Meghan Markle 'exploits' Princess Lilibet for clicks on social media?

The debate around Meghan Markle’s social media strategy and her advocacy for child safety online has become a highly polarized topic, drawing sharp reactions from both critics and supporters. Whether her digital choices constitute "exploitation" or a calculated attempt at "sharenting with caution" depends heavily on how observers interpret her public and private boundaries.

The core of the argument centers on what media commentators call the "Lilibet effect."

The Criticism: "Performative Privacy" and Hypocrisy

Critics argue that there is a fundamental contradiction between the Sussexes' public advocacy and their personal social media usage. Key arguments include:

• Inconsistent Timing: Critics point out a pattern where rare photos of Princess Lilibet or Prince Archie are posted close to major public appearances or brand launches. For instance, a mirror selfie showing Lilibet was shared just before Meghan traveled to Geneva to speak at the Lost Screen Memorial (honoring children lost to online harms). Commentators like Kinsey Schofield have labeled this behavior hypocritical, arguing that it leverages the children for "clicks" to drive engagement for her lifestyle brand, As Ever.

• The "Peekaboo" Strategy: Editorial columns, such as those in The Independent, argue that the couple practices "performative privacy." By frequently sharing photos where the children's faces are obscured by emojis, hats, or clever camera angles—but occasionally showing full photos, like a Valentine’s Day post—critics claim they are using their children as "breadcrumbs for content" to keep audiences intrigued.

The Defense: Strategic Protection and Resilience

Supporters and digital safety advocates view the Duchess's actions through a completely different lens, framing her approach as a modern blueprint for protecting children in the digital age.

• Sharenting with Caution: Royal defenders argue that the Sussexes are carefully balancing the public's intense curiosity with their children's safety. Obscuring faces or showing the back of a child’s head is a recognized safety strategy meant to prevent identity theft, safeguard personal data, and protect against AI-driven facial recognition tracking.

• Controlling the Narrative: Supporters maintain that after experiencing years of aggressive paparazzi pursuit and extreme online trolling—which Meghan noted was at its worst during her pregnancies—the couple has a right to control how and when their children are seen. Sharing highly curated, occasional family moments allows them to humanize their public image on their own terms, without feeding into the invasive media ecosystem they stepped back from in 2020.

The Structural Debate: Ultimately, this conversation reflects a broader global dilemma. Prince Harry has publicly criticized tech companies for "farming children's mindsets," and Meghan has described social media as a "billion-dollar industry predicated on cruelty.

Whether sharing rare, controlled glimpses of their family undermines that message or simply represents a parent navigating a deeply flawed digital landscape remains a point of intense public disagreement.