Newsweek: The Sussexes’ Spotify deal could be worth $35-75 million

Prince Louis christening

I am sadly disappointed that there isn’t a massive story in the Daily Mail this morning about how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Spotify deal “blindsided the palace” and “royal eyebrows were raised.” You can’t tell me that the courtiers just shrugged this sh-t off. Especially since they pushed that “raised eyebrows” narrative over Meghan’s investment in a latte company and Oprah using a crown emoji! The Spotify thing is even bigger than that. But just how big is it? Well, no one has released the real numbers involved with the Sussexes’ Spotify deal – just like we never really found out how much their Netflix deal was worth – but some industry sources have some thoughts.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Spotify deal could be worth $35 million dollars and will see them ‘educate the public about issues that matter to them, that are hopefully entertaining,’ an expert told Newsweek.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have already recorded a teaser trailer for Archewell Audio with a holiday special due later this year. And their new podcast will begin in earnest next year with regular episodes hosted by the couple.

Over the summer, they signed a multi-year Netflix deal estimated at up to $150 million with the latest contract adding to their growing fortune.

Eric Schiffer, chairman of Reputation Management Consultants, told Newsweek: “The Spotify deal is probably worth about $35 million based upon performance kickers etcetera. It is a great deal for them but a terrible deal for the history of the monarchy because they are choosing to sell it at firesale prices. I think they are systematically benefiting from the halo of the monarchy. If Harry wasn’t involved no one would care about this, if she didn’t have the royal ties. There’s this reckless war on this pristine historical brand that has represented the people of England for centuries.”

Professor Johnathan Shalit, founder of U.K. based InterTalent Rights Group, said the Spotify deal could be worth even more.

He wrote on Twitter: “Another $75 Million from Spotify to add to the $150 from Netflix.”

[From Newsweek]

As the Sussexes’ exile plays out in the British and American media, I’ve grown increasingly aware that the British media fundamentally does NOT understand American sensibilities or American celebrity culture. Sure, we loved it when Meghan became an “American princess” with her ginger prince. But we also saw how the British media, monarchy and establishment treated our “good sis Meg,” which is why we were pleased when Meghan picked up and left the UK with the ginger prince and their son in tow. Everything that is coming after that isn’t about the “halo of the monarchy.” It’s about Harry and Meghan and what THEY do on their own. And don’t say “pristine historical brand” when Prince Andrew is wanted for questioning by the FBI for his role in a massive rape and human trafficking operation.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex attend The Mountbatten Festival of Music in London

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

Related stories

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

109 Responses to “Newsweek: The Sussexes’ Spotify deal could be worth $35-75 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eleonor says:

    Diana would be so proud!

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Yes she would. She would probably have been one of their first guests. I imagine her speaking about her humanitarian work and hopes for a better society.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      I can’t imagine how she wouldn’t be. Her son protected his wife. Still do not speak poorly of his family. He has conducted himself with grace. And continues his humanitarian/philanthropic work. And he found a partner equally passionate about those causes and family.

      The BRF have the royals they deserve. They’re imploding from within. I’m enjoying watching this racist, archaic, petty house of cards crumble.

      • Lola_Lola says:

        @Wiglet Watcher I am sorry! Every time I see your name I have to laugh! It makes my day every time!

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        It makes me almost giddy when I see the numbers the Sussexes are now bringing in. The BRF thought shutting them out in the cold, cutting them off from List money, would have Harry abandoning his new fam, crawling back on hands and knees within a year.
        They gambled that doubling down on their abuse of him, and extending that to his new family, coupled with financial pressures would be the tie that bound, because it’s “all he’s ever known”.

        Never underestimate the power of therapy, coupled with military service giving him a taste of freedom and true responsibility. These two things I think were critical in Harry’s development into the man he is now, and helped him break free of his abusive family. Military service showed him his own strength, intellectually and emotionally. As an abuse survivor myself, I’m elated for both Harry and Meghan, for all they’ve come through, and under the lens of a likewise abusive and unforgiving media, too. They really make each other stronger. They each have the other’s back, and not even the British Media or the BRF can stand against it.

        For seemingly ages now, the UK media has simpered, “outraged public demands the Sussexes stand on their own feet and not take public funds”. Welp, yep, ok, fine – they’re out there doing that now, not taking any public funds and living their best lives. And the media in the UK is completely salty about it.
        I expect to see more “they’ll get their titles/place in the succession taken away if they’re not careful” crap as a result – with the media conveniently never saying it would literally take an Act of Parliament to remove Harry from his titles and the succession. As long as Uncle “Wanted by the FBI” Pedo is swanning around with his titles, place in succession, and living off of his momma’s Lancaster Duchy dole, I think it’s highly unlikely any member of the BRF will go after Hazza’s birthright in that way. Certainly not while Petty Betty is alive.

    • Circe says:

      I think the Best Diana would have been approving of Meghan. But part of me can’t help but think that the Diana that was would be seriously jealous and threatened. She did not have very many healthy relationships with other women, because she felt competitive with them, because her self esteem was decimated by the men in her life. I hope if she had lived Diana would have found the solidarity. That’s what I choose to believe.

      • GuestwithCat says:

        I think that was some revisionist history put out by Charles and his aggressive PR machine. She was very close to a number of women, notably Jemima Khan, who many believe or imagine to be her half sister because of rumors that Jemima’s father was the lover of Diana’s mother and may also have been Diana’s father. There are some fascinating resemblances between Diana and that family if you want to go down that particular rabbit hole. But I digress. No, she had a number of female friends and Jemima was at least like a sister in spirit, if not in fact. I don’t recall offhand who they were besides Jemima, but there was the one who gifted her the post-divorce aquamarine ring that Meghan now has.

        Oh and there’s Julia Samuel: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a33237650/princess-diana-prince-george-julia-samuel-wouldve-loved-quote/

        The problem was, toward the end of her life she had been through so many betrayals and sold out so often that it seemed reasonable to presume she had legitimate trust issues with everyone, and that made it easier for Charles to ensure rumors about her alleged personality disorders gained traction. Just the other day there was an effort in a publication to smear her by saying William was wary of her because she was a narcissist. When you read the article you can see the way they twisted incidents and quotes out of context to paint her that way.

        I see this same sort of spin often put on Angelina Jolie. But when it suits the media they manage to find plenty of Angelina’s female friends to harass or quote.

      • Anners says:

        Really with Jemima Khan? There must’ve been a really big age gap because Khan is only a few years older than me and I’m closer in age to William than Diana. Sorry if this sounds rude – I’m just legitimately puzzled. 15 years is a big gap when you’re 20 and 35. But that’s cool – I didn’t know they were possibly related. And it would be hard to have any friends when you spend years in that toxic, gaslighting, abusive family.

  2. Chica1971 says:

    Mail had some snarky Tweets yesterday and made fun of HM not using their titles. I think BP and RR were blindsided but they probably don’t understand Spotify, podcasting etc. Expect the article on Saturday when PWKeen figures out the wrong approach PR-wise. Really love this no-leaking..gotta say

  3. Belli says:

    “Pristine historical brand”???

    Has this guy ever read a history book?

    Does anything have a less pristine brand than British royalty?

    British kings and dukes etc have a pretty good track record of killing each other. I think a Spotify podcast series is probably ok.

    • Ladyjax says:

      Do you hear that dog whistle? I’m pretty sure pristine means “white” here. The Windsors have had SO many scandals over the years. “Ex-royals land lucrative contracts” is so far below the bar of salaciousness this family has set.

      • Becks1 says:

        It’s definitely a dog whistle, but just about everything they write about Meghan is a dog whistle at this point.

    • Ladyjax says:

      Or, at the very least it’s a classist dog whistle. I could see the royals seeing this as gauche and money-grubbing, which thereby damages their brand. But why should h&m gaf about the royals’ brand at this point? Just like affairs, grifting is okay so long as it’s not obvious to the public?

    • Lorelei says:

      I shrieked at that line— it’s so ridiculous to the point that it’s farcical. Pristine. Ffs

      @Belli: aside from historical viewpoint on which this is so egregious it’s its own conversation, even the past few decades have been a hot mess for this family’s “brand.” Charles & Diana (his general behavior toward her, tampongate, the disastrous way her death was handled by the palace), plus his close friendship with Jimmy Sayville, Andrew & Fergie (she was seen having her toes sucked by some other guy then went on to become a spokesperson for Weight Watchers in the US), the Queen’s appearance in the Panama papers, and last but not least, the current Andrew situation. For god’s sake, aside from his criminal behavior, he brought sex trafficker Ghislaine into BP and she sat on a throne. All so pristine!!

    • Myra says:

      Right? I double checked to see if it was sarcasm because that was too much fawning for a grown man in a professional role. For as long as I’ve been aware about the BRF, they have never had a stellar reputation. The most memorable events about them are when they are being generally awful – adultery, financial scandals, beheadings. Of course, I was never a royalist so others might view them more fondly.

      • GRUEY says:

        You’re exactly right that it’s their brand. It’s not true they’ve been absent this pandemic. They’ve actually been ubiquitous. You couldn’t get away from the whining and incandescence. It’s literally all they’re good for. It’s where they clearly put ALL their energy. Everything else (struggle surveys and choo choo tours) are an pale afterthought.

    • Nic919 says:

      Even if we ignore Andrew and his criminal sex trafficking behaviour, there is Charles and his tampon comment made public to the world. Nothing is pristine with that family.

    • Liz version 700 says:

      Pristine historical brand? They invaded and murdered untold numbers of native peoples all over the world but sure pristine. They clearly do not get American culture, I guess not much has changed from the days of Mad King George. I mean this about the Royals not the British citizens. This is a country of invention and reinvention. We have learned over the years that that can be a wonderful thing or in the case of our exiting president it can be a bad thing. But one thing we can say is that we don’t much require people to be pristine.

    • MargaritasForBreakfast says:

      500 years of slavery and colonialism around the world ALONE should bar anyone from using “pristine” to describe anything about the British Monarchy.

  4. hindulovegod says:

    When I think of the royal family, I think of stolen money, honestly. When the offshore banking scandals started and it was revealed the Queen was involved, I honestly wondered where the money came from. None of these people work nor have they for generations upon generations. The brand is basically “colonialism and slavery profiteers turned into government funding scroungers.” Harry and Meghan are the only positive thing associated with it.

  5. Olive Malone says:

    I read ‘reckless war on this pristine historical brand’ as having racist undertones. With this royal logic Andrew’s issues are overlooked.

  6. Amy Bee says:

    For the British being part of the monarchy is the highest form of achievement, therefore they can’t understand why Meghan and Harry would give it up to earn a living. Also people who inherited their wealth are seen as superior to those who have earned their wealth so the royals who inherited their money and are subsidised by the taxpayer as seen as regal and dutiful while being self-made like Meghan is seen as being tacky and crude. In the grand scheme of things, the only people who care about the monarchy and being royal are the British.

    • Ann says:

      I often see this represented in British period pieces, and even from people I know who are Upper Class Brits, not Gentry exactly but not scrappers either. God forbid you should have to work your way up the ladder. It’s really gross.

      • Jess says:

        Theyre going to have to learn the hard way that that thinking is not only antiquated, the world also no longer moves that way. Power no longer rests on bloodlines.

        Theyll feel it the moment brexit slowly punctures Britain’s lungs. Voting in a bunch of Etonian elites to handle such a matter will put that nation into ruin. These Etonian elites like Boris Johnson are already planning on selling the NHS for a US trade deal.

        Imagine thinking a banquet with the queen will help dazzle and sway nations to Britain’s advantage. It reminded me of when Obama officials were making fun of the rhetoric of the “special relationship” when Obama visited the UK

      • lanne says:

        Outside of their narrow, narrow world, no one gives a shit who their wig wearing, gout ridden, lace choked, stank faced in an old ass portrait, mince stepping, inbred fool of a great great great grandfather was. Those fools need to get with the 21st century already. The eighteenth century is long past!

    • Killfanora says:

      Amy Bee…most British people don’t give a flying fart about the Royal Fam quite frankly. If they all disappeared tomorrow they wouldn’t be missed. Don’t assume you know how the British feel based on tabloids. And when Meghan came to my home town of Chester with the Queen the enormous crowds who turned out were for Meghan not her Maj. my daughter’s school children sang for them and her Maj listened and barely acknowledged the children. Meghan smiled and clapped enthusiastically and mouthed a big thank you to the children and staff, waving at them as she left. They adore her.

      • Amy Bee says:

        If she was so adored by the public she would still be in the UK.

      • Sofia says:

        @Amy there is a difference between the UK public and the tabloids. The tabloids do not represent the population.

      • Killfanora says:

        @Sofia…..absolutely! I’m glad you understood the point I was making that completely bypassed Amy Bee.

      • Nic919 says:

        The family was jealous of her popularity which is why the tabloid attacks were permitted. That’s why they left.

      • Killfanora says:

        @Nic919…YES! The history of Royalty is riddled with jealousy, back-stabbing, treachery and deceit. Nothing has changed over the last one thousand years if you study British history and the various “courts” (the Wales, the Cambridges, the Windsors, etc) encourage this. Thank God the Sussexes opted out of this nest of vipers.

  7. Ann says:

    Hard to get past that “pristine historical brand” bit, isn’t it? Maybe if “pristine” means “utterly bland and hollow at its core.” Or, you know, “colonialist, racist and sexist.” Also, sure, Harry benefits from being a Prince, and she from being married to one. But he isn’t doing this as a Prince or representing the Monarchy, he’s doing it as part of the team that is “Harry and Meghan.” And people like him not just for what he was born but who he is and what he has achieved. There’s nothing stopping the “Senior Royals” using their own halo for profit. Oh wait, they already do that. But they’re not benefiting from their charm, warmth, likability or charisma, because they don’t have any.

    • Amy Too says:

      If the royal connection was the only thing that made them famous and successful, then how come everyone else who is connected to the royal family (you know, the actual working royals, the heirs and such), aren’t wildly popular and successful and being offered Netflix and Spotify deals. And if the fact that they’re royal is why they’re famous and successful, then how is it that they’re still famous and successful after they’ve literally left the royal family, moved far away, stopped participating in royal events, and don’t call themselves HRH the Duke and duchess of Sussex on the podcast? It doesn’t make any sense.

      Of course people know who they are because they were once royals. But people continue to follow them because they like them. Being royal is what gave them initial exposure, but being engaging and smart and charitable and beautiful and charismatic is what made people like them in the first place and continue to like them.

      Will and Kate get a ton of exposure because they’re royal. Everyone knows who they are. But no one really likes them or cares about them enough to pay attention to what they’re doing, or even support their charitable endeavors. Every time Meghan comes out in support of a charity, I donate. Every time she has something to sell or subscribe to, I buy it. It does not seem like even Kate’s supposed fans are engaging with her charities and causes. Stuff she does flops.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        This!
        Being royal doesn’t mean you’re successful. And loads of royals attempt to profit off of it.

    • Dee Kay says:

      AND people also like Harry *because of who he married.* Through his choice of life partner, and everything he has said about how much he has learned about racism and implicit bias, he has shown the world that even the most privileged cishet white man can understand how structural discrimination works in this world. I think many many people admire Harry for loving and learning from a woman like Meghan.

  8. Lizzie says:

    Apparently instructions went out to the trolls to include ‘woke’ and ‘word salad’ in their cut and pasted online comments . Bonus points for threatening to delete Spotify account. Very predictable.
    The media have changed tactic from saying they are not royal to they are only successful because they are royal.

    • Becks1 says:

      The trolls’ responses were so predictable. I mean, I really don’t get it. I thought William’s documentary this past fall sounded stupid. So, I didn’t watch it. It really wasn’t difficult. If you don’t like H&M and dont think they should have a podcast – dont listen to it. I can understand boycotting if you think Spotify is giving a platform to a murderer or pedophile, but these are just people who said “nah, we’re not going to take sovereign grant money anymore.”

      • Sofia says:

        Yup yup. I don’t really keep up with the Cambridges because I don’t really care for them. The only time I really hear about them if an article on here shows up. If it doesn’t, I have no idea what they’ve done.

        And even with me not liking them, I don’t follow them on Instagram, nor do I leave hate comments on their IG page or charities, which is what people who hate Meghan do.

    • Kalana says:

      People can’t really say anti-pc anymore so now they mock being “woke.” I didn’t realize being conscious of racism and misogyny was something negative. The moment someone who isn’t lily-white or someone who feels like a threat to the establishment in any way shows up, people become so regressive.

      And why do the critics have such pat, unexamined things to say? They all just copy each other or say things in bad faith. There’s such a weird Fox New talking points approach. No critical thinking in that crowd at all. They’re all just grasping for a way to feel better because they’re still angry that Harry’s wife isn’t 100% white.

  9. Bex says:

    It’s wild how that guy credits the monarchy for Harry and Meghan’s success, and then ignores how none of the others have ever managed to get the deals they’re getting.

    • Lizzie says:

      I guess this is a new take on ‘they are irrelevant’,now they are relevant because they are royal. Never mind the rr screeching for all of 2020 that they are definitely not royal.

    • Sofia says:

      Exactly. If the “halo of monarchy” was all that was needed Edward would be a successful producer, Sophie would be the head of a global PR firm, Andrew would be a successful businessman, the York girls would be multi-millionaires in their own right and Peter Philips would not be pushing “royal milk” in China.

      Did the vast majority of people only get interested in Meghan because of Harry? Yes. But if they’re still here 4+ years later, it’s safe to say that a lot of actually like what Meghan does and what she has to say (and Harry too!)

      • equality says:

        Forgot about Edward’s failed producing gig. Of course, I think the media probably conspired against him also and he didn’t have the advantage of connections in the US. He also didn’t have the advantage of being Diana’s son; he just had the boring Queen.

      • Sofia says:

        @Equality: oh yeah. But I was just saying that if being royals was all you needed to be successful, they all would be too – not just Edward.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If some media outlet offered Princess Anne $35 million to do a podcast or chat show, she would find a way to take it! There are many good reason$ why Anne did not want her kid$ or husband$ to have titles.

  10. (The OG) Jan90067 says:

    Yesterday, we all were commenting on how almost ALL of them were “on the teat” of “royalty”, with the “Blood Princesses” leading the pack (having gotten jobs at the “top”” (ie: VP rather than starting in the lower rungs of a company and learning it first, SOLELY due to WHO they are and the connections they bring).

    We spoke of Peter Phillips, who was chosen to do that milk commercial in China (!!) SOLELY on his connection to the Queen.

    Fergie…well, she’d have less than zip if she couldn’t trade on “Duchess of York”, AND sell out access to Pedo, and Pedo….well…. we DO know about his grifting “cuts” in the trade deals he made as Ambassador and Dragons at the Palace (or whatever that was called).

    Princess Pushy Racist….she out and out puts HRH on her tacky novels….and not a lash was batted in her direction.

    Edward had his production company…Following William around to make a show.

    Petty Betty is selling Gin from the Palace, and also game/meat shot on Sandringham, and of course, Charles, with his Duchy Organics lines.

    ALL were/ARE “trading on the “good name” of the Queen/Royalty”.

    Yet NOT A WORD IS SAID….. Because they’re not shilling while black. That’s the bottom line, and we ALL know it.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      What is the actual name of Prince Charles’s Duchy products? I can never remember.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        I *think* it’s “Duchy Organics”

      • Keen Kate says:

        Duchy Originals? He’s also got a few clothing lines, with ‘Vogue’ magazine articles to go with it. There’s a few bags per season with The Cambridge Satchel Company too. Why doesn’t Kate wear them? They are a British company and handmade in Britain, with a reasonable price point.

    • MaryContrary says:

      Don’t forget the Tindalls. While they are accomplished athletes, they would not get the deals they get without cashing in on Zara being the Queen’s granddaughter.

  11. Jay says:

    “The halo of the monarchy” lololol, halo is not the word I would associate with that institution! Especially in America, I would wager that if anything, it is the Diana connection, not the royal family connection, that is most valuable.

    Oh, and I guess Pippa got to give her “tips” because she’s such an astute writer.

    I think the Sussexes getting a lot of money for their actual work doesn’t fit with the narrative of them as shallow freeloaders the papers have been pushing, so probably they will keep the focus on the vegan lattes for now, at least until they interview their first guest.

    • windyriver says:

      Am trying to figure out exactly what this guy is saying here – because one of his previous sentences is “It is a great deal for them but a terrible deal for the history of the monarchy because they are choosing to sell it [the podcast] at firesale prices.”

      He’s a reputation manager – is the “reckless war on this pristine historical brand” about Harry and Meghan’s personal situation with the RF, or about cheapening the overall royal brand by only getting $35 million?

      • Lemons says:

        I think the problem is that they are receiving these vast sums but actually have to work and earn it…everyone else is just grifting, so by their logic, these deals are selling the family cheap.

      • VIV says:

        What he’s saying doesn’t make sense. He’s guessing at what the deal is worth, because no one knows, then confidently saying they’re selling at firesale prices. He’s just word salading a bunch of nonsense.

  12. RoSco says:

    As an American I definitely view their story as a fairy tale but Meghan is the hero who swooped in time rescue the sad orphaned prince from his terrible family.

    • Olive Malone says:

      Oh I love this take!

    • Oh says:

      I agree. She makes him a father, pulled him out of his comfort zone, and he did what he had wanted to do for a long time (moving away from royal life). He is now a grown ass man who is no longer the third wheel to that two clowns and finally he is financially independent and all thanks to Meghan. Harry should treat Meghan like a queen and thank her every day.

      • fluffy_bunny says:

        I’m pretty sure he does treat her like a queen and is very thankful she came into his life. If he didn’t he wouldn’t have left his entire life to protect her and Archie.

    • MaryContrary says:

      I totally agree. He seems really happy and grounded. They’re getting to pursue what they’re passionate about and live life on their own terms.

  13. Becks1 says:

    “halo of the monarchy” and “pristine historical brand.” LOL for days.

    I think you get it right Kaiser in that the British media does NOT understand American celebrity culture. Does the fact that Harry is “Prince Harry” and “Diana’s second son” play a huge role in his appeal? Sure. But what we like MORE is that he grew up in palaces and then insisted on fighting in Afghanistan. We like him MORE because he made a choice to protect his wife* and family and walk away from the royal life – so while there is interest in him because he’s Prince Harry, the excitement is because he said “I’m out.”

    *For years, both on here and twitter and elsewhere, one of the recurring defenses of the British attacks on Meghan has been that its not because she’s black, its because she’s American. Many of us argued that that wasn’t a good look either – and I kind of think you’re seeing that play out now. You didn’t want our American princess? Fine, we’ll take her back and we’re taking the british press too.

    • lanne says:

      Harry is DIANA’s son. That makes him special in the US. None of the other royal sons and daughters have the same name recognition. Ask any American who Pricess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie is and the most you’ll get is someone who will say, “weren’t they the ones who wore the crazy hats?” But which one is which? No one cares about Zara or Peter Phillps in the US, no one’s chomping at the bit to see Lady Louise and her brother grow up. People care about William and Harry because of Diana–not because of the Queen, or even Charles. Diana gave the British family popularity in the US.

      • Amy Too says:

        I would even argue that a whole new generation of Americans care about Harry because he’s Meghan’s husband. I think that’s why Harry is probably even more popular and well known than William. Yea, William is Diana’s son, the first born, but Harry is Diana’s son AND Meghan’s husband.

        I find it so bizarre when royal reporters say that the only reason anyone likes or tolerates Meghan is because she’s Harry’s wife. Yeah, no. I first heard about her because she was marrying Harry, but the main reason I like Harry and Meghan is because of Meghan. I like Harry more now because he’s married to Meghan. And even then, I still like Meghan 10x more. Harry can rub me the wrong way sometimes, still, coming off as a little hypocritical and tone deaf about certain things and I just get the feeling that he might be kind of entitled and will throw a tantrum to get what he wants. Which is understandable considering the family he was born into and the way he’s been treated his entire life. I think the more time he spends with Meghan, the more he changes for the better, though.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    The guy speaking about the “pristine historical brand”, like many in the UK, doesn’t know anything about British history. The Royal Family directly profited from slavery and colonialism and still has in its possession, stolen jewels from India and South Africa. Plus Charles and Andrew have done a lot to sully the royal brand in the last 30 years. Harry and Meghan having a podcast does nothing for the reputation of the monarchy and it certainly doesn’t degrade it. The people in the family have done a lot of that all by themselves.

  15. Just got this quote from
    S Bonnet
    @sannetje_26

    British media: H+M we are not gonna pay for your life, security etc. Get a job and pay yourself

    H+M: we don’t need your tax money we got some good deals. Here is the money for the renovations and we will pay everything for ourselves.

    British media: how dare they earn money!!

    • Sarah says:

      Spot on. I think I commented on a previous story to the effect of the BM/BRF saying fine, go and earn your own money then (assuming they couldn’t), and now they are it’s a case of ‘no, not like that’.

      Nothing these two do will EVER be right by this lot. It would be funny if it wasn’t so hateful.

  16. S808 says:

    I think they’re probably still reeling from the investment news. The investment + the Spotify deal was probably a 1-2 punch. And that’s after the uppercut from the Netflix deal. They need some time to recover and figure out their angle. H&M achieved financial freedom within months of leaving. In a pandemic. That wasn’t supposed to happen and every deal & move reminds them.

    Newsweek is funny. Likening their success to the crown when other that have cashed in haven’t been nearly as successful lol. They’re are a lot of factors as to why they’ve been so successful and being royal isn’t at the top of the list imo.

    • JT says:

      Yep. They just cannot handle the Sussexes plans. It’s clear H&M are building an empire. If they continue this way and deliver, their brand will completely eclipse the monarchy. The BM talking points just don’t play now. And no way this deal is worth just $35 mil. I don’t think H&M would sell themselves short like that. I’m guessing $75-100, this news was everywhere in the US and including all of the British talk shows.

      • S808 says:

        I almost feel bad for them especially the Cambridges. In desperation to push them out, they pushed them right onto a global platform and into the freedom to do whatever they want with it. They’re building an empire and doing so quickly, quicker than anyone thought. The royals can’t keep up, especially the 2 of them who haven’t even been able to hack the “execute a complete charitable project” part yet.

      • Kalana says:

        The thing is William and Kate behaved like this because they thought it would work. How many other people have they bullied behind the scenes?

      • Lemons says:

        @S808 what’s funny is that the BRF is so insulated and insular that they honestly thought by “exiling” them anywhere, Meghan and Harry would just disappear into obscurity. Anyone paying attention to more than pitiful DM trolls would have predicted this.

    • Islandgirl says:

      If this were only about their connection with the monarchy William would have had a deal with Netflix….and not have to go to ITV for his documentary.

      Didn’t he at one point say that he couldn’t get celebrities to work with him?
      It is more about the couple themselves.

  17. Lizzie says:

    I think the distinction is Harry and Meghan are known because they are royal, but the success is all theirs. As others have pointed out the rest of the rf are decidedly less successful and live off the taxpayers.

  18. JT says:

    And so it begins. Earlier in the year the RF/BM didn’t think they would be successful, which is absurd and shortsighted, so they had to be portrayed as toxic interlopers. Now that is is clear that Harry and Meghan are completely thriving, the monarchy is trying to attach their claws back into them. As I said yesterday, the royals will be riding their coattails from now on. Now they cannot say that H&M aren’t prospering (because it is so clear they were being held back as are doing Justin fine ) so now the BM have made the switch to: it’s because of the royal association. But you all have mentioned, royalty does not mean success. Most of them are failures at being independent. Andrew, Fergie, Edward, Sophie, Bea, and Eugenie, etc. have not done anything of note for themselves.

  19. Mindy_Dopple says:

    Someone mentioned this above but the story of H&M are also be beloved because it’s the general theme of America’s existence. Mistreated by the British? Take off and do your own thing where titles don’t matter and it’s all about the hustle. FREEDOM! This is a very simple view of it but really, American Princess shows British Prince the way of the rest of the world and rescues him and their baby. Diana would be so proud.

  20. TIFFANY says:

    All the clown had to say was, ‘we pissed the Black Princess is making it and Harry ain’t coming back’.

    That is what this is about, Harry is married to someone who legit has his back and knows how to work to take care of him.

  21. L4frimaire says:

    Halo and pristine all in that article. This isn’t worth reading. Just say white.

  22. LindaS says:

    My only sincere question is why does ANYBODY need so much money. When is it enough? I just shake my head. I dont need to be supposedly educated by anyone. I can think for myself. Celebrities are so far removed from reality of peoples monetary struggles yet they seek out more. Makes me care less what any of them think.

    • Mercury says:

      Is this really a sincere question though? Do you ask this about Bill Gates, Branson or Besos? Hmmm..

    • Becks1 says:

      While I see your general point, I do think its worth pointing out that Harry and Meghan aren’t pocketing this money – especially not the Netflix money. They’re using that money for projects. So Netflix gave them 150 million or whatever, and they use that money for their Netflix shows, interviews, etc. They’ll still pocket some of it, obviously, or it goes to their foundation – but they’re not just getting a straight 150 million and then more money to create content. This is the content-creating money (at least how I understand it.)

    • MA says:

      Better to have born into money I suppose like the royals and aristos? Queen Elizabeth is a billionaire from ill gotten gains but corporations giving two extremely famous people money are the problem?

      Funny how certain people only have qualms about riches and excess when famous black people get it, as if there’s a proper amount they should be satisfied with.

    • Lizzie says:

      A lifetime of huge security fees is one reason. Harry will forever be son/grandson of the monarch and his family needs extraordinary security. Also the money isn’t all theirs, percentages will go to lawyers, agents, accountants, taxes and so on.
      I’ll turn your question around and ask how much money the rf need from taxpayers. They are worth billions, who needs that much money and millions more every year.

      • LindaS says:

        @lizzie I consider the royals celebrities. To me no one is any more royal than anyone else. So yes I would ask how much money and possessions do any of the people who consider themselves royals need either. I am so glad I am a humble farmer trying to feed the people and have been for 42 years.

    • MsIam says:

      Removed

    • February-Pisces says:

      Even though harry and meghans situation is different to most public figures, when your a celebrity you basically have a good 5-10 years to make 50 years worth of income. Even though lots of celebrities can have long careers, you can never be sure when your peak is over. You have to strike whilst the iron is hot and bank and much cash as possible, and get a sh*t hot accountant to ensure your future is protected. Harry will be famous for his entire life, but this is his peak right now, once your well into your forties young people don’t care about you, just like no one cares about the older royals.

    • Gah says:

      @Lindas all the speculation about the money neglects to talk about what they are doing: creating jobs and platform for unheard voices.

      That production cash is not going to their coat dress budget. It’s for the sound techs and script writers and social media ppl, the lawyers and the graphic designers and project managers who will take their ideas and give them form. (Tho I suspect they are both v hands on as creative directors.)

      People who entertain the world need to make sure they can bring the quality the world demands. I have no problem with their paycheck.

      Why do you?

  23. Digital Unicorn says:

    They are making their own money as it’s clear that they have NO intention of ever going back into the RF fold.

    Also, they will likely end up having more money than the Keenbridges – a lot of the Duchy money is tied up in the Estate and while it make money am not sure it makes the kind of cash the Sussex’s have the potential to earn.

  24. Michelle says:

    A lot of anti-british on here lately. As a brit please don’t lump the public in with the way The Royal family & the media behave with how we are as a nation. Our tax money goes to the lazy royal lifestyles & upkeep of their many homes. The media has always been the most vicious. I’m working class & couldn’t give a toss about Royalty nor see them or the upper class as something to strive for, i may not be rich in wealth, but i’m happy & have my health, as do my loved ones, a roof over my head, my job & food in my tummy. I have so much to be thankful for & rich beyond my wildest dreams.

    • lanne says:

      It’s not so much anti-Britishness (as an American, I certainly understand anti-Americanism around the world, even though many, many Americans have been horrified by our leadership over the past 4 years). It’s the British “brand” that’s coming into question–how the idea of Britishness is being presented around the world through the actions of your royal family and your leadership. Your media is toxic, and the fact that your media has sicced itself on 1 person because they don’t like who she married is what’s so problematic. Your toxic media and Brexit crazies are giving the UK a bad name around the world, just like Trump and Trumpism has given the US a bad name. I think it’s easy to forget that the media representation of a country and its people is just that–a representation that could be built on many things other than the truth: elitism, racism, lies, wish fulfillment. It sucks. People outside the US wouldn’t be blamed for thinking that the whole lot of us are a bunch of lunatics–we’re not though. But Americans and Brits certainly have this in common: our good names have taken a punch in the gut by the loudest miscreants and haters among us. We have to fight back against them so that we don’t allow the worst of us to define who we are.

      • Islandgirl says:

        Totally agree Lanne. As a Commonwealth citizen my opinion of the UK and the BRF has done a 360.
        I cannot believe the things that I am reading.

  25. Brenda Marie Cox says:

    I just listened to the first introduction, and WOW, their voices are so relaxing.
    I can’t wait for the podcasts!

  26. L4frimaire says:

    Even before they left the Firm, one of the causes of tension with the other Royals and the courtiers seemed to be not only how the Sussexes worked on and unveiled completed and interesting projects, but also the fast pace which they did things. They viewed this as a threat and an attempt to change the monarchy ( eye roll). Part of this current resentment with them signing these deals is how quickly it appeared they lined it up, even though they’ve been working on these things for a while behind the scenes. They were even the firsts to get theZoom meetings lined up and events like the GirlUp and 19th Conference, Travalyst and Time100 seminars, the Teenager Therapy podcast, while the others seemed late to the game and were so ill at ease with it. I really wish someone over there would honestly tell us what they expected Harry and Meghan to do this year? Hide in a bunker and communicate by Morse code? Also, what is the obsession with the Royals doing everything “ quietly “. I see that word thrown about a lot lately.That Troll Morgan used it to ludicrously to describe the Cambridge’s train thing, saying they were quietly taking the train around the country to thank people. Like how does that even make sense? Anyway, this article is another BS screed because they’re not exiling the quiet dignified way where you have no job and no permanent home.

    • MsIam says:

      The tabloids put out that image of the Duke of Windsor sitting in a gold chair waiting on his allowance from the queen and assumed that would be Harry’s fate too. They never thought he would stoop to something as low as working to make money. That’s why they don’t complain about Eugenie and the other royals who work. In their minds they are not doing it to pay bills and such but simply to show how modern and productive they are.

    • Lizzie says:

      They committed the cardinal sin of the spare and wife outshining the heir and wife. That cannot stand so full on assault began. Unfortunately for th heir it was the least affective assault in recent memory.

  27. CrazyHeCallsMe says:

    Is Spotify available in the U.K.? I guess this is an opportunity to make $$$$ for the haters. I imagine the RRs and British tabloids are frothing at the mouth waiting to write nasty articles about H&M’s podcast.

  28. K says:

    She has given Harry and Archie (and any future kids) their freedom. I wish them joy. This is what being brave is all about. Meg has the heart of a lioness.

  29. Monica says:

    One, H&M will always have a regal aura, whether they use their titles or not. They’re not borrowing any halos.

    Two, LOL, can you imagine the Keens pulling this off? They are being shown up SO BAD.

  30. blunt talker says:

    The modern world is leaving the monarchy in Britain behind-the way some of these people talk about the Sussex business venues makes me think I would not want any of them running shit for me-they are not keeping up with what makes the world turn. People today are not the same people 70 or 80 years ago-look at all the advances since Queen Elizabeth came to the throne- If they don’t modernize to keep up they will crumbles into dust.

  31. A says:

    “There’s this reckless war on this pristine historical brand that has represented the people of England for centuries.”

    PRISTINE HISTORICAL BRAND?? Are you FUCKING kidding me? Are we gonna ignore the fucking Nazis in their family? The German cousins who joined the SS? The Queen Mother’s family putting her cousins in a home for the disabled and letting people think they were dead for the better part of the last forty years? Princess Margaret’s whole life and shit show of a marriage? The Governor General’s dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia, and how it’s very likely the Queen knew and approved of the action?

    Shall we go back a century? Fucking King Edward being a fucking Nazi sympathizer (which I’m including twice for the sake of driving that shit home). Prince George, Duke of Kent, was hardly scandal free. Louis Mountbatten’s marriage, also not scandal free. And let’s not forget that George V’s brother, Prince Albert Victor, who was supposed to be king, before he died from what was very likely a venereal disease, and who was suspected as being Jack the Ripper, murdering sex workers and getting caught in brothels in Victorian London.

    And then there’s George V’s father, who was such a profligate adulterer that he had favourite sex worker in his favourite Parisian brothel, who was named in a divorce suit that significantly damaged his reputation. And let’s not even get into fucking Queen Victoria, whose own brother-in-law was yet another dissolute adulterer, who died childless as a result of a venereal disease from partying it up too much in his youth.

    So please. Tell me exactly where the fuck this “pristine historical brand” really is, because I have no blessed clue. British royal history is just chock full of some of the absolute worst people. Calling them trailer park white trash Duck Dynasty types would be an insult to people who live in trailer parks, people who are white trash, and fucking Duck Dynasty. This is generations of assholes who genuinely think they have the right to do whatever they want, without consequence. America fought a whole revolution to be rid of this “pristine historical brand” of a royal family. I imagine, of course, that to the people who say stuff like that, this fact is somehow a bad thing, because who wouldn’t want an inbred, chinless, low IQ group of absolute fuckheads without three brain cells to rub together to be the representatives of their nation, right?

  32. Sarah says:

    Yet we work and barely get by despite all the efforts.

  33. Piers Morgan is drooling green with envy of Harry and Meghan. Stay mad Piers Morgan .