The Most Hated Women: Breaking The Trophy Wife Trope

Love To Hate Them, Hate to Love Them

From Meghan Markle’s royal rebellion to Gwyneth Paltrow’s GOOP-y empire, from Martha Stewart’s domestic domination to Nigella Lawson’s sensual gastronomy, these high-profile women have been culturally vilified not for failing, but for succeeding on their own terms. Each married into money or hails from privilege, yet each refused to stay boxed into the “grateful wife” role. Instead, they built powerful personal brands around femininity, homemaking, sensuality, or wellness – and often faced searing backlash for it.

Why does a woman who “has it all” and then wants more spark such outrage? Let’s dive into the trajectories of Markle, Paltrow, Stewart, and Lawson, and explore how their ambition and autonomy triggered a special kind of cultural discomfort. (Spoiler: it’s a lot to do with our collective green-eyed monster.)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jessie Louise | Donc Voilà Quoi (@jessielouisevernon)

Check here for more of my articles on Gender Equality.

Meghan Markle: The Duchess Who Wouldn’t Stay Silent

Meghan Markle’s story reads like a modern fairy tale turned on its head. An American actress with a solid career (notably on the TV drama Suits), Meghan married Britain’s Prince Harry in 2018 – instantly granting her wealth, status, and a tiara to boot. By traditional standards, that’s where the trophy wife narrative should end: Meghan, now Duchess of Sussex, would graciously smile for the cameras, cut ribbons, produce an heir or two, and count her blessings.

Instead, she used her new platform to speak up and carve out her own voice. Early on, Meghan made it clear she wasn’t content to play the silent royal figurehead; she advocated for women’s empowerment and racial equality, guest-edited Vogue, and launched charitable initiatives. In 2020, she and Harry took the unprecedented step of stepping back from senior royal duties to pursue an independent life (promptly dubbed “Megxit” in the press). They moved to California, signed Netflix and Spotify deals, started their own Archewell media foundation – essentially transforming themselves from palace ornaments into self-directed public figures.

The backlash was immediate and vicious. British tabloids (and plenty of traditionalists) branded Meghan the villain of the piece – an uppity interloper who “should be grateful for the colossal privilege of being royalty”. How dare a woman with a prince and palace want more than a happily-ever-after? Detractors labelled Harry and Meghan “spoiled ingrates” for seeking autonomy, accusing them of cashing in on royal fame while shirking royal duties.

The criticisms often dripped with thinly veiled misogyny and racism: insinuations that Meghan “trapped” Harry, endless critiques of her family, her past, even her race. One British TV host’s hateful tirade fantasized about Meghan being paraded naked through the streets in shame – a shocking testament to the vitriol she inspires.

The underlying message to Meghan from her harshest critics was essentially: sit down, shut up, and be thankful we let you in. As one commentator summed it up, the expectation was that she should remain grateful for her fairytale fortune and tolerate any treatment in silence.

Instead, Meghan did the unthinkable: she spoke her truth (famously in a tell-all Oprah interview) and refused to stay in the royal mould. In doing so, she arguably eclipsed her Prince by seizing control of the narrative in a way that unsettled those who prefer their duchesses seen, but not heard.

Notably, much of the trolling and tut-tutting has come from women as well, from social media haters to Royal commentators who scold Meghan as if she violated the sorority code. Her very autonomy became a cultural Rorschach test, revealing an ingrained discomfort with a woman who “had everything” but wouldn’t stay in her place.

Gwyneth Paltrow: The GOOP Guru People Love to Hate

If Meghan’s sin was not staying silent, Gwyneth Paltrow’s was not staying small. Paltrow is Hollywood royalty by birth (daughter of actress Blythe Danner and producer Bruce Paltrow) and by career – an Oscar-winning actress and ’90s “It Girl.” She married well, too: in 2003 she wed Chris Martin, lead singer of Coldplay. By the mid-2000s, Gwyneth had the charmed life of beauty, fame, wealth, rock-star husband, two kids – the whole package. But rather than coast on rom-com roles and school pick-ups, she pivoted to become a wellness and lifestyle mogul.

In 2008 she launched Goop, a weekly newsletter that would evolve into a controversial $250-million-dollar wellness empire. Paltrow essentially packaged her blonde, toned, green-juice persona into a brand, selling an aspirational vision of health, luxury and New Age spirituality (at, it must be said, extremely aspirational prices). Want to eat like Gwyneth? Try her $200 smoothie. Dress like her? Maybe spring for the $725 pyjamas on Goop. Attain her inner glow? Perhaps a $66 jade “yoni egg” to balance your hormones. From bee-sting facials to candles cheekily named “This Smells Like My Vagina,” Paltrow turned having it all into a business model.

The public response? A mix of fascination and fury. Goop drew massive ridicule for peddling pseudoscience and outrageous luxury. Health experts slammed Paltrow’s products as quackery – even the UK’s National Health Service labelled some Goop remedies “quacks, charlatans, and cranks” and she’s paid fines for unproven health claims. Meanwhile, everyday folks balked at her oblivious privilege (“$90 vitamins, seriously?”).

Gwyneth’s own celebrity halo dimmed as she became an internet punchline, the poster child for out-of-touch rich mom woo-woo. In 2014 she famously announced her split from Martin as a “conscious uncoupling,” a phrase so pompous to the public that it launched a thousand eyerolls. That same year, tabloids crowned her “the most hated celebrity” – topping even notorious men like Chris Brown. (Even Paltrow was taken aback: “I’m the most hated celebrity? More than, like, Chris Brown? What did I do?” she quipped.)

Part of the animosity, as Gwyneth herself astutely noted, comes from the perception that she “grew up with a silver spoon,” which “inspires a lot of resentment”. Here is a tall, blonde, beautiful woman who already had wealth and an Oscar, now hawking an even more perfect life to the masses – it’s a recipe for envy on a grand scale.

Importantly, some of Gwyneth’s loudest critics have been other women. Case in point: domestic queen Martha Stewart (we’ll get to her in a moment) openly scoffed at Paltrow’s foray into lifestyle, telling an interviewer that Gwyneth “just needs to be quiet. She’s a movie star. If she were confident in her acting, she wouldn’t be trying to be Martha Stewart.” Ouch. That cutting remark – one accomplished woman telling another to stay in her lane – encapsulates the unique vitriol Paltrow attracts.

Whether it’s jealousy, scepticism, or anger at her sometimes-oblivious advice (“I won’t pretend I don’t have a great life,” she once shrugged), Gwyneth Paltrow has become a lightning rod. Yet through it all, she doubles down on being exactly who she is – jade eggs, moon dust, Vagina Candles and all. Love her or hate her, she’s not about to apologize for wanting to have her keto cake and eat it too.

Martha Stewart: The Domestic Goddess Defies the Ideal

Long before “girlboss” was a thing, Martha Stewart built an empire out of the very thing women were once expected to do for free: homemaking. Stewart did marry well (her now ex-husband was a Yale-educated lawyer turned publisher), but she’s the one who parlayed a modest catering business into a multimedia lifestyle kingdom.

By the 1990s, Martha had turned herself into America’s omnipresent homemaker-in-chief – with bestselling cookbooks, a hit magazine (Martha Stewart Living), TV shows, product lines, and eventually a public company that made her the nation’s first self-made female billionaire in 1999. In short, she crushed the trophy wife trope by becoming the breadwinner and the brand.

Wearing her signature pressed khakis and serene smile, Martha sold perfection: the perfectly folded napkin, the perfectly pruned rose garden, the picture-perfect Thanksgiving meal. It was femininity and domesticity elevated to a lucrative art form.

Yet for all her fans, Stewart has also endured a peculiar strain of cultural spite. Many found her too perfect, too prissy – the Stepford Homemaker who made ordinary moms feel inferior. In the early 2000s, the knives really came out when Martha’s immaculate image cracked with a high-profile insider trading scandal.

In 2004 she served five months in prison for allegedly lying to investigators about a stock sale. If some male executives’ crimes barely dented their reputations, Martha’s relatively small infraction (she saved about $40K by selling the stock at the time – which is pocket change by Wall Street standards) unleashed a flood of schadenfreude.

The popular press pilloried Stewart; late-night comedians gleefully branded the queen of crafts a ‘common crook’. As one observer noted, the public reaction seemed “wholly out of proportion” – as if people relished seeing the mighty Martha brought low. And indeed, envy appeared to fuel much of the vitriol. The New Republic even coined the term “Marthafreude” to describe the buzz of glee when Stewart showed any imperfection. When unflattering photos of her food hit the internet in 2013, media outlets piled on snarky remarks that the “Domestic Doyenne” isn’t always perfect. “Yesterday’s pile-on was a result of the green-eyed monster coming out to play,” one writer admitted bluntly, chalking the hate up to pure envy.

After all, Martha’s life is the stuff of domestic fantasy – multiple homes with horse stables and gardens, cupboards of fine china, parties so exquisite they belong in museum dioramas. Who wouldn’t feel a twinge of spite when she makes us all look like slackers? Stewart herself recognized the absurdity; upon hearing the internet noise about her less-than-pretty food pics, she responded on Twitter with smug grace: “Actually the onion soup was utterly delicious and the ice berg wedge divine,” signing off with a wink. In other words: Sorry not sorry that I’m still Martha freaking Stewart.

Notably, Stewart’s harshest critics haven’t been only men making prison jokes, but often women who either envy her or feel she betrays feminist ideals. Some feminists criticized her for glorifying domestic tasks; others just resented the unattainable standards.

Ironically, Stewart herself could be unsparing towards other women following in her footsteps (recall her telling Gwyneth to pipe down and stop trying to “be Martha Stewart”). It’s the classic “queen bee” syndrome: she had to fight to dominate a man’s-business world via the female-coded realm of homemaking, and perhaps she wasn’t keen on sharing the crown.

In any case, Martha’s story underlines the paradox women face: excel in a traditionally feminine sphere and you’ll be adored and resented in equal measure. Even after her conviction, many could not hide a smirk at the image of Miss Perfect behind bars – “the domestic goddess who can supposedly cook, decorate and get herself into and out of pleasant jail,” as one journalist jibed. But true to form, Stewart emerged from prison perfectly pressed and unbowed, ready for her next act (which, in a delightfully irreverent twist, included hanging out with Snoop Dogg on a cooking show). You can knock a woman like this down, but don’t be surprised when she comes back with a new line of cookware and a knowing smile.

Nigella Lawson: Serving Sensuality and Scandal

British food icon Nigella Lawson adds a unique flavour to this lineup. The daughter of a wealthy political family (her father was a Chancellor of the Exchequer), Nigella was born into privilege and later married it as well – her second husband was advertising tycoon Charles Saatchi. But Lawson made her own name as the voluptuous “Domestic Goddess” of early 2000s television.

With her sultry voice, finger-licking indulgence, and come-hither attitude toward chocolate cake, she built a personal brand celebrating the sensual pleasures of home cooking. Nigella wasn’t a trained chef; she was a food romantic, turning the act of whipping up late-night brownies in one’s pyjamas into a decadent ritual. Her cookbooks (starting with How To Be a Domestic Goddess) and TV shows made home cooks feel sexy and empowered – as if embracing your inner Nigella could transform the drudgery of feeding family into an act of self-care and seduction.

In a media landscape that often pits feminism against Betty Crocker, Nigella cheekily straddled both, declaring that baking can indeed be a feminist act. And like the others, she dared to eclipse her high-powered husband. While Saatchi was a big name in the art world, Nigella’s warmth and wit made her far more famous in popular culture. For a while, she seemed untouchable – a woman who had beauty, brains, breeding, and the ability to make a pavlova while batting her eyelashes.

But then came 2013: the year Nigella’s glossy life was dragged through the tabloids. First, a paparazzi photo scandal erupted when her husband Saatchi was photographed at a London restaurant grabbing Nigella by the throat – an image that horrified the public and shattered the facade of her perfect marriage. She left him shortly after, but more turmoil followed in court. During the fraud trial of two former assistants, Saatchi’s lawyers tried to smear Nigella with allegations of heavy drug use. Under oath, Nigella admitted she’d dabbled with cocaine in tough times – and instantly the media pounced.

The same press that once salivated over her caramel croissant pudding now served up moral judgment. Pundits huffed that her domestic goddess persona was a sham, calling her admitted misdeeds “unforgivable” and “desperate”. One snarky columnist even sneered that Nigella’s famous recipe for ham cooked in Coca-Cola “now bears a less innocent interpretation” (a coy way of labelling her a cokehead). The British tabloids, never known for their subtlety, gleefully splashed the scandal with sexist undertones – dubbing her “Higella” (a play on “high” Nigella) in headlines after Saatchi himself coined the cruel nickname in an email.

It was a classic case of pedestal-toppling: the domestic goddess was dragged down to earth with the rest of us sinners, and some revelled in it. Yet, notably, public sympathy largely swung to Nigella’s side. She handled the courtroom grilling with dignity and sharp humour (when a lawyer addressed her separation from Saatchi as “unfortunate,” she coolly retorted, “I wouldn’t say ‘unfortunately’,” zinging her ex). Social media lit up with #TeamNigella support, while Saatchi was widely condemned. Still, the episode underscored how swiftly a woman who seemingly has it all can be knocked down a peg in the public eye.

The subtext of some criticism was that Nigella had dared to brand herself as perfect – sexy and wholesome – and her fall from grace was almost relief for those who found her too enviable. Feminist writers pointed out the sexist hypocrisy: her private trauma became a public spectacle, with as much focus on her admitted flaws as on her husband’s abuse. And yes, many of the harsh tut-tuts came from other women, some perhaps secretly gratified to learn that Nigella sneaks hits of nicotine and the occasional line Colombian marching powder – not exactly the behaviour of a sanctimonious kitchen saint.

Through it all, Nigella Lawson never stopped doing what she does best: finding pleasure in food and life. She emerged from scandal without the need for a mea culpa tour, and continues to write, cook and charm audiences. But her saga is a potent reminder: when a woman is deemed to “have everything,” any crack in the veneer will invite a feeding frenzy. The domestic goddess was never supposed to reveal human weakness. When she did, the cultural response was equal parts puritanical outrage and perverse glee.

Why We Love to Hate Women Who “Have It All” and Still Want More

It’s no coincidence that the backlash against these women so often comes cloaked in moralism, mockery – even misogyny wearing a mask of gossip. On the surface, Meghan, Gwyneth, Martha, and Nigella inhabit very different worlds. But they share key traits that tick off a certain segment of society: they are beautiful, wealthy women who also hunger for influence and autonomy.

In a world that loves to pit women against each other and impose limits on their ambition, that combo is a lightning rod. Each of these women essentially said, “Sure, I have X, Y, and Z – but I’m not done yet,” and a chorus of detractors roared, “How dare you?”.

There’s a deep cultural discomfort – especially among those steeped in patriarchal or zero-sum thinking – with women who won’t stay in the decorative roles assigned to them. A trophy wife is supposed to polish her trophy (the successful husband) and not overshadow him. Yet Meghan arguably outshone the House of Windsor’s star Prince; Paltrow’s Goop made her a CEO while her rock-star spouse receded; Stewart out-earned and outlasted her marriage, becoming more than just somebody’s wife; Lawson’s fame and fanbase eclipsed her high-society husband’s. They flipped the script, and many onlookers (male and female alike) subconsciously recoiled at the violation of the natural order – as they see it.

Psychologically, the phenomenon involves a toxic stew of envy and internalized misogyny. Envy is obvious: as The New Republic quipped in Martha Stewart’s case, the “pile-on” often boils down to “the green-eyed monster” of jealousy. People hate Gwyneth Paltrow, in part, because her very existence can feel like a humblebrag – she’s thin, rich, and serene while you’re eating drive-thru in stained yoga pants after having a hormonal meltdown. When she then tries to sell you her lifestyle, the resentment boils over. Meghan’s critics seethed that she didn’t appreciate her royal luck – a sentiment rooted in envy (“she got the prince and the fame, and still isn’t happy?!”).

Nigella’s haters relished proof that she wasn’t so perfect after all, out of envy that she ever seemed so. Envy is an emotion people rarely admit to; instead, it’s dressed up as moral outrage or snarky disdain. Add scarcity mindset to the mix – the idea that acclaim and success are finite resources – and you get other women policing these figures, essentially saying, “Slow down, sister, save some spotlight for the rest of us.” There’s a whiff of “who does she think she is?” in much of the female-led criticism. Call it internalized misogyny: women absorbing the societal message that it’s unseemly for a woman to be too successful, too outspoken, or to “want it all.”

Rather than cheering each other on, they (perhaps unconsciously) become gatekeepers of the old norms. Martha Stewart’s jab at Gwyneth is a prime example – a woman enforcing the stay-in-your-lane rule that the culture taught her in the first place.

And then there’s the primal comfort of schadenfreude – pleasure at another’s misfortune – which these women attract like moths to a flame. When the high and mighty stumble, it validates everyone who ever felt slighted by their success.

Stewart in handcuffs, Paltrow on the defence in a courtroom (over a ski accident, no less), Meghan admitting royals have problems, Nigella with her usually perfect mascara running in court – these images feed a collective urge to cut “tall poppies” down to size.

It’s telling that these takedowns often overshadow the women’s actual accomplishments. How often do we talk about Martha Stewart’s billion-dollar enterprise or Meghan’s charity work compared to obsessing over their “scandals”? The vitriol says far more about us as a society than about these women themselves. It reveals a lingering belief that a woman should consider herself fortunate to achieve one dimension of success and shouldn’t reach for more. It’s as if there’s an imaginary checklist: Beauty? Check. Money? Check. Husband? Check. “Okay lady, time to be content now.” When instead she says, “I want to run a company” or “I want a voice” or simply “I’m still hungry,” it violates a deeply entrenched narrative. Hence the collective gasp: She already has everything – how dare she want more?

Breaking the Trope: A Comparison of The Most Hated Women

To crystallize the patterns, here’s a look at Meghan Markle, Gwyneth Paltrow, Martha Stewart, and Nigella Lawson side by side – the privilege they started with, the independent empires they forged, and the backlash that followed:

Name	Married into Wealth/Power	Independent Brand/Empire	Backlash Highlights
Meghan Markle	Yes – married Prince Harry (British royal)	Archewell media org, Hollywood deals, activism platform	Branded “ungrateful” for leaving royal role U.K. tabloids attacked her as a social-climber and “spoiled”; faced racist and sexist vitriol for asserting autonomy.
Gwyneth Paltrow	Yes – married rock star (Chris Martin); also, Hollywood royalty by birth	Goop wellness & lifestyle empire (website, products, Netflix show)	Ridiculed as out-of-touch and pseudoscientific (e.g. jade eggs, “Vagina Candle”); dubbed the “most hated celebrity” after “conscious uncoupling”; accused of elitism, became a pop-culture punchline.
Martha Stewart	Yes – married a Yale lawyer (Andrew Stewart); though largely self-made	Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (magazines, TV, merchandising – homemaking empire)	Praised then pilloried: public Marthafreude at her 2004 insider trading conviction; mocked for “perfect homemaker” image; envy-fuelled sniping that her perfection is “smug”; some feminists critiqued her traditionalism.
Nigella Lawson	Yes – born to privilege (UK Chancellor’s daughter); married art mogul (Charles Saatchi)	Personal cooking brand: bestselling cookbooks and TV shows; persona as the “Domestic Goddess” combining glamour & home cooking	Tabloid frenzy over her private life: sensationalized “Higella” coke-use allegations; media called her fall from grace “unforgivable” and “desperate”; some critics (often female) sniped that her sexy homemaker image was contrived or hypocritical.

The Crown May Slip, But it Won’t Fall

In breaking the trophy wife trope, they also broke a cardinal rule of the old playbook: don’t scare the horses. Well, the horses have bolted – and what we’re left with is a culture gradually, grudgingly coming to terms with women who refuse to settle for the pedestal.

The next time we see a privileged, gorgeous woman step out of line to carve up a bigger piece of the pie, maybe we’ll remember that our scorn says more about our insecurities than about her. Perhaps we’ll even choose to applaud her audacity instead of sharpening the pitchforks. Until then, the tabloids will keep feasting and the “most hated” club might just continue to grow – one powerful, unapologetic woman at a time.

Thank You for Reading!

I hope you enjoyed this post and found it insightful. If you did, feel free to subscribe to receive updates about future posts via email, leave a comment below, or share it with your friends and followers. Your feedback and engagement mean a lot to me, and it helps keep this community growing.

If you’re interested in diving deeper into topics like this, don’t forget to check out the Donc Voila Quoi Podcast, where I discuss these ideas in more detail. You can also follow me on Pinterest @doncvoilaquoi and Instagram @jessielouisevernon, though my accounts have been shut down before (like my old @doncvoilaquoi on Instagram), so keep an eye out for updates.