VF: With the Sussexes’ deal, Netflix ‘literally bought a member of the royal family’

The Lion King European Premiere at Odeon Luxe, Leicester Square, London

The weekend that The Crown’s Season 4 dropped on Netflix, Clarence House unleashed their full-throated hate campaign against Netflix, against the series and against the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for signing on to a Netflix deal. Yes, even after everything that’s happened in the past month, they’re all still talking about it. The Crown gave royal commentators another opportunity to bash the Sussexes and to gaslight Princess Diana in her grave. And even then, the damage control continues because Prince Charles really is *that* worried about chickens coming home to roost. Anyway, Vanity Fair recently had a piece where they spoke to various royal commentators about the Sussexes’ Netflix deal and whether it’s fair game to criticize Harry and Meghan. Note: Sally Bedell Smith was quoted at length in this piece, but we already heard what she had to say.

Some royal experts, like Princess Diana biographer Andrew Morton, say that the alliance is anodyne. “The fact that Meghan and Harry have forged a deal with Netflix, who broadcast The Crown, is irrelevant—like saying the queen should not use the BBC for her Christmas broadcast because they broadcast the Panorama interview with Princess Diana,” said Morton. “Netflix is a broad church that broadcasts a kaleidoscope of shows, from fiction to factual.”

Hugo Vickers, who has written a biography of Elizabeth the Queen Mother, is dismayed by Harry’s association with Netflix. In Vickers’s mind, Netflix “literally bought a member of the royal family.” Vickers added that Netflix’s association with the royal is invaluable—even if the deal ends up going south. “You get a massive amount of publicity by hiring him,” said Vickers. “I just want to speculate…if something goes wrong later, you do not give him $100 million, you maybe just give him a few million, but in firing him you get even more publicity…I don’t know whether they’re going to use him or not. But the fact is [Netflix] has him, and I think that’s absolutely horrific.”

Andrew Morton, meanwhile, thinks that the monarchy should be thanking Netflix. “The Crown has done more to reignite interest world wide in the British monarchy than any television series in history,” said Morton. “It attempts and mainly succeeds in turning remote two-dimensional figures into living, breathing human beings. There will always be the ‘why, oh why’ brigade whining and nitpicking about detail and purpose—but overall, Peter Morgan has done a masterful job in making the monarchy relevant to a new generation.”

[From Vanity Fair]

“There will always be the ‘why, oh why’ brigade whining and nitpicking about detail and purpose” LMAO Andrew Morton has some moments where he’s absolutely savage. I mean, at this point, why can’t Charles admit that his lil’ hate campaign went nowhere? That, if anything, he helped promote the series? As for what Vickers says here… it’s just a lot of tut-tutting from old farts who truly don’t realize how any of this works. Those were the same old bitties crying about how “unroyal” Meghan was and how she was such a monster for wearing nail polish or touching her bump. I mean, as much as I want to just shrug off this stuff and say it doesn’t matter, it actually does matter to the palace and the royal gatekeepers. It’s all pretty pathetic.

20th Anniversary of Princess Diana's Death


Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Netflix.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

79 Responses to “VF: With the Sussexes’ deal, Netflix ‘literally bought a member of the royal family’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Loretta says:

    I’m loving Morton in that article!

    • Seraphina says:

      I am too, because he is logical and rational in his analysis.

    • Flying Fish says:

      Oh yes.

    • This must be about his dislike of Charles, because Morton’s bio on Meghan was a nasty piece of work. I agree with his opinions on this issue, but I don’t think it’s about being pro-Sussex, but about being anti-Charles. As to Vickers, why isn’t he demanding that the government explain why they have supported the filming of The Crown to the tune of £16 million?

  2. fluffy_bunny says:

    Sounds like someone is jealous of all of the money that Netflix paid H&M. Likely PWT.

  3. LucyLee says:

    so now they realize it would have been better to keep them and accommodate their wish to have a private life.

    • Midnight@theOasis says:

      Well, the arrogance that H&M didn’t need to be accommodated got in the way. Things just didn’t go according to the BRF’s plan. H&M were supposed to go out into the big bad world, fail miserably and then come crawling back hat in hand. Oops…guess no one thought that multi million dollar Netflix deal would materialize.

      • lanne says:

        It goes to show how stupid it is to underestimate someone you consider an adversary. To assume that Harry and Meghan would fail–Meghan who had a lifetime of experience hustling for herself without the royal family, and Harry, who created more tangible projects within the royal family than his brother–is beyond delusional. The RF is NOT the be all and end all. Why don’t the RF see that? They sound as ludicrous as someone who hoards their VHS Tape collection and refuses to share it, all the while cackling that ” no one in this family will be able to watch movies but me! Ha ha!” Um, get with the 21st century, royal family.

      • Nyro says:

        Ianne, it’s like they truly can’t see beyond titles and birth order. Meghan can’t possibly be a bright person with a track record of success upon success, she’s not married to the heir!! Harry can’t possibly be an accomplished self-starter and humanitarian, he’s not the heir!! No matter the actual resumes,track records, and star power of Meghan and Harry, these people could not conceive that they would do anything other than fail. It’ crazy. Reminds me of how the queen didn’t want Diana’s funeral at Westminster Abbey because she didn’t think that Diana, the most famous woman in the world, would have enough mourners to fill up the place. SMH

      • Vavavoom says:

        “They sound as ludicrous as someone who hoards their VHS Tape collection and refuses to share it, all the while cackling that ”no one in this family will be able to watch movies but me! Ha ha!””
        Thank you so much for that :D

  4. Oatmeal says:

    Morton with the come thru.

    Meanwhile, the royal attack dogs once again, sound ridiculous regarding this Netflix deal and you have to wonder about their schizophrenic approach towards “winning” Harry back.

    Sure, bash his wife, his child and the means by which he will support himself and his family , that surely will send him running back *eyeroll*

  5. Mina_Esq says:

    That guy that talks about Netflix “using” Harry and then “firing” him for publicity clearly has some unresolved issues. I guess I can see how someone whose life revolves around the BRF would think that, given that using people is the Firm’s thing. Luckily, that’s not how Netflix builds relationships or attracts publicity. By his logic, Netflix also owns President Obama. Eye roll. Someone’s jealous of those $100 million :)

    • Lorelei says:

      @Mina: Seriously, that is not how business decisions are made, let alone ones concerning millions of dollars. These people are clueless and grasping at straws.

    • Amy Too says:

      Right. That’s not how contracts work. You can’t just hire someone for publicity, negotiate how much he’ll be paid, sign a contract and give him $100 million, then fire him without cause and take all the money back. I’m pretty sure there would be something in the contract about how Netflix or Harry and Meghan can end their working partnership, for what reasons, and how much money Harry and Meghan get if the contract is terminated at Netflix’s request. I doubt Harry and Meghan would sign on to work with Netflix at Netflix’s whim, agreeing to be hired and fired at will for any or no reason, and allowing Netflix to decide without any negotiation or guarantees how much money H and M should be paid or have to pay back if Netflix decides to just fire them.

      And again, why are they acting like this deal is only with Harry? “Netflix hired Harry, Netflix could just fire Harry, Netflix should just decide to give Harry 1/100th of the money they negotiated to give him and make him go away.” Where’s Meghan in this conversation? Does she get to keep her deal with Netflix and all the money after Netflix ditches Harry, and that’s fine because she’s not a “real” member of the BRF? Or is she included with Harry in the scheme to have Netflix break contract and somehow take back all their money/not pay it?l

    • Nyro says:

      These people seem to have no understanding of how the world works outside of their little aristocratic bubble. Do they not understand what Netflix is? Do they not understand that HM will have their own production company and create their own content? Lol.

      • Amy Too says:

        It certainly seems, based on the whole “Netflix hired Harry and now they should just fire him,” that they think Harry was given some kind of cushy, made up, position at “The Netflix Store,” where he attends a few board meetings and allows Netflix to use his name for advertising purposes and to get the “real producers” to sign with Netflix with the promise that they’ll get to see “Prince Harry, the Queen’s grandson” at the annual company Christmas party, in exchange for $100 million, paid out slowly over his lifetime. And they seem to think that Netflix can just fire Harry at any time and then only pay him for the couple of months he “worked there,” rather than the whole $100 million he would have gotten if he “worked there” until retirement.

        They don’t seem to get that Harry and Meghan are basically contract workers. They don’t work “for Netflix.” They’re likely running their own production company and Netflix is paying them $100 million to produce certain content for them. This doesn’t mean that Harry and Meghan are Netflix employees. It’s a partnership.

      • Mina_Esq says:

        Amy Too: I’m laughing so hard at the “Netflix Store” and “company Christmas party” parts of your comment :) I think that’s exactly what they think! Someone needs to sit them down and explain to them what Netflix is and how it works. Then give them their bottle and put them down for a nap.

  6. Louise177 says:

    I just think it’s funny that for three years TRF and press didn’t care about “The Crown”. All of the sudden it and Netflix are horrible.

    • Sofia says:

      Exactly. Where was the outage when Philip was being written as an alleged cheater? When he was written as having an involvement in the Profumo scandal? When he was shown as having a terrible relationship with Charles? When Antony was shown as a serial cheater (which is was)?

    • TeamMeg says:

      It kind of makes sense, though. Earlier seasons focused on events related to the current Queen, who is old, on her way out, pretty much scandal free. If Elizabeth II’s husband or sister misbehaved, that’s not really a reflection on her.

      But now, in Season 4, The Crown focuses in on Charles, the future King of England. Charles, who was married to the People’s Princess and famously mistreated her. Charles is being freshly tarnished by the show. It can’t be too many more months/years before he ascends the throne. I’m sure he’d have preferred to do so being beloved, rather than reviled by his people. Reopening the wound of Diana now, and in such an engaging way (the whole world is watching!)—ouch.

      • MsIam says:

        But wouldn’t that have happened a anyway once/if Charles became king? I think he is naive to think that people wouldn’t remember Diana and how she never got the chance to be queen and how Camilla the mistress is the one sitting beside him instead. To me it’s just more shortsightedness on the part of the royals thinking actions don’t have consequences.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Msiam, ITA, they’re not taking into consideration the fact that people have memories and lived through all of this in real time.

        And besides that, gross as this is, anything Diana-related is a moneymaker, so I’m sure there will be a lot of Diana stuff being shown around the time of Charles’s coronation (if his petty mother doesn’t outlive him out of pure spite!).

  7. Snuffles says:

    That guy thinking Netflix will drop Harry after getting free publicity is deluding himself. If anything, this royal temper tantrum has made that deal even more valuable.

    The moment Harry and Meghan drop their first Netflix project, the publicity and subsequent viewership is going to be OFF THE CHARTS.

    Those idiot RRs will be off in the UK shrieking how no one should watch it because Netflix is the enemy while everyone else will be so curious what the fuss is about will tune in.

    • Rita says:

      That’s why the CEO of Netflix was so happy to have them on board it’s the engagement they bring that Netflix is buying when Meghan did the Disney plus voiceover of Elephants the engagement was 44million compare to oscar winning Natalie Portman voiceover Dolphin reef engagement was 4million

    • Myra says:

      He sounds unhinged, and jealous, quite honestly. Their comments on the Netflix deal are so uneducated. This just to defend the royal family who looks down on them.

    • Scal says:

      Which is bananas because didn’t William just do a show with Attenborough on netflix? I just…just make up your minds RRs. The whiplash double standard is just to much.

      The prince charles at 70 documentary is on amazon-does that mean prince charles is in the pocket of Jeff Bezos?

  8. Aurora says:

    LOL at Netflix needing Harry for publicity. These people are really delusional about the relevance of the royal family.

  9. Sofia says:

    This is utterly ridiculous and childish. It is these people who said “we don’t want to pay for Harry and Meghan” and “if you hate it so much why don’t you just leave?”. They did both and yet people are still whining

    I would have thought it was preferable for these people for the Sussexes to not use their taxes.

    • MsIam says:

      They don’t care about taxes, this is about the establishment not being able to control the narrative. Plus they need something bad to write about Harry and Meghan. But they are wasting their time because the only thing The Crown did was make a sympathetic figure look more sympathetic and the villain(s) look even worse. The more they complain about it, the more entrenched those narratives become.

    • Belli says:

      Harry and Meghan can’t succeed outside the royal family because if they do the question becomes “Why are we paying for the rest of them?”

  10. Noodle says:

    I wish there was a documentary about the wide scale grift of many of the royals. This whole “they literally bought a Royal” is stupid given how many of them have deals and sponsorships. Epstein bought a Royal and his wife. There’s the dude in Hong Kong who freely gives money to Zara to be his ambassador in England. Peter, the Milk King, would probably take more sponsorships if they came offering. I’m sure when Edward tried to break into Hollywood so pitifully many years ago he wasn’t doing it without recompense. Many of them have cooperated with documentary crews and while I don’t know whether they were compensated or not, surely they were granted favor for being collaborative. If they’re going to call it out with H&M, call it out with all of them.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Usually some of the money made by these documentaries on members of the Royal Family is donated to charities that they support. Money from Harry’s first documentary on Lesotho went to setting up Sentable and the money he makes on the Mental Health programme with Oprah is supposed to go to Combat Stress.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Noodle, me too. I don’t think people understand the scope of their grift; I certainly didn’t. Becks1 got me to read the Norman Baker book and an excellent documentary could be made drawing from his book alone. Charles’s financial misdeeds are on par with Donald Trump’s imo (if not worse because Charles is smarter) and somehow it all flies under the radar. But that book details just how egregious a lot of what they do is.

  11. Implicit says:

    I really hope Harry reveals he’s a Hewitt one day, that’s the fan fiction I’m here for.

    • MsDiMeanOur says:

      the only fiction I would be interested in, is if Bill Unable was swopped at birth.
      and he was actually *gasp* a pleb

    • Missjo says:

      Hewitt is a loser who sold Diana out, so no he’s definitely not a better option

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      Considering Harry was TWO when Diana met Hewitt to arrange riding lessons for the boys, I doubt it. Harry is the spitting image of Phil at his age, so I wouldn’t doubt the parentage.

    • Tessa says:

      the Harry sired by Hewitt rumors are now being placed on social media by those who are trashing him and Meghan. thankfully, Hewitt is not his father. Charles allowed the rumors to be “out there” and did nothing, When there were rumors about Charles fathering one or both of the Parker Bowles children, Charles spelled out the times he was “with” Camilla to dispel those rumors.

  12. MsDiMeanOur says:

    this pic of Di & Prince Harry

    All kind of happy feels..

    thank you Netflix for reminding us that Di was a human being just like us
    Unlike the inbred BRF.

    • Chrissy (The Original) says:

      I love that photo too. So cute. Diana would be so proud of Harry and so disappointed in PWT.

  13. S808 says:

    These folks are so sick about this Netflix deal they STILL don’t know the worth of and I LOVE it. They were so completely blindsided they don’t know what to do with themselves. As someone else mentioned, the fact that Vickers thinks Netflix need Harry for publicity……lol, though I’m sure RRs whining about the deal months later does a great job of keeping people’s mind on the fact that H&M have content on the way.

    “The fact that Meghan and Harry have forged a deal with Netflix, who broadcast The Crown, is irrelevant—like saying the queen should not use the BBC for her Christmas broadcast because they broadcast the Panorama interview with Princess Diana,”

    He said it ALL.

  14. ABritGuest says:

    Don’t like Morton but he speaks the truth here. In 2017 all the talk was the crown was reviving interest in the monarchy and last year it was all about how people empathise with Charles & love feisty Anne and now in 2020 it’s terrible& all fiction? FOH.

    And yeah they are so bitter about Sussexes’ Netflix deal

  15. GuestWho says:

    ““You get a massive amount of publicity by hiring him,” said Vickers. “I just want to speculate…if something goes wrong later, you do not give him $100 million, you maybe just give him a few million, but in firing him you get even more publicity…”

    Do they think that Harry is suiting up and going in to the Netflix offices for a job sorting mail or something? They didn’t so much “hire” him as make an agreement for H&M to produce content to be shown on Netflix. If the content is no good (doubtful), then I’m sure they have an out in the contract – but it’s still not “firing.” Is he suggesting that Netflix will renege on their contract for publicity, when using the content produced would be more beneficial? I’m confused by how confused these people are.

    • Harper says:

      Yes, this old fart imagines Harry motoring to the Netflix offices, ala Metro Goldwyn Mayer in the 1930s, dressed in a suit and tie. “Morning, Harry!” says the smiling gate attendant as he presses the button to open the gates of the Netflix studios, and Harry tips his hat as he drives on in. “Morning, Harry, here’s your coffee and the papers!” says his secretary with her bouffant hair. “Boss wants to see you in his office right away.” The hard-nosed studio head sits Harry down and says, “I need something different from you, Harry. Viewership is stagnant, and you’re old news. I can make more waves firing you than keeping you on. Here are two weeks’ wages and security is outside my door to escort you out.” A stunned Harry leaves while the studio buffoon dials up Hedda Hopper and says “Here’s tomorrow’s headline: Harry dumped by Netflix!”

  16. Amy Bee says:

    If Morton’s book wasn’t one of the source materials for Season 4, his stance would have probably been different but he is the only one talking any sense on this matter. The anger about Harry’s and Meghan’s Netflix deal has nothing to do with the Crown but with the fact that it has given them the financial independence they wanted and it ensured that they will not be returning to the Royal Family.

  17. Amelie says:

    The funny thing The Crown isn’t the only content Netflix has about the BRF, yet this is the show they have a vendetta against? I would say the documentary Diana: In Her Own Words paints an even more unflattering portrait of the BRF as it contains the REAL recordings of Diana (which Andrew Morton used in his book) and she details firsthand her experience marrying into that horrible family. There’s also The Royal House of Windsor (which I haven’t watched so not sure how controversial it is), the spoof show The Windsors (which I Just discovered and totally plan on watching as it seems to be a very fictional and funny comedy loosely based on the real BRF), and I think more content has come and gone based on them on Netflix. But I guess The Crown is more permanent because as far as I know, Netflix has never gotten rid of its original programming.

    • Becks1 says:

      The Windsors is HILARIOUS. I didn’t like when they first introduced Meghan’s character, but Meghan in the third season is pretty good (like they have her doing lots of yoga and being super zen, so obviously making fun of her California persona, but its legit funny.) My husband hates the royals but he loved that show.

      ETA the Royal House of Windsor is sort of neutral in my opinion. It doesn’t make them look great, especially in the context of World War I and changing their name to Windsor, but by the end it sort of circles back to being pretty pro-Windsor.

  18. Ginger says:

    They know they lost Harry and it kills them. They have a Netflix deal, paid the Frogmore renovations and now have Eugenie and Jack staying there. Plus the mortgage on their CA home. Harry can’t say it any louder how done he is with the press and RF.

  19. emmy says:

    I didn’t know that Netflix was keeping Harry in a dungeon. They bought him! God these people are dramatic af, I’m sure that guy was having the vapours.

  20. Kalana says:

    Sally Bedell Smith and Hugo Vickers are both awful.

    But all this is why I believe the BRF knew and still attacked the Sussexes for months. This is them trying to change the conversation so the Sussexes are the unregal scapegoats.

    Charles uses everyone around him, takes no responsibility for his actions, and tries to always be in control of the narrative no matter what.

    Diana was concern-trolled for her childhood but Charles also had a bad childhood where he was rejected by both his parents and instead leaned on an ambitious and manipulative pedophile as his childhood mentor. Somehow Charles managed to twist abusing his wife as just being desperately in love with one of his mistresses.

    No one has ever tried to determine Charles’ psychological issues the way they have Diana in part because it was pushed by Charles trying to gaslight Diana but there’s clearly something there.

    And he continues to attack his first wife over twenty years after her death. He used William to legitimize Camilla and stop the criticism and now is using Harry to push away any criticism. That’s also why it was never cleared up that Charles was not financially supporting the Sussexes even though palace approved sources were briefing the press.

    Those two MOS articles yesterday showed it’s not about protecting Camilla, it’s about Charles.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Kalana I think it’s that the archaic monarchy is what causes this; it is so abnormal and unnatural for people like Charles and William to be born with their *entire* lives predetermined, being in the spotlight since infancy, and never, ever so much as stepping outside without a security detail. I think that would warp anyone, tbh. Everyone in that family, whether they or born or married into it, is dysfunctional in some way or another and that can’t be a coincidence.

      I can’t stand either Charles nor William so I’m not defending them, but I think a lot of their….issues stem from the bizarre circumstances they found themselves in with no say in it whatsoever. The entire institution should have been abolished decades ago; it has no place in the modern world.

      • Kalana says:

        The podcast You’re Wrong About did a series of episodes about Diana and they approached both Charles and Diana with a lot of empathy. One of the hosts described the royal family in modern times as almost a human rights violation, like they’re raised to be like pandas in a zoo and not know how to function in the real world.

        I agree that it’s currently impossible to be in that dynamic that is present in the BRF and not resort to unhealthy behavior in order to cope. That being said, it still doesn’t make it right and I don’t think it’s unchangeable but the senior royals are definitely surrounded by choice by yes-men who enable and help perpetuate the dysfunction. I think it’s possible to be that wealthy and famous and not as emotionally unhealthy.

        Part of it is also Elizabeth’s longevity and her reluctance to work with Charles. Her preferences have become the standard which would be stifling for anyone coming up behind her unless they were just like her. She’s also someone who needs a much closer look. How did everyone just accept that she was distant from Charles because he’s the heir and not hold her accountable to changing and working on her discomfort?

      • Tessa says:

        The Queen in her own way coddled Charles, she sided with him and did not listen or want to hear Diana’s complaints. She welcomed the former married mistress into the family, giving her the HRH some years after she took Diana’s away. Even if she did not like Diana, she was still the mother of the heir to the heir and the “spare.” and should have protected her more after the divorce, letting her keep the HRH. Charles was said not to have wanted Diana to keep the HRH and the Queen went along with it apparently. Charles complains about the “coldness” but at the same time she treated the first wife badly and accepted the second wife and former “other woman.” Ultimately though the responsibility is with Charles, it did not help that his grandmother made him feel that he was the center of the Universe but it was Charles’ character to believe this and think himself more entitled than others.

  21. Liz version 700 says:

    You can tell, in a family that is well used to being incandescent with rage, the Netflix deal is really ticking them off. They just can’t believe these two rational capable adults could actually do faulting without the Royals. Ha! Apparently H&M were a lot more capable than anyone wanted to acknowledge so now like a 3 year old or a Trump there is just whining and tantrums. PS there was some silky Twitter thing yesterday where people were writing a sentence “only your fandom would understand.” Scobie pops out “incandescent with rage.” 😂😂😂😂

  22. Tiffany says:

    The more I look at pics of Harry as a child, the more I am baffled that there are people out there that thinks he is not a Windsor.

    • I would bet SERIOUS money that somewhere in the distant past The Firm did a DNA test on Harry without his knowledge. Harry is Charles’ son and they know it.

      • CC2 says:

        I actually thought they did. I remember reading something about Charles wanting a DNA test. Not sure how legitimate it was.

      • anotherlily says:

        I read that Diana was upset by the fact that both boys had to have blood tests to confirm that Charles was their father. She had to explain to them what it was for. The Queen insisted on this after Diana had publicly admitted her adultery. If it had been proved that Charles was not the father of either or both boys then they would lose their place in the line of succession.

        The rumours about Andrew’s paternity don’t make any difference because his place in the succession comes from his mother. It’s the same with Anne and her affair with Peter Cross. Zara was conceived during the time Anne was seeing Peter Cross but she inherits her position from her mother.

        Harry looks like both Charles and Philip. His red hair is a strong Spencer trait. William looks more Spencer than Windsor.

    • Belli says:

      If Harry weren’t Charles’ son you KNOW that would have been made public. Never mind all the “Diana was mentally ill” stuff Charles has been putting out over the years, it would be the ultimate win for Charles against her. The last word, if you like. Poor Charles, so wronged and betrayed by his wife that his beloved son isn’t even his, what a horrible woman, don’t look under the rug where we’ve swept her horrible mistreatment.

      Charles has been battling Diana’s memory for 20 years. He wouldn’t give up a winning shot like that.

    • Tessa says:

      I think it is more gossip to trash Diana. Charles talked to Dimbleby about the specific times he was with Camilla to dispel the rumors that he fathered one or both of the Parker Bowles children. He did not offer the same protection to Diana and Harry. And Charles never ever would have accepted someone else’s child in the line of succession Nor paid out the large divorce settlement.

    • Tessa says:

      Harry never looked like Hewitt, and Charles never did anything to protect his son .

  23. Mich says:

    Fun fact:

    Population of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland): 66.65 million
    Number of Netflix subscribers worldwide: 193 million.

    I don’t think Netflix needs Harry for “publicity”.

  24. BnLurkN4eva says:

    Keep winning Harry and Meghan and let the folks you left behind keep whining about you winning, winning, winning.

  25. Lizzie says:

    Charles was an awful, cheating husband who plotted against his wife. Exactly why would Harry make any kind of statement about his fathers behavior shown in The Crown?
    The whole rf ‘rage’ over The Crown is manufactured. Never underestimate how selfish and self centered the entire family is. They are jealous of and outraged by Harry’s success. They determined he was a spare and should be grateful for any crumbs that came his way and cannot stomach he left and is quite successful both in career and family. Rage, tears and blame in the foreseeable future from the whole stinking bunch. I suppose there is some satisfaction in seeing a whole family who have every privilege in the world yet are each supremely miserable.

  26. L4frimaire says:

    LMAO, I just find using the Crown series to attack the Sussexes risible. Hate to say it but Andrew Morten is totally right on this one. As for saying Netflix bought Prince Harry, what is he talking about? Does that guy think this is some royal pulling favors for or granting access to some oligarch for a fee ( which so many non-working royals do)? They are working on content already, according to Netflix and they have no clue about how these things work, nor how the Sussexes work. If the Crown moved to another network like Hulu or HBO tomorrow, the Sussexes will still have their deal, and these haters would go back to bashing Cuties or Emily in Paris and tying it to Harry and Meghan. They are obsessed.

  27. Mignionette says:

    “I just want to speculate…if something goes wrong later, you do not give him $100 million, you maybe just give him a few million, but in firing him you get even more publicity…”

    ^^ Royal Reporters and the Royal adjacent still trying to add their two cents to the harass Harry and Meghan playbook and it’s pretty disgusting.

    It’s pretty obvious that this is what they want to happen. I hope these two go on to sign more deals and Meg starts some clothing collections to really get that $$$ in.

    • Lizzie says:

      Just a guess here but the contract was worked out with the best of the best lawyers representing the Sussex’. Let’s assume their top notch lawyers have thought this through any scenario the moron courtiers or rr can come up with.

  28. Chicka says:

    I think it’s concerning no one is really pointing out how dismissive of Meghan the not Morton guy is. I don’t think any royal family member would have been given a Netflix deal Without Meghan. Furthermore, Meghan and Harry could have not gotten married in the end, and I’d argue she’d still have more of a chance to land a Netflix deal on her own, after their courtship, than any of the others in that family and that includes Harry. 🙄

    No worries Meg. Unlike many, I know you’re the one that upgraded the Prince. Not the other way around.

  29. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    What difference does it make? The royal family are basically just MASCOTS for the British (former) empire, anyway. Very expensive mascots.