The appearance of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on the cover of TIME magazine as part of a list of the “100 most influential people” has drawn equal measures of laughter, criticism and polite but mystified applause on both sides of the Atlantic.
As Breitbart London reported, Harry, whose 37th birthday was on Wednesday, posed moodily in all black and sat behind Meghan with a reassuring hand on her shoulder.
For her part, the former actress, 40, donned a white pantsuit and gold jewelry while maintaining the same blank look as her husband.
The artfully posed couple featured on one of a number of alternative covers for the American publication, Prince Harry is seen intentionally diminishing himself alongside his wife, with the reportedly 6’1″ prince appearing to crouch down behind the 5’6″ former TV actress while resting on a wall.
Time’s picture editor Dilys Ng said the portrait captures the Sussexes’ “powerful dynamic as equal partners.”
Others begged to differ with questions asked as to its authenticity and whether human intervention was used to alter their appearance:
Some questioned just what Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had done to achieve TIME’s applause:
Others just saw the pair as embodying much ado about nothing:
As Breitbart London outlined, the two chose the Archewell Foundation website to say they were “humbled to be part of this year’s TIME 100.″
They also continued their embrace of humble contrition to mention, in turn, having written the profile for fellow TIME 100 celebrity Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Communist China and Biden administration-backed Nigerian economist who became the director-general of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in March.
Despite the generous round of backpatting, some pointed out the damage the pair continue to do to the crown and the British Royal Family.
Eric Schiffer, chairman of Reputation Management Consultants, told Newsweek: “Meghan and Harry landing a cover spot of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People will be seen as a stab in the heart of the Monarchy’s reputation because of the greater implicit credibility it affords them and their previous claims against the crown.”