Platell began her piece by acknowledging that Meghan's stint in Suits was known to the public only after she entered the Royal Family, stating, "We all know that Meghan was in Suits before she married into the Royal Family (well, we know now - I'd never heard of Meghan until she paraded in a cream coat around the gardens of Kensington Palace)."
Platell emphasized that it is no longer a requirement for royal brides to have led a sheltered life, devoid of previous relationships or gainful employment. However, she went on to criticize the show itself, remarking, "My problem with Suits is that it's humorless trash, although we can't blame Meghan for that." She acknowledged that Meghan likely accepted the role based on the strength of the pilot episode.
Platell acknowledged the inherent risk involved in television series, stating, "These series are always a gamble." She speculated that Meghan saw the opportunity to portray a strong, uncompromising black woman named Rachel Zane, a paralegal with a chip on her shoulder due to not having attended Harvard. Platell noted that Meghan might have viewed this as a chance to embody a feminist character who fearlessly reveals her vulnerabilities.
The article also mentioned that Meghan's character development and storyline possibilities may have been limited due to the nature of her contract with the show. Prior to meeting Prince Harry, Meghan likely found comfort in the stability and lucrative salary provided by her role in Suits.
The critique of Meghan Markle's involvement in Suits focuses on the show's lack of humor, while acknowledging that Meghan herself cannot be held responsible for its shortcomings. The article also sheds light on Meghan's perspective when accepting the role and her experience within the constraints of her contract.
