(Duchess of) SussexGate on ShopMy: muses, influencers, and the paradox of commodified aspiration

tldr; a case study on the economics of projection

Hiiiiii — NO SHOPPING LETTER THIS WEEK — instead we’re talking SussexGate on ShopMy <3 

I’ve been harboring thoughts on Meghan (Markle) Sussex for years — most of them too inside voice to share publicly. Like the situation is nuanced, and, sooo sorry, but much of the discourse around her is oftentimes.. pedestrian.

True to the TM legacy, this isn’t a take down and we’re not going down the path of fluffy hot takes — we’re applying some real fckn academic rigor to understanding the FRAMEWORKS that govern the paradox of MMS. From this lens, we’ll unpack the ShopMy of it all, where she’s perhaps made too many left turns, and why it’s hard for ppl to consistently want to champion her.

My last note is that i AM a princess meghan stan, but i also think stanning without critique is very the education system driven by this administration AKA – i want nothing to do with that. So we’re going THERE. Thoughtfully, surgically, and unabashedly. As penance for this being days late (i poured all of my brain cells into having enough clarity to weave together this letter LOL), no paywall <3 i love you!! LET’S DIG IN —

the events of the week

Monday

Let’s be rlly honest… the shopmy of it all was at BEST, at my most OPTIMISTIC — dystopian. And it’s funny, right? Because maybe a lot of us WERE asking?? And what? As a princess-duchess, is she meant to be above the bounds of technology? As the Divine Tier chosen by God to rule, were a fleet of montecito doves meant to descend upon us with a royal order that the linen was from reformation, and the vicuna from loro piana? 

Tuesday

I get why it felt like a bubble burst — some of you found the idea of royalty using affiliate links to be icky, some found it hilarious, others found it despicable, and personally — i found it a little disappointing. Why? Because everytime I feel a step closer to understanding Meghan, she makes a sharp turn, and all of my carefully constructed projections shatter. So I followed that feeling. Well, all of our feelings… to literature, jstor, and beyond. Here’s what I found: 

Two Wolves Theory

Within our Princess Meg there are two wolves. Both are culture’s projects UPON Meghan, yet they are entirely constructed based on partially obscured fact. 

1. Wolf One: The Princess (defacto EHG)

   1. She went to a top 10 uni

   2. Her taste is classic, preppy, and timeless, had a big chance of being epitomized as the next CBK

   3. In my research I found out that The Tig was found to be cool to a certain (niche) subsect

   4. Chic and EHG core hobbies like philanthropy and casually being bilingual after completing a prestigious foreign service summer internship in Argentina (altho hottest if she’d secured it via nepo) 

   5. Had the “right circle” and…

   6. MARRIED PRINCE FCKN HARRY

   7. MONTECITO

2. Wolf Two: Relatable queeeeen (cringe millennial pinterest aesthetic eyebrows on fleek)

   1. Some might call her a transparent striver, I’m going to go with the fact that dale carnegie WISHES he could chronicle this level of adept social mobility (not shade) —  she picked up her briefcase and GOT TO WORK (pun intended, this is the punny category)

   2. Deal or No Deal (nuff said… ok i’m done now, lettuce continue onwards)

   3. B-list tv actress, self made

   4. Divorced and her ex-husband had no real lore (the tinsley mortimer angle would have put her in wolf 1)

   5. So earnest it’s cringe, but also that may stem from being an… 

   6. ELDER MILLENNIAL. The most millennial you can get. The kind of millennial that caused Gen Z to crash out and make sweeping decrees against side parts and skinny jeans and ANKLES

      1. (a zillennial attempt to humanize) — Imagine growing up and always getting shoved a new technology. Pagers, palm pilots, AOL, BBM, the advent of social media…. You’d crash out too. All they wanted to do was to be categorized on the world wide web – collectivism was hot then, like they survived being fresh out of college during the financial crisis… Getting sorted into a harry potter house via buzzfeed and making coffee + mason jars a personality trait…. alongside puns that made you feel like ur early education system under clinton had NOT failed you…. i fear is NOT the crime that we like to make it out to be.  

And like it should be so so clear that you absolutely cannot straddle both of these categories publicly. HOWEVER the other problem is that i fear my princess is both.

I also want to point out, before heading into framework two, that permutations of both wolves, depending on who you speak to, are relatable and authentic. So I’d like to throw out this idea that relatability is a monolith that is fixed by a normalized baseline across income, class background, and race/ethnicity. Relatability is mutable depending on the observer, and authenticity is a range of expression determined by the source and their audience. 

Influencers and Muses — a framework of personas

(also req reading =

Noora Raj Brown

’s piece on muses v influencers)

The problem with Meghan is that her brand lacks clarity, and I’m sorry, but clarity = the philosophical justification for how one monetizes their influence. Let’s break this down: 

1. Tier 1: Muses Who Would Never Monetize —  CBK et al. Everything that you need to know here is that being private means you’ve won. It’s chic to be unreachable and unrelatable. Culture loves to project eloise at the plaza dreams onto them because they give us absolutely nothing to hold onto (smart). Lastly, they never have to sell to us because they DO NOT WANT OR NEED OUR MONEY. They drive sales for brands indirectly through organic media/press, and that is the derivation of their power that they get to lord over us. Withholding = currency. 

2. Tier 2: Muses of The Mythical and Silent (Indirect Monetization)—  The Olsens/The Row serve as THE case study here. You know these women exist because we see them once or twice per season, artfully captured by paparazzi, and adorning a mix of vintage x The Row. And yes, the Olsens were beloved by millennials, but there’s something more important to their strategy — they let you know them, grow up with them, love them, and then they absolutely shut THE F*CK UP. They disappeared in plain sight, making them mythical creatures whose existence feels like a fragment of your imagination. Nothing they do fully makes sense, thus, it’s the most austere yet sumptuous axis of confounding narrative (and that’s the point). They also don’t sell anything to us directly — meaning, we are compelled because we are influenced by what we can see and what we surmise that we can’t. Also helps that they have an avengers lineup of women who range from muses to influencers that can do their bidding IRL and online.

3. Tier 3: Monetization first, Muse second — this tier was made for the Martha Stewarts + Gwyneth Paltrows (x Goop). It trades mystique for crystal clarity. Founders are their brand, and there’s no escaping that (but tbh you wouldn’t want to). These women have always had access to the best, and then share what they know, and we’re feral for it.. because that level of insight is rare to come by at scale. You know exactly what you’re getting with GP x Goop, and that’s why her business model works. Maybe some ppl might find it inaccessible, but again, on relatability…. that’s not her problem. And as far as muses go? Say it with me!!! THAT’S KINDA THE POINT!!

   ^ everyone saw this story and immediately wanted to buy GP’s sweater (goop) and glasses (nondescript). it’s pavlovian

4. Tier 4: The (effective) Influencers — this is the God Tier of influencers whose monetization strategy is basically turning clarity into a form of currency. Examples (you don’t have to be a capital I influencer to be in this category BTW) = Leandra Medine Cohen vs Morgan Stewart McGraw vs Alix Earle, etc etc etc. There’s an eviscerating sense of peace when you settle into the brand identity of these women. They post a link, you buy. Why? Because you know what you’re there for, and there’s a found peace in that. You’re not mad, that’s the transaction, and everyone leaves happy. 

Unfortunately… MS doesn’t fall into any of these categories. She’s trying to be too brand facing to fit into tier 1 & 2, and doesn’t have enough brand clarity (what version of you are you selling) to fit into tier 3 or 4…. Which was further exacerbated by the nothingness of what her ShopMy revealed.

The point isn’t that she needs to tell us everything niche and interesting, or that she needs to be fundamentally honest about everything she’s ever used and loved, but what did the lineup of 2018 dior concealer, la roche posay cleanser, and CND nail polish tell us? Well, nothing.

More access brought us no greater clarity, leaving us feeling agitated, dissatisfied, and duuuuuped. And isn’t that the paradox of commodified aspiration? If we can’t project onto you.. and we can’t buy from you.. then what are you selling??

Some academic theory (that colored all of this, but worth spelling out more critically) —

Interestingly, as interpreted through Frank Bruni’s The Age of Grievance — what we’re witnessing isn’t entirely backlash — it’s also grief. The breakpoint of culture RN is that too many factions (across political party/generation/race + ethnicity/city x suburb x small town) feel as though they have been deeply wronged by the invisible forces that be. Parasocial resentment serves as a mirror, where we hate anything that we cannot be because it appears like it’s a mockery of the state of our lives.

Meghan ALSO became, for many, a figure of cruel optimism (hiii Lauren Berlant) — aka a woman who promised (greater, societal) resolution through her existence. That you could be a Black woman who is also a princess, who is also brilliant and elusive and principled AND even when you fail (the monarchy) you win (montecito.. or true love, etc lol). Unfortunately, she chose to monetize over and over again with perhaps..zero clarity.. and the mythical bricks that we laid at the foundation of her prestige began to crumble. Sianne Ngai would also tell us that her cuteness didn’t scale — once her efforts to sell became increasingly legible, it was all a BIG yikes for society 2 accept. 

If the frameworks that propped up her mystique dissolved, yet people are still aggrieved  — where does that leave us? As it stands today, she’s not really a muse, nor is she an influencer. She’s perhaps too accessible, yet a full grasp of the “authentic” her is still shrouded in opacity. In that, she becomes relatable to almost none and aspirational to almost none…. As a result, we mourn the version of Princess Meghan, our Duchess of Sussex, that never existed… and in her wake, we punish the one that does.

---

Alright, lots to discuss (I hope??) this is a safe space to be HONEST — let’s talk, I wanna get to the bottom of this with you. I have more questions than answers, but hopefully some of these frameworks help contextualize the discourse. I LOVE YOOOOU — talk tues!!!

TM x