There’s a reason she’s a guest editor

For some, the sound of the monthly copy of Vogue through the letterbox signals some much-needed escapism into a world of glamour and beauty. For others, it is the fashion bible which will inspire their wardrobe for the season to come.

Next month’s edition of Vogue, however, may be a little different.

The Duchess of Sussex has laid out her plans for a new era of women’s magazines to swap the “superficial” focus of the fashion industry into pages of “positivity, kindness, humour and inclusivity”.

Her September edition of Vogue will see a beauty section “that puts its energy towards internal beauty”, and workouts to “use the heart” instead of sculpting the body.

The “power of breathing and mindfulness” will be celebrated, along with “ethical and sustainable brands” and interviews with fashion designers that focus not on clothes but “heritage, history and heirloom”.

Magazines, as we all know, chase the prejudices and desires of their readers, not shape them.

22 thoughts on “There’s a reason she’s a guest editor”

  1. Magazines, as we all know, chase the prejudices and desires of their readers, not shape them.

    True dat. It sounds to me like she is absolutely full of shit, but it also sounds like the sort of shit that Vogue readers will lap up.

  2. She sounds like a bottomless bore.

    At least the Duchess of Windsor was said to know a thing or two in the sack.

  3. E Lud

    I bet Meghan knows a thing or two in the sack as well. Harry’s a trooper whose been there and done that – and I expect he has quite high ‘whore in the bedroom’ standards. Have you seen the filing room scene btw? She’s a Hollywood actress FFS. Of course she can suck a golf ball through a hose pipe.

  4. She’s a conniving, vacuous tart who thinks marrying into royalty is her ticket to fame and fortune (better/easier than the Harvey Weinstein way?).
    Trouble for her is that part of the deal of being a royal is you have to actually act like a royal.

  5. What Chester said.

    This stuff has been tried. Intellectual magazines for women, fatties on the cover. Sales fall.

    They can get away with it for an issue due to the novelty, I guess.

  6. The Meissen Bison

    The sound of the September copy of Vogue through the letterbox signals the return of the bonfire season and all the piles of leaves that need burning.

  7. Glossy magazine expounding consumerism and conspicuous consumption and objectifying women?

    Surprised the Sisters haven’t rounded on her

  8. “Magazines, as we all know, chase the prejudices and desires of their readers, not shape them.”

    Yes, but when one of their desires is to be like a celebrity, this might work (although, as the Bloke on M4 says, probably only as an occasional thing; surely even the celebrity-obsessed would get fed up with this sort of nonsense as a regular thing).

  9. yeah but you know extolling worthy things is a lot safer ground than getting it wrong about hemlines. Vogue ain’t entrusting that stuff to Meghan.

  10. “Internal beauty? I can see it now: 10 Amazing Tips For Applying Foundation To Your Aorta!”

    I was thinking more along the lines of: Decorate Your Vaginal Walls: 10 Amazing Tips!

  11. “Magazines, as we all know, chase the prejudices and desires of their readers, not shape them.”

    Successful ones maybe. I’m not interested in superhero comics at all but I understand that the likes of Marvel comics went massively woke some time ago (in a way that’s only just starting with the films) pissing off and insulting their core male readership. There was a predictable calamitous effect on their sales figures but I guess Marvel had enough in the bank and enough income from the films to ride it out for a while. Now they are trying the same trick on the films expect either a fast U-turn or them running out of money fast.

    In this case – and in the case of other film franchises recently, there seems to be a do-or-die attitude from the makers of such product (Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Star Trek etc.). They presumably think they are going to either convert their current audience to wokeness or attract enough of the already woke who weren’t already fans to make up for their loss. The already woke might squeal loudly about franchises not being sufficiently woke but they still won’t watch them in the long term enough to replace the earlier former fans – and they certainly won’t hoover up anything like the amount of merchandise.
    The BBC can, of course go full-on woke with the likes of DR Who for as long as they can force people to pay a license fee.

    It’s difficult to imagine any other era in which the demonstrably unpopular is being produced by private supposedly rampantly-capitalist companies at such expense when they could be easily making more popular products.
    In very small companies maybe, but in the case of mega corporations outside of a totalitarian state?

  12. JS–The scum of the left can coast on cash reserves created by their wiser forerunners.

    Those reserves won’t last and no amount of Marxist shite is going to refill them.

    Socialism fills coffins not coffers.

  13. Their problem is they try to make being woke the center of the story instead of just getting on with it, the recent Dr Who was badly written shoddily directed and acting was generally garbage, my issue, at least was nothing to do with the new Dr being a woman, but the entire production going downhill.
    Maybe they knew it was going to be crap and threw in Dr as a woman to distract.

  14. Isn’t she the one who flew across the Atlantic in a private jet just to attend the baby shower thrown for her by Serena Williams? I know of at least one fruitcake Swedish teenager who will not be at all impressed!!!

  15. a new era of women’s magazines to swap the “superficial” focus of the fashion industry into pages of “positivity, kindness, humour and inclusivity”

    Cool. Now make it about a subject other than “pretty people and what they do all day” and you’ll have a proper men’s magazine.

  16. Meghan – it’s all about me, myself and I

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7298003/PIERS-MORGAN-Meghans-shamelessly-hypocritical-Vogue-stunt.html

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7298911/SARAH-VINE-memo-Meghan-Markle-Brits-prefer-true-royalty-fashion-royalty.html

    Useless SJW PC Woke Septic who won’t do job she’s paid to do.

    Why have EIIR, Phil, Anne and rest not made Meghan wind her neck in? EIIR could order police protection to clear all through her and stop the gold digger cow traducing Royal Family

    .
    @Jimmers July 30, 2019 at 8:33 am

    +1

    @Ironman July 30, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    Yes. Flight paid for by Clooney, extra protection costs (MET refuse to reveal) paid for by us.

    Bring back beheading of recalcitrant Royals?

  17. BniC
    Agree with most of what you say and, in isolation, Dr Who being a woman might be OK if it was well done (which it plainly isn’t). In general though the Left is doing what it often does. Rather than build its own popular, in this case, heroes it tries to parasitically steal already established credit.
    The left is of course very bad at creating its own heroes because hectoring activism is rarely popular and they don’t do subtle.
    It’s been suggested, and it’s hard to disagree, that the SJW activists don’t just want to create their own heroes, they want to smash the existing ones.

  18. @PF

    Prince Harry: Me and Meghan Markle Won’t Have More Than Two Children Because of Concerns for the Environment

    Grammar fail by Breitbart – Harry did not say that, thank God

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *