will be no second/third season. 

With Love, Meghan consists of sixteen episodes and a holiday special that make the Star Wars Holiday Special look like Citizen Kane in comparison. At least the Star Wars Holiday Special had Bea Arthur singing a tender ballad to aliens in rubber masks. I doubt anyone wants Meghan Markle, or Sussex, or Mountbatten-Windsor, or Saxe-Coburg & Gotha to belt out a coquettish song-and-dance to a Wookie. However, I would not put it past her to do so if she were paid enough.

There are many, oh but many, issues when it comes to With Love, Meghan. I will start with perhaps a curious one: her total lack of engagement. Mrs. Sussex trained as an actress. I have long thought that this is why she never looks at us the viewer. If one endures any With Love, Meghan episode, you will see that the only people that she actually looks at are the production crew. Most often than not, it is director Michael Steed. She'll call him by name from time to time. She might even throw shade at him. 

However, because she talks only to Steed, Markle fails to connect with her viewers. All television hosts from Martha Stewart to Bob Vila, from Liberace to Bob Ross, will look directly into the camera. That direct eye contact creates intimacy between host and viewer. We, the viewing audience, are the metaphorical guests. Looking at us in the eye welcomes us, invites us, encourages us to partake in the activities.

Markle flat-out refuses to do so. She will look at others and speak to others. She will not look and speak to us. When she fails to speak or look at us, she is perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not, creating a barrier between herself and viewer. Markle never creates intimacy between herself and the viewer. It keeps us at a distance. That makes it hard to impossible to care about anything that she does or says. It is the most curious and damnable thing. Meghan wants us to be there. Meghan wants us to see her as pleasant, relatable, relaxed. Meghan wants us to look upon her as a kind guide to positive living.

Yet she will never look at us. Her insistence on keeping viewers at a distance has a terrible result. It suggests that she actually does not want us there, unless it is to take instructions from her. By not looking at us, the viewer ends up feeling excluded and unwelcomed. It is the exact opposite of what I figure With Love, Meghan is aiming for. It sends a clear message from Meghan, with animosity: I, Meghan Sussex, am here to teach you because you are so beneath me. 

I am absolutely astonished that no one, Steed in particular, ever directed her to look directly into the camera. Markle not doing so was deadly because it again suggested a total lack of intimacy. No amount of Carolina shag music, of edible flower sprinkles or proclamations of "JOY!" make up for a hostess who is so thoroughly disengaged with her audience. In some episodes, it almost appeared as though Markle was not even talking to her own guests. She was more addressing them, telling them what they were going to do. I figure that the guests had previously agreed to make whatever craft or meal that Markle was going to have them do. However, that too suggested that the guests were there not as actual friends or acquaintances but as students.  

It is curious that when Prince Edward, now Duke of Edinburgh, hosted his own documentary series Crown and Country, he had no problem looking directly into the camera. He understood that the host has to engage the viewer directly. That engagement is done through direct visual contact. I cannot emphasis just what a bad decision it was to have Meghan Markle never look at us.

Another issue is on lifestyle content. With Love, Meghan proclaimed that it "reimagines the genre of lifestyle programming, blending practical how-to's and candid conversations with friends, new and old". Yet the how-to's do not seem very practical or even sensible. I go back to Santa Barbara Sea Urchin. Meghan wants viewers to prepare Santa Barbara Sea Urchin for a party. She wants viewers to swamp their guests with gifts. She expresses astonishment at air pumps for balloons. She creates a children's party without having any children present. 

I struggle with the idea that giving a child a parting party bag of seeds and trowels is practical on any level. What child is going to go to a child's birthday party to grow vegetables and eat sea urchin? Granted, she did not propose serving sea urchin at the children's party. However, it is not beyond the realm of imagination for her to make such a deranged suggestion. Children, at least the ones that I know, like cake and toys at birthday parties. They do not want spades as a party gift bag, unless they can use them as swords. Meghan Markle comes across as very controlling and tightly-wound. I can imagine that any children unfortunate enough to attend a Markle-organized birthday party for Prince Archie or Princess Lilibet would feel very constricted and restricted. 

They would not be allowed to run around and roughhouse. They would not be allowed to throw the gift bag seeds at each other. They would not be allowed to pop the ballons. I am not surprised that there were no children at the children's party that Meghan created. They would not behave like elegant, sophisticated adults. Even young Sheldon Cooper would think Meghan Markle was excessive in her formality.

As for conversations with friends, old and new, With Love, Meghan never had that. There was never any sense of relaxation or joy when Meghan was with anyone. Everyone, rather, seemed to be there to praise the Hostess with the Mostess. The winner in that department is Vicky Tsai from Elevating the Everyday, though Love is in the Details' Delfina Figueras gave Tsai a good run for her money. Meghan rarely sat down and chatted with her guests. We did not learn much about people like Tsai or Figueras or Heather Dorak. 

Dorak is an interesting case. She is supposed to be one of Markle's oldest and dearest friends. However, I do not recall hearing much from her in A Weekend Away. Instead, we heard a lot from and about Meghan Markle. Mrs. Sussex does have some chefs attend to her. However, they hardly count as guests because they did not come to be served but to serve. We did not learn much about people like Roy Choi or Clare Smyth as people. We did see that when another chef, Ramon Velasquez, corrected Markle's food handling, the Duchess of Sussex could barely contain her rage. 

It is a curious thing that I was unaware that Will Guidara was married to Christine Tosi. Guidara was Meghan's guest on Holiday Celebration. Tosi had been Meghan's guest on A Sweet and Savory Adventure. It is in how little Meghan either mentioned or seemed to care about either of them that Tosi's connection to Guidara was learned on Holiday Celebration despite Tosi having been a With Love, Meghan guest before. 

Conversations are meant to be relaxing and joyful. Given how visibly angry Markle was at Mindy Kaling when she dared call her "Meghan Markle" instead of "Meghan Sussex", I cannot imagine that it was fun, relaxing afternoon. 

Perhaps the worst element in and of With Love, Meghan is that the show is simply boring. Meghan Markle is a dreadful hostess. One senses that she is forcing herself to speak softly. I think that she thinks that this is the tone of voice one should have for television. To my ears, her soft tone comes across as controlled and manufactured. Like her inability or refusal to look directly at us, it keeps us at a distance. The various dishes presented are far too esoteric for my tastes. Crudites and gougères are things that I think most people have never heard of, let alone want to make or serve.

Not that the elements of elegant living are less opaque to oddball. I have gone decades without hearing about such things as water marbling or lavender towels. I do not know why anyone would want to do such things. Perhaps for work, but not for fun.

Over and over again, I kept seeing Meghan Markle as like a crazed summer camp leader in charge of arts & crafts. Making s'mores. Making Christmas crackers. Making mugs. Making beeswax candles. These are all things that I can imagine those at Camp Anawanna having to do. Seeing adults do them seems very, well, frankly loony. I do not think that the guests were having fun or joy participating in this psychotic Girl Scout Jamboree. 

As a side note, think of "camp" in any way you wish.

With Love, Meghan is something that I found totally schizophrenic. It wants to be joyful but comes across as dull. It wants to be relaxed but comes across as tense. It wants to be relatable but comes across as aloof. It wants to be warm but comes across as cold and brittle. 

Perhaps in the end, With Love, Meghan reflects, unintentionally, how Meghan Markle actually is.

Queen Mary once admonished a member of the royal family for complaining about their duties. "You are a member of the British Royal Family. We are never tired and we all love hospitals", the Empress of India scolded the miscreant. Her Majesty was communicating that as Royals they had to put duty above self. They never show physical exhaustion and participate in the most mundane activities. If they had to pull a cord to unveil a plaque declaring something open, they did. If they had to meet hundreds of people who worked as sanitation workers, they did. 

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Aitch opted not to. They were convinced that their star power alone would draw people to their rival Court. My sense is that Meghan thought people would flock to see her show how she lived a life of grace and elegance. After all, she is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

Instead, we saw in With Love, Meghan a fading star rush around barefoot or in pajamas while gushing about the joys of edible flower sprinkles. Queen Mary famously refused to ever receive the Duchess of Windsor, a pledge that she kept to her dying day. Queen Mary referred to Wallis Simpson as "an adventuress". Who would have thought that The Adventuress would be the embodiment of royal decorum compared to The Starlet.

History repeating itself?

Average Episode: 3.4