Before her breakthrough role as Rachel Zane on Suits, Meghan Markle was a briefcase model on the popular game show Deal or No Deal.

Appearing in 34 episodes as caseholder number 24 between 2006 and 2007, Markle recently revealed that she felt objectified during her time on the show.

In a conversation with Paris Hilton, the former actress expressed her discomfort with being labeled as a bimbo.

However, this revelation has raised some eyebrows and led to speculation about Markle’s intentions.

Critics have pointed out the irony of Markle’s claims, considering her husband Prince Harry’s previous statement encouraging people to leave their jobs if they were unhappy.

Some believe that Markle’s decision to share her experiences of being objectified is a way for her to seek revenge against Howie Mandel, the host of Deal or No Deal.

It has also been revealed that Markle was fired from the show, contrary to her previous assertion that she had quit voluntarily.

This revelation adds another layer of complexity to the situation, suggesting that Markle may harbor resentment towards those who did not meet her expectations during her time in Hollywood.

It has been suggested that some of the briefcase girls who stood out to the production team were given microphones to enhance their presence on the show.

Unfortunately, Markle was not one of them.

With only 34 episodes under her belt, it is likely that her time on the show amounted to just a few months of work, considering that multiple episodes were filmed in a single day.

Critics argue that Markle’s tendency to quit and then blame others for her decisions is evident in her short-lived stint on Deal or No Deal.

They also point out that her entry into Hollywood was facilitated by her father and ex-husband, undermining her claims of solely relying on her own merit.

Markle’s claims of being objectified have not been well-received, and she is facing backlash for disparaging her past jobs and the opportunities that paved her way to success.

Other former hostesses of Deal or No Deal have come forward to refute Markle’s portrayal of the job and deny that they were treated as bimbos.

Critics argue that Markle’s criticism of her previous work contradicts her current choices, such as using tan spray, fake eyelashes, and undergoing plastic procedures.

The perceived hypocrisy in her actions has not gone unnoticed.

Reviewers and critics have taken aim at Markle’s claims, questioning their validity and significance.

Royal biographer Angela Levin argues that Markle had the option to decline the job if she felt uncomfortable, but her decision to accept it suggests that she wanted the opportunity.

Ricky Schlott from the New York Post emphasizes that the job description for briefcase girls revolves around their looks and that none of them expected to be celebrated for their intelligence.

Hilary Rose from the Times sarcastically highlights the envy-driven desire to live in a castle, contrasting it with the reality of Frogmore Cottage, where the Sussexes resided in the UK.

US commentator Kat Timpf dismisses Markle’s description of her experience as a serious trauma, noting that the role of briefcase girls was primarily focused on their attractiveness.

Richard Madeleine from Good Morning Britain questions whether there is anything Markle won’t complain about, while pointing out that her former co-star Claudia Jordan has contradicted her claims.

Spectator World’s Cockburn Columnist suggests that Markle has a tendency to rewrite history and wonders if walking away from a job due to unsuitability is a recurring theme for the royal.