VF: Industry executives are ‘shaking their heads’ over the Sussexes’ ‘pity party’

Do you guys follow NYT Pitchbot on Twitter? It’s a clever account which “pitches” article and editorial column ideas in the increasingly right-wing/contrarian New York Times style. Recent “pitches” include “Is life too good in Joe Biden’s America?” and “How can Pete Buttigieg have kids and still do his job as Transportation Secretary?” Why am I talking about a Twitter parody account? Because someone needs to start a pitchbot for royal reporting on both sides of the Atlantic. No matter what the Duke and Duchess of Sussex accomplish, no matter how successful they are, there’s always this performative sturm und drang. Royal pitchbot: “Why Prince Harry’s record-breaking memoir sales are a bad thing.” “Sure, Netflix’s ‘Harry & Meghan’ series was a huge hit last month, but why don’t they have ten projects out this month?” The gleeful pessimism/cynicism for all things Sussex in the British media has infected American reporting too, giving us these increasingly weird “industry insider” stories. Vanity Fair had another industry one, written by their media guy Joe Pompeo – you can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

The Sussexes have too many successes! It would therefore appear that Harry and Meghan’s business partners are getting a return on the gazillions they’ve shelled out on the royals-in-exile—a rumored $20 million for PRH and a reported $100 million for Netflix, not to mention the reported $25 million deal that Spotify made with Harry and Meghan, who have sucked us in with their behind-the-scenes peeks at dramatic curtsies, palace backstabbing, and physical altercations between once-beloved brothers. And yet, there’s something about the great Sussex media gamble that makes it hard to rate the whole thing an unqualified success, at least not judging by the chatter I intercepted this week from a handful of Hollywood muckety-mucks.

A giant pity party? “When the source of your content and your narrative and storytelling is just a giant pity party, it’s over,” one executive told me. “What’s more to say? Everyone’s shaking their heads.” Another said, “Okay, now you’ve told all this sh-t, but there’s a shelf life to these things. Something can look like it’s the biggest thing in the world, and then, boom, it’s gone.” A third power player concurred, “I am hearing that they are oversaturated. Everyone in our business is like, ‘Shut up, it’s enough already.’ But of course everyone is still rabidly following it.”

The Sussexes are damaging their future earnings! These anonymous rumblings were echoed in a front-page New York Times piece on Tuesday from Sarah Lyall, who suggested, “More worrying for Harry and Meghan is whether the continued public re-litigation of their troubles has grown so repetitive or even tiresome that it has eroded their personal brand and damaged their potential future earnings. Once they have exhausted the topic of themselves, what is left for them to talk about?”

Harry and Meghan’s spokeswoman says: “These look-back projects have been years in the making, and now that they have been delivered, this chapter is closed. It is in no way shaping what’s to come from the couple. They are looking forward, and ready for what comes next.”

Is Meghan working a book? I was assured that Meghan is not in fact working on a book, despite reports in the British press to the contrary.

Future Netflix projects: Heart of Invictus, a Netflix docuseries about Harry’s Invictus Games competition for wounded military veterans, is on tap. (No release date yet but it’s slated to come out later this year.) There are scripted and unscripted projects in development at Netflix that haven’t been announced, according to someone with knowledge of the deal, who told me it’s good for another two years or so.

The Sussexes had other offers: In signing with Netflix, undoubtedly the highest bidder, Harry and Meghan took a pass on other opportunities. I’m told there had been talks with the brass of Disney (at Bob Iger’s home) and Discovery, the latter of which may have even positioned Harry for a David Attenborough-like role. One of the possibilities discussed, sources familiar with the talks told me, was for Harry to work on documentary programming about Africa (a passion of his) and Great Britain. Meghan expressed interest in lifestyle programming.

But are the Sussexes even committed to building a media empire? This raises the question of whether Harry and Meghan are even committed to building a media business in the long-term, after their initial contracts with Netflix and Spotify expire. (They still have all that philanthropy to busy themselves with.) Perhaps the bigger question is whether they could pull off another hit to rival their Netflix debut.

What is this?? For additional perspective, I called someone who’s not from the entertainment world, but has deep familiarity with royal media relations. “There is certainly a view that, unlike the Obamas, say, they don’t actually have much of a backstory beyond being royal, and nor have they got a particularly illustrious list of achievements to their names,” this person said. “But that doesn’t necessarily translate into lost sales or lost bookability. Given that their constituency is young, progressive, minority, I think there’s probably quite a lot more for them to do.”

[From Vanity Fair]

I just… don’t get it. Their Netflix docuseries was a huge hit and I’m sure Netflix was very pleased. Harry will have his Invictus series out this year. Clearly, they have other projects which are close-hold. And, by the way, Harry just took a huge personal, professional, reputational and emotional gamble by publishing his memoir, which is going to be one of the biggest bestsellers of the year. Despite all of the industry moaning about “Sussex pity parties,” there are still millions of people who DO care, who want to support Harry and Meghan and their projects. Plus, it’s kind of crazy that all of these industry executives and media critics are shrieking “SO BORING” when Harry has literally written about being violently assaulted by the heir to the throne, and he’s calling out the current queen’s open collusion with the media? Like, make no mistake – Harry broke news in Spare and it’s part of the historical record of one of the most powerful families in history. Why is everyone in such a rush to diminish what’s actually being said and written by the Sussexes?

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

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

200 Responses to “VF: Industry executives are ‘shaking their heads’ over the Sussexes’ ‘pity party’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Denise says:

    Why are all these American outlets parroting British talking points? Is colonialism still on?

    Harry’s book is selling like crazy in Europe, they had to print hundrets of thousands new copies in France and Germany. Why wouldn’t Harry tell his story? What’s with all the hate in US media?

    • Chloe says:

      Because hating the sussexes is a million dollar business.

      • Melissa says:

        I actually have a different take on this. I just feel the people putting out these articles are praying it stops, and are trying to convince The Sussex’s and anyone who will listen that they shouldn’t speak further. I think they’re trying to convince us and the Sussex’s that we’ve had enough. We haven’t. But they’re trying to sell that narrative to end the onslaught of damage.

        The truth is we want more. If the only narrative is the truth (we are not worn out) then the Sussex’s will continue to score deals and make money. They’re trying to convince them that we’re all over it.

      • Dutch says:

        Like the way film critics have been trying to talk “super hero fatigue” into existence for a decade.

      • Peanut Butter says:

        Agree with Melissa here. This constant dismissiveness smacks of gaslighting to try to discourage H&M and especially those like Netflix who invest in them. Even more, it’s gaslighting of us who are interested in what H&M have to say, an attempt to convince us there’s nothing here and we’re dolts if we think H&M might happen to be people of substance, unlike the empty-suit hacks that are the BRF and their staffs

    • Brit says:

      @Melissa, I agree with this too. There is an aura of desperation around many of these articles. They’re admitting they’re successful but this oversharing and over saturation talk is desperately wanting them to keep quiet. This brand being damaged nonsense is just nonsense. They don’t have nothing to hang over them like polls, and the titles nonsense is stale too. Harry and Meghan have literally stripped away talking points one by one. People are still trying to control them, now they’re using “brand” nonsense to shut them up. Despite there being no proof that people are “tired”

      • windyriver says:

        A reminder – Omid Scobie has a new book coming out August 1 that I don’t think the RF or media players will like a whole lot either. From the description, it sounds like it will elaborate on many of the points raised by H&M in the documentary and Spare and will include events post TQ’s death in early September 2022. Apparently, before Spare, FF was “the fastest-selling royal book in two decades”, so at a minimum we can expect more whining from the same jealous hacks whose own books failed to make substantial numbers. In fact, we can probably already write the scripts both the family and the media will follow…

      • OriginalLeigh says:

        I also agree with Melissa. I think this is all so shocking to everyone because we’re just not used to hearing the actual truth. Most public figures (and even many private people) are “on script” most of the time…

      • Becks1 says:

        HA! I had forgotten about Omid’s book. Perfect timing for him. We will all be finally over Spare, then the coronation and all that drama (bc you know there will be drama) and then BAM! Endgame!

    • Cessily says:

      This just proves Rupert Murdoch has poisoned so many minds it should be criminal. The man is the worst thing that has ever happened to journalism his publications should be banished from every society. He is, in my opinion, is the closest thing to the Antichrist in modern day.

      • Mary Pester says:

        And how much of this is jealousy, jealous they didn’t get the interview’s, jealous that they didn’t get to make it or take part in the Netflix documentary. Jealous that they didn’t get to write a MASSIVE best seller, jealous that they didn’t get to serealise it in their papers, the list goes ON, But hey keep talking about harry and meghan because you guys are keeping them in the world’s eyes, and mr murdoch, they have a much longer shelf life than you or your rags. The world is turning and people make up their own minds about what to think, YOU don’t get to spoon feed them their opinions anymore. The days of these sad, twisted tired old men and women are coming to an end

    • Jaded says:

      They’ve become infected with “tabloid mentality”. They know that Sussex-bashing brings in clicks and viewers so they’ve adopted the British media’s method of building readership/viewership. I no longer go to CNN or MSNBC for world news because this has made me realize that their negative coverage of the Sussexes is so one-sided and pejorative, it must contaminate other news stories. And as @Cessily said, the Rupert Murdoch-ization of news has spread like an evil virus.

    • Isabella says:

      Many of them use the same horrid reporters that the Brits do. Some are Murdoch publications like NY post and Wall Street Journal.

    • westcoastgal says:

      So now we have “industry sources” aka Tina Brown for VF but using the same playbook. They keep telling on themselves, they are beside themselves over the incredible success of Harry and Meghan. A point to remember, UK has at most 30 million people and the US alone has 350 million people and the sillier and nastier the BM and the RF, the more the support for H&M grows world wide. The stripping of Harry’s military titles and not allowing him to wear his uniform was seen as terribly cruel, petty and looked ugly on the RF. H&M have performed a master class in righting the historical record through the Netflix series and Harry’s book. On The Record. In Their Own Words, Far more powerful than stories told by royal sources in cheap tabloids. He speaks honestly about past mistakes and takes responsibility all which makes them so credible, authentic and believable. And he basically has another book written, their stars will continue to shine and the interest will still be there for a very long time, I think the RF should tread lightly going forward.

      • Alice says:

        UK population is significantly more.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        westcoastgal, I just looked it up and the UK has 68.8 million people. The United States has 336 million people (as of January 15, 2023 according to worldometers). What’s interesting is that California has 40.2 million (according to world population review). The numbers seem to be going up really quickly.

  2. fishface says:

    I think the “industry sources” might be the voices in their heads.

    • Lemons says:

      By industry, they mean….Charles the King CEO?

      Because everyone else is counting their cash.

    • Christine says:

      I think the “industry sources” are every single bitter industry insider who didn’t sign Harry and Meghan for anything. They certainly aren’t at Netflix, Spotify, or Penguin Randomhouse.

  3. Laura-Lee MacDonald says:

    I mean, my workplace changed patient information security platforms this week, and it’s been hell as we find out what programs and applications are no longer compatible. (No patient info in danger of being leaked or anything, just being unable to convert documents to an editable format, etc.) I joked with my team that I hate change that I did not myself orchestrate. I think that this is the pushback to change when that attitude is serious, and in the minds of those with real power and money.

  4. equality says:

    Meghan built her own name up for years before marrying PH. PH has the “backstory” of the military, IG, Sentebale, Endeavour Fund and WellChild outside royalty, not to mention his current jobs. Do these morons think that if they say something it becomes true? They want people to forget that Meghan had a whole other successful life before being “royal”. Funny that the media haven’t reached the shelf-life of H&M but think that H&M have.

    • HamsterJam says:

      EXACTLY equality!

      If I had a wide audience I would research every journo that has written an “overexposed” article and list them in order of total H&M articles both before and after the “overexposed” article. It would go something like this

      Camilla Cameltoe wrote:
      3 books
      397 articles
      On the subject of Harry and Meghan

      She then wrote this article claiming that “people are sick to death of hearing about them”. (link to article)

      She then went on to write:
      1 more book and
      268 more articles about Harry and Megan.

      She has been very busy making sure that we “are sick to death of hearing about them”.

      I would go on, page after page, there have to be 30 journos who could fit in this list

  5. Eurydice says:

    Lol,it’s all sour grapes. Industry insiders are kicking themselves that they didn’t get a piece of the H&M action.

    • lanne says:

      Yep. Institutional racism and the realization of missed opportunities. And it chaps the establishments pasty narrow asses that the Spare and the Divorced black actress out-royaled the Heir and the Mannequin.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        @Eurydice: I totally agree. Think about all the clout ABC News passed on and lost by caving to the palace when they first had the Jeffrey Epstein scoop. Out of fear of being iced out of access to the Keenbridges, they squashed that story. If only they could have had prophetic foresight to see that access to those two provides as much excitement as going to a discount dentist. Kate can barely string a sentence together and when Willy does manage to speak he continually puts his foot in his mouth. Their latest tours have been boring flops, if not disasters.

        So any industry big wigs who are parroting the UK party line are eating sour grapes and mad because they played THEMSELVES by dancing to the RF piper. H&M have the Midas touch and I’m sure this is just the beginning. They are both forward thinking and have creative ideas and a great work ethic. Whoever missed the opportunity to get on the Sussex train probably feel like the snobby saleslady in Pretty Woman – BIG MISTAKE! BIG! HUGE!

    • C says:

      That’s what it is, lol.

    • Becks1 says:

      Exactly. Everyone who isn’t a part of H&M’s success is bitter and dare I say, salty, that they missed out on it.

      Also, this ending line from Kaiser – “Why is everyone in such a rush to diminish what’s actually being said and written by the Sussexes?”

      I think we all know the answer to that. It’s because the media has its own narrative about the royal family (even the US family) and the Sussexes are turning it all upside down.

    • Jais says:

      Sour grapes, jealousy, and a true desire to see the Sussexes flop. The BM want them to fail and they’re trying to infect the us media. But it just comes across as a bunch of haters hating.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Yup. They’re doing things on their own terms, and these industry insiders don’t like it. The latter group always get bitchy when big names don’t do “what they’re supposed to” in creating and promoting projects.

    • Laura D says:

      @Eurydice – I totally agree. I remember seeing a Youtube video where a major influencer/media executive said he didn’t care what they wanted to promote he’d sign them there on the spot product unseen! This was BEFORE any of their projects were released and became huge successes. So, yes this article does sound like sour grapes with a bit of toxic BRF PR thrown in for good measure. 😉

    • Veronica S. says:

      That’s exactly how I read it, too. LOL. They outplayed the biggest PR firm on the planet. Regardless of where public opinion sits on them statistically, they’re making bank off of it. They didn’t just fizzle out and fall apart the moment they left the RBF. They’re thriving.

    • Lurker25 says:

      💯 hit job.

      I love how every negative article STILL quotes only anonymous sources!

  6. truthSF says:

    Harry and Meghan are so successful with every venture they’ve done that they’ve got the BM and BM adjacent in American media losing their ever-loving mind! And I love that for them! Keeping winning and being sussexful, Sussex!!🥂🍾😌

  7. Swaz says:

    EAT YOUR HEART OUT HATERS 😁 THE SUSSEXES ARE WINNING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK 😁

    • Lolo86lf says:

      Yes they are winning big right now but I am wondering what they are going to do in the future to earn a living. They have been cut off from the royal family financially and they have a family to support. I assume Archie and Lilibet will be sent to expensive private schools and everything else.

      • Veronica S. says:

        Eh, if they’re smart and invest well, they’ll be fine. Once you hit that eight or nine digit income arena, it’s legitimately hard to wind up broke unless you’re very stupid with your money. As long as they lock down a home, put away in some high interest accounts, and get a good investment portfolio, they should be okay. They may not be rolling in dough on a yacht, but they’ll still be leagues above the average household income-wise.

        I would pay a hella subscription fee to see her go back into acting, though. I know she has many, many reasons not to do it, but the outrage alone would be worth the entertainment.

      • Concern Fae says:

        This. I’m not so much about the money coming in, but how much they are spending. There is a lot of grift in the military, police, and security world. They have very real security needs, but I can also see somebody talking Harry into overspending at a level which is not sustainable for them.

      • Emmitt says:

        According to SPARE, the royal family was not financially supporting them at all. Harry was begging Charles for money for food. MEGHAN was the one financially supporting Harry, not the royal family so this concern trolling is very amusing to me.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Do you remember that Meghan invested in a local business? I wonder how many of those they have? I wonder how much Harry gets at Betterup. Anyone who thinks H&M have their eggs in one or two baskets need to rethink their suppositions.

        H&M will be fine financially. They are always working behind the scenes and only telling about what they’re doing once it’s completed and ready to reveal. I don’t believe they will have to worry about money. They have their eye to the future and are planning accordingly.

      • jamzsquared says:

        There’s also Ethic, the investment firm that H&M joined last year. Iirc, they came in pretty early in the finding round, and the valuation, last I checked, was incredibly lucrative. I can’t remember my sourcing on this, so someone feel free to correct me, but I also recall hearing that Meghan had already known how to invest her earnings wisely prior to meeting Harry, and that it was her finance contacts that helped them get up and running before the Netflix deals, etc. starting coming in. My understanding about her financial success before marriage is that she managed her money wisely and well, and I would imagine that she has brought that same knowledge to her partnership with Harry.

      • lanne says:

        As opposed to all the support they got from the royal family, you mean? Where Chuck and Cain would keep them on short rations as a means of control?

        If they make their own money, they determine what they do with it. Like any other adult in the world. What did the royal family have to offer them otherwise? A trickle of money in return for total control? There are enough royal parasites on the dole. Harry and Meghan are happy not to be among them.

      • Deering24 says:

        Why is it concern trolls always think H&M are big spenders? Or, even more ridiculous, aren’t invested well? 🙄🙄

      • Jaded says:

        So you think the Sussexes are spending money wantonly like drunken sailors on a Saturday night and haven’t invested anything? Meghan was a successful actor and entrepreneur for years. She’s known how to budget money for ages, through thick and thin. Harry was basically kept on starvation wages from the BRF so suddenly not having a lavish lifestyle wasn’t what worried them. The only BIG worry they had was that their security was suddenly cut off while being swarmed by tabloid rats and dealing with legitimate death threats. They’re using their money to build money, enough to support themselves and their family as well as build their foundation. Your concern is totally unfounded.

      • Becks1 says:

        @LOL86lf I’m saying this as nicely as I can, but you need to stop worrying about their spending lol. You’ve made multiple comments over the past few months worrying about their spending and how they’re going to survive in the future. I get that it comes from a well meaning place since you are a pretty staunch supporter of them in other comments, but I am sure Meghan and Harry are setting themselves up for a very nice future (and their children.)

      • BeanieBean says:

        I just…my eyebrows are so raised at these suggestions that Harry & Meghan might go broke that I no longer contemplate getting a brow lift. I mean, seriously! How can anybody be concerned about their financial future??

      • Tan says:

        Oh another Sussexes cash counter very cool. What’s does $100M + $20M + etc etc etc add up to? In ur case I guess it’s bankruptcy

      • Laura D says:

        @Lolo86lf – I also read somewhere that such are the royalties and actors union pension from Suits that Meghan was financially set for life. Now add in the multi-million dollar deals the couple have signed (one of which is with an investment company) I doubt the pair will struggle financially during our life-time. Still it’s nice for you to show your concern. 😉

      • anne says:

        @Lolo86lf “… but I am wondering what they are going to do in the future to earn a living. They have been cut off from the royal family financially and they have a family to support.”

        You’re joking, right? Did you not read the book?The part wear Harry said he had to shop at TJ Maxx for regular clothes b/c Charles didn’t give him any money except for when he had to buy formalwear for state occasions? And the part where Charles told him that “there’s no money to support Meghan?” The RF gave them fuck all financially, and their security came out of the Royal purse, which provides security for the RF at large, so Charles wasn’t even providing THAT money.

        I’m 100% sure H&M will NEVER want for money.

      • Cate says:

        I guess we’ll see but my impression is that they’re pretty grounded and probably have a good financial advisor. I am sure their security costs a ton but it’s quite possible other parts of their life are more “budget”, so as long as they are socking away some of their money now they’ll probably be in good shape for the long-term. They seem pretty determined not to go back to the RF asking for money and I’m sure that motivates them to manage their money wisely and live within their means.

        Also, while Harry may say he was “unemployable” it seems to me he’s taking steps to make sure he is employable. E.g. the job at betterup, okay he probably got it 99% due to being Prince Harry, but he seems like a smart guy so I’m sure he’s using his time there to learn new skills and make connections and so on. I think it’s not impossible that he could be able to land some sort of c-suite position at another company in future if needed. All his work with Invictus I’m sure is also giving him skills that would be attractive elsewhere.

        I do wonder also as they become older if they’ll also be less of a target for haters (and this need less insane security) or if that’s just wishful thinking on my part…

      • Deering24 says:

        If H&M were buying new Maybachs every year, buying insane amounts of jewelry, annually upscaling to a bigger house, buying stuff just for bragging rights, or having a bunch of houses all over the world, those would be reasons to worry. But they are hardly Nicholas Cage or Johnny Depp in that department. Sheesh.

  8. Snuffles says:

    They ALWAYS assume they have nothing in their arsenal except being royal but conveniently ignore all the non-royal stuff they’ve already done, from their philanthropy work, to BetterUp, all of Harry’s continued initiatives like Sentebale, Invictus, Travylst, African Payks; to Meghan’s wildly successful Archetype’s podcasts, their 3 Netflix shows, etc. And on and on and on.

    Just because their royals lack any imagination, initiative or work ethic, doesn’t mean that the Sussex’s are the same. And after all of their enormous successes, you can bet your sweet bippy there are people lining up to get in on the action.

    • equality says:

      They want people to forget that Meghan has only been “royal” a few years and was successful before that. She was successful and known without being royal and none of the rest has accomplished that.

  9. CheChe says:

    I smell fear. The Sussex success is getting harder to combat because it’s not just a fluke anymore. Every angle is being deployed to minimize the impact of these independent royals.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head CheChe! They’ve been out of the Firm for 2 years and in that time they’ve been feted with multiple awards for their humanitarian work not their royal work and Meghan won a Peoples Choice award for her podcast without mentioning the royals once. The Sussex’s have made it clear that they are going to continue to shine their light on worthy causes and incredible people and we’re all going to be watching what they do.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Yup. On Twitter, a man involved with the media said that there’s a very profitable machine/industry built off of hating the Sussexes (particularly Meghan), and that machine weakens considerably with each major success they have.

  10. girl_ninja says:

    “There is certainly a view that, unlike the Obamas, say, they don’t actually have much of a backstory beyond being royal, and nor have they got a particularly illustrious list of achievements to their names,”

    Ummm, what?

    Have they read Spare? Harry’s backstory is quite deep and extensive and from what we know of Meghan her story is too. The woman interned at the U.S. Embassy Argentina, worked with the United Nations and has traveled to Rwanda AND India on humanitarian efforts. Let’s not forget she worked with the USO as well.

    The way so many want to diminish who the Sussex’s are is straight up hilarious.

    • Jane says:

      Admittedly, I don’t follow the Obamas so I know very little about them beyond a quick scroll of Wikipedia, but what is the Obama backstory beyond being the first AA President and First Lady? They were both lawyers and he was briefly a senator. They were both fairly young when he was elected, so how much, realistically, could they have achieved beyond the stuff that many people do (good grades at school and college, scholarships, good jobs etc) and who they actually are as people (black and biracial in the US, divorced parents, philanthropic etc)? And I don’t mean to belittle them AT ALL, I’m just saying I really don’t understand this criticism and comparison.

      • equality says:

        Look at the comparison as a compliment. Are W&K, for all their claims to be diplomats being compared to anyone as accomplished as the Obamas?

      • MsIam says:

        I find that hilarious. Weren’t some in the media trying to compare them to the Kardashians? And I find it hard to believe that “Hollywood “ who loves a flash in the pan as much as anyone is “grumbling” about the Sussexes success. Probably grumbling that they can’t get a deal with the Sussexes is more likely.

      • girl_ninja says:

        The Obamas were both accomplished before President Obama was elected. He was a state senator before being elected to the United States Senate. He also worked for a prestigious firm in Illinois where he met Michelle. She left the firm and went to work for a hospital.

        Both couples have served their countries, have great respect for each other and seem deeply in love.

      • Juniper says:

        Interning at an American Embassy is not the flex you seem to think it is. People really need to stop trotting out this tired story as if it somehow proves her diplomatic bona fides.

      • C says:

        Why would interning at the American Embassy in Argentina be insignificant as you seem to be saying?

        I don’t know about you but when I interned in my scholastic days this would have been a big deal.

      • Jais says:

        I think an internship sounds cool. To me, it shows her passion and interest in the international world.

      • Jaded says:

        @Juniper — interning at an international embassy isn’t like interning at an ad agency. You can get major academic credits, and in Meghan’s case she learned a new language which has helped in her previous royal role and in her current work. Here’s a list of benefits:

        – Helps you develop sufficient communication skill in different environments through meeting new people.
        – Tests your problem-solving capabilities and flexibility to overcome new challenges and uncertainties.
        – Makes you aware of global trends and issues, giving you the tools to become a global citizen.
        – Helps you discover yourself, stand by your beliefs and values, making you more self-aware of your identity.
        – Provides an opportunity to improve your negotiation skills, since some of these destinations see haggle as part of daily life.
        – Introduces you to different ideas, processes and work habits that you can take back to apply in your home country.
        – Enables you to build a global network to spread your wings throughout the world.
        – Adds a unique point to your CV to help you stand out from the rest.
        – Provides an opportunity to learn and develop language skills.
        – Gives you an advantage over other candidates, since employers are actively looking for candidates with international experience, to help with interacting with people abroad (whether suppliers, partners or customers).

      • equality says:

        @Juniper Well, her diplomatic “bona fides” are more impressive than popped out of the correct birth canal.

    • Mimi says:

      Th Obamas attended (collectively) Columbia, Princeton, and Harvard. President Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review. Please don’t denigrate one couple to boost another.

      • art maven says:

        This.

      • Lucy says:

        This part. Imagine thinking the Obamas don’t have an interesting story “…beyond being the first AA President and First Lady” like that in an of itself isn’t incredible enough??? Working twice as hard for half as much and then some.

      • WiththeAmericann says:

        Seriously. That was a stunning comment. Oh, just the first AA president, who won two terms and passed the very first affordable healthcare law in our country, ending the days of small business people and contractors having no insurance, expanding Medicaid so more were covered, make it free for women to get yearly well women checks, made birth control covered by insurance, made it illegal for insurance companies not to provide the service we pay them for (which they did all of the time even with pre approval of a surgery or test)…

        Jfc. He changed everyone’s lives for the better.

      • Becks1 says:

        I agree that we do not need to denigrate one couple to lift up the other. They have had very different lives and very different paths and the only big similarity is that the Obamas are Black as is Meghan and they all have Netflix deals.

        That said, I think the person who made that comment may not be American, because she said she didn’t follow them and just did a quick scroll on wiki, but I think a lot of the stuff she said is common knowledge for a lot of Americans?

    • Juniper says:

      @Jaded, I agree that those are all great things. An internship at an embassy can certainly be a meaningful personal experience and good resume builder. But anything that gets leaned this heavily on twenty years later has to be more than a 3 month stint with questionable exposure to the inner workings of diplomacy. At least during the 6 years I worked at an embassy the rotating cast of interns were generally more interested in attending receptions and hitting the town than the often tedious work of foreign affairs. And honestly, there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what an intern should do. But let’s not overdo the credentials-burnishing.

      • equality says:

        Burnishing? Everyone who has served such an internship would be certain to highlight it on a resume along with other accomplishments.

      • Cate says:

        Seriously? I’m the same age as Meghan and at this point in my career I have removed college internships from my resume because I need the space to highlight more recent professional accomplishments. Not that those internships (both mine and Meg’s) weren’t great and even prestigious, but there’s only so much you can fit on a 1-2 page resume and it’s better to spend the space on things that highlight who I am now, not who I was 20 years ago.

        That said, interning at an embassy is certainly more impressive and heavyweight than anything Kate did in her university years.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Juniper, it would be interesting to know what you would say if we ignored the internship. What would you denigrate then?

  11. Naomi says:

    Is “industry insider” the american version of “royal sources”? because industry insiders–at netflix, penguin, spotify– in fact are DELIGHTED at what a cash cow H&M are. industry cares about $$, and the Sussexes bring it.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Naomi, that’s what I saw when I read it. I wonder how up in the company those industry insider are? We’ll never know because they didn’t name sources. I see they used “reported”, too. They’re taking a book out of the bm’s playbook. I thought better of VF. Now I know better.

      Did anyone else read the part about lifestyle and Africa as future projects as someone who doesn’t know a thing about what they will be doing? These are just guesses or should I say talking points. Does the brf really think this article is going to make a difference.

      I suggest that everyone in their palaces up their alcohol consumption and stay silent. This is bordering on the absurd.

    • Jais says:

      Is vanity fair still friends with Tina Brown? This sounds like some ish she would say. Although she would prob put her name to it.

  12. Woke says:

    The question of either they even want to build a media empire is an interesting one. I’ve been asking that myself. I think if their deals expire they wouldn’t renew them and would just focus on the philanthropy part.
    The article is believable to me but I don’t think this come from people who have their best interests at heart in the first place.
    I believe if the Sussexes had started with projects unrelated to the royals and the success would’ve been mild the same people would have complained about why they didn’t lean to their stories as royals for maximum success.

    • JustStop says:

      I believe the media empire is being established and will continue because it aligns with and brings so much attention to their philanthropic goals. Archetypes, Live to Lead, H&M (introducing them beyond the British caricature), and the coming Heart of Invictus are all part of this. Even Harry’s memoir is part of this. If you look beyond the noise of all the jealous people who call it “whiny” and a “pity party,” it falls right in line with his work exposing media disinformation. And in large part, I think that’s what these mainstream media stories are about. Corporate media has been binging on and regurgitating right-wing media narratives the last few years, and Harry making people think about media and its role more critically here in the US is frightening AF to them.

  13. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Meghan had a series called Pearl that was shelved by Netflix. That was not about either of them and was looking outward. I’m sure they had a clever mix of both inward and outward-facing content, with the inward stuff to faze out relatively quickly.

    Anyway, Meghan and lifestyle content?!! Yes, please! I’ve said that from the beginning!

    • Yup, Me says:

      I keep saying that I would LOVE to see a show that focuses on their process of putting together a few of their projects – similar to the documentary First Monday in May about the Met Gala.

    • Flower says:

      I wonder if that was a Netflix carrot and stick strategy to get them onboard?

      • dee(2) says:

        Not cancelling Pearl. They got rid of their entire animation department; Pearl was caught up in that. It sounded great through, and the people who worked on it sounded very enthused about the project, so I hope they are pitching it elsewhere.

    • Jan says:

      Netflix didn’t only cancel Pearl, it close down that department and everything in it.

  14. Lia says:

    I really doubt that execs are shaking their heads at the Suxesses and if anything they have taken note of their extreme success and marketability. That said, I have noticed that for the general audience who unlike us haven’t followed royal gossip and the whole ordeal Meghan and Harry have been through for the past years, all these back to back projects on their personal life might feel like oversaturation. For instance, I do wish that the documentary had dedicated a bit more time to setting up Archewell and giving an insight into what’s next for them. I did enjoy Meg’s podcast a lot because it gave her a space to showcase her interests and passions and what kind of player she can be in the media landscape, so I look forward to the projects they have curated related to their interests.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      I would imagine that for the average person it might feel like over saturation but we need to remember that the people has been force-feed hundreds of thousands of negative articles over the last 6 years so to them Meg and Haz have been everywhere when in fact they’ve been nowhere.

    • MsIam says:

      It’s the “general audience “ that is watching the shows and buying the book. That is a deranger talking point that “ it’s only a small handful of people “ who like and follow the Sussexes.

      • Lia says:

        I never said it was only a handful of people who like them, but I pointed out that even people who like them might feel like they are oversaturated with back to back projects on their personal life/what happened with the Royals. It also happens often with actors/singers having back to back projects to promote or Oscar campaigns, where the general audience feel like they are over exposed.

      • MsIam says:

        And where do you get that assumption that people feel they are over saturating things? A sign of fatigue and over saturation is when sales and interest start declining. They’ve put out a documentary on themselves and Harry put out a book and has done four interviews. And is on People magazine. It’s way less promotion than most actors do for a movie. And most authors do promotion, look at Michelle Obama’s multi city tour. Which was international. How often have Tom Bowers, Angela Latrine, Jobson, etc been on TV hawking their crap books? As far as your comment about actors/ singers hawking their stuff, the industry came up with this formula for promotion and they haven’t changed it yet so it must work. But don’t worry, the Sussexes are probably off on a well deserved vacation until the next project or podcast comes out.

      • Becks1 says:

        If people were tired of them Spare wouldn’t already be the best selling book of the year (meaning for all of 2023, I think Spare is going to be #1 or #2 for the whole year.)

  15. susan says:

    If Harry’s appearance on Colbert is any indicator, he has a ton of prospects if he wants to be a media figure. He’d be amazing doing docu stuff- a la Attenborough as you said. His dearest causes are in Africa, and there’s so much he can say and do on those. He’s proven himself to be fearless, capable and highly telegenic.

  16. SunRae says:

    The Sussexes have a monopoly on their own brand and story. It’s actually quite rare. Most media personalities are owned by someone. Hell, the royals are clearly owned. Though one could argue the same about the Netflix and Spotify contracts, it’s pretty clear that those two negotiated well and aren’t having to debase themselves to fulfil them.

    No one who watched the documentary knows what Archie looks like close up past a certain age. Lili even less so. They’ve managed to come out of this incredibly (and with dignity) despite the odds. They were supposed to resort to trashy reality TV and slim tea deals and now Spare’s outselling Obama’s memoir. They’ve won and everyone who missed the boat is bitter.

    Just a bunch of bitter, broke hacks. They threw it all away for pegging and buttons. It’s actually embarrassing.

  17. Greter says:

    Might be wrong here but this also sounds a bit like victim shaming or sth like that. All this „pull yourselves together“, „it’s not that bad“, „haven’t you thought about what telling this does to the other side“… sounds so familiar and is an exercise done to victims of all kinds to belittle their experiences.
    Also funny how offended so so many people are (normal people not officials etc) when someone wants to set the record straight on his or hers own experiences. Suddenly biggotted smallmindedness everywhere.

  18. Hadley says:

    You know how Maggie Haberman would get rightly criticized for her Trump PR schtick and other journalists would yell and scream on her behalf about how awful genuine criticism was and ‘how dare they (regular people)’ say anything bad about her? I feel like journalists circle the wagon without even considering that maybe, just maybe, criticism of things like the pact between royals and media is bad for everyone involved. They can’t stand anyone in their industry being called out because they can’t stand the idea of having to be accountable for bad journalism practices and how much work it would be to you know, do better.

    • dee(2) says:

      I think that is a large part of it. Harry’s ire is mainly aimed at the British press, but I have commented here many times about how American soft media ( Cosmo, Elle, Marie Claire, etc.) regurgitate BM stories with just a change in byline. Not to even touch on platforming “royal experts” on the morning shows. This book will be read by a lot of people and will have information passed on to friends/family by those who read it, and they will start to ask questions about our media in the US too when it comes to reporting on the Sussexes. I’m sure there is worry about that.

      • MizzLizz says:

        And Vanity Fair employs Katie Nicholl as its “royal correspondent” and her pieces are full of “insiders” and “sources”…. and part of the system. She’s also all over the TV denying the system of planting stories – as she would. And had a book out this fall “The New Royals” So VF’s take is hardly unbiased.

  19. amyb says:

    the Sarah Lydall piece in the Times was a jit job (she is from the UK) and a sad hit job that had Bettheny Frankel and Meaghan McCain offering their “expert” opinions.

    • Brit says:

      Bethenny and Meghan seem to envy these two simply because they’re more successful. Let’s be real, no one cares for either of these two. Attacking them is not getting them the clout they think it is. They look like haters and it shows.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Sarah Lyall is American. She married a Brit and lived in the UK for over a decade before moving back to the United States. She wrote a fascinating book called The Anglo-Files: A Field Guide to Britain.

      • Nic919 says:

        If she wasted time talking to has been reality star Bethany and nepo kid Meghan McCain then she was looking for a right wing narrative. That’s bad journalism.

  20. Etha says:

    I think there are a lot of jealous execs that see the sussexes success as unfair because these people feel like that success has come to them so soon and yet some of these people have been at it a long time with little success.

  21. anna says:

    it’s so weird people are positioning this as whining – harry is part of the family of the head of state of england and explaining why they had to leave. that is their story. most politicians, celebrities, anyone – their currency is their personal story. and harry and meghan have that in spades, not to mention they’re charismatic and charming. of course media companies are interested.

    plus, harry has a real job? beyond the media work. and meghan has made some investments so I feel like they will be fine – so strange to see americans care so much.

  22. SarahCS says:

    “Why is everyone in such a rush to diminish what’s actually being said and written by the Sussexes?”

    Isn’t that the point? They have exposed SO much that we need to be convinced its NBD and go back to how we were before we were given evidence that the heir to the throne is physically violent and will assault people or that the current queen is actively briefing the media. We suspected most of the big reveals but now we have a first hand account. Its the worst nightmare of all those involved and exposed.

  23. Brit says:

    People need to realize that many were not expecting the Sussexes to succeed. They were not supposed to write successful books, podcasts and have the most viewed docuseries ever. That’s wasn’t supposed to happen. They were supposed to be jokes scraping the barrel for jobs, reality tv gigs etc like Bethenny Frankel or go running back to the royal family. This is coming from a place of shock and surprise. Even then, I doubt this is true. Hollywood cares about money and Harry and Meghan are record breaking money makers. I’m sure Spotify, Netflix and Penguin house would agree.

    • Kate says:

      Yeah and it sounds like these “industry muckety mucks” still want to twist their success into something unsustainable. But even if their future projects aren’t all must-see-tv, does that mean they aren’t successful? That it wasn’t worth them telling their side of the story and putting it on the record? Does it mean they would have been better off shutting up and making nature documentaries without ever clearing the record of all the lies that were printed? In my opinion even if the bio and the Netflix deal were just set ourselves up money I think they have every right to get that cash and security so they can go focus on their “philanthropy busywork” as the article implied their passions are 🙄

  24. Kokiri says:

    Yes, I follow pitchbot. Awesome tweets, totally spot on. The Onion is another one where nowadays, the ironic could be real headlines.

    As for VF, shame on them for posting this drivel.
    As for H&M, and future earnings, maybe they’re not in it for the money. They have money. Clearing his name & taking back his truth is priceless.
    The more people react like VF, the more credence it lends Harry.

  25. Emmi says:

    I’ve watched the Netflix show and finished the book. Both were interesting, well done, and an entirely new perspective on the monarchy. Not because the facts were new but beause we literally heard them from the horse’s mouth. So to speak. And they churned out both within 2 years, while raising small children and turning their entire lives around. Listen, these two can WORK and I have no doubt more interesting things not monarchy-focused are to come.

    I saw on my IG explore page a snippet from Good Morning Britain where a lady (journalist I think?) was INCENSED about the whole thing. And it struck me again what a weird effect these two have on people. The rage is something very foreign to me as it applies to absolute strangers who have done nothing to warrant that rage. This woman was particularly pissed about the book.

    Maybe the Brits are just realizing that they lost some control over this family. I know the RF is filthy rich and privileged but as we now know beyond doubt, it’s not a happy family or life. The public enjoys torturing them it seems and one of them said enough. The person leaving their abusive spouse. The anger is astounding. And the precedent they’ve set is so dangerous for the RF. If Chuck cut someone else off, all they’d have to do was say “Yup, they told the truth. It’s aaaall true.”

    • Brit says:

      They’re incensed because of their hubris. They also feel rejected that a Prince of their country left and is holding a mirror to the whole establishment. Harry is a whistleblower basically. They’re traumatized because they can’t bring the Sussexes to heel. They’ve done everything to embarrass, malign, bully and sabotage and nothing has worked. Not to mention they are stuck with bland and dull royals. Harry and Meghan don’t need them but they need Harry and Meghan and they hate it. Being a local tabloid and reporter, you can’t compete with Tyler Perry, Oprah, Gayle King, Anderson Cooper and Stephen Colbert, Spotify, Netflix and Penguin Random House. They have lost control and the narrative. Tom Bower has been frothing at the mouth to get sued and has said the most horrendous things but he’s not getting the reaction he wants. This is a game to some of these fools too.

    • Jais says:

      I can’t watch the majority of UK morning shows bc it’s deeply uncomfortable. The tone of voice of both the men and women on those shows are so full of vitriol. Even if they’re not yelling, this snobby tone imbues everything they say. They come across as bitter exes and it’s shocking that they don’t see how this is such a bad look. It’s embarrassing for them, imo.

      • Dee Kay says:

        I must say, England has been embarrassing itself on the world stage for years now. Don’t get me wrong, the U.S. also embarrassed ourselves terribly with the Trump era, and there are things every single day that happen here (like mass shootings, ffs) that are absolutely horrifying and embarrassing to us. But England has had Brexit, Teresa May, Bojo, Truss, this billionaire PM, and Sussexit and all this weird hating on H&M while defending the most privileged a–holes on the planet. It’s all kind of a bad look for the country. Plus all this news about the NHS going downhill, people suffering without heat, and the highest number of long COVID cases per capita. Someone over there with some ideas needs to stand up and pull the country together. (And we, over here, need to all stand up and keep this country from falling apart.)

  26. Elizabeth says:

    I would love to see Harry do a documentary on his work in Africa with Sentebale and African Parks and for Meghan to some lifestyle/cooking show. I’m sure that they have a lot of projects in the pipeline. Meghan spoke about her love for romantic comedies in her Variety interview. I could definitely see her and Harry eventually producing some scripted content as well.

  27. Sue E Generis says:

    Why is it only Harry and Meghan who are self-pitying when they talk about their life/experiences? No other person on Earth is referred to this way when they write autobiographies or content about their lives. In fact, the majority of content creation is somebody’s story. Why do people despise hem so much?

    • Brit says:

      They were not supposed to be successful. They are seeing their worst nightmare come true. It’s like their trying to force a reality that does not exist. They keep doing it to themselves. Every time they write articles about how they “flopped” or they’re unpopular, the ratings come out and they have to eat their words and go back to the drawing board. How can you say a person is unpopular but have record breaking interviews and book sales. It’s desperation. Harry and Meghan literally don’t care about these polls. Maybe it’s a coping mechanism for the haters but it’s pathetic.

  28. Brassy Rebel says:

    I’m sure the Sussexes will be crying all the way to the bank. Even if it were true that there’s no more they can do to make big bucks, why would it matter? They have made so much 💰 already, they can probably live comfortably for the rest of their lives. They won’t just sit back and let the 💰 roll in, but they could.

    It’s true that elements of American media are as pro royal as the British. Vanity Fair is often one of the worst. Interestingly, they did give Spare a very good review.

  29. WiththeAmericann says:

    I think it’s because Conde Nast, which owns Vanity Fair, New Yorker, Reddit, and tons more, caters in its magazines to wealthy people who identify with the royals the way American press identifies and defends the wealthy here.

    American media defended Brett Kavanaugh but treats BLM, Occupy, womens rights protests.

    The media is owned by the 1% in both countries. So that’s what we get.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I was thinking the same thing. The Vanity Fair crowd love the establishment of which they include the royals. Another thing, Harry and Meghan is destroying “magic” of royalty which magazines like Vanity Fair love to write about and promote.

      • WiththeAmericann says:

        Completely. I just started noticing a bunch of magazines pushing this lifestyle crap like we are all millionaires and out biggest problem is how to get the right hand carved Ivory pipe for our yacht. They were all Condé Nast pubs.

        Maybe we used to enjoy this stuff and believe in it? I don’t know if it was the pandemic or what but I don’t want to read or watch “magical rich establishment people” stories.

  30. ❌❌❌Tart ❌❌❌ says:

    🧐If these executives making such claims exist, then each of these men/women are cowards who will let their family or anyone have a go at their own spouse and kids.

  31. Lizzie says:

    I imagine these are the same ‘insiders’ who came out of the woodwork when H&M signed with Netflix and Spotify to say they were naive to sign contracts without the advice of the palace courtiers and would come to regret being taken advantage of. If so, their analysis is proven to be worth less than the paper it’s written on.

  32. Rapunzel says:

    I call BS on this. Oversaturation? Harry/Meghan did a documentary and Harry a memoir. Harry also did media interviews for it. A book tour involves the author talking about the book over and over. This is pretty standard practice.

    This is made up crap or these Industry insiders are jealous they missed out on the success.

    With each predictable attack, it becomes more and more clear there’s a hate campaign afoot.

  33. CC says:

    I’m sure it was clearly communicated to the team Harry and Meghan worked with at Netflix what they wanted their documentary to be, and the fact that Harry had a memoir about to be published wasn’t a secret. However, executives not working directly with them at Netflix might be frustrated that they put together a rather sweet story of their love, and then Harry airs all of the really juicy stuff through a different medium just a couple months later.

    • MsIam says:

      The documentary probably drove the book sales even more and the book will drive views back to documentary which is still in the top 10. The views are over a billion and a half now. Nobody is unhappy except of course the Rota, the Unroyals, Bethenney, Megyn, Piers, etc. Ha!

    • Petra (Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

      @CC, have you considered the stories in the series and the memoir are both correct and truth?The series covered the joy of their love story and memoir is telling of the sadness and hardship they were experiencing at the same time. I’m still waiting for my book so I can’t really talk about the details of the book. And the series was not all about fun, they touched on the drama that happened too. I’m glad the series focus on the love… their love story. It showed their love deserved fighting and leaving BRF for. They were having the best and worse time of their concurrently.

  34. Mavsmom31 says:

    Seeing the BM talking points on every story about Harry and Meghan disgusts me! It’s clear that the wagons are being circled and folks have decided the Sussexes are a fad and that their long term bets should stay on the Monarchy for access. We fought a whole war of Independence to free ourselves from funding this family and having no say in our future. You would think we’d be supportive of other independent thinkers. I know longer believe that industry people know best. It’s going to take some time but I believe the House of Sussex has the ability to be an established and reliable brand.

  35. Wendy says:

    “A third power player concurred, “I am hearing that they are oversaturated. Everyone in our business is like, ‘Shut up, it’s enough already.’ But of course everyone is still rabidly following it.””

    That, right there, is all I needed to see to know that the entire VF article is bullshit. Whether it’s because VF caters to a demographic that likes to imagine themselves as royalty-adjacent and therefore the Sussexes must be stifled out of necessity, whether it’s the inherent conservativism in American media combined with a widespread cultural backlash against welcoming any discussion about abuses of power and accountability for abuse… it’s all bullshit. Looking at the writer’s Twitter feed, he gets almost no engagement (which is incredibly sad given how many of his tweets are trying to hype up the book he released last year). His tweet promoting this VF article got a whopping 33 likes and 23 replies, the most engagement he’s had in MONTHS. Dude is pathetic.

    • AnneL says:

      Exactly!

      I was about to post on that same tidbit. Does this person not realize the contradiction?! It’s actually hilarious.

      It’s like that joke where an old couple are at a restaurant. One says “The food here is terrible” and the other replies “I know, and such small portions!”

    • QuiteContrary says:

      I was going to comment on that, too, LOL.

      Management at Conde Nast, which publishes VF and a bunch of other magazines, used to be heavily populated by Brits. Not sure if that’s still the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Bitter hacks.

      • SomeChick says:

        I have friends who worked for a magazine that was bought by Conde Nast. They all referred to it as “Conde Nasty.”

  36. Diamond Rottweiler says:

    Not a stretch to me to understand these kinds of comments from Hollywood power brokers as expressions of their fear—H & M are speaking truth to power, and power has a vested collective interest in silencing people who “tell.” Because clearly the viewing numbers don’t support these evaluations. All these comments seem like defensive projections based on feelings, not box office.

  37. Emily_C says:

    Vanity Fair has fallen off a cliff since Graydon Carter left, and it just keeps falling. When the new editor, Radhika Jones, was appointed, I saw a lot of journalists who watch journalism saying, basically, “uh-oh.” She’s a good writer but had very little editorial experience. And she has been taking advice from Tina Brown.

    • Solidgold says:

      Graydon Carter is awful.

      • SomeChick says:

        He called it on T***p years ago. “Short fingered vulgarian.”

        Unfortunately it wasn’t enough. But he was right.

        And VF has indeed gone downhill in the meantime.

  38. AnneL says:

    I am so sick of these people in the American journalism world taking up for the British Toffs and Tories. It’s rampant, though sometimes insidious.

    Someone observed that journalists seem to circle the wagons for each other, as with Maggie Haberman. That’s true. Unless one really thinks the other journo is a poor writer or has a bad history with them, their instinct is to defend and fire back.

    A guy I knew from college was canned from his job for publishing a nut job politician’s piece on the Oped page of his paper. This was really just the straw that broke the camel’s back, because he had come under fire for poor management skills and sexism already. Of course he landed on his feet elsewhere.

    My sister’s husband is a writer, as is she. He (the husband) claimed this person had been “lynched by a woke mob.” Those exact words.

  39. Case says:

    The people they interviewed aren’t being vicious or taking sides, though. They’re saying that gossip sells but the sustained success and shelf life of that is limited. People buying Harry’s book or watching the Netflix documentary can’t be conflated with support, because people just want the tea. It’s not indicative of how their other projects will perform, is what they’re saying, so they’re wondering what their success will be when they move beyond this into other projects.

    • C says:

      If someone gives money to someone they hate or don’t support that’s their stupidity, lol. And the money is what matters. And the Sussexes are making money. I guarantee you Harry’s publishing house, Spotify, Netflix, don’t give a f*** why people are tuning in or buying the book – they care that they are in the first place. And that’s always happened with Harry and Meghan. They have ALWAYS made money. You’re trying to say “they’re wondering what their success will be”. That’s been the “wonder” of certain people since 2020. It’s not giving any sign of slowing down. So these executives are doing what the British media is doing. Saying up is down and black is white. And the “oversaturation” is at this point a giveaway. Frankly in my opinion, Harry’s appearances for this book aren’t disproportionate given the records the sales are making.

      • Case says:

        But I’m not saying that people who bought the book and watched the documentary actively hate or don’t support H&M, though. I’m saying people like gossip and will pay for a good juicy read. Beyond that, they simply might not have strong feelings about Harry or anyone else in the family. Right now, a lot of people buying the book are just like “this is messy, tell me more!” Which is why the success of their projects thus far make it difficult to gauge how their success moving forward will be, when they leave the royal messiness behind and focus on other things.

        I’m sure Netflix and co. are thrilled and don’t care about the whys right now, but it’s also not strange to be wondering about long-term sustainability here. People care about Harry talking smack about his dad and brother; but they might not care enough to stick around and learn about his philanthropy, you know? They certainly might, but what these executives are saying is that there’s nothing to really gauge that, because what they’re putting out now and what they’re putting out in the future seem very different.

      • C says:

        Them saying that is nonsensical and there is plenty to gauge that. Meghan’s Vogue issue was one of the best sellers. Her SmartWorks capsule collection sold out immediately. The Invictus games are huge internationally. The Grenfell cookbook sold massively. None of that was about royal family tea. Out of all the awards and recognition they’ve received, none of it was for royal family tea. They have a golden touch, and these executives know it and are bitter they missed out on it. There is absolutely no indication that the popularity of the docuseries and this memoir are a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Case I see what you are saying but I think they’ll be fine in the long run. Archetypes was a hit both because Meghan was front and center in it, obviously, and because it tackled interesting topics and she got some big names as guests. I think Heart of Invictus will do very well both because of the subject matter and because at the end of the day, despite what people say, people still love Harry and will tune in to watch him.

        And I think eventually as they get more established they’ll be less front and center in their projects, and they’ll all be more like Live to Lead, where H&M are involved but more just as producers than a starring role obviously. I

        Will everything they do or write be a smash hit? Probably not. But I think they will have more hits than misses which is what the industry cares about.

      • Petra (Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

        Meghan had at least 5 million dollars before she married Harry. She was a working actor…4th on the call sheet. She had a financially successful blog “The Tig” , and had a clothing collection with Rietmans Canada. Of course she wasn’t living a life style of the rich 1% but she was not a pauper. Her life style before Harry was better than 80% of the Canadian /American/ British population.

        It saddens me that with all of the attacks from the BM, RR, and now AM the successful life and hard work of Meghan are being diminished. She had a life and a very good life she earned.

    • Emily_C says:

      Meghan’s children’s book was a bestseller, and she was very successful before marrying Harry. Try again.

      • equality says:

        And her podcast was successful without spilling royal stuff, unlike Mike Tindall’s.

      • Emmi says:

        Case wrote a thoughtful comment and this is your answer? Try again? Okay.

        Meghan’s book was released when she was a Duchess already. She was very successful before marrying Harry because she was on a long-running network show. That allowed her to go into lifestyle and to do philanthropic work. Her success was based on being an actress and then on being a Duchess. She never did The Tig in a vacuum. Her projects during her time in the UK were in large part successful because of her title. That’s not a dig, this is what royalty is about. Use your title. I do believe they will be successful in the future, as I wrote above but I have no idea what that will look like because as long as they are in the public eye, the royals won’t stop and there will always be demand for more gossip. They may well want to end this chapter but will people let them? This has all been super explosive so whatever they do next needs to be excellent.

      • C says:

        Yet, the podcast was a smash hit. That was after they left. The Invictus games last year were a massive success. That was after they left. So if we’re making the argument that their royal association and then the royal gossip is what drove their successes, those are two examples that quite strongly disprove it.
        I disagree with the idea her projects were successful because of her title and I always have. The title gave her projects the necessary spotlight, but there’s a reason nobody bought Kate’s Vogue copy and that everything the other royals do falls flat.

      • Emily_C says:

        “Her success was based on her being an actress” — you mean, her work? What else is success supposed to be based on? Is it supposed to just sort of be bestowed from on high somehow?

        Meghan’s projects were not successful because of her title. That’s nonsense on its face — look at how “successful” Will and Kate’s projects have been. Meghan’s projects were successful because she put in the work, and has the ability and drive to make them successful. Did she get a boost from Harry? Meh, in some things. Her fame skyrocketed, certainly. She would never have been doing stuff in Britain in the first place if she hadn’t married him. But she worked and she knows what she’s doing.

        Most of the world does not give one fine damn about British titles. The fame of some of the royal family, sure, but it’s not the titles. It’s the wealth, the crimes, the scandals, the history, and the trainwreck. Harry and Meghan are now cared about for themselves. Which, of course, their lives are intertwined with the BRF, especially Harry’s. That’s what happens with family. But saying their success is because they have these silly titles is ludicrous.

      • Tan says:

        @Emmi – Kate is a royal and her projects go nowhere and ppl don’t buy out her magazine covers. Kate and Wills are royals and their earthshot should have done better than 332 views after they paid bots to bump it to 3.2 M. The sussex royal ig was immensely popular until the Wails artificially bumped up their followers and then used bots to comment. So if all it’ takes is royal titles to be popular it should be neck and neck not football stadiums worth of distance between the 2

      • equality says:

        Ed and Sophie were royals and higher up in line when they were running businesses but they had to be bailed out by TQ.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        I think “long-term sustainability” is something Meghan and Harry have considered. They’re just not going to spill their plans before they’re ready.

        They’ve already made enough money that, if, reasonably well invested, should keep them in fancy bathrooms for decades to come. And good for them!

      • Petra (Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

        @Emmi, No! Their next work doesn’t have to be excellent. Why use a different metric to judge them? Why is everyone else with a royal tittle allowed to fail or be just good enough?

      • Emmi says:

        @Petra: LOL You’re advocating for them being mediocre?

        I said what I said, of course their titles have something to do with the success of their projects. I can’t believe we’re debating this.

    • Eurydice says:

      The people they’ve interviewed are, all except one, in the entertainment industry, which has money as its metric for success. I would say that providing diapers to a local shelter is a success, but Hollywood wouldn’t think so. It’s up to Harry and Meghan to decide what a successful life means to them.

      • Case says:

        Eurydice, I’m referring to the article and what the industry people quoted are saying when I talk about success. I’m not referring to Harry and Meghan’s personal view of success. Personally, they’re successful because they’re living a beautiful life in California and seem very happy.

    • TangerineTree says:

      The Sussexes have been setting the record straight regarding the collusion between the royal family members and the British media. By doing so, they are metaphorically sweeping house and will continue to do business transparently. They do not play the “leak and lie about other royals to the British press/royal rota” game. This was important for them to establish before they continue with all of their work through Archewell.
      I’m having a hard time buying this “industry executives are concerned” angle – it sounds too much like “palace sources” as some have noted above. As with many other publications and media, Vanity Fair changed and is now trashy. That’s sad, but it is important to recognize businesses don’t stay the same, and VF has been crap for a while now.

  40. Isa says:

    “ nor have they got a particularly illustrious list of achievements to their names”
    They have plenty of achievements, not Obama level, but plenty.
    This is one of the things that bugs me most is that people only pay attention to when they talk about the royal family and then complain they’re one note. No, YOU are with your weaponized ignorance.

  41. Amy Bee says:

    This is piece is weird. Variety had a similar piece and they had to revamp it about an hour after it was posted because Netflix had announced the Live to Lead docuseries.

  42. Liz Version 700 says:

    I actually canceled my subscription to VF because their coverage of the Sussexes was so unhinged it made me wonder what else they aren’t objective about. Harry is telling the secrets and boy a lot of folks don’t like it

  43. crazyoldlady says:

    oh, some industry executives are raking it in at the Sussex “pity party,” and those that are not are jealous to have never been invited. In a world dominated by nonsensical reality tv – let’s not pretend that the Sussexes have gone too far — they could never go too far or share too much. Welcome to the world we live in now. Get that bread Harry and Meghan – and live your truth!

  44. Saucy&Sassy says:

    “Given that their constituency is young, progressive, minority, I think there’s probably quite a lot more for them to do.”

    This is what becomes the biggest problem for the brf, because they DON’T have this constituency. If you think about it, who will be favorably viewed in the long run? It isn’t going to be the brf.

    Someone posted above that the author’s twitter isn’t getting engagement, which is par for the course for him. It looks like there might be some hungry people who want to cash in on the hate Sussex train. I hope that the docuseries and book have created a more level playing field and people are using critical thinking when reading this stuff.

  45. Mina_Esq says:

    How many movies and documentaries about Diana have we had, yet people still want more? People love royal intrigue. It won’t get old.

  46. art maven says:

    This is odd. Usually media investors try to court successful prospects rather than denigrate them?

  47. Kathleen says:

    I’ve noticed US media hiring UK writers to report on the Sussexes. It is almost uniformly negative coverage from Katie Nicholl at VF, Tom Sykes at The Daily Beast, and Tina Brown for example. There is a schism developing among American vs. American based UK journalists especialy in Murdoch owned publications Those who support the Sussexes and write critically of the monarchy as an institution in the 21st century , UK racism, and toxic British media culture, and those that concentrate on the Sussexes personally and don’t make the broader connections.

    I see the British Tabloid culture creeping into US media more than ever. If hate sells then let’s join in. Concentrate on individuals and personal take downs so we don’t have to discuss economic fairness, racism, classism, corruption, and toxic media’s part in all of it. Murdoch owned media is the root of it and I hope US journalists will fight back and keep the focus on the larger issues the Sussexes have brought up.

    • Tan says:

      Slate has a writer named Alicia Montgomery whose pretty anti Sussex too, using the old black ppl think and feel etc (she’s white of course) On a funny note she also did sub into a dear prudence where the commentary tore her to shreds for saying it was ok to let an innocent bystander be abused by a community because her neighbor was mourning the death of her toddler son. Wild case of of a broken empathy meter

      • amyb says:

        Alicia is not white she is black. And most of her writing is from the perspective that Megan is whining about racism because she had not really experienced racism because she could pass for white and she really had no black friends who could of told her about racism. It borders on victim blaming TBH.

  48. Wendy says:

    Well… since it was just announced that sales for Spare have broken the Guinness World Record for fastest selling non-fiction book worldwide, I truly don’t need to take this silly man seriously.

  49. zazzoo says:

    In what world does scandal and drama reduce one’s marketability? H & M have made all the right moves to build a media empire. I’m not saying that’s their goal, but if it is, they have our attention. I’m sure their next move will be well considered and thoughtful, but whatever they do next, they have an eager audience.

  50. L4Frimaire says:

    Why are these people even worried about what the Sussexes will do next? If all they ever do going forwards is Invictus Games and Archetypes, I’m actually fine with that. All these concern trolls are so obsessed with what they’re going to do next and waiting for their irrelevancy, while desperate for the next project.

  51. Dee Kay says:

    Haters of H&M write about them as if H&M’s fortunes were dependent on press approval. But H&M are virtually independent of what critics think of them, b/c they produce their own content now. All they have to do is get audiences to consume the content they put out, and that, they do. The numbers of people who are reaching for their content are consistently very high — everything they have put out so far is a hit by any metric. So critics can keep whining and dumping on them. They don’t matter to H&M. As long as H&M have people listening, buying, reading, watching them, they’re all good. And in terms of getting people interested, I actually think the negative press helps. It keeps H&M on people’s minds and gives fans something to push back on.

    • K says:

      I don’t think the press is really negative. Major outlets have reviewed the book and praise it for being well-written. They praise the ghostwriter, but they also realize that most of the wit and insight comes from Harry himself, that it’s his voice.

      One thing is, all the reviews also note how incredibly *sad* this book is. And I think that’s the limitation. He’s told his story, and it was an important story, a significant historical document. But then where does he go from here?

      • Emily_C says:

        What on earth is the problem with telling a sad story? Is everyone supposed to put on happy clappy all the time? That’s a cult.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        K, he goes on with his life. If the brf continue to smear Meghan and him, then he will need to consider whether to publish the other 400 pages that he took out of the first book because it would be worse for his father and brother. He’s stated that he knew there would be no possibility of reconciliation if he published everything.

        Harry has no place else to go but up. He and Meghan will continue to do the things they are passionate about, whether that’s through the Netflix and Spotify or their philanthropy through their Foundation.

        IMO, the reason everyone is remarking on how sad the book is is because no one looking in from the outside had any idea how incredibly sad his life was. Fortunately, that’s in the past.

  52. Solidgold says:

    A few in the media really want Harry and Meghan to fail. If they fail, then what?

  53. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I mean, . .. yeah, I agree that Harry and Meghan are not as accomplished as the Obamas. But who is? Certainly not anyone in the royal family. Harry and Meghan are more accomplished than Piglet and Wiglet, and Charles and his mistress-turned-wife, and, well, basically all of them. THAT is the true comparison.

  54. NotSoSocialB says:

    This may have been expressed above, and my apologies for that, but,

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- as *IF* Meg wanted an new lifestyle blog when she had the platform she tried to avail herself of (while KP tried to shred her to bits). JFC, the brit media is so damn embarrassing, holy cow.

  55. Myeh says:

    If I was on Twitter I would tweet these twits FAKE NEWS and like all the pro Sussex stuff out of sheer spite.

  56. blunt talker says:

    Harry and Meghan have every right to speak up and correct the historical record-some historians have already said the Netflix documentary and Harry’s autobiography will be a great sources for a record when talking about the Sussexes-Harry and Meghan want to make sure their children see these projects as a future reference about the tension between their parents and the royal family of the UK

  57. Julia K says:

    I hope he writes a second book and includes all the stuff he left out of the first one. ” You think this is bad? Wait, there’s more” ; that will keep them all in a tizzy for the foreseeable future. Sleep well, RF.

  58. CheChe says:

    An opinion piece in the Washington Post has joined the band wagon of wanting to silence the Sussexes. Why didn’t these same writers have this energy for the daily six year smears of Meghan? She was an American citizen that brought a heightened attention to the royals but she got no real support for her journey. These writers want to slam the couple for taking back their own narrative. Journalistic stupidity is on full display now when you gaslight someone’s truth to support a royal propaganda machine. It’s time to cancel the Post.

  59. j.ferber says:

    So many newspapers I formerly liked: The Washington Post, CNN, The New York Times, have really disappointed me in their snarky, derogatory essays on H and M. I liked Roxanne Gay’s piece in the NYT, but other essays have trashed them all too willingly. Too much reliance on their British sources, I guess.

    • K says:

      Perhaps you are correct. But that’s the prevailing mood, and it will affect their overall popularity going forward. Is there really more demand for this type of content from them now?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        K, it’s the prevailing mood where? I don’t think this is going to affect their popularity going forward. Don’t assume because there are a few negative opinion pieces and derangers commenting on them that that is the prevailing mood. People who chose to watched the interviews. Obviously, the book is a huge success, which people will learn about Harry and his lived experience while in the UK with the brf.

        Harry’s docuseries Heart of Invictus will be out this Summer and who knows what else H&M will be doing. I think the real question you should be asking is whether the brf and bm will stop the smear campaign. There are the ones who have been responsible for the non-ending articles of the Sussexes. All they have to do is stop. It’s that simple. The saturation of the negative articles of the Sussexes, IMO, are causing reader burnout. It’s going to be difficult for them going forward, because there will be no one to leak stories. They might want to try a new strategy.

  60. j.ferber says:

    A good example of what i just said above: Maureen Dowd’s “A Fractured Fairy Tale” in today’s New York Times.

    • Emily_C says:

      Maureen Dowd is a piece of work. She’s one of those “proud centrist” types.

      • Deering24 says:

        Ugh–Dowd did a lot to make Trump look like a funnee eccentric millionaire instead of the nuthead he is. She’s a prime example of that old saying, “Cleverness isn’t wisdom.”

      • K says:

        Yes, she’s a hack.

    • Bings says:

      Actually her piece started off with a rehashing of negative but her tone changed towards the end to one of perhaps grudging understanding.

  61. AC says:

    I think American media tries to balance themselves. It was also the NYT that wrote an article last month that WK Boston trip didn’t impress the locals which offended some of the British outlets . I still think the US is still more pro-Harry and Meghan compared to the UK. Goes back to majority Americans don’t like Bullies no matter who they are.
    The US media has a balance vs the British press which is obviously providing propaganda for the BRF.
    And Many People distrust a lot of the media these days as they provide too much of their own spin . People can make their own judgement for themselves.

  62. Kate says:

    Because they’re boring? 😂

  63. robin samuels says:

    From which industries do these complainants emerge? I suspect they’re from those in the categories of failed or failing. Many are in the media industry, such as newspapers, magazines, and books. When you boarded an NYC subway train or bus, I recall that most passengers were reading either the NYTimes, NYPost, Daily News, or Wall Street Journal. Today, most passengers are staring at the screen of a phone. You can get a newspaper after 5 pm; that’s a new norm. The number of media organizations wanting an interview with either Sussex or both is a secret. Several royal reporters hosted podcasts about the royal family, mainly about Harry and Meghan, are left with an audience of trolls and “bitter Betties.” Robert Jobson has written books attempted to write a book about Archie even though he has never been in the presence of this child. How many of the countless books written about members of the RF, Princess Diana exempt, has made the NYTimes #1 bestseller? Harry has interfered with their ability to make money. That article is another version of “According to inside sources.”

  64. Mary Pester says:

    SCAM ALERT, SCAM ALERT it has just been announced on British television that Jeremy Clarkson has emailed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to apologise for what he wrote about Megan. The obvious SCAM in this, is WHO gave him their email address??????