Victoria Beckham, the iconic fashionista and former Spice Girl, has proven time and time again that she doesn’t need celebrity friends to stay relevant.

Despite facing the relentless scrutiny of the British tabloids, Beckham has effortlessly risen above the negative headlines and maintained her position as one of the most talked-about women in Britain.

Surprisingly, her ability to handle the media with ease stands in stark contrast to Meghan Markle, who seems to struggle with the same challenge.

In the ongoing saga between the Beckhams and the Sussexes, it has come to light that the former has some grievances with the latter.

The Beckhams, like many high-profile figures, have publicly joined the ranks of Meghan and Harry’s critics.

Their alliance was solidified when the Sussexes were not invited to the star-studded wedding of Brooklyn Beckham and Nicola Peltz.

This decision undoubtedly left a bitter taste for Meghan and Harry, adding to their already existing feelings of rejection.

The FOMO (fear of missing out) continued for the Sussexes when they were excluded from the guest list of the Beckhams’ American soccer event.

A star-studded affair, the event boasted names such as Serena Williams, Kim Kardashian, and LeBron James.

The absence of the Sussexes was also noted at Serena Williams’ recent gender reveal party.

It seems that Meghan and Harry are losing friends faster than a high-speed car chase through the desert.

But what exactly is causing the Sussexes’ downfall?

By delving into Victoria Beckham’s earlier career, we may uncover the key to her enduring success in the face of media scrutiny.

In a 2003 appearance on the British TV show “Jonathan Ross,” Beckham was subjected to brutal questions about alleged feuds, her body image, and even her singing abilities.

However, there was something remarkable about her responses to these challenging and degrading questions.

When asked if she reads the tabloids, Beckham acknowledged the hurtful and inaccurate nature of the media but added a touch of humor.

She humorously stated that positive media can inflate one’s ego, leading to uncontrollable arrogance.

By using the word “uncontrollable,” Beckham magnified the absurdity of paying attention to both positive and negative media.

This subtle approach allowed her to maintain control of the conversation.

In contrast, Meghan Markle has taken a different approach when faced with unfavorable press.

Her first step is to sue anyone who publishes negative stories about her.

She famously sued Associated Newspapers for publishing parts of a private letter she had written to her father.

However, it was later revealed that the letter was constructed in collaboration with her communications secretary, with the intention of it being leaked to the press.

It seemed like a setup.

In the end, she received a meager £1 in damages from the newspaper.

Meghan’s second step is to try and censor anyone who speaks negatively about her.

She advocates for a world where only positive discussions are allowed, resembling the fictitious world of Barbieland.

She blames social media platforms and media outlets for any negative press she receives, rather than taking responsibility for her own actions.

This deflective approach fails to address the root cause of the negative coverage.

Another stark difference between Beckham and Markle is their response to criticism of their talents.

Beckham, during her solo career after leaving the Spice Girls, faced harsh personal jibes about her singing abilities.

However, she took these comments in stride and didn’t disagree with them.

On the other hand, Meghan has rarely faced direct criticism of her talents.

Instead, she has discussed the dangers of negative comments on social media, using inflammatory language to exaggerate the problem.

While Beckham embraces self-awareness and acknowledges her limitations as a singer, Meghan tends to shift blame onto external factors.

She suggests that negative media coverage is solely driven by profit and that media outlets should be held responsible for mitigating negative articles.

Her focus seems to be on whether the press is flattering or nasty, rather than the accuracy of the coverage.

Victoria Beckham’s first line of defense is humor, while Meghan Markle leans towards cancel culture.

It’s important to note that no public figure has ever escaped negative press.

However, Meghan’s handling of the situation appears to be immature and paranoid.

It’s crucial for her to understand that being in the public eye inevitably invites criticism.

In an interesting twist, a resurfaced story reveals that Meghan suspected Victoria Beckham of leaking private information about her to the press.

This suspicion arose after Beckham had provided assistance to Meghan leading up to her wedding.

However, accusing the Beckhams of such actions seems unfounded and ludicrous.

It’s unlikely that Victoria, who has experienced her fair share of media leaks, would engage in such behavior.

The Beckhams’ hurt feelings stem from their perception of not being adequately thanked for their support during the Sussexes’ wedding preparations.

Although they were invited to the wedding, they were excluded from the dinner, creating a sense of exclusion.

However, attributing blame to the Beckhams for leaked information about something as trivial as a hairdresser seems overly paranoid.

It’s worth mentioning that the Beckhams have maintained a strong relationship with the royal family for a long time, making it highly unlikely that they would jeopardize it over baseless accusations.

The idea that David Beckham, a patriotic figure, would support such actions is simply preposterous.

The theory that David is desperate for a knighthood and thus treading cautiously holds little merit.

In conclusion, Victoria Beckham’s ability to navigate the media with grace and humor sets her apart from Meghan Markle.

While Beckham acknowledges the challenges of negative press, she uses humor to maintain control of the conversation.

On the other hand, Meghan tends to resort to legal action and censorship, deflecting blame onto external factors.

The stark contrast in their approaches highlights the importance of self-awareness and maturity when dealing with media scrutiny.