Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, has once again poured out her heart.
The lucky addressee this time was not Oprah Winfrey, but a journalist from »The Cut«, that is the digital supplement of »New York Magazine«.
Even more than the words of the Duchess, with which she is likely to drive the royal family back home in Great Britain to incandescence, the pictures give cause for irritation.
This is especially true for a recording.
There Meghan sits on a chair in a blooming garden, stretches sideways towards the sun.
In the past, one would have said "how poured," and even this association is not a good one.
She's wearing a long black dress with a plunging neckline, the hemline is pushed up, so her legs are also showing – and it all seems like a homage to fashion photography from the 1970s and 1980s.
Models should look like vamps, cleavage, leggy, interchangeable.
After all, the Duchess is not wearing stilettos in the photo, she is barefoot.
Otherwise the recording could have been mistaken for one by Helmut Newton.
This fashion photographer loved to have women in low-cut black dresses step in front of the camera, his imagery was always a touch sexist or even much more.
Subsequent photographers thrived on this kind of glamour, but at some point it just became obsolete.
So why this comeback?
Meghan didn't have to be photographed by an unknown quantity either, an up-and-coming talent from London was booked for her.
Campbell hired Addy to edit The Cut, whom the New York Times called the "photographer of the hour" just a few months ago, which basically ennobled him too.
And maybe Addy wanted to ironically break with the aesthetics of the past, before his time.
Unfortunately, there is no apparent joke.
The Duchess seems too busy for that, wanting to implement her pose brilliantly.
Above all, the article gives an idea of how seriously the exile royals took the photo shoot.
Harry says, "Of course you can be a model."
Prince Harry also has his say in the article.
Because of the photo shoot for the magazine, his wife was on the road for ten hours the day before, he reveals to the journalist, and after Meghan's return, according to him, these rather involuntarily funny sentences fell: "She said: 'I'm not a model.' I said: 'I'm not a model.' Yes you are, of course you can be a model.' And she said: 'I'm a mother!' And I said: 'You can be both'".
Anyone who had hoped, and there were many, that Meghan would become a new feminist icon, or at least the epitome of modern female rebellion, swallowed not only at the sight of the garden picture, but also at that point.
Actually, the two wanted to break traditions and clichés, now they seem to concretize them.
Mother and model, as if there were only these two poles in a woman's existence.
Incidentally, on the cover photo she makes the late Princess Diana her ally, because the frontal view there and the black turtleneck that Meghan wears are reminiscent of a famous shot of her mother-in-law.
Although these Diana quotes now seem a bit inflationary, Meghan's sister-in-law Kate also likes to refer to the queen of hearts with her outfits.
Clothes should say more than a thousand words.
Meghan herself, on the other hand, points out that many - especially many little girls - see her as a real princess.
Now it shows how she perceives herself – as a kind of star, as a vamp.
But couldn't it have been done in a more contemporary, original way?
Is that why she allowed herself to be photographed as hinting at an 80's male fantasy?
Some people like it.
Perhaps this self-portrayal is an expression of self-determination for you?
“Okay, that's fire.
Damn Meghan Markle," wrote one Twitter user under the picture, which is meant to be admiring.