Sunday, April 19, 2026

More about Harry and Meghan in Australia

According to Wikipedia: "Tessa Dunlop is a Scottish historian and broadcaster. She has written several history books based on oral histosry, and presented history programmes for the BBC, Channel 4, Discovery Channel, UKTV History and the History Channel."  

This is her take on Harry and Meghan's place in the world, published in The Independant on Friday, before Meghan's appearance at the Her Best Life retreat in Sydney.  

Meghan says she was ‘most trolled person’ in the world

It was all going so well. A curated couple in matching beige wowing a carefully selected crowd in Australia with a heady mix of celebrity and charity. “Just call me Meg,” insisted the duchess on the first day. Apparently, the penny had dropped, Meghan finally understood that on a not “royal” tour she can’t stand on ceremony. Sick children smiled, and dear Haz gladhanded at a veteran’s museum with abundant charisma. Hurrah, the House of Montecito are here! Day one of their Australian tour was a surprising slam-dunk for brand Sussex.

So where did it all go wrong?

Yesterday the headlines curdled, the temperature rose, and by all accounts, it is not just Brits who are furious. How dare the Sussexes inflict a “faux royal tour” on Australians already unable to decide which side of the monarchy line they sit. For Harry and Meghan to re-enter such a fragile ecosystem was always going to be risky. Having enjoyed a full-fat royal visit to Australia in 2018 to universal acclaim, the stakes were high.

If these days the couple are no longer part of the monarchy, then what are they exactly? Cosplaying royals? Profiteering celebrities? Do they bat for Team America? Or just Team Sussex? How to square the circle of a touring prince who is not a working prince but who is still a prince? It is a challenging question, and one Harry proved unable to answer.

Cue the Duke at a lectern intoning to a room of Australian business leaders: “After my mum died just before my 13th birthday – I was like ‘I don’t want this job. I don’t want this role – wherever this is headed, I don’t like it.” Here, you are forgiven for asking, “if you didn’t like the job Harry, why have you replicated that same job on a repeat tour in a constitutional monarchy?”

Miles from home, in a challenging landscape, blinded by his own privilege, and never a great thinker, the giant contradiction at the heart of the Duke’s angry thesis roared to the surface once more, breaking the hearts of monarchists and serving red meat to republicans. If only Harry and Meghan could acknowledge that their lives are gilded in exorbitant privilege thanks to their intersection with monarchy, a hangover which they wear daily: their titles, their inherited jewels, their well-documented royal back story. Instead, they lament their former difficulties while replicating much of their former lives. Argh! Cue more of the very same trolls that Meghan claims she ran away from when she left the House of Windsor. Make it make sense!

For those of us who long to move the script forward, this is more than cognitive dissonance; it is a reminder of why the Sussexes have ultimately set back the cause of much-needed reform in the institution of monarchy. Their truth-to-power departure in 2020 was a potential moment of reckoning for the House of Windsor. A chance to open up the doors and let in the light, to root out cronyism, encourage financial transparency and lean into a new democratic age.

Harry is an uncomfortable reminder of why our working royals are tightly scripted, who say it best when they say virtually nothing at all

But six years on, the self-involved, repetitive woes of Harry have failed to move the dial towards progress. There is no fresh new narrative, or alternative model. Harry continues to operate in the royal mould; he is still platformed thanks to his extraordinary start in life, as he sashays around the world, resting on his blue-blooded laurels. The only difference is that nowadays the Duke is paid with private money, not through the public purse. He has to sing for his supper, with tickets to hear Harry talk about his dislike of royal life selling for a cool AU$997.

“So what?” you may well think. Better to be remunerated openly and honestly for a speaking gig than to acquire money through extraneous, illicit means. The problem is that Harry, operating off piste with nothing new to say bar a few more parenting observations, tells us that when let out of their royal cage, princes are just a self-involved version of ordinary.

His series of banal utterances merely serves to further diminish the once transcendent glamour of monarchy. In short, Harry is an uncomfortable reminder of why our working royals are tightly scripted, who say it best when they say virtually nothing at all. The King’s much-anticipated speech to Congress in a couple of weeks is a case in point – brains in the Foreign Office are no doubt already fine-tuning their platitudes. In contrast, the Duke, with an unscripted surround-sound of his own making, doesn’t stand a chance.

The upshot isn’t only a downgrade for the Sussexes, it tarnishes the entire royal edifice. Once upon a time in 2018, the couple were a smash hit in Australia – a unifying national glue that spread the love from one continent to another – we basked in the reflective glory of our monarchy and Australia’s monarchy too! How times have changed.

These days, Harry and Meghan are working for themselves, Britain is out of the picture, and Australia in a sulk. The cost of security has proved divisive (a petition against that burden numbers tens of thousands of signatures). The country struggles to acknowledge the fantastic free advert the pair have bestowed upon their great nation – sunlit Australia is all over the international news. No matter, nowadays, split in two, the royal family no longer encourages international unity, but rather feeds echo chambers and angry silos looking for something to rage against.

If Harry and Meghan stand for a nepo-baby new age opulence, our old school working royals have been pushed further into a once green and pleasant land now occupied by flag-waving, rigid little Englanders who won’t tolerate change or criticism of any kind. Next stop America for a state visit with a warlord leader of the once free world – the optics that come with a president who professes to love the King, but loathes the Pope will prove uncomfortable to say the least.

Gone are the days when the monarchy offered an alternative to a brace of strongmen operating with impunity. Instead, the option is a them-or-us version of royalty. And the posturing of the Sussexes this week has further diminished a unique national feature that once helped us feel good about ourselves. The problem is personified by Meghan, who looked every bit the Duchess at a lunch for the homeless in Melbourne, her slender wrist adorned with Diana’s Cartier watch, and her neat frame showcasing a dress by Karen Gee, an Australian designer. But without the bulwark of the British state and the protection of the palace walls to conveniently buffet away awkward questions, who and what is it all for? An Instagram moment? A paycheque? Or a calling?

And if we ask those questions of Meghan and Harry, then it is only fair we ask them of William and Kate, of the King and Queen. By pulling at the royal tapestry one stitch at a time, the danger is the whole facade starts to fray. Arguably, it already has. These days, Meghan and Harry are just a sideshow, a harbinger of what could come as less deferential generations push forward and demand value for money and transparency from an institution rocked by a curious cocktail of Epstein-induced scandals and family feuds.

Perhaps the monarchists among us are hoping for too much when we pray for a reconciliation that will take the sting out of the Sussexes’ showboating and help redeem the embattled working royals. While it may be the stuff of nightmares for Kate and William, if silver linings are what you are looking for, the optimists believe the couple’s joint tour of Australia is a dummy run for a return to Britain this summer. If that’s the case, as a conciliatory gesture, perhaps the King could lend Harry his speech writer?


"My Trauma, My Truth, My Merch"

It's Sunday morning and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been back in the U.S. for about 24 hours. Their quasi-royal tour of Australia is still big news, however, and most of what I've seen is not positive for Harry and Meghan. The Sunday Times of London has some thoughts, in an article titled "Harry and Meghan's Australia tour--my trauma, my truth, my merch," and subtitled "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's quasi-royal trip is about profit, not philanthropy," ouch.  This is the article in its entirety:

The late Queen Elizbeth's judgment looks sounder by the day. Early in 2020, her grandson proposed that he and his new wife switch to a "half in, half out" role. They would remain part-time working royals, Harry suggested, while also being free to pursue money-making opportunities. This "hokey-cokey" arrangement, also known as having your cake and eating it, was emphatically, correctly and inevitably (given her finely tuned appreciation of how the institution she headed should behave) rejected by the Queen. 

Supremely miffed, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex promptly decamped to California. Yet, as has become apparent, most recently on their quasi-royal progress around Australia, the couple have not abandoned their favoured portfolio option. No royal approval? No matter! Harry and Meghan seem happy to proceed with royal disapproval, or more specifically royal dismay, from the King and royal disgust from the Prince of Wales. 

Never mind "call me Meg". Harry and his wife freely use their titles in their business ventures and insist on titles for their children. Their schedule Down Under has been characterised by a blend of emotive endorsements of good causes, leisure and leveraging their fame to make money. Meghan was interviewed on stage at an event in Sydney for which guests were charged £1693 a ticket. She has been plugging her lifestyle brand and podcast. Details of the clothes she has worn to philanthropic events have been posted on a style platform in which she has invested, with links for fans to buy the outfits. She has also filmed an episode as a guest judge on MasterChef Australia, rebooting her celebrity career. 

This trip looks like the shape of things to come, a combination of "my trauma", "my truth" and "my merch". While this pitch may prove profitable, it will never be classy. Elizabeth made the right call.  


"... the Sussexes must put a sock in it."

In a March 24 Substack post titled "Are the Windsors Underestimating the Sussex Problem?," Tina Brown suggested that the way to solve the Sussex Problem is to bring them back into the fold of the royal family:   

Just how desperate does the House of Windsor want Harry and Meghan to get? The royals and their advisers don’t seem to see the iceberg looming from sunny Montecito. Distracted by the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor catastrophe, the palace remains in a perplexed haze about one of the Andrew scandal’s less-discussed lessons: the perils to the monarchy when peripheral royals hang out with the uber-rich and start to consider themselves, by comparison, broke.


Not that there is anything about Harry and Meghan’s cacophony of blown opportunities that resembles the disgraced Andrew’s cascade of dissolute transgressions or Sarah Ferguson’s heinous groveling to their pedo pal Jeffrey Epstein. But look in the crystal ball, people. Bad enough that Spotify bailed on the Sussexes and Netflix failed to renew their 2020 $100-million deal. Now, the streamer has put a fork in Meghan’s basted turkey, With Love, Meghan, and cut loose her domestic-goddess home products spin-off after a mortifying eleven months (leaving a $10-million pile-up of tea, baking mix, and strawberry jam), the Sussexes’ revenue streams are starting to dry up. They will soon be heading for that hinterland of freebie hell that draws them further and further into cheesy commercial gigs, or worse, toward dubious, transactional acquaintances willing to underwrite their faux-royal lifestyle and their astronomical security costs. Their upcoming trip to Australia where Meghan will appear as the up-close star attraction at a paid “girls weekend,” hosted by the podcast Her Best Life in the ballroom of the InterContinental Hotel at Sydney’s Coogee Beach, has the whiff of Fergie’s post-divorce money-making schemes. (Remember the rogue redhead’s early aughts contract with Wedgwood to flog fancy table settings under the fluorescent lights of mid-market American shopping malls?)


Potential reputational hazards to the Sussexes lurk in the dreaded moral pitfall of wanting to fly private. On their 2024 DIY royal tour of Nigeria to promote Harry’s Invictus Games, Meghan’s refusal to fly by military transport meant the couple availed themselves of a small plane supplied by the Nigerian big shot Allen Onyema. Without palace advisers to brief them, Harry and Meghan seemed unaware that Onyema was wanted in the U.S. on charges of money laundering. Sounds like just the kind of dodgy dude Prince Andrew would have invited to a “straightforward shooting weekend.”


This piquant revelation comes from the British investigative journalist Tom Bower’s latest biographical hit-job, Betrayal: Power, Deceit and the Fight for the Future of the Royal Family, a 400-page forced march through the Sussexes’ post-Megxit fuckups. It’s what you would expect from Bower, a dour scandal detective, whose more than 25 previous tomes are a bomb site of reputations, from Robert Maxwell’s to David Beckham’s. He’s always been good at turning up unforgettably damning details, like the one from Rebel Prince, his 2018 biography of Prince Charles, which dropped that amongst a convoy of personal effects the prince brought to his friends’ country houses was his bespoke lavatory seat, a tidbit that may fall in the category of “too good to check.” (I am told that, as recently as two years ago, in a private discussion about press malfeasance, the king was still exasperated by “that damned lavatory seat nonsense.”)


A new Bower news bomb is always something of a publishing event in the UK. The best nuggets in Betrayal are Meghan’s doomed ongoing efforts to project authenticity. In one Instagram promotion of the “love language” of her jam, the duchess posted an image of her daughter Lilibet’s hand “nearing a bubbling pot in her own kitchen that supposedly contained her homemade spread. ‘Beautiful,’ says her daughter, although As Ever jam was apparently manufactured 2,000 miles away in Illinois.” For Meghan’s much-covered 2021 visit to a Harlem school to read the students her platitudinous picture book The Bench, her press aide arranged to have the classroom walls painted and the lighting improved to make it look “more appealing.” Meghan is portrayed as a deluded diva with an infallible belief in her own star-powered, misunderstood specialness.


Bower’s Harry is a dazed, distraught figure who stumbles around in a state of explosive chagrin. He is outraged when Sophie Chandauka, the assertive chair of Sentebale, the Lesotho charity started by a teenage Harry, presents him with a “brand audit” in 2024, informing him that fifty organizations and donors believe he is now toxic to Sentebale’s fundraising efforts. “People don’t want to be associated with your Netflix shows, and especially not with Meghan,” she told him with a brutal candor that must have been a first for the grandson of the queen. Harry was stunned. Johnny Depp, he replied wonderingly, still attracts a lot of money, despite the courtroom battles with his ex Amber Heard. Harry could not accept that his own distraction, and the blowback of his scorched-earth memoir Spare played a role in the implosion of Sentebale, despite his personal injection of $1.5 million. Ms. Chandauka is usually depicted in the tabs as a shrill saboteur who weaponized her race and gender to drive Harry out. Here, she comes across as a pragmatic businesswoman, vexed by the charity’s financial hemorrhaging and determined to reposition Sentebale for potential donors “who don’t want your victimhood. It can’t be Africans with a begging bowl.”


Juicy stuff, if true. The Sussexes have blasted the book as “deranged conspiracy.” Missing from Bower’s litany of failures is any empathy for the larger quandary of Harry and Meghan’s predicament, which haunts, in varying degrees, all the “minor” royals, expected to dutifully encircle the crown. The Windsor B-list is accustomed to a luxury and a deference that everyone resents, but without the wherewithal or expertise to pursue successful lives beyond the palace. If they try to do so, they are accused of exploiting their royal status. But what else do they have to sell? As one veteran courtier put it to me when I was writing The Palace Papers, Harry “is a deeply caring person who wants to make a positive difference. What he doesn’t understand is that the reason he’s getting to do that is because he’s a royal prince.” If Meghan fantasizes that she’s a global lifestyle guru with the following of a millennial Martha Stewart, it’s at least in part because of the sheer size of the Netflix and Spotify checks that, once upon a time, confirmed it.


I am told that the heir to the throne, Prince William, is preoccupied with the built-in risk of primogeniture’s cruelty. He is determined that his second- and third-born children, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, are well-prepared and well-financed for independent lives and will not fall into the same cycle of thwarted freedom. But what about his traitorous brother? The rupture with Harry is bigger than a sibling feud. Before the Sussexes crash and burn, the House of Windsor needs to put aside schadenfreude and grip the problem. Give Harry and Meghan a limited international role. Cough up a turnkey pied-à-terre for them in Buckingham Palace, where none of the rest of the family wants to live anyway. Pay their damn UK security bill. (It won’t be a good look if Harry, a veteran of two tours of Afghanistan, is taken out by a nutjob). In return, the Sussexes must put a sock in it.


As for the press’s obsession with brotherly reconciliation and forgiveness, forget it. For 70 years, Queen Elizabeth II spent her reign smiling tightly at people she couldn’t stand.

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

Variety Weighs In

Not a good week for Harry and Meghan:  

Inside Meghan and Harry’s Falling Out With Netflix — and Why the Royal Couple Is Struggling in Hollywood


After five and a half tumultuous years at Netflix, are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the outs in the streaming kingdom?

That’s been a burning question around Hollywood, as the couple’s company, Archewell Productions, has struggled to release bingeable content. Launched in 2020, the company was originally intended to produce scripted and unscripted films and series for all ages. For the past 18 months, it has largely become a vehicle for Meghan Markle’s consumer products brand, As Ever.  

Last week’s news that Netflix had divested from the lifestyle venture, which the tech giant footed the bill to help build, tossed gasoline on a bonfire of speculation about the health of the relationship between the former royals and their creative home. Variety spoke to six well-placed individuals with knowledge of Netflix and the Sussexes, who say the union between Meghan, Harry and the streamer has been far from a fairy tale. The Sussexes’ perceived pattern of selling repackaged versions of the same story about their exit from royal life has exhausted Netflix. Their partnership may continue to taper off, and with it will Meghan and Harry’s remaining show business lifeline.  

“The mood in the building is ‘We’re done,’” one Netflix insider tells Variety of the vibe on Meghan and Harry. Their bedside manner has ruffled feathers in meetings, and lackluster ratings for shows like “With Love, Meghan” have led to doubts that e-commerce is the best way for Netflix to stay in business with the couple (a Netflix insider says the ratings for “With Love” are “on par with other lifestyle series”). That’s to say nothing of Archewell’s history of what sources call “poor communication” in their dealings with the company.

Three insiders say Netflix chief Ted Sarandos is fed up with the pair — who, per two sources, have been known to text directly with the Co-CEO about their projects, as do many A-listers who work with the streamer. Similarly, chief content officer Bela Bajaria is said to have grown weary of the Sussex pact. A Netflix spokesperson says it is “absolutely inaccurate” that Sarandos and Bajaria have lost faith in the couple.

“Archewell has been a thoughtful and collaborative partner, “ says Bajaria, “and we’ve really enjoyed working with Harry and Meghan. They’re deeply engaged in the storytelling process and bring a unique, global perspective that aligns with the kinds of impactful

Insiders at the streamer say Sarandos and his wife, Nicole Avant, socialize frequently with Meghan and Harry and are neighbors in the star haven of Montecito, California. However, two sources insist that Sarandos recently said he would not sit for a call with the duchess unless a lawyer was present on the line (the sources were unclear if Sarandos was serious or joking). A Netflix spokesperson says it is “absolutely inaccurate” that Sarandos made the comment.  

“This is blatantly false. In fact, Meghan texts and speaks with Mr. Sarandos regularly, and has been to his home, sans lawyers,” says Sussex attorney Michael J. Kump in a letter to Variety regarding this story. 

Last August, a second set of episodes from “With Love, Meghan” performed dismally compared with the first round. Netflix was sitting on a surplus of As Ever products, including tea and baking mixes, totaling more than $10 million in value (so much so that the company started giving inventory to employees for free, putting the goods on card tables in various office buildings. An Archewell spokesperson says giveaways from sample closets are standard practice at studios). A different Netflix source says the plan was always to spin As Ever back into Archewell’s control, and that the streamer only intended to assist in its launch. “With Love,” which features Meghan’s friends and the occasional synergistic cameo from talent with ties to Netflix, like Mindy Kaling, was not renewed in full. A spokesperson for the Sussexes says, “‘With Love, Meghan’ will continue as seasonal specials.”  

Yet, according to many people familiar with the matter, Netflix’s disenchantment is not a recent phenomenon.  

At the onset of COVID and their move to the United States in March 2020, the couple made it clear that they planned to build an entertainment empire. They held discussions with every major media company in town — including Disney, Apple, Warner Bros. Discovery and NBCUniversal — as they searched for an overall deal. Content slates and consumer brands were always part of their vision, but the industry was clamoring for one asset in particular: a docuseries featuring never-before-seen footage of Meghan and Harry’s great British escape (including video of the two on the commercial jet that delivered them to California). 

David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, was especially keen to land Meghan and Harry, a source familiar with the executive says of that time (a rep for Zaslav did not return a request for comment). Sarandos, fiercely competitive, swooped in and signed them to an exclusive arrangement over a five-year term. Reported numbers for the deal vary from $30 million to north of $100 million, but two sources peg the figure at roughly $60 million. Netflix announced the partnership in September 2020 with fanfare and immediately got to work setting the stage for the docuseries “Harry & Meghan.” 

What Netflix didn’t expect, according to numerous sources, was the March 2021 blockbuster primetime interview the couple would participate in with Oprah Winfrey. While nobody at Netflix has suggested that the Sussexes violated any of the terms of their agreement, which allows the couple to engage in projects in other arenas and participate in interviews for other distribution outlets, many at the streamer were annoyed by the lack of communication. Sources say that the company only discovered at the last minute that the Sussexes would sit with Winfrey and share intimate, headline-grabbing details of their lives. A Sussex spokesperson says it is “categorically false” that Neflix was unaware of the Winfrey interview. Regarding their deal and its exclusivity, the representative adds that “Netflix and Archewell had legal counsel involved to oversee the evolution of the deal, as is common practice for any deal changes in Hollywood.” Still in the honeymoon phase, Netflix leadership ultimately did not interfere with the broadcast, which delivered a massive 17.1 million linear viewers for CBS. 

Following the Winfrey interview, chatter in the book world was that an auction was heating up for a tell-all memoir from Prince Harry. Still smarting from the Winfrey experience, Netflix approached the couple to discuss how a potential book deal would impact the release of the docuseries. Sources say Meghan downplayed the auction, telling Sarandos that any publication would be far in the future, if it happened at all. A spokesperson for Meghan calls this “categorically untrue — there was open communication with Netflix months before release to coordinate timing between book and series.” 

In the spring of 2021, sources say the streamer felt blindsided again with news that Penguin Random House was indeed publishing the Harry memoir “Spare,” and planned to do so during Netflix’s rollout for “Harry & Meghan.” While two sources say Sarandos was riled to hear about this during a chance encounter with a Penguin executive, a Netflix insider says the Co-CEO never met anyone at the publishing house regarding the book. Penguin would formally announce the project in July 2021, setting a late-2022 release. Penguin Random House had no comment on the matter.

Netflix acted immediately to have “Harry & Meghan” air in its entirety before the book hit shelves, the sources say. Penguin shifted its release to January 2023, when “Spare” would become the fastest-selling nonfiction book of all time, according to Guinness World Records. Prince Harry earned a reported $40 million from that deal. A Netflix insider says the plan was always to air “Harry & Meghan” in December 2022, though two sources say plans ultimately changed to get ahead of the memoir.  

Concurrent to the book-release incident, production on “Harry & Meghan” proved challenging. Lana Wilson (Taylor Swift’s “Miss Americana”) was originally enlisted to direct the project, but no official deal was reached. A rep for Wilson says she was never “formally” attached. Garrett Bradley (“Naomi Osaka”) came on board briefly, reports say, before splitting with the couple over creative differences. An Archewell source says Bradley was never engaged as a director. Sarandos then personally appealed to Oscar nominee Liz Garbus (“Ghosts of Abu Ghraib”) to shepherd the project. She agreed, and the working relationship between Garbus and the couple remained smooth throughout the process until postproduction. 

During the editing of the docuseries, two sources say Meghan appealed to Garbus to remove elements from the final cut, saying select interviews and footage would be “upsetting” to the royal family — especially given that Queen Elizabeth II had died two months prior to the series debut and the couple was observing a period of mourning. Garbus declined to comment. Internally at Netflix, sources say the feeling among some executives was that the couple’s true intention with the request was to ensure Harry’s upcoming memoir would contain exclusive news and insight that would satisfy his publisher. A Netflix spokesperson calls this characterization “not accurate.” Two other sources with knowledge of the process say Netflix leadership encouraged Garbus to conduct one final interview with the couple, to ensure that events discussed in Harry’s book would also be covered in the series. Garbus and the couple were strongly advised to deliver “Harry & Meghan” in a way that maximized the value of the show. They agreed, the sources add. “Harry & Meghan” would go on to mark the highest documentary debut ever for Netflix, with 81.55 million hours viewed in the first four days of release. 

During the editing of the docuseries, two sources say Meghan appealed to Garbus to remove elements from the final cut, saying select interviews and footage would be “upsetting” to the royal family — especially given that Queen Elizabeth II had died two months prior to the series debut and the couple was observing a period of mourning. Garbus declined to comment. Internally at Netflix, sources say the feeling among some executives was that the couple’s true intention with the request was to ensure Harry’s upcoming memoir would contain exclusive news and insight that would satisfy his publisher. A Netflix spokesperson calls this characterization “not accurate.” Two other sources with knowledge of the process say Netflix leadership encouraged Garbus to conduct one final interview with the couple, to ensure that events discussed in Harry’s book would also be covered in the series. Garbus and the couple were strongly advised to deliver “Harry & Meghan” in a way that maximized the value of the show. They agreed, the sources add. “Harry & Meghan” would go on to mark the highest documentary debut ever for Netflix, with 81.55 million hours viewed in the first four days of release.  

Outside Netflix, parts of the entertainment industry began to sour on the couple. After making an exclusive podcasting deal with Spotify the same year the Netflix contract was signed, the Sussexes parted ways with the company, having delivered only one series (Meghan’s well-rated “Archetypes”). On an episode of his own podcast in June 2023, Spotify’s head of talk strategy, Bill Simmons, called the couple “fucking grifters.” 

The year before, in a January 2022 episode, Simmons said, “You live in fucking Montecito, and you just sell documentaries and podcasts, and nobody cares what you have to say about anything unless you talk about the royal family and you just complain about them.”

However, the ratings for “Harry & Meghan” brought much-needed success for the couple and a return on Netflix’s investment. There was a feeling of momentum in the Archewell offices. Despite the renewed optimism, the couple struggled to connect with Hollywood’s creative community. 

A-list talent and directors were hesitant to work with the pair, sources say. Perceptions were shifting in the industry and across the U.S., thanks to comments like Simmons’ and similar remarks from then-United Talent Agency CEO Jeremy Zimmer. “Turns out Meghan Markle was not a great audio talent, or necessarily any kind of talent,” Zimmer said at a 2023 conference in Cannes. “Just because you’re famous doesn’t make you great at something.” 

Scripted projects — including the animated series “Pearl,” about a time-traveling girl who meets famous women throughout history — were often scrapped. Development turnaround is common in Hollywood. Yet the Sussexes have not produced a single scripted project in their nearly six years at Netflix.  

Meghan signed with talent agency WME in April 2023, in hopes of burnishing her profile in the business. Agency sources say, however, that her primary focus was building As Ever. 

Within three months of Meghan becoming a client, key members of the team assembled to represent her dropped off the account (Endeavor CEO Ari Emanuel and the Kardashian whisperer Brad Slater). The agency still represents the duchess and Archewell Productions, and her team includes Jill Smoller (an architect of the Serena Williams empire).

Netflix also stepped up to help define the post-“Harry & Meghan” era at Archewell. When Ben Browning departed as production and creative head at Archewell in late 2023, the streamer showed renewed vigor. At the 2024 Sundance Film Festival, for instance, the new creative team at Archewell hit the ground with indications from Netflix that the company would prioritize spending on acquisitions for Archewell — with the goal of building a substantive pipeline of projects for Meghan and Harry. 

But sales agents and filmmakers on the ground were not interested in any Archewell involvement, four sources say. Archewell specifically expressed interest in “Skywalkers: A Love Story,” and the Christopher Reeve doc “Super/Man.” No deals materialized despite the Sussexes’ overtures. The Reeve doc ultimately went to Warner Bros.’ DC Films label for $15 million, less than what Archewell would’ve paid, three sources say. Netflix took “Skywalkers: A Love Story” for its main film library, and sources say the dealmakers were not interested in having Archewell as a second partner. Jeff Zimbalist, the writer-producer on “Skywalkers,” tells Variety that “neither the couple nor Archewell was ever mentioned” to producers during the bidding process. Regarding the Sussex rejection at Sundance, a Netflix spokesperson calls this “categorically untrue.” A source familiar with Netflix’s acquisitions protocol says Archewell would only be floated as a partner if the streamer or a sales title’s producer felt the couple added value to the project — and that was not the case for “Skywalkers” or “Super/Man.”

This year, the couple went to Sundance to premiere the Girl Scouts documentary “Cookie Queens,” on which they served as executive producers. That documentary struggled to land a sale before Roadside Attractions bought it nearly two months after it debuted at Sundance. News of the sale came as this story was going to press.  

By March 2025, it was clear that Netflix and Archewell had changed direction. With scripted projects failing to materialize, it was time to reconsider the partnership. Prince Harry was not nearly as visible in projects after the 2024 debut of “Polo,” a five-episode unscripted series about his friend and athlete Nacho Figueras. It was time to test Meghan’s mettle as an entrepreneur and a solo star.  

“I think Meghan is underestimated in terms of her influence on culture,” Sarandos told Variety last March. “When we dropped the trailer for the ‘Harry & Meghan’ doc series, everything on-screen was dissected in the press for days. The shoes she was wearing sold out all over the world. The Hermès blanket that was on the chair behind her sold out everywhere in the world.” Sarandos added that Meghan and Harry were “overly dismissed.”  

Sarandos also confirmed that Netflix was a passive partner in the As Ever brand, which he called “a big discovery model for us.” “With Love, Meghan” went into production, complementing her range of products, and later debuted in the Netflix Top 10. Last August, the Sussexes signed a new pact with Netflix, downgrading their exclusive agreement to a first-look deal (sources say this is common, and happens with other talent deals including the Obamas’). The announcement came with a quote of support from Bajaria and name-checked As Ever. The brand investment was highly experimental for Netflix, which had little experience in retail. The move into new businesses meant more of Netflix’s corporate resources would be allocated to Archewell, and the company’s vast staff would interface more often with the couple. The Sussexes’ bedside manner was not well received by some inside the streamer. 

Insiders say that Meghan has long conveyed that Hollywood is her domain. In virtual and in-person meetings with partners, she tends to talk over or recast Prince Harry’s thoughts, sometimes while he is mid-sentence, sources say (usually preceded by a touch to the arm or thigh). Meghan’s lawyer Kump, in his letter to Variety, says this assertion “seems calculated to play into the misogynistic characterization of her bossing her husband around.” Prince Harry, meanwhile, attests that this is “categorically false.”  

Meghan also had odd methods of providing feedback, according to three sources. She was known to “disappear” for long periods during Zoom calls, the sources say. Later, Netflix teams like the marketing department would be informed that her absence was due to her being offended by something that was said.  

Kump says that Meghan “works from home, is the mother of young children aged 4 and 6, and often encounters (as many parents who work from home do) children who enter the space unexpectedly during a meeting. Independent of being a parent who works from home, Meghan is also conscious of shielding her team from the distraction of children. Nearly all professionals can attest to needing to turn off the audio or camera during a virtual meeting at some point during many hours of virtual business calls.” 

Consumer response to Meghan’s lifestyle series and the As Ever products was mixed. Archewell reported selling out its inventory across the board after launch, though Newsweek reported in January that a glitch on the company’s website revealed a high volume of unsold products.  

After the second batch of “With Love” episodes cratered, sources say the writing was on the wall that Netflix was losing faith in the former royals. While news of Netflix’s divestment in the brand only hit days ago, two sources say it had been in the works since last fall. That’s when Meghan hired independent brand consultant and creative director Devin Pedzwater, who had worked with Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop, signaling to several sources that Netflix had thrown in the towel on Meghan’s venture.  

Archewell has two scripted features in the works at Netflix: an adaptation of the novel “The Wedding Date,” which recruited “Girls Trip” writer Tracy Oliver, and a movie based on Carley Fortune’s book “Meet Me at the Lake.” A writer-director on the latter project will be announced in the coming days, two sources said. With regard to As Ever, Meghan has hinted she’s exploring ways to deliver more bite-size content, such as two-minute recipe clips.  

But after half a decade of inconsistent shows, strategic shifts, false starts and a diminished hold on the popular imagination, are the Sussexes really living the Hollywood dream they imagined? This is the article in its entirety. 


Wednesday, March 11, 2026

"Harry, William and the Royal Rift That Won't Heal," by Max Colchester and Erich Schwartzel at the Wall Street Journal.

Most of the time, the Wall Street Journal ignores the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and why not? That all changed this morning, when the WSJ published 3900 words examining Harry and Meghan's current place in the world and their relationship with Prince William and the rest of the royal family. Written based on "interviews with more than a dozen personal and professional associates," the article is fascinating; if H & M subscribe to any sort of clipping service, or if they periodically Google their own names, they probably won't be happy about all this, but for the rest of us it's deliciously juicy with just the slightest hint of snark. And wait until you get to the last sentence.  

ON A SUNDAY in late January, Prince Harry—Duke of Sussex, California resident and U.K. expat—found himself in an unlikely place: the mountains of Utah, surrounded by a group of Girl Scouts.

Harry was there with his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, for the premiere of Cookie Queens, a documentary about the Girl Scout cookies program that the couple officially joined as its 17th and 18th executive producers one month earlier. Their addition lent the documentary a Sussex sheen, as paparazzi captured the couple walking the Park City streets and posing with scouts who boasted individual records of selling more than 10,000 boxes of cookies a cycle.

In a London courtroom days earlier, Harry had marked the finale to another project: a legal broadside against British tabloid press tactics that he says contributed to his 2020 decision to flee the U.K. He gave evidence for over two hours against the publisher of the Daily Mail, laying out how the outlet’s intrusion had caused him to become paranoid and distrustful, and ultimately resulted in him stepping back from the life he’d known as a working British royal.

While the so-called “spare” appeared to fight back tears during his final statement to the judge, his brother, the heir, was just two hours’ drive away on the Windsor Estate. Prince William spent his week gamely performing for the very same cameras Harry sought so hard to evade.

The king-in-waiting traveled to Scotland to engage in the kind of public performances that modern royals are expected to undertake in front of clicking photographers. William watched as his wife, Catherine, known as Kate, tried her hand at helping weave a two-mile-long tartan scarf at a mental health charity. The prince was later filmed sliding down the ice on one knee to release a curling stone at Scotland’s National Curling Academy. 

Despite being in the same country, the brothers didn’t meet and made no plans to do so.

Six long years after Harry roiled the royals with “Megxit,” a new chapter has emerged in the family dynamic, one that spells out possible futures for the monarchy itself. The brothers’ strained relationship is both an ordinary story of siblings growing apart and a referendum on the world’s most famous hereditary institution.

This account of the brothers’ diverging paths is based on interviews with more than a dozen personal and professional associates.

William has spent most of the past six years becoming a king-in-waiting, and the most popular face of the family since the boys’ grandmother Queen Elizabeth II died in 2022 after 70 years on the throne. In William and Kate, the House of Windsor sees a chance for restoration and a renewed interest in a young king with a young family.

While William’s future appears more predictable than ever, Harry, a man who grew up in Kensington Palace and remains fifth in line to the British throne, today lives far from Britain, literally and figuratively. Recent business ventures have struggled, the Hollywood production deals that initially subsidized his exit are drying up, and his nonprofit arm laid off much of its staff shortly before Christmas.

Those who know Harry describe him as happily settled into family life in Montecito, continuing to advocate for the causes he cares about, and often starting his day as his older brother does: with school drop-off. But some who have spent time with him in recent months have also found him adrift and isolated, with Meghan chasing new pursuits as he passes the time in his sleepy new hometown. 

 The fact that Harry and Meghan fled the U.K. symbolizes to their supporters that the crown has calcified into what they see as an anachronistic and racist institution. Their entrepreneurial efforts in the U.S. seem to others evidence of the crass opportunism hidden beneath the patina. 

King Charles entertains calls from Harry, and vice versa, but William has cut ties with his brother as he sketches out plans for a reign free of the kind of familial blowups—from Uncle Andrew on down—that have tainted the Windsor brand over the past four decades.

William, 43 years old, and Harry, 41, haven’t spoken in years, and it’s unlikely they will ever fully make up, according to colleagues, friends and associates of both men. “The prospects of reconciliation are pretty remote,” says Sally Bedell Smith, who has written several royal biographies. “There are just so many wounding and damaging revelations.” 

In at least one area, though, it appears as though a detente may come soon. Harry, who spent the past few years throwing dirt at the royal family after decamping to California, has been trying to mend fences with his father, King Charles, who is in treatment for cancer.

The Duke of Sussex’s aides are optimistic that the U.K. government will grant Harry’s family taxpayer-funded police protection when visiting Britain, opening the path for Meghan and the couple’s two children to make the trip over from the West Coast this year. The culmination of the prince’s various legal battles with the press could also smooth the way for father and son to be publicly reconciled at an Invictus Games event for wounded servicemen in 2027, aides say. (A public reunion while the prince’s legal battles continue against the U.K.’s biggest tabloids could be fraught for the palace, observers say.)

Still, the more Harry struggles to forge a new existence, the more he appears to be refocusing on what he knows best: riffing on his own persona of the amiable, accessible royal, undertaking pseudo-royal visits to draw attention to good deeds across the globe. When William comes to the throne, Harry will always be in the background, a foil, a potential distraction and a constant reminder of a regal brotherly duo that could have been.

In a royal life already marked by tragedy, this latest act could cast Harry in an appropriately Shakespearean role, a Banquo’s ghost at Prince William’s table.

THE BROTHERS GREW UP as sandy-haired schoolboys always under the camera’s eye, their fraternal relationship forged by loss and memorialized by the image of them walking side by side behind their mother Diana’s casket on a September morning in 1997.

As teenagers, they wrestled with a constant spotlight on their dating lives and school activities as two of the world’s most eligible bachelors. Everything from their birthday parties to their hairlines was scrutinized. But to the public, the brothers always had a camaraderie rooted in sadness; they had only each other to fully understand what they had been through. 

The two brothers were close, flanking their grandmother on the royal balcony or smiling on the sidelines of a polo match. In Harry’s lawsuits against various British tabloids, he cites how he and his brother would regularly discuss their private lives with each other, including leaving detailed voicemails on each other’s phones. 

When William married Kate, Harry would write of seeing his brother off to a life where he would no longer be the future king’s closest companion.

“Who shall separate us?” he wrote in his memoir. “Life, that’s who.”

Harry’s life took a dramatic turn after he married Meghan in 2018. At the time it was billed as a public relations masterstroke for the monarchy, which was now modernizing by welcoming a mixed-race American celebrity into its ranks. The fairy tale quickly went sour as the couple chafed at the confines of regal life, complaining they were hounded by what they described as an at times racist tabloid press. The tensions reached a boiling point, and in early 2020 they announced their exit. 

For a time, it looked as though Megxit had gone according to plan. The couple settled in Montecito, a coastal haven 90 miles northwest of Los Angeles near Santa Barbara. They had a production deal at Netflix and another one at Spotify, and Harry secured millions of dollars to write his memoir, Spare, about a life in waiting.

While working on the autobiography with a ghostwriter, Harry saw the book as a chance to set the record straight, though he did wonder out loud to associates whether he was making a mistake in writing it. A Netflix documentary that detailed the Sussexes’ escape from the clutches of a suffocating royal family and a tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey on CBS had already put relations with the palace on life support.

In September 2022, William made an impromptu call to Harry to suggest they walk out of Windsor Castle together to greet crowds who had gathered to mourn the death of Queen Elizabeth. The crowds were expecting William and Kate to show up; and the addition of Harry and Meghan was so last minute that it caught even the couple off guard.

The episode, far from rekindling a sibling bond, turned out to be a bookend in the two brothers’ relationship. The couples haven’t been seen together since. 

Spare, published four months later, may have described the life of the second-born son, but its title did not describe the author’s approach. The propriety of the Windsor clan was shucked for juicy details on Harry losing his virginity behind a pub (“she spanked my ass”) and the tense conversations with family members about his impending exit. He even dared to criticize the monarchy itself and the finances required to sustain it.  

“Of course, some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book,” Harry later told the BBC. “Of course, they will never forgive me for lots of things.”

FOR WILLIAM, Spare was a gut punch, people who know him say. Not only did it damage the family brand in his view, it severed a bond of trust between the brothers.

Spare painted William as the hotheaded older brother who pushed his sibling to the ground during an argument. It shattered the Windsor mantra of “never complain, never explain,” stripping back the mystique of monarchy, revealing a somewhat dysfunctional family trapped inside an institution it struggles to manage.  

“William takes his privacy very seriously,” says Robert Hardman, author of The Making of a King: King Charles III and the Modern Monarchy. “The fact that Harry’s book said out loud all those things said in private, that really hurt.” Hardman says William never read the book in full and was instead briefed by aides on its contents.

William publicly commented only once on the Sussexes’ allegations, to deny insinuations they had made to Winfrey that the family was racist. Soon that saga was eclipsed by a darker, much more serious familial crisis. In early 2024, Kate underwent a procedure on her abdomen during which doctors discovered cancer. Soon after, King Charles got his diagnosis. William dialed back his public engagements, and for a long stretch, Kate largely disappeared from public view until they saw fit to tell their children about the diagnosis. Last year, Kate confirmed she is in remission from cancer. Buckingham Palace says Charles is responding well to treatments.

Next to the happy-go-lucky Harry, William always came off as the earnest, somewhat colder older brother who seemed to march solemnly toward the inevitable fate of being burdened by the crown. William’s persona has softened with age—and, it appears, to an extent, by design. 

On a recent crisp November Tuesday in northern Wales, some 50 people crowded near a beach cafe in Colwyn Bay to catch a glimpse of the Prince of Wales. It was a mixture of old and young. A lady brought two best-in-show dogs to meet him. A mother rocked a stroller. A group of young marine conservationists stood nervously in line waiting to greet the royal. Security officials dressed in Barbour jackets and earpieces discreetly corralled the crowd.

A polite cheer erupted when Prince William’s motorcade pulled up. William, dressed in a dark blue knee-length coat and cashmere sweater, stepped out and worked the crowd. 

“How’s the weather been?” he asked one onlooker. “You must be a local!” he joshed with a man wearing shorts in the cold. An old woman hugged him and started to cry.  

This is the de rigueur work of what William’s officials call an “away day”—when the prince heads every other week into the provinces to sprinkle some royal stardust. It’s the kind of bread-and-butter regal engagement that helped cement The Firm’s place in the hearts of the British public, the royals mixing with real Brits in all corners of the realm. William, as the Prince of Wales, has a particular duty to get out and be seen in Wales proper. His mantra, says one palace official, is to be Prince for Wales.

HARRY AND MEGHAN’S lasting absence has created a manpower problem. William and Kate are the only full-time working British royals under the age of 60. The younger Windsors are eschewing the grinding rounds of endless ribbon-cutting their forebears engaged in to try to make fewer, more high-impact interventions heralded to the nation via social media.

William is also looking to lay the groundwork to become a different kind of monarch than King Charles, aiming for a less formal, less stuffy style. Unlike his father, who has carved a niche as a somewhat quirky renaissance-man-turned-grandfather to the nation, William cuts a more norm-core jib: His primary hobby appears to be soccer, in particular his favorite team, Aston Villa. He champions environmental causes, influenced by his father, and mental health awareness, a campaign his wife steered him toward. 

While he is destined to become the supreme governor of the Church of England, he isn’t an assiduous churchgoer. His family will likely never live in the drafty Buckingham Palace, having recently signed a 20-year lease on a less grandiose mansion on the Windsor Estate with no live-in staff. The prince fires off WhatsApp messages to aides running the Duchy of Cornwall, a large tract of land traditionally handed to the heir of the British throne, and often dives into the weeds of running the estate. He is also softening the stiff upper lip that once personified his family’s approach; William was filmed recently tearing up after talking to a woman whose husband had died by suicide. 

So far, his low-key earnestness has struck a chord with the British public, with nearly 71% approving of him. He is Britain’s most popular royal.

And herein lies one of the central ironies of the Windsor story today: Those who have worked with Harry in the U.S. say he would have also made a great working royal. 

Since leaving his royal duties, Harry has embarked on tours of foreign countries that, from a distance, resemble those of the Windsor travels around the Commonwealth. He is a natural with kids and strangers, and colleagues have been touched when he talks of inheriting a role of service from his mother. He remains the driving force of the Invictus Games, which started with veterans, including some injured on the same tour as the prince. 

Last year, he traveled around Britain meeting with charity leaders and army veterans and engaging in balloon fights with children, with the kind of warm approach that had once made him so popular in the country. Shortly after, he visited Ukraine to meet with injured veterans. He raised eyebrows in Buckingham Palace when he then traveled to Canada to meet military veterans in the lead-up to Remembrance Day, traditionally a centerpiece event for the British royal family, where fallen soldiers are honored. 

Over the Remembrance Day weekend, however, the contrast returned. In the U.K., William and Kate spent the weekend in black, attending solemn ceremonies and wreath-layings for fallen soldiers. Harry and Meghan were in black too—for a 70th birthday party for Kris Jenner with a James Bond theme, thrown by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The Sussexes were photographed heading into the black-tie party, also attended by Beyoncé, Adele, Bill Gates and six Kardashians. 

Jenner and her daughter Kim Kardashian posted photos of Harry and Meghan at the party, but then quickly deleted them—which only generated mystery that drew more attention to their attendance. 

“We were told that it was totally cool to post. And then after it was posted, I think they realized it was Remembrance Day, and they didn’t want to be seen at a party,” Kardashian said in late January on a podcast hosted by her sister Khloé.

The foreign tours are rolling on in 2026, with the couple recently visiting Jordan where they met with wounded children from Gaza. A trip to Australia is in the works for next month.

The couple’s glitzy life in California has left them with bills to pay, and so far the Sussex entrepreneurial efforts have been a mixed bag. After Megxit, Harry and Meghan tried in vain to get a best-of-both-worlds setup, pitching to continue to represent the monarchy while also chasing commercial interests. Harry’s grandmother would not let them.  

Their Netflix deal, which Harry saw as an opportunity to produce David Attenborough–style documentaries, has not been renewed. Though an initial documentary on the couple scored high ratings with further details on Megxit, viewership for Meghan’s more recent how-to show, With Love, Meghan, fell this last season. Instead, the streaming service has opted for a first-look deal with the production division of the couple’s Archewell firm, meaning it has the first right to pick up any project it produces but doesn’t otherwise fund the company.

In 2025, Meghan pivoted to consumer products, launching As Ever, an online marketplace of jams, dried flowers and other home goods that she started with help from Netflix employees. At Netflix’s headquarters, employees were encouraged to take home some leftover perishable inventory. Last week, As Ever and Netflix announced the companies were ending their partnership, leaving Meghan’s firm to operate independently. (Meghan, meanwhile, has expressed an interest in returning to acting—and filmed a cameo in an upcoming Amazon MGM production in which she plays herself.)

In recent times, the couple would emerge from separate offices at their Montecito home to work jointly on the Archewell Foundation, which they launched to raise awareness of issues ranging from vaccination to social-media abuse. But in December, the foundation staff were blindsided when they were told it was shutting down, according to people who worked with it. The couple plan to narrow their philanthropic efforts to grant-giving and similar dispersals, rather than running a nonprofit themselves—a move that will reduce overhead costs, former employees say. 

Following Meghan’s entrepreneurial bent, Harry began putting plans together last year to launch his own venture, but that is a longer-term goal. The couple have had major turnover in staff. When their head of communications left last year, she was the 11th person to exit the role since they left the U.K.

The dissolving of the foundation has left the couple with little to work on together, say former employees. Meghan continues to try to expand As Ever. Harry is known to play polo at a nearby club, and the couple socialize with entertainment executives with homes in the area, such as Netflix’s co-CEO Ted Sarandos, who gave them their first major production deal.

The prince undertakes paid speaking work, including in December traveling to Toronto to address the Ontario Real Estate Association. But for much of the time, Harry is at home. The town around the Sussexes looks like a sun-kissed version of a Windsor Estate, with green acres and wide expanses.

IT’S NOT THE FIRST TIME that the Windsor franchise has dealt with an estranged sibling living across the water. In 1936, William and Harry’s great-grandfather George VI came to the throne after what threatened to be an existential crisis for the British crown. George’s older brother Edward VIII abdicated to marry a divorced American, Wallis Simpson.

Telling his own story decades later, Harry would recount how royal custom dictated he ask his grandmother for permission to marry Meghan. Meghan had divorced a talent manager in 2014, a taint on her résumé from The Firm’s perspective. When Harry confided to friends his plans to propose to an American divorcée, the Duke of Windsor was invoked. (His grandmother’s ultimate reply, as recounted in Harry’s memoir: “Well, then, I suppose I have to say yes.”) 

In Edward’s time, a pliant British press didn’t call into question the future of the monarchy. But Edward created a long tail of ignominy. A year later, in 1937, he had tea with Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany and was later sent into semi-exile in the Bahamas amid fears his views on appeasement could prove an embarrassment to the British establishment. 

Edward, who settled in France, later threw up the kinds of headaches that will feel familiar to King Charles. While no longer a de facto working royal, Edward lobbied relentlessly for Simpson to be granted the title Her Royal Highness. 

Once outside the royal fold, the then–Duke of Windsor needed to raise cash to pay for his lifestyle. In 1951, he published the first royal tell-all memoir, A King’s Story, which flew off the shelves and painted him as a victim of an establishment stitch up. He also took part in a CBS interview with Edward R. Murrow to promote his wife’s memoir, which followed shortly after. He died near Paris in 1972.

Ultimately, however, the royal family survived, and actually thrived, largely by appearing to ignore the Duke of Windsor in public.

The same strategy is being applied to the Duke of Sussex, but some royal watchers fret that the relationship could get worse before it gets better. The Duchess of Sussex could write her own memoirs or more freely air her views on American politics, though associates say she has been loath to weigh in on any topic that might invite the slightest controversy. Harry has in the past hinted he has enough leftover material from Spare to write a new book.

Others see the only way forward as reconciliation and bringing Harry back into some sort of royal orbit. The stumbling block, says the author Bedell Smith, is that Harry doesn’t seem inclined to apologize. “It would be nice to have that reconciliation part now,” Harry said last year. “If they don’t want that, that’s entirely up to them.”

Both brothers’ decisions are driven in part by an identical desire: to avoid inflicting on their own families a repeat of their own childhood trauma of seeing their mother chased to her death by paparazzi. William has doubled down on royal life, ensconcing his children in the privacy of the Windsor Estate with the aim of giving them as normal a life as possible. Harry has cut himself off to also try to build something better for his children on the other side of the world. He and Meghan are vigilant about personal security and keeping their children away from unsanctioned cameras, whether wielded by professionals or their own neighbors. 

The result: The trauma that bound the brothers together as young men ultimately drove them apart in parenthood. 

For now, the hidebound traditions of royalty loom over their relationship. Harry remains family and fifth in line to the British throne. But when William becomes king, he will be able to wield power over the Sussexes, including the ability to strip them and their children of their titles if they step out of line or, in an extreme circumstance, removing his brother entirely from the line of succession. 

And if Harry were ever to remarry, he would have to ask the king to consent first.

Wait, what? "And if Harry were ever to remarry..." Is the WSJ hinting that all is not well romantically in Montecito? Yowza. The article talks about H & M's professional separation, but there's nothing to suggest their personal relationship is in peril... except for that last sentence. Harry can't get remarried unless and until he gets unmarried from Meghan. After talking to more than a dozen personal and professional associates, do reporters Colchester and Schwartzel think Harry might be single in the foreseeable future? My guess? Yes.  

Sunday, January 4, 2026

Brand Meghan?

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.