She’s done it again. Just when you thought Meghan Markle had exhausted every possible avenue of self-promotion, the Duchess of Sussex has leapt aboard the latest Instagram-friendly fad: the “no-makeup makeup” look that’s supposed to scream effortless radiance but, in her case, mostly screams “someone please notice I still exist.”On November 23, Meghan stepped out in Santa Barbara wearing what her ever-eager PR machine immediately branded a “fresh-faced, natural glow.”
Translation: barely there tinted moisturizer, a slick of brow gel, and lashes so individually coated they probably have their own agent. Yet the comment sections—especially on British tabs and the unfiltered corners of X—lit up with a single, brutal consensus: without the full Hollywood contouring kit she relied on during her Suits days and early royal tenure, Meghan simply doesn’t have the bone structure or symmetry to pull off the au-naturel aesthetic that makes stars like Alicia Keys or Alicia Vikander look like literal goddesses.And the internet, as it so often does, asked the question the Sussexes’ $14-million Spotify deal famously couldn’t: Who exactly is this for?The “Clean Girl” Trend Wasn’t Built for Her FaceLet’s be brutally honest: the no-makeup trend works when the canvas is already near-perfect. Zendaya can roll out of bed and look like she was sculpted by Renaissance masters because… well, she was. Ditto Margot Robbie, Hailey Bieber, or even the Princess of Wales, whose bone structure could slice diamonds. Meghan’s features—pleasant in full war-paint—are suddenly revealed as strikingly average when stripped of the strategic bronzer, overlined lips, and lash extensions that defined her royal red-carpet era.Royal photographer Arthur Edwards, who shot the Fab Four for decades, didn’t mince words on GB News: “With makeup she looked glamorous. Without it, she looks like any stressed 44-year-old mother of two rushing to Pilates. There’s nothing wrong with that—except she spent years insisting she was extraordinary.”Ouch.
But the numbers back him up. Side-by-side comparisons circulating on X (formerly Twitter) rack up hundreds of thousands of likes for the simple reason that they’re mercilessly accurate: 2018 Meghan at the Invictus Games, cheekbones carved to the heavens, versus 2025 Meghan at a farmer’s market looking… tired.
The glow is there, sure. But it’s the glow of someone who can afford $600 serums, not the genetic lottery win the Sussex PR machine has spent seven years trying to convince us she hit.When “Authenticity” Becomes Another PerformanceRemember when Meghan told The Cut she was “done” acting? Apparently that memo never reached her pores.Because this isn’t organic.
This is the same woman who, sources swear, once flew her London makeup artist to Canada for a 45-minute “no-makeup” shoot. The same woman whose Netflix series featured close-ups so flattering they required a ring light the size of a satellite dish. Going barefaced now—right as her acting career remains a one-line IMDb credit and her lifestyle brand “As Ever” (or whatever it’s called this week) struggles to sell $78 jam—feels less like liberation and more like calculated damage control.The timing is simply too perfect.
Hollywood is obsessed with “real” beauty (see: Pamela Anderson’s triumphant barefaced Paris Fashion Week moments). So what does a former actress with dwindling cultural oxygen do?
She declares herself above the contour stick, posts a strategically grainy selfie, and waits for the “brave” headlines to roll in.Except they’re not rolling in. Instead, the British press—finally unchained from palace press-office shackles—has gone full attack dog. “Meghan’s Makeunder Flop,” crowed The Sun. “Bare-Faced Cheek,” smirked the Daily Mail. Even American outlets that once fawned over her are raising eyebrows: Vogue asked whether the look was “effortless or just… effort?”
The Cruelest Punchline: She Set the Bar HerselfHere’s the most devastating part: Meghan spent years cultivating an image of flawless, mixed-race beauty that would “heal” the monarchy and challenge Eurocentric standards. She freckles, she glows, she’s Diana 2.0—remember the engagement interview where she batted those (definitely extended) lashes and insisted she’d never even Googled Harry?She sold us perfection.
And now, when she finally shows the face nature actually gave her, the public reaction is a collective shrug followed by a savage “that’s it?”That’s the real tragedy here. Not that Meghan isn’t “beautiful enough” (beauty is subjective, blah blah blah). The tragedy is that she spent a decade aggressively marketing herself as an ethereal, once-in-a-generation stunner—then discovered, too late, that the pedestal she built was so ridiculously high that even her professionally lit, surgically subtle, $500-an-ounce-skincare face can’t balance on it without the armor of Mac and Charlotte Tilbury.So What Now, Duchess?Will she double down and keep posting #NoFilter selfies until we’re all gaslit into believing this is peak radiance?
Will the inevitable backlash force a return to the full beat that once made her look like a Disney princess who moonlighted as a Bond girl? Or—and this is the nightmare scenario for Team Sussex—will the world simply stop caring either way?Because that’s the risk when your entire brand is built on being the most beautiful, most persecuted, most “relatable” woman in every room: eventually people look closely enough to notice you’re just… human.And for Meghan Markle, “just human” was never supposed to be part of the script.
