This was posted on Instagram by someone who identifies herself as Queen Esther. I have no idea who she is or how credible she is in general, but she's right on target with her words below.
Why Dried Flower Sprinkles & Jam Couldn’t Save Meghan Markle in 2025
There is a brutal truth in business that separates fantasy from longevity. You do not abandon the very platform that gives you meaning and then expect the audience to owe you relevance. Meghan Markle’s brand failure is not mysterious, misunderstood, or unfairly judged. It is textbook self sabotage.
Her value was never standalone. It was contextual. It existed solely because of proximity to an institution older, larger, and more powerful than any influencer, lifestyle brand, or podcast venture could ever replicate. The moment she walked away from that platform, she did not liberate herself. She unplugged herself.
In business, there is a rule. You do not get off the boat when the boat is the brand. She did exactly that.
The institution she discarded provided what no amount of PR money can manufacture. Permanent relevance. Global credibility. Security that does not expire. A built in audience spanning generations and continents. She did not merely leave a role. She abandoned the only reason anyone was listening.
When a core legitimacy market turns, commercial consequences are inevitable.
Globally, that market response was decisive. The disdain did not arise because she left but because she attacked after being indulged. She was welcomed with extraordinary goodwill. Institutions, audiences, and media across the world accommodated demands no outsider had ever received so quickly or so generously. At no point did she show sustained gratitude for that welcome. No acknowledgment of what was extended to her. No respect for the history she stepped into. No understanding that acceptance is earned through conduct, not entitlement. Had she shown even basic appreciation, she would have left with dignity and goodwill intact. Instead, she mocked, distorted, and monetised the very institution and people who elevated her. Even lucrative deals, such as Netflix contracts, could not substitute for the legitimacy, access, and multigenerational goodwill she discarded. Commercial transactions cannot restore institutional credibility. That resentment did not remain emotional. It became commercial. Brands do not align with figures who provoke cultural contempt at scale. Advertisers avoid polarising figures. Marketers avoid reputational risk. No amount of victim branding overrides that reality.
What makes it worse is the sheer stupidity of what followed. She did not arrive at that marriage by chance. She engineered it. A public facing humanitarian persona, carefully curated activism, and virtue driven branding were constructed to secure the most valuable asset available. And it worked. Harry was the prize. Access, status, platform, protection, and lifelong relevance were bundled into that relationship. But once the asset was secured, she committed the fatal error. Somewhere between the global audience at her wedding and the unearned adulation, her ego inflated beyond reason. She convinced herself the platform was transferable. That Harry alone was sufficient and the institution expendable. It was not. The value was never portable. The crown does not follow you out the door.
Meghan Markle did not lose her brand to hostile media or public misunderstanding. She lost it because she misunderstood what made her valuable in the first place.
From Paula Froelich, in the Times and Sunday Times, Wednesday
December 31 2025, 10.00am GMT
An open letter
to Meghan and Harry: here’s how to move on from your annus horribilis. I’m not
a publicist for the duke and duchess but this is the best advice they’re going
to get — and they don’t even have to pay me.
My dear Meghan and Harry, wow! 2025 was to be
the year you two took us by storm, with the debut of a Netflix show and a new
product line, American Riviera Orchard. The good news? You definitely got our attention! The bad news? It wasn’t in the way you’d hoped. The Netflix show, With Love, Meghan,
did debut — but it bombed in the ratings and with critics.
Meghan’s product line,
retitled As Ever, hit the internet but was widely mocked.
Meanwhile, you’ve been dealing with more bad publicity than a couple
caught on a Coldplay kiss cam: In March, Harry was forced to leave
Sentebale, the charity he founded, after a fight with its chairwoman; in
November, Meghan was accused of absconding with clothes from photo shoots;
and this week it was reported that the two of you lost your 11th
publicist in five years as well as a longtime
aide, leaving just one (part-time) employee at the helm of your charity,
Archewell. Meanwhile, alleged cash flow issues could mean the future of that
non-profit is in doubt.
And so, because I have actually started to feel a little
badly for you, I will do what I have done with several other celebrities in the
past. I’m going to give you some advice on how to move forward and actually
establish a brand, an identity, and perhaps some sort of public affection.
Don’t worry, it’s pro bono.
First, Meghan: I actually
understand why it may be difficult to see your father,
Thomas Markle, ever again, given how he has been trading your name for cash
ever since you were engaged to Harry. However, in the spirit of graciousness,
now that he is struggling with heart disease, has lost a leg due to
complications from diabetes and is struggling to pay for his care, you should
do the right thing and cover his hospital bills. You made millions last year
and it would do wonders for your public image, which you say is based on
kindness and compassion. As of now, a GoFundMe to pay for his bills asks a mere
$12,000 — roughly the price of a Chanel dress you obtained after a shoot for
The Cut.
Which brings me to another point: Stop. Taking. Freebies. It
might be okay in the world of the D List, but to the rest of us it just looks
tacky … especially because we know you can afford to pay. You’ve already been
labelled a “grifter” by your former boss at Spotify — let’s not give anyone any
more reason to pour gasoline on that fire, shall we?
What else? Ah yes. Stop giving us glimpses of your children
on social media. You should be able to stand on your own two feet. And while
your son and daughter might be the only two things you have left that Americans
actually care about, teasing us with blurred photos of them makes you look like
a terrible hypocrite, especially after you moved 5,000 miles away from Harry’s
hometown for “privacy”.
Now, for Harry. Poor, misunderstood
Harry. Here is my advice to you.
Next year, when your father and brother make state visits to
the US, LIE LOW. As in, no social media posts, no interviews and above all, no
competing engagements. I know this will be hard for you, but trust me. You and
your wife look petty and spiteful when you try to hijack the attention. (Who
can forget your flashy Remembrance Day visit to Canada in November at the same
time your brother was trying to promote his Earthshot Prize in Brazil?) Getting
in the way of actual royals trying to maintain the family business, which
includes diplomatic duties, makes you look vengeful and jealous.
Also? Enough with the lawsuits. Trust me: the British Press
get it by now. You’re not to be trifled with! But even the judge in your case
against the Daily Mail said that resolving your allegations had become
“extremely complex” and an “involved side-show” and noted: “The costs and
resources that would be devoted to resolving the factual dispute would, I am
satisfied, be out of all proportion to any possible evidential value.”
To both of you, I say: Instead of just showing up to collect
humanitarian of the year awards, try doing actual humanitarian work.
Real humanitarians don’t just helicopter in for disasters or holidays, they
work tirelessly, every day, to make a situation better. Take the example of one
company in your portfolio, Travalyst, which has no clear message beyond “making
travel greener”. Instead, I would suggest you recalibrate it to work with
countries that want and need responsible tourism to bolster their economies and
stabilize their political situation. Pick one or two countries like Gambia,
Malaysia or Uzbekistan — all of which are desperate for tourists, have
historical or natural significance, and need a financial boost — and go from
there. Meanwhile, enough with the pointless semi-royal junkets to countries
like Colombia and Nigeria, where you may get royal treatment like you used to,
but it just makes you look desperate.
Also, before launching any new
businesses, please look into executive coaching. Coaching has helped countless
people become great managers and bosses and frankly, it’s not like you ever had
to lead large teams in the past, so this could help you refine your approach
with the people you employ. Coaching is a miracle solution, I swear, but only
if you listen.
Finally, stay home — even if you are invited to the Met
Gala. 2026 should be a nesting year — so nest! The American public is worn out
by your product drops and your five-year-old complaints about family and your
insistence that you’re “authentic” and “desperate for privacy” when nothing
could be further from the truth.
In the ensuing months, you may even try and find some
empathy for the roughly three in ten American voters who delayed or skipped
medical care in the past year due to rising costs, or the half of the country
that tapped into their savings to cover everyday expenses. As opposed to
dropping $15 on a jar of dried out As Ever flower sprinkles.
In short, stay home, regroup, attempt to do some actual,
prolonged good, and start listening to people — be they PR, film or charity
professionals. Or even average, working people who don’t live within the
rarefied compounds of Montecito.
Do it for yourselves, your children and, honestly, all of
America. We’re tired of your constant chasing for clout and we need a rest.
Paula Froelich is the senior story editor and on-air
entertainment correspondent for NewsNation.
Follow her on Instagram at @pfro.
Everyone knew there was more to come out about the prince’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, particularly from the posthumous memoir of Virginia Giuffre, and whatever leaks from the “Epstein files” might find their way into the media.
The aim of the official statement issued last Friday was that it would pre-empt another round of disastrous stories, and soften the inevitable backlash against the prince, and, far more importantly, the institution of the monarchy itself.
There is growing indignation about Prince Andrew and his former wife occupying a 30-room mansion on the Windsor estate with apparently a full staff for peppercorn rent (Reuters)
This story has dragged on for too long and with such little transparency that the patience of both the royal family and the British public is being tested to exhaustion. As Andrew put it himself in his infamous 2019 Newsnight performance interview, Epstein has been “a constant sore in the family”, and it clearly hasn’t healed. That, though, is his own fault.
After that debacle, the prince was forced to “step back” from public life and became something of a recluse. But his past has come back to accuse him once more. The public has been outraged, again, by the latest revelations, one including an orgy. And there is growing indignation about Prince Andrew occupying a 30-room mansion on the Windsor estate with apparently a full security and staff complement – all at a peppercorn rent. A recent highly damaging biography was called Entitled, and that is precisely how he his perceived.
Even at this juncture, it would still be best if the King and the Prince of Wales could have further frank discussions with Andrew and persuade him that he needs to “go further” once again – indeed he must do so for the sake of the institution of the monarchy itself. He does need to formally relinquish his titles, not merely place them in some fictional limbo of “abeyance”. He should renounce the right to call himself a prince, whether it is a birthright or not. If he is no longer to be a member of the royal family, let alone a working royal, and rarely glimpsed in public, then he has no further practical use for the Order of the Garter, or any other honorifics.
For Andrew, further retirement from his old life is not only the right thing to do, but inevitable. His brother must adopt a rigorous approach: disdain, distance and dislodge. Andrew himself declared last week that “I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first”. Now he has to do so.
Make no mistake, this is a moment of peril for the royal family. The crisis of public confidence echoes the national mood after the death of Diana in 1997, that is to say, a dangerous sense that the palace is not only out of touch with the public mood but is failing to properly respond.
If Andrew can bring himself to obey the commands of his brother Charles, it would prove that the House of Windsor is capable of running its own affairs. If not, he should be fully aware that parliament will not stay silent, and that the controversy will drag the palace into democratic politics and controversy – which is a place it cannot be. Some MPs are already agitating for legislation that will take the decisions out of Andrew’s hands.
Rehabilitating the reputation of Andrew is not on the cards right now. What is possible is a more stable and sustainable future that offers a way out of the past that continues to torment him and, no doubt, distress his daughters.
If Andrew decisively becomes a private citizen, gives up the titles, revises his disputed account of events, admits his failures and above all tries to help the victims secure justice, as he has promised, then their pain and that of his family will start to ease. Prince Andrew’s duty to himself and his family is to obey the King, honour the legacy of his late mother, respect the wishes of the people, and live his life out with dignity on a path to redemption.
"Meghan and Harry ‘Blew It,’ Which ‘Animates Their Rage,’ Tina Brown Tells the Sun"
This is from a website called The New York Sun. I found it as I was googling around to see what Tina Brown is up to; as you read, keep in mind that it was published on June 17, 2023.
The duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, aspires to be “Angelina Jolie crossed with Amal Clooney squared with Princess Diana.” That observation was shared with members of The New York Sun by no less a figure than Tina Brown, the legendary editor.
“The realization that the Sussexes blew it is animating a lot of their rage,” Ms. Brown said in an on-stage interview with the publisher of the Sun, Dovid Efune, and your correspondent. “They’ve trashed the family,” she adds. Ms. Markle is “searching for her brand,” Ms. Brown said, and the Sussexes have made “every mistake” with respect to their royal exit.
These remarks, and the one that Ms. Markle is “nothing like” the former princess of Wales, came at a Sun Founder member event at Lincoln Center. It was a lively conversation with a reporter who has raised up the monarchy’s story at a time of royal rupture. Ms. Brown, author of two deeply reported books on the monarchy — “The Diana Chronicles” and “The Palace Papers” — reflected for more than an hour on the state of the House of Windsor.
Ms. Brown sees “no resemblance at all” between Ms. Markle and Princess Diana, who was a “blue-blooded aristocrat” and who grew up in Althorp House and “got the whole royal thing” and “never would have left the royal family if Charles would have been in love with her.”
Ms. Brown allows that both Diana and Ms. Markle possessed “greater charisma than the palace was willing to let them show,” and adds that it is “difficult to contain a star inside a hierarchy” as ancient as the royal family, which claims a lineage going back a thousand years.
The new sovereign, Charles III, was not, Ms. Brown observes, always “cut out for this job.” From the time he was in swaddling clothes he was “embalmed in duty,” both “lugubrious” and an “Eeyore.” Over time, though, Ms. Brown believes that his “passions and idiosyncrasies” have ripened, delivering a man ready to rule. Diana, she believes, “would have come around” to him as king.
The king’s subjects, Ms. Brown observes, are “bored” by Charles but “think he’s decent,” an emblem of stability after the hapless interlude of the “flyby prime minister,” Elizabeth Truss. He was “ahead of his time in his passionate belief that the climate is in danger,” an environmentalism now “in sync with the culture.”
Ms. Brown observes that the king “can’t be a campaigner, but he can be a convener” who is the “most senior statesman for his country.” The Foreign Office, she observes, considers him an “excellent diplomatic missile” in these uncertain post-Brexit days of Tory drift and discontent.
Of the Sussexes, Ms. Brown notes that “they have made every mistake in terms of how they played their desire to exit the royal family.” She reports that one of their entourage told her that “Harry and Meghan are addicted to drama.” The duke of Sussex saw Ms. Markle, she reckons, as an “exit strategy” because of her “worldly grasp of things like Netflix.”
Ms. Brown admits that “it is not pleasant to marry into the Windsor family,” but that of all the candidates to do so, Ms. Markle was “the worst.” The duchess of Sussex “thought she was going to be living in Windsor Castle being Angelina Jolie” but instead goes to “cheesy charity events with red carpets. That has left them furious.”
Ms. Brown judges the Sussexes to be caught in the throes of “victimology” and ensnared in an “us against the world” mindset and afflicted with “FOMO,” or the fear of missing out. It would “not be hard for Harry to win back the British public,” Ms. Brown reckons, but “they are hoping he one day will come back without Meghan.”
Even though Ms. Brown believes that the Sussexes have thrown “so many bombs it’s going to be five years before somebody believes them again,” she calls Meghan and Harry “more sexy, more modern, and more interesting” than the Waleses, William and Catherine. The Sussexes, though, have “trashed the family,” leaving them on the outside looking in.
Ms. Brown, who edited the Tatler, Vanity Fair, and the New Yorker, and founded and edited the late Talk magazine and the Daily Beast, calls Harry’s memoir, “Spare,” a “rip-snortin’ good read” that more than earned him the nickname “Harry the hand grenade.” Finances, she predicts, will drive a book from Ms. Markle in the near future, “out of necessity.”
Calling the monarchy a “slightly moldering studio system in which everyone jostles for the most attention,” Ms. Brown insisted that Queen Elizabeth II saw early on that Ms. Markle would be the “same kind of irritant that Princess Diana was,” though the late princess “spent 17 years being exemplary” and would have been pained by her son absconding from his royal duties and his destiny.
There is, Ms. Brown asserts with sympathy for the Sussexes, a “deep state of the palace filled with claustrophobic and prancing courtiers that any virile or robust person would find deeply irritating.” Not helping matters is a retinue of “dripping debutantes.”
Turning to the future of the monarchy, Ms. Brown notes that “the most powerful woman in the royal family right now” is the princess of Wales. “It all hangs on Kate,” she ventures, as the effects of any discord between her and the heir to the throne would be cataclysmic to the standing of the royals. She warns that the “monarchy is way more fragile than it has ever been.”
In article dated today, June 24, the Wall Street Journal ponders Harry and Meghan's place in the world:
LOS ANGELES—Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had been out of the U.K. for nearly two years when they began work on a project they believed could transform them from former royals to Hollywood power players.
The subject of endless rumors and gossip, the couple felt qualified to tackle the thorny topic of misinformation. A documentary would cement Harry and Meghan as serious creative types and help shed their reputation as exiles from the House of Windsor trading family dirt for eyeballs.
A team assigned to the job at the pair’s Los Angeles-based production company, Archewell, had questions for “H” and “M,” as the Sussexes are known to their employees. Would the misinformation project be a feature film or a series? Who would host it? Would it be historical or contemporary? Would Harry or Meghan appear in it? Would Meghan discuss herbitter history with British tabloids—and if not, who would want to watch?
The couple had few answers, according to people familiar with the inner-workings of Archewell and Harry and Meghan’s deals with streamers. The misinformation documentary soon met the fate of other Archewell projects, and faded away.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s Hollywood foray is looking like a flop. They arrived in Southern California three years ago with Duke and Duchess titles and plans to capitalize on a cash-rich streaming business desperate for star power to lure subscribers. The big-ticket deals that followed—$100 million at NetflixNFLX 0.36%increase; green up pointing triangle, more than $20 million at Spotify—have led to more cancellations and rejections than produced shows.
The couple showed they could mine their personal stories. Prince Harry’s memoir “Spare” became a bestseller and the six-part documentary they produced for Netflix about their break with the royal family proved popular. That aside, they have struggled to make content that stretched beyond their own experiences.
The graveyard of video projects they hoped to make includes an animated children’s show called “Pearl” that was canceled by Netflix, as well as at least two TV ideas that the streaming service rejected within the past year, people familiar with Harry and Meghan’s projects said. Netflix is unlikely to renew the couple’s deal, which runs through 2025, the people said.
The Spotify pact produced a podcast, “Archetypes,” about the stereotypes that hold women back. A second season was discussed but eventually nixed. Spotify and the couple recently announced they have agreed to part ways.
People who have worked with the pair say their Sussex-upon-Sunset outpost was undermined by their inexperience as producers and trouble finding material consistent with their brand, as well as problems beyond their control, including a retrenchment in the entertainment and podcasting businesses.
An Archewell spokeswoman said, “New companies often make changes in their start up phase, both with people and strategy, and we are no exception. We’re more equipped, focused and energized than ever before.” She said the company recently hired a new head of scripted content, actress and producer Tracy Ryerson.
A Netflix spokeswoman said the company valued its Archewell partnership, and noted that “Harry & Meghan” was its biggest documentary debut. “We’ll continue to work together on a number of projects,” she said.
When Archewell and Spotify announced their split, the companies said in a joint written statement that they “mutually agreed to part ways and are proud of the series we made together.”
When they struck deals with Netflix and Spotify in 2020, streaming services were booming and executives were rushing to secure content and feed consumer demand, at any cost. The Sussexes joined Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai and others who fielded offers in Hollywood with few guidelines on what would come next.
The Covid-19 pandemic bolstered the streaming audience, with subscribers stuck at home, but also interrupted production for projects in their early stages of development, including some of the Sussexes’ work.
Today, streaming boom times have given way to an era of slower growth and unpredictability. Both Netflix and Spotify have cut shows and movies to trim costs. Both have been underwhelmed by the lack of productivity by the Sussexes, people familiar with their perspectives say.
'“Once you’ve launched your bombshell, what’s next?” said Andrew Morton, the longtime chronicler of the royal family.
Archewell employees and associates say the company often lacks direction, and that its founders at times seem surprised by the work required to finish entertainment projects. Most potential initiatives, they said, follow a similar route: Big idea, subpar execution.
In May 2022, the head of communications at Archewell and the head of communications at the couple’s nonprofit foundation stepped down. In the following months, several others followed, including the company’s head of audio and Mandana Dayani, president of the entire operation.
In March, Ben Browning, the film producer hired to oversee Archewell’s content slate on the strength of such credits as the Oscar-winning “Promising Young Woman,” left the company to return to his prior job. Archewell’s head of marketing parted ways with the company, as did its head of scripted content.
Hot start
Harry and Meghan arrived in Hollywood the subject of transcontinental fascination. They were the first senior royals since King Edward VIII to walk away from their official duties. They had famous friends in stars like Serena Williams andOprah Winfrey, both of whom attended their 2018 nuptials.
After forging the lucrative deal with Netflix, the couple’s relationship with the company was bolstered by a friendship with its co-CEO and their neighbor in Montecito, Calif., Ted Sarandos.
“Harry & Meghan,” the fly-on-the-wall documentary about the couple’s love story, was the first major project produced under the deal. It featured intimate moments between the pair—Harry on the tears of his mother, Princess Diana; Meghan on her miscarriage—and delved into British colonialism as well as the racism the couple experienced.
The documentary opened the Sussexes up to criticism, including the moment when Meghan said she didn’t expect to curtsy before the queen.
Archewell employees felt the future of their Netflix deal hinged on the documentary’s success, and the project created tension inside the company. Harry and Meghan weighed in on edits, though at times were overruled, people involved in the project said.
Following up has proven difficult. Their second Netflix video project, a docuseries called “Live to Lead” about global leaders and activists, failed to reach the streamer’s list of Top 10 shows.
Other proposed projects seemed designed to replicate successful shows already on Netflix, such as a sitcom described as “Emily in Paris,” but about a man, and a family-friendly TV show about gay characters that felt similar to the fan favorite “Heartstopper.” Netflix said no to both, people familiar with the matter said.
After booming during the early part of the pandemic, Netflix’s subscriber growth began to stagnate as streaming competition ramped up and consumers resumed more regular lives. Netflix is still recovering from a sharp drop in its stock in 2022 after it announced its first quarter of subscriber losses in a decade.
The downturn rattled Hollywood, leading to what is now called the “Netflix Correction,” a period in which studios began to prune their catalogs and become choosier about which projects to back. A Hollywood writers’ strike has put more pressure on entertainment companies to justify big payouts, and has closed writing rooms industrywide.
Executives at Netflix have groused about Archewell’s output, according to people familiar with the matter, and feel that the success of the “Harry & Meghan” documentary is all the company has to show for the deal.
Today, one Archewell project is nearing completion at Netflix: a documentary series on the Invictus Games, a tournament Harry founded for wounded veterans after serving two tours with the British Army in Afghanistan.
Harry and Meghan are also developing a TV show for Netflix called “Bad Manners” based on Miss Havisham, a Charles Dickens character from “Great Expectations.” The prequel would recast the lonely spinster as a strong woman living in a patriarchal society, though it is unclear whether the show will get a green light from Netflix.
Archewell associates say Barack and Michelle Obama’s post-White House Hollywood venture, which also included deals at Netflix and Spotify, was the template followed by Harry and Meghan. The two couples worked with the same attorney on the deals.
The Obamas have been more productive. Work by their Higher Ground production company for Netflix has included movies such as “Leave the World Behind,” starring Julia Roberts, and Kevin Hart’s “Fatherhood,” as well as a child-oriented show “Waffles+Mochi” and documentaries including “American Factory.”
New struggles
Meghan’s media productivity has largely been concentrated at Spotify, and the road to getting “Archetypes” on the air was rocky. When the Duchess first began working with the audio service, Archewell didn’t have an employee focused on audio projects, and instead, a public-relations representative initially led Archewell’s work with Spotify, people familiar with the company said.
The audio company’s executives grew frustrated with the amount of time it took Archewell to conceptualize an idea for Meghan’s podcast and assemble a production team.
Ultimately, Archewell hired a head of audio, who worked in concert with members of Spotify’s Gimlet unit on podcasting ideas. The Gimlet team helped Meghan compile a list of potential guests, and Spotify helped build a podcast studio in the couple’s mansion, said people familiar with the situation. (News Corp’s Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, has a content partnership with Spotify’s Gimlet Media unit.)
Choosing the right kind of guest was often fraught. Meghan wrote Taylor Swift a personal letter asking her to come on the podcast. The pop star declined, through a representative.
Meghan would often ask for changes late in the editing process, at times recruiting senior Spotify executives, including then-Chief Content Officer Dawn Ostroff, to call producers and push them to make changes.
The “Archetypes” podcast launched in August of 2022 and went to the top of Spotify’s podcast charts in its premiere week. It halted the release of new episodes in September during the mourning period for Queen Elizabeth II, Harry’s grandmother.
Given the show’s success, the audio company and Archewell executives began discussing a second season. Those talks stalled for months before Spotify told Archewell that the show wouldn’t be renewed.
Archewell didn’t make good on all of the terms of the Spotify deal, which included each of the Sussexes voicing and being directly involved in a podcast. Harry, in particular, struggled to land on an idea.
He explored a podcast on veterans but couldn’t find a compelling way to tackle the subject in podcast form. He tossed around subjects such as misinformation and his point of view as someone new to living in America, and at one point considered co-hosting a show with comedian Hasan Minhaj.
Ed Owens, author of the book, “After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?” said Harry tried to return to subjects he previously focused on, but without the foundation of being a working royal. “They haven’t found the one area that they can really call their own,” Owens said.
Podcasts had their own industry correction. Facing difficulty turning a profit even on popular shows, Spotify has laid off about 800 workers so far this year and has canceled several shows, in addition to “Archetypes.” Spotify continues to make original podcasts, but with a bent toward conversational shows that don’t require heavy editing and high-touch production.
This month, Spotify and the Sussexes’s audio company announced they were ending their partnership. WME, the talent agency that recently signed Meghan, said at the time that the Archewell team was proud of “Archetypes” and that the Duchess continues to develop content for that show’s audience on another platform. Archewell executives hope working with WME will bring about new opportunities, from brand partnerships to podcasts.
Next episode
For Harry and Meghan, the broader streaming slowdown couldn’t come at a more uncertain time. They have indicated they want to move on from talking about the Royal Family following a tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Netflix documentary and Prince Harry’s book.
Revelations from these projects appear to have cemented the rift between the Duke and his father, King Charles III. The couple was asked to move out of their Frogmore Cottage home, and while the King invited the Sussexes to his coronation, Harry attended by himself, sat in the third row behind his older brother and was in the country only briefly.
Given their distance from the crown, the sheen Harry and Meghan once lent show-business projects is dimming. It helped cost them what was intended to be their first project with Netflix, an animated show about powerful women of history called “Pearl.”
The children’s show was developed when Meghan was still a working royal. It was created with help from David Furnish, who knew the royal family through his husband, Elton John. When the couple left the Palace and signed their Netflix deal, “Pearl” was the first show announced.
Netflix canceled it in May 2022. Executives decided that few children would care if the show they were watching had been produced by a duchess. (This is the article in its entirety.)
