This article analyses Vanity Fair's reference to Meghan Markle's biracial identity as a ‘wrinkle’ as part of a broader tendency to discuss that identity in terms of a dynamic of crisis and resolution. The article contrasts Andrew Morton's biography, Meghan: A Hollywood Princess (2018) with two texts by Meghan, a 2015 essay for Elle magazine, and her guest edited issue of British Vogue (2019). All endeavour to manage the ‘wrinkle’ of Meghan's biracial identity, for very different purposes. The Vanity Fair article and Morton's text attempt to ‘smooth out’ her biracial identity by displacing it through discussion of some other aspect of identity (such as age, illustrated by the term ‘wrinkle’), or they preserve the ‘wrinkle’ by maintaining an understanding of her biracial identity as problematic and disruptive. In contrast, Meghan's acts of self-representation refuse to ‘smooth out’ her biracial identity, and also reject an understanding of it as negatively disruptive.

本文分析了名利场（Vanity Fair）对梅根·马克尔（Meghan Markle）的混血儿身份的“皱纹”的引用，这是从危机和解决的动力来讨论该身份的广泛趋势的一部分。这篇文章将安德鲁·莫顿（Andrew Morton）的传记《梅根：好莱坞公主（Meghan：A Hollywood Hollywood Princess）》（2018年）与梅根（Meghan）的两篇文章进行了对比，后者是2015年《ELLE》杂志的一篇文章，以及她的客座编辑《英国时尚》（2019年）。为了不同的目的，所有人都在努力管理梅根混血儿身份的“皱纹”。在名利场文章和莫顿的案文试图通过讨论身份的其他方面（例如年龄，用“皱纹”来说明）来置换它的混血儿身份，以“抚平”她的混血儿身份，或者他们通过保持对她的混血儿身份令人困扰和破坏性。相比之下，梅根的自我代表行为拒绝“抚平”她的混血儿身份，也拒绝将其理解为负面破坏。