Prince Harry & Meghan named as two of the ‘losers’ of 2023 by THR

A lot of publications are already running their “best and worst of the year” listicles, which I think is too early. The year-end listicles should go up around Christmas, and no, I will not explain. The Hollywood Reporter released their “Biggest Hollywood Winners and Losers of 2023” list several days ago, but it’s only getting picked up now by the British media. Guess why? The listicle reporter, James Hibberd, included the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as one of his “losers” of the year. You can see the piece here – the winners are Taylor Swift, Greta Gerwig, the Vegas Sphere, Fran Drescher, Margot Robbie, horror films, Jenna Ortega and silver foxes. Losers included: Bob Iger/Disney, AI, Yellowstone, the Scream franchise, Marvel, Twitter and the Sussexes. Here’s THR’s blurb about the Sussexes:

Lost — Harry and Meghan
In 2020, the royal duo fled a life of ceremonial public service to cash in their celebrity status in the States. But after a whiny Netflix documentary, a whiny biography (Spare — even the title is a pouty gripe) and an inert podcast, the Harry and Meghan brand swelled into a sanctimonious bubble just begging to be popped — and South Park was the pin. The show’s 20-minute “World-Wide Privacy Tour” takedown in March was savage, and was followed by Spotify dropping Archetypes, with a top executive labeling the duo “grifters.” Still, all the scorn and mockery beats otherwise having to attend 200-plus official royal family engagements a year, which sounds hellish.

[From THR]

… The Netflix docuseries came out in 2022, as did Archetypes, and both were very successful (last year). The one big thing on the Sussexes’ plate this year was Harry’s memoir, which was a bestseller and one of the biggest publishing success stories of the year. I actually agree that the Spotify/Bill Simmons thing was awful – and the Sussexes completely mishandled it from a PR/communications perspective, and this is further evidence of that, that it’s being included in the “worst of the year” lists. What should have been a larger story about Spotify’s business model changing became solely about the Sussexes. The fact that the Sussexes didn’t push back and let Bill Simmons’ “grifter” remark sit out there, unchallenged, is the biggest mistake they made this year. As for South Park… my god, how much are Trey Parker and Matt Stone paying these people?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

165 Responses to “Prince Harry & Meghan named as two of the ‘losers’ of 2023 by THR”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tessa says:

    The derangers keep obsessing over south park. And going on about the Hollywood reporter article . Spare is a huge success.and harry and Meghan are doing great. T h r like the dm seems to want to cater to the bots and derangers.

    • StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

      I would love for that south park episode to trend on twitter, the one where Prince William gets fckd in the azz on his wedding day, with his own arm I believe lol. We dont get to talk about that too much. It’s unfortunate. Everytime they bring up south park, we should get #PrinceOfPegging going again.

      • LivingDesert says:

        That! 100 %. It can’t be got out there often enough. 🙂

      • Beverley says:

        It’s KKKhate’s arm. And Will tears it off right after they leave the church immediately after their wedding ceremony and starts pegging himself in front of the crowds of well-wishers. It’s a scream🤪😝😛🤣

    • PrincessK says:

      First of all Spare was the fastest selling book of all time, and broke other records.

      Second, when people laugh about South Park (an awful show) lampooning the Sussexes l direct them to the episodes that targeted the Queen and also the one about Willy and Katie, where Willie seems to be ‘pegging’ her, far more outrageous in my view. It seems that some people knew about the ‘pegging’ rumours many years ago.

    • swaz says:


      • Beverley says:

        ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾 THIS

      • Museum Lady and the Law says:

        I called THR just now and no one is answering, and their VM is full. Hopefully others are calling too.

      • Jojo says:

        Exactly. Another ‘on the bandwagon’ opportunistic article using their names to garner attention. As with the juvenile South park programme I’ll be simply ignoring this THR diatribe and the UK media’s inevitable re-hashing of its comments.

      • Sketchy says:

        That’s exactly what I thought. The only reason to put them on this list at all is to drive clicks.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Right. If their names weren’t mentioned it would have just been a list. There’s a certain amount of irony going on in Hibberd’s blurb. Especially since his follow up after H&M was Netflix being a winner. Granted, their docuseries aired Dec. 8, 2022, the viewership numbers carried over into 2023. He also mentioned Wednesday in the Netflix part. The H&M docuseries overtook that for a couple of weeks. They docuseries was a success for Netflix. SPARE was a huge success. By numbers alone-Hibberd is referencing two successful projects as losers?

        And, I’m pretty sure the Suits viewership added to Netflix’s 3rd qtr numbers. If JH wants to pretend Meghan had nothing to do with that. Then he shouldn’t be in the position he is. It’s a great show with excellent actors.

        The lead off,
        Lost — Harry and Meghan
        “In 2020, the royal duo fled a life of ceremonial public service to cash in their celebrity status in the States.”.

        No, dude. They fled for their lives due to the prevalent racism in the British media /BRF, threats against them, security not being a thing for their son, emotional, financial and physical abuse. But, carry on with your ignorance. Have a seat next to Dan Wootton. If you’re lucky, he might have a video of you one day. /s

    • CaptainCrunch says:

      If they were actual “losers” as the article states, they wouldn’t be talking about them. They wouldn’t have tabs continued to put out article after article just to generate revenue. M&H hate is a billion dollar industry. When people stop talking about them is when they become “losers.” No one is taking about Kevin Sorbo or Steven Seagal.

  2. Good lord did the royal cult have someone paid at THR? That would be my guess with this nonsense.

    • Tessa says:

      I am surprised that they did not name the keens as successes including Williams needless appearance in NYC and his not seen jogging in central park

      • Mjane says:

        The Wales aren’t in the entertainment industry. The Sussexes want to be. The Reporter may be wrong on substance but it doesn’t matter. The Reporter is a pretty good barometer and it’s likely that this is the prevailing opinion. Why, for example, weren’t the Sussexes at The Color Purple premiere? At the premiere for Beyoncé’s concert movie?

      • Becks1 says:

        Why would they have been at either? not everyone in Hollywood goes to every premiere.

        the sussexes primary business is philanthropy, and they are much more focused on that than red carpet premieres.

      • Mjane says:

        The Sussexes’ primary business is entertainment. They have a deal with Netflix and they’re slated to produce a movie.

        Why would they have been at either event? They’re high profile events. And allegedly both Tyler Perry and Oprah have close ties to them. Isn’t Tyler Perry Lilibet’s godfather? Why wouldn’t he give their profile a boost, particularly at an event for a movie celebrating the strength and endurance of African-American women?

      • Becks1 says:

        No, their primary focus is philanthropy – Archewell, Invictus. That’s why you see them at high profile events philanthropy events like Kevin Costner’s fundraiser and not at the opening of an envelope. Harry and Meghan have both said that the Netflix deals etc came about as a way to pay for security; Netflix was not their goal when they left the royal family. Are they producers now? Of course. But i think if you asked them to choose which was more meaningful to them, they would say Archewell.

        There is nothing “alleged” about their close ties to either Tyler Perry or Oprah, since as you note, Tyler Perry IS Lili’s godfather, so I’m not sure what your point is. That because they weren’t at a movie premiere for a movie they were not involved with its a sign that they are Hollywood pariahs? why are you assuming they were not invited?

        Meghan went to Beyonce’s concert itself and was clearly considered a VIP there, so again why is it a sign that she’s a pariah because she wasn’t at the premiere?

      • Jais says:

        Hold up, wait, they don’t go to enough movie premieres? That’s the criticism? I’m sorry but this is weak and making laugh😂

      • Nerd says:

        Their main business is philanthropy, evident to their financial report and Archewell that focuses heavily on helping others in various sectors. Entertainment is a small portion of what they do and the small portion they have done has always focused heavily on philanthropy and helping others. They aren’t attached at the hip to Tyler, Beyoncé or Oprah. They are all adults who have lots of interests, endeavors and relationships outside of each other and there is no reason they would go to a premiere just because they have relationships with each other. Some people are more private and choose to spend their time publicly in ways that work best for them and not for trolls or the British media. Neither of them have been known to go to movie premieres so to expect it now just because they are friends with any of the above would be unfair and questionable.

      • Megan says:

        The tabloids would go bonkers if they went to movie premiers. Meghan walked the red carpet at a VF event and the royal reporters had a full on melt down. I don’t think they want to add fuel to the crazy fire that is raging in the UK.

      • Mjane says:

        Entertainment is how they *raise* money to engage in philanthropy.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Mjane – right?

        A lot of hollywood celebs don’t do that. They might support various causes etc but not every hollywood entertainer has established their own foundation that is as active as Archewell already is. They dont need to use entertainment to raise money to engage in philanthropy. They could just raise money to use it for themselves and close down Archewell.

        You’re really trying to make a point here that H&M are hollywood losers bc THR said it when the overall facts just don’t support that.

      • Jaded says:

        @MJane — no, they don’t use *entertainment* to *raise* money. They use documentaries, biographies, op-eds, Invictus, Sentebale, podcasts and other public service-type events to raise money. To lump their good works into mere *entertainment* is to demean their efforts to highlight many good causes as well as their own philanthropic efforts. The very fact that they WEREN’T at two big premieres shows they are not in this for entertainment value and grandstanding.

      • aftershocks says:

        @MJane, you are in error. The Sussexes’ focus is philanthropy and trying to uplift people and communities during these difficult times. No, H&M did NOT need to be at the premieres you mention. We all know Meg is a former actor, so clearly she has a lot of friends and acquaintances in the entertainment industry. Oprah was previously acquaintanted with Harry and was a guest at the Sussex wedding. Later, she worked with Harry on the successful Apple TV mental health documentary, “The Me You Can’t See.” Plus, Oprah is one of H&M’s neighbors in Montecito. If you watched H&M’s Netflix documentary, you would know how their friendship with Tyler Perry evolved. ✨️🙌🏽 💞

        Moreover, fyi: Meg grew up in Hollywood, so she is not a starry-eyed ingenue. Even with her past substantial success in acting, entertainment has never been Meg’s sole focus or passion. It’s more of a side gig, and something she’s very good at. The Sussexes are clearly more interested in leading responsible lives, and in nurturing and raising their children to be kind, compassionate, and independently productive human beings.

        THR are apparently the grifting clout-chasers, with their stale, end-of-year, facile, trivialized commentaries on celebrities. What THR fail to grasp is that H&M are not just celebrities. Their work profile is largely that of philanthropy and human interest concerns. Entertainment will also continue to be a small part of the empire they are building, but chiefly, on the production side, and with a focus on positive uplift, ethics and integrity. Check out the 2023 Archewell Annual Report, and chill. 🫡

      • Becks1 says:

        Their true standing??

        you mean when they were at the Costner fundraiser and gave out an award? You mean when Meghan was in the VIP section at Beyonce, taking selfies with Kelly Rowland and Kerry Washington? When she was sitting next to the CEO of Netflix?

        You might like to think they’re outcasts in hollywood, but they’re not.

        I think anyone with a grain of sense reading this blurb in THR would roll their eyes, the vitriol and desperation is so obvious.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @MJane, the BRF is the OG of reality tv shows. They are in the entertainment industry. I’m thoroughly entertained by the Wales(and others) ineptitude to basic things. Why be concerned about the Sussexes not appearing at a premier? Unless, it’s, of course, that you’re sad they did not because it didn’t give ammunition to shoot them with? Considering pretty much every RR claimed the Sussexes were going to be on every red carpet EVER since they relocated to The WanKs have attended more movie premiers in the last two years. William even had special suede shoes made for one . lol The WanKs also cheerfully posed for pictures with a member of CoS, the lead actor in that movie.

    • Concern Fae says:

      THR is owned by Penske Media, which also owns Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Deadline, and many other industry publications. They were all in for the studios during the strikes, so not surprising that they’d throw in a gratuitous jab at the Sussexes.

      They also recently bought the Golden Globes, which are now being run with zero transparency on how the voting is being run. So, yeah, Penske sucks.

      • ML says:

        Sorry, Concern Fae, I skipped your comment. What you said!

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        I came here to say this. They are basically the studio line, which is to say mega corporations. Those organizations always back the status quo hierarchy like the monarchy and are anti labor and anti human rights at their core.

        So, they value the opposite of what the Sussex stand for.

        If 2024 could be the year of independent media, it would stop all of this fascist sucking up to colonizing power.

    • Flower says:

      ^^ This is exactly what happened.

      I need the real game of thrones to commence between Bill and Chuck so H&M can be left the fluck alone.

      • JanetDR says:

        Right @ Flower?!
        Bring it on! I propose a competition for the laying in of hands to treat The King’s Evil (scrofula IIRC). Whichever heals more people gets to be King now. It’s time to bring it back 🤣🤣🤣

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Most likely. Hibberd has been a fan and has written countless(though there is a number count) articles about South Park. He should know the one involving the Sussexes isn’t the worst lampooning and that there is a certain thumbing of the nose to the contrarians of public figures. You would think that Hibberd would focus more on the Game of Thrones aspect of the BRF between Chuckles & Pegs.

        Hibberd is a fervent fan of GoT. He wrote a book about it. Fire Can’t Kill a Dragon. Maybe he’s trying to journey up more success for his book and is bitter at the success of SPARE.

    • ML says:

      Is Meghan a member of SAG AFTRA? If someone is ticked off in Hollywood as opposed to the general RR bs, there’s a good chance THR would report this from a “studio” perspective.

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t know how it works, but I’m sure she was when she was on Suits. She may not be anymore if she’s more of a producer now and hasn’t acted in years, but I’m assuming some producers are also still in SAG AFTRA (thinking someone like Margot Robbie etc.)

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        I don’t know if she’s still current active member but even if you’re not working in film/tv anymore you get residuals through the union and can chose to keep your membership active. Someone at her level could easily reactivate now of she did drop it (it costs some money once you’ve stopped paying dues to reactivate).

        I would guess her being pro labor is at the heart of the critique from studio aligned media.

        As for Becks question, you can be a member of both guilds like Margot is, and you have to be a member of SAG AFTRA to do work in front of the camera on any union show.

        One variable would be if you’ve worked for a long time and have pension money and healthcare through that guild, which got renegotiated this year so residuals qualify now, though I’m sure people at their level don’t need to worry about things like that.

    • Proud Mary says:

      Mjane, the idea that the Sussexes, who chose to live in Monticeto, rather than LA, care about red carpet appearances is the figment of the imagination of racists who want to ignore the truth of why the couple left the UK. After Harry and Meghan were forced out, and Charles leaked the fact that he had removed their financing, the media released content, including cartoons lampooing the Sussexes, suggesting they were going to be working at Macdonald, in other words, they predicted complete failure. What’s bothering desperate people like you is that quite the opposite has occurred: Meghan’s children’s book was a NY Times best seller, Archytpes WAS a success, Harry and Meghan’s partnership with Netflix IS a continuing success, Spare broke Guiness world records, Archwell is thriving, and seems to be more successful than William and Kate’s foundation. So keep on desperately fantasizing about Harry and Meghan’s failure. I know paid propaganda when I see it, and this THR not nonsence reeks of pay-to-play access journalism.

      • Mjane says:

        Why does Meghan have a Hollywood agent?

      • Becks1 says:

        for the love of pete, no one is saying they dont want to be successful as entertainers – in this case for them, producers – but you are treating this like some kind of “gotcha” moment that it just isnt.

      • Jaded says:

        @MJane — WME represents everything from books to endorsements to television to theater to comedy to voiceovers to digital and to culinary. Give up already.

      • sparewin says:

        Just so you all are aware, @mjane is a deranger. Hi janedoremi99, they are acting like their comment is an innocent question on WME and so called wanting Harry and Meghan to be a red carpet. This is same ROTA spin they keep harping that Harry and Meghan left the royals for use Hollywood, hence them always feign why arent the Sussex at red carpet.

      • ChillinginDC says:

        @mjane LMAO. She was at an exclusive only Beyonce event. She’s fine. She doesn’t need to be at Red Carpets. And I see you with why isn’t she hanging with the “blacks” self. Super side eye.

      • Lux says:

        I applaud everyone who gave a thoughtful and extensive response to MJane’s questions because I think it’s entirely necessary. We shouldn’t dismiss these comments as coming from “derangers” because there are a lot of people out there who may not know the data and details and who feel exactly the same way, who might need to be pushed to see that “Spare” was far from a failure and “Archetypes” won awards for its content.

        The THR blurb was so dismissive it’s almost comical. Would the author have described Princess Diana’s interview as being whiny? Would her whole experience with the RF be dismissed, or is it worthy of exposure because of her tragic end? Charles treated Diana like crap; Charles and William treated Harry and Meghan like crap. Why does one story deserve to be told and venerated and not the other?

        I believe Tyler Perry when he said they could’ve said so much more, but these “entertainment gatekeepers” have decided that all they do is whine, so I imagine H&M are keeping themselves scarce on purpose. They’re very aware that they become the story, so I’m sure they’re mindful not to attend every event. If they were in any competition with anyone, or are trying to “win” anything, I certainly don’t see it. Basically the THR is only concerned with public perception of “winning” and not actual numbers, or else they would not dismiss “Spare” (and not even mention Invictus) in such a way.

      • Aurelia says:

        The sussexs only put in about 1 hour of work a week into Archewell. It’s pretty neglected.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Mjane, cute question. Since it’s already out there that there were agencies competing/pursuing her. You will have to ask WME. Direct your question to Ari Emanuel and share his response with us. I look forward to good times.

        LOL @Aurelia. Considering that the WanK’s put 0 hours into the American Friends of the Royal Foundation of the WanK’s your comment is at best entertaining. Thank you. But, the Earthshite $ was where most of the money went not helping other charities.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Lux, agree. It is just so odd that Hibberd, who is supposed to have knowledge, said the things he said. He looks like a lackey instead of an editor at large. Calling Meghan’s podcast ‘inert’. Uhmmm, there were numerous articles and SM discussions about the podcast conversations. That’s not inert.smh Dialogues were being covered all over-lol, not very well in the BM, intellectual people were out there talking about Meghan’s “inert” /s podcast.

    • Proud Mary says:

      Mjane, let me also remind you that, this ridiculous KP article is being written about the same year in which Suits broke streaming records–18 billion minutes. What do you think THR would be saying about Jennifer Anniston or Resse Whitherspoon if any of their television appearance was that successful? Also, please remind me of anything anyone in the royal family have done that have achieved those heights.

  3. SueBarbri33 says:

    This is just smack talk. They’re doing great. Onward.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      @SueBarbi33, thanks for reminding us to keep this in perspective. I am, like the Sussex’s, only interested in moving onward with integrity and peace.

    • MoxyLady007 says:

      It’s just ca ca. let it flow.

      – Jaimie tart

      • atorontogal says:

      • JeT’aime says:

        👍👍👍👍😂 @ Jaimie Tart
        ➕ this is known clout chasing strategy. If as a /journo you know it’s unlikely you will get an exclusive with The Sussexes or you don’t care much you clout chase by insulting them because you know the British Bullies masquerading as Press will reprint your feature & drive clicks/reach. He mentioned all the “hits” that will guarantee hate fest from the usual molehill mob & push back from the supporters. 🤷‍♂️
        The fact that Meghan is not only still standing, that she survived all that she has faced since 2017, but in addition is still forging ahead with her life and when we see her in public she is the picture of thriving ( though I leave space for the fact this must have taken huge emotional toll) is a testament of God & her. I don’t know how she has done it but she has my grace. God bless her.

  4. sevenblue says:

    lol. I am guessing whoever wrote this is a religious tabloid reader or writer. It includes all the tabloid points about them and nothing about what they achieved this year especially with Invictus. Harry and Invictus got a shoutout from the President of the USA, you know, like losers do? On the contrary, I see a lot of people especially in USA started to see how evil royal family is and H&M were telling the truth all along.

    • Nuks says:

      Exactly. Whoever wrote this is very persuadable. We know what their YouTube feed looks like.

      And agreed that the studios pay the bills for the trades, you cannot attack them, because they are where you get all your news from.

      H&M have a perception problem that is 98% not their fault. It runs very deep and they’re probably never going to overcome it, so there’s just no point in worrying about it.

    • Proud Mary says:

      What’s happening here, is that the royal family feel their British media (not so) invisible contract has been successful against Harry and Meghan (which in itself is delusional given the British success of Spare). So the plan is to transport that garbage to the US. They’ve been trying from day one of the couple’s move to the US, and nothing has worked; despite their best (or shall I say worst?) efforts, the couple is still thriving. But old habits die hard. Last year around this same time, they tried it with that awful Joan Weis’s end of year roundup in which she declared that Meghan was just as bad as a number of garbage people, including Donald Trump. This year it’s this lying azz article by THR. You know this article is a project of KP given the desperate attempt to make people believe that South Park is still relevant in todays popular culture. It is not.

      But, braze yourselves folks, this plans to be an annual occurrence. The coup de gras for them will be the NY Times.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Maybe he’s a MAGA. He’s based in Texas. Not CA.

  5. Ariel says:

    Don’t make me want to fight this early in the day.
    It’s like an impossible bar for them.
    The saddest part is/ this version of their lives, outside the royal bubble is 1000x better than the former life.
    Where not only were they controlled, lied to, lied about, infiltrated by royal leak machines. Their lives were in danger,

    Tyler Perry was right – they were abused. And I think it’s going to take a decade for them to work through all that happened.
    Glad they are willing to do that work.

  6. Cessily says:

    Well that was definitely paid for by someone.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      Now we know where the missing 7 million Earthshit pounds went.

      • Becks1 says:


      • Interested Gawker says:


      • Roniq says:

        ➕ It signals to me that they are very relevant to have made this list in an industry outlet. Hollywood is a multi-billion industry and to be on the list says to me, you did something that made more than a ripple effect to have someone think of all the persons in Hollywood let’s add them. You can only “lose” from trying.

        If the South Park episode made such an impact why isn’t it on the Winners section? Clout chasers so transparent 😄

        Congratulations Meghan & Harry – You are Hollywood insiders now! 🎉🥂

        Have lunch with Bob Iger! I like him , even with his grey areas!

  7. Brassy Rebel says:

    Is this really The Hollywood Reporter? Because it sounds like it was written by a Daily Mail columnist.

  8. tamsin says:

    Well, that was a bitchy little write-up. Is he a British tabloid transplant?

  9. Tina says:

    Ugh seriously??? The person likely to have one of the best selling books of the year is a loser?

  10. stormyshay says:

    Does anyone watch Southpark anymore? I suppose they would have to otherwise why is it still being produced. I have not watched in well over a decade.

    Meghan and Harry like everyone have some misses and some hits in 2023. I really do feel for them though. The level of obsession the media has for them is unhinged.

    • Becks1 says:

      My husband watches the occasional episode here and there and this one didn’t even interest him. I don’t know anyone who watches it, but maybe I’m just too old at this point (almost 42.)

      Regardless, being mocked on South Park is not the defining cultural moment the British press so desperately wants it to be – so I’m not sure what this James Hibberd person is going on about.

      • kirk says:

        White man, James Hibberd, “writer at large” for THR, is “going on about” his opinions without a thesaurus in a THR filler article (whiny, whiny, pouty). Gaslighting galore. Taylor is a winner! Beyoncé is – nothing.
        He declares AI a loser, yet the same THR issue has a far more newsworthy article about Axel Springer announcing a partnership with ChatGPT, allowing it to pull from Politico, Business Insider, Bild and Welt for its hallucinations — talk about taking the money. As for “grifters” taking money, wonder if that grifter-naming executive wishes he’d taken an all cash deal rather than a stake in a company that just announced its third round of layoffs this year.

    • Ginger says:

      I actually forgot South Park was still on. It’s been on since the mid 90’s. It’s WAY past its prime.

    • aftershocks says:

      Exactly @StormShay: “The level of obsession the media has for H&M is unhinged.”

      Sadly, I detect no lies. 🎯 Mostly, those tagged as ‘losers’ tend to be lower on the ‘must watch, follow, harass, and obsess over’ barometer, eh! Meanwhile, loads of peeps, trolls, rota ratchets 🤡, lazy royals 🥚, and deranged grifters 😈👿, can’t seem to get enough of obsessing over everything H&M, including the fact that they exist and breathe, and that success is always shining on them. Success vibes with Sussex, after all. ♌️ ♍️ ♾️

    • Proud Mary says:

      I live in the state where the creators of South Park are from. There’s more talk here about their restaurant (a pink palace) than about South Park. In fact, I haven’t heard any one say anything about that show since the early 2000s. As I said earlier, the desperate attempt to make south park relevant here, is a total give away: this THR article is a KP project. It’s just so dumb. Why do they want to remind folks of that horrible cartoon of William pleasuring himself with Kate’s ripped out arm?

  11. girl_ninja says:

    Is the Hollywood Reporter the same publication that plagiarized a writer while trying to critique Ava DuVernay? Why yes it is. They are hardly credible and lest we forget that the owner of THR is owned by a man in Jay Penske who barely has any black people or POC in leadership.

    • Giddy says:

      Yes! Who the hell is this reporter to criticize H&M? Has he written the best selling book of the year? Is he the power behind something as incredible as Invictus? Does he support other charities with his time and money? No? Then as a loser of not just this year he needs to sit down and shut up.

  12. Maxine Branch says:

    Sussex supporters know, the receivers of their philanthropic efforts know. Otherwise, just more noise from those who do not care to know or from those who support “ThatFamily.” All is well for us Sussex supporters we are celebrating how much they have accomplished working through a 2 year Pandemic while coming out on the other side with integrity and intent. I will always support their tuning out the grifter noise. You never addfuel to a blazing fire. Many will eat their words as the Sussexes continue to move forth.

  13. Becks1 says:

    I wonder if this person tried to get an exclusive with the Sussexes at one point and was turned down flat or something. They sound more bitter than some of the RRs.

    Spare was one of the best selling books of the year, Invictus was a resounding success, Heart of Invictus did very well on Netflix, Suits was streamed for a billion minutes or whatever – I’m not sure what else people want from them.

    • windyriver says:

      Actually, thought I’d seen that Suits was streamed for 18 billion minutes; checked online, and apparently there was a 7 week “unprecedented” run (as per ScreenRant) where they averaged over 3 billion minutes PER WEEK. Sounds like that should be of interest to something calling itself THR, but obviously that detail, along with Invictus, etc., would contradict the obvious pre-determined bias of their article.

    • Nic919 says:

      I wonder because I listen to the podcast done by Daniel Fienberg of THR and I have only heard positive comments from them about the Meghan and Harry Netflix series.

      They have also commented on Spotify extending itself too much.

      There are some in the industry who are critical of Harry and Meghan but they tend to be the Megyn Kelly types.

      No one can seriously think the South Park episode had any cultural impact in Hollywood.

    • Proud Mary says:

      Becks1, the thought actually did cross my mind. I think they wanted the Sussexes to give them some exclusive, perhaps dirt on the remainders, but they refused. But I do also believe that this article is from KP.

  14. ABritGuest says:

    I def agree that the Sussexes should have highlighted the success of archetypes & if there was an issue with getting ideas greenlit at Spotify which was suggested by Gimlet producers who worked with them, should have given their side of things in a way that wouldn’t have got into a bitch fight with Spotify. But what would be point getting into a fight with bill Simmons over his calling them grifters? They’ve been called that & worse & that probably would have exacerbated the press fallout

    Harry had a book which broke sales records and is the best selling book of the year in many countries. The invictus games in Düsseldorf was a great success & has led to Germany replicating Australia to create its on IG. Archewell hosted its first in person summit with the US Surgeon general which was well organised & well received. Whilst Meghan had a quiet year in terms of new solo projects, her show Suits was the streaming success of the summer, breaking Nielsen streaming records

    I’m sure most people would love to “lose” like this.

    • Lisa says:

      I can’t bear listening to Simmons’ podcasts on the ringer network.

    • Jais says:

      Let’s be honest. The real scandal is why Spotify and their podcast division is not on the loser’s list. Oh right, it’s bc they’ve conveniently scapegoated and distracted by calling Harry and Meghan grifters. The issues at Spotify are bigger than the Sussexes. I’d imagine anyone inside the industry can see through that and can see through this list that interestingly doesn’t mention Spotify’s failures this year, which were much bigger than Harry and Meghan’s.

  15. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Hmm. Sounds like THR is angry someone refused to give them an exclusive last year and went with The Cut instead. Hmm…

    • Amy Bee says:

      Plus, Variety tends to be one getting the scoops about Harry and Meghan not THR. I get why they would be bitter.

  16. Amy T says:

    If they’re what losing looks like, sign me up please.

    • Lady D says:

      Please, pretty please, sign me up.

    • Giddy says:

      Isn’t that the truth? Yes, please make me a gorgeous philanthropist whose fashion gets copied and studied worldwide. Please let me be married to a handsome, generous man, and let us have two darling children. Most of all, I’d love to have the impact that they do on charities and the Invictus games. But no, that’s not my life. So I’ll load up the giant dogfood bags and blankets that I always take to local dog shelters at Christmas. At least I have an impact there!😇

  17. Lady Esther says:

    As long as the Sussexes’ communications strategy – from what we can tell, if there is one – remains focused on them as a couple instead of Archewell as an institution, they will be more subject to these kind of attacks that paint Archewell, Inviticus, podcasts etc as vanity projects that depend on a highly subjective version of “popularity.”

    From a brand perspective, they communicate as “Brand Sussex” like the Beckhams, even when it comes to Archewell. I’d advise against that. The result is what definitely seems like a hit piece in the THR, especially as it doesn’t even mention Inviticus or Spare being raging successes by objective measures.

    I agree with Kaiser, they are suffering from both big and small hits to their reputation, and perhaps not having as much impact as they could because their communications strategy (such as it is) needs a complete overhaul…

    • windyriver says:

      You have some good points. Question though – is it possible Archewell and its projects aren’t being given a higher profile – for now – because organizations publicized in conjunction with them are immediately swarmed by the worst dregs of SM, BM, etc.? Maybe they feel it’s better right now to attract the attention to themselves, and allow Archewell to do its work quietly. From the awards they’ve received and the people interested in working with them (e.g., Surgeon General), it looks like their reputation away from the public eye is increasingly solid.

      • Lady Esther says:

        No, I don’t think this is why Archewell and its partner organisations don’t have a higher profile – this isn’t the UK, where the British press can go after a small organization like Sistah Space and its head Ngozi Fulani if she is perceived as stepping out of line.

        Rule #1 of communications: despite everything flying around, if you don’t say anything it lets others control the narrative. This is not the same thing as responding to every attack, btw – a proper proactive communications strategy will guide you to if, when and how to respond.

        And for the Sussexes there is no such thing as a “reputation away from the public eye.” They are public figures and they want to have an impact in the public arena, period. So get in there and do it right is what I’m saying. But response is only one (arguably small) part of communicating. They need to get out there with strategic messaging that gets to the core of their business and philanthropic activities which IMO is NOT the same as the Sussexes and their activities.

        I can’t imagine the Sussexes want Archewell to fly under the radar, not least because I’d guess that they need to switch to serious fundraising mode soon. I’d advise the head of Archwell to get out there for his nice big salary and start communicating. It’s part of his job as foundation head, and would help Archewell have an institutional profile separate to a degree from Brand Sussex.

    • Pumpkin says:

      I do agree their communications strategy needs an overhaul. Archewell is doing a lot of good but most of the time, the information is posted solely on their website. I understand their reluctance of social media but they need to at least get a newsletter working and out there. There’s an option (or at least there was) to sign your email up so they need to take advantage of that and actually tell people what their doing rather than rely on people to check their website.

    • Slush says:

      I cant agree with this enough. Their current strategy is not helping them. Great example: I asked a friend if she was going to read “Spare” and she said, more or less verbatim “Im not interested in hearing the 4th most privileged person in the world complain that hes not the 3rd most privileged person in the world”

      Those of us who follow closely know there is more to it, but when this writer talks about them being “whiny,” he/she is not alone in that opinion.

      • Becks1 says:

        Your friend not reading Spare is meaningless when it was the bestselling book of the year. Clearly enough other people felt differently.

      • Haylie says:

        Why is your bitter friend being used as a barometer for anything?

      • Slush says:

        Don’t shoot the messenger y’all. She’s not the only one who feels that way and neither is the writer. I was just giving an example of how their communication strategy isn’t resonating with some people.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Slush but that’s a bad, irrelevant example in this context because Spare was one of the best selling books on the year. So their PR strategy worked very well with that one.

    • teecee says:

      I agree with this. They over-corrected in their press communications strategy by going no contact with even legitimate outlets unless they’re correcting the record, and that means other people get to create the narrative and they only respond (sometimes.) That’s just not smart, and it’s not a strategy that works in this media landscape.

      Now if they were just going to live quiet lives, it wouldn’t matter. But they path they’ve chosen does have a public element, even if it’s less “public” than what they experienced during their time in the Royal Family. Sticking your head in the sand is not an option, and fans pretending that it’s working (it’s not) or that The Hollywood Reporter of all places is a Royalist publication (again, no) defies reality.

      I suspect we’ll see another shakeup in their team in the next 1-2 years. They either don’t have the right people working for them, or they aren’t listening to the people they’ve hire. That will have to change if they want their company to survive.

      • Tam says:

        So very true. Just like that big loser Beyoncé that THR did not mention. She’s just drifted off into oblivion needing a better communication strategy

  18. Amy Bee says:

    Whatever. Did a British journalist write this blurb?

  19. Ameerah M says:

    This is such a weird take considering their obvious successes this year: Spare, Meghan signing with WME, Invictus… And in what world is South Park a litmus test for anything in 2023?

  20. unenthusiastic wow says:

    Until recently, I hadn’t heard the word ‘grift’ since the movie ‘The Grifters’ came out in the 90’s. Now, every single time I see it in any sort of media it is used to refer to H &M. At this point if I see the word, I simply assume it’s a hit piece on them with the same origin *since no one else is using it at all in any other situation*. You’d think at least one of them would have access to a thesaurus so they could pretend these stories didn’t come from the same 70 year old flunky in a darkened basement churning out garbage, in triplicate, on a manual typewriter.

  21. Nanea says:

    It seems THR doesn’t look beyond Hollywood and has never heard of the Invictus Games – where H&M supported hundreds of injured vet athletes, their families *and* dogs, met with all kinds of high-ranking government officials from different countries, plus NATO CENTCOM and their families. (that series of pics with ~ 1500 people on a football/soccer field)

    Neither have they apparently heard of Archewell and its many contributions to charitable causes, e.g. that playground in Uvalde, TX. Or them meeting with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and the Second Gentleman. Or Well Child. Or Sentabale + Nacho + polo ponies.

    Or Meghan finally being able to attend the Variety’s Power of Women event, or her being part of one of the biggest hits Netflix has had, with ‘Suits’. The billions of minutes viewed can attest to that.

    But to call having the best selling autobiography of 2023 *losing* is a choice.

    A bad, uninformed, ignorant one that will hopefully kick THR in the ass eventually.

  22. Lilly (with the double-L) says:

    Are they worried their journalism won’t stand up? Whenever a C or D (all the way to Z) list person or entity verging on “who?” has wanted attention, they make some ridiculous comment on the Sussexes. They’ll get free press, but with this tactic I have to think their journalism is third-rate.

  23. Snuffles says:

    It’s utterly contemptible that these so called professionals are allowed to air out their grudges and grievances in their publications.

    • LivingDesert says:

      For some strange reason I get “reports” about the Sussexes on my cell phone and can’t get rid of that muck. Muck insofar as it is the most vile, nasty, despicable collection of trashy posts consisting completely of lies. The language! The names H & M are called! I tried in vain to get rid of that stuff and now I just don’t read it any longer, because… it is so vile…

      This has been going on for years and apparently nobody sees any need to stop this character assassination, because it brings in money via clicks?

      I don’t know. I just keep away from it because one feels filthy and in need of a long shower after just reading this garbage.

  24. sevenblue says:

    People concern-trolling this should be reminded, the british media accused Meghan of trying to poison little princess Charlotte with her wedding flowers. Unfortunately, they have seen worse and survived worse. In this stage, you are either believing every bad thing written about them or just focusing on their work and are happy for them. I am sure that this made a few derangers very happy, but it’s not reality and H&M continue living their best life in spite of the noise.

    • ChillinginDC says:

      I agree. It’s pretty obvious when and why they respond. Who has time to constantly be having a battle in the press. That would be viewed as toxic.

  25. Chantal1 says:

    Oh so he’s just going to ignore all their in 2023 successes not to mention the phenomenal return of Suits to the top and begin talking about them being “losers” since leaving the RF in 2020? Ok. But sure, keep reminding us that SP is still on (who’s still watching tho) and laughably use it as a benchmark to determine “winners and losers” in pop culture as SP continues to slide into more irrelevancy.

    This bs really sounds like it was written by an RR. THR should be embarrassed by this reporter and his list. I agree about the Spotify mess. Hopefully the Sussexes have learned that in the US, public attacks on your public business and business rep must not be tolerated and definitely not met with silence. Actually, this “reporter” should have put Spotify at the top of his list of “losers” but he wouldn’t dare.

  26. Harper says:

    How do you point to a single discontinued podcast–that won the People’s Choice Award for favorite podcast–and declare them the biggest losers of the year?

    It makes me so angry, but then I let it go when I remember that James Hibberd just made himself a target for the Sussex Karma Train–it’s real’s coming for him.

  27. Jais says:

    Using words like whiny and sanctimonious kind of gives the game away. This tiny paragraph reads like the daily mail. And having losers who also had one of the top selling books of the year just makes the whole list lack credibility. It’s hard to take it seriously really.

  28. bisynaptic says:

    Oh, boy, would I love to be the Sussexes’ kind of “loser”.

  29. Angelica+Schuyler says:

    In 2023 the Sussexes had:
    -the success of Spare
    -the success of Invictus
    -the success of Archetypes
    -the success of Suits

    If these things represent failure, we should all hope to fail so spectacularly.

  30. fani says:

    THR wants clicks/attention.

    Mentioning the Sussexes is a great way to get it.

    • KASalvy says:

      None of us in this business take THR seriously. It’s like the tabloid version of the trades, and *very* easy to buy a press announcement.

      Most of us use/read deadline or variety for industry news.

  31. MsIam says:

    This sounds like Lee Thompson called in some favors so that people will forget about Endgame and who is (one of) the royal racists. Still the writer did call royal life “hellish” so there’s that. And look at him for thinking the Sussexes wouldn’t be “mocked and scorned” if they stayed on Salt Island. People keep forgetting they left for a reason. Onward and upwards!

  32. TIFFANY says:

    I’m not about to take this rag seriously about The Sussexes as they didn’t even have Queen Bey on the winners list as Renaissance broke all the records.

    Tells you everything about everything.

    • Amy Bee says:

      How is Beyonce not on the winners list?

    • ChillinginDC says:

      Thanks. I can’t get upset about Meghan and Harry cause there were a lot of people left off I kept going really about.

      And honestly, the communications strategy is fine. Harry and Meghan fighting it out with Spotify was a terrible idea and I was flabbgergasted anyone here suggested it. It would have been the car chase mess again times a billion and that would have really put off people with working with them. They kept their mouths closed and moved on. Spotify had to just lay off how many people? Lost how much money? I would be minding my business and not getting into a war of words.

      Also Meghan’s a black woman moving in mostly white spaces. Even if she and Harry had said something, the publications and power brokers would have come for her. I bet you that was taken into consideration when they got ignored.

      And I really wish people would stop saying they need to get back on social media. They got death threats, hate comments, things retweeted, reposted, etc. anytime they did anything on social media. I don’t blame them for saying it’s not for us anymore. They prop up others and those organizations post on social media. That right there is a strategy they have not voiced out loud, but it’s a good one for them and I am sure their mental health. Same with Invictus.

  33. Max says:

    Did anybody else notice in the whole article, this person lists facts about the winners and losers except Meghan and Harry. Like when talking about Taylor Swift (winner), they talk about how successful her concert tour has been and how much money it made. Or when they spoke of Disney (loser), mentioning how Disney had several successful movies in recent years, but this year wasn’t the same with several of their movies being received poorly.

    With Meghan and Harry, this person didn’t bother to mention the facts of

    Spare: The best selling book of this year, as well as breaking the record for being the fastest selling non-fiction book in history. Also, on Amazon, out of over 100,000 ratings, Spare has a score of 4.5/5 stars.

    Archetypes: Was rated the Number 1 podcast across six different countries, won a People’s Choice Award for Pop Podcast in 2022, and Meghan winning a Gracie Award for Entertainment Podcast Host in 2023. On Spotify, Archetypes has a rating of 4/5 stars from over 67,000 ratings

    Harry & Meghan Documentary: Holds the record for the biggest debut for a Netflix documentary and is nominated for a Hollywood Critics Association TV Award for Best Streaming Non-fiction Series. It also remained in Netflix’s Top 10 for several weeks.

    All though there were negatives, such as all of these projects receiving mixed reviews from professional critics rather than overwhelming positive ones, and the Harry & Meghan Documentary received a rotten tomatoes score of 46% from 29 reviews.

    This person instead just says that Spare and the Harry & Meghan Documentary where whiny and I’m willing to bet his opinion doesn’t come from actually reading the book or watching the documentary. He uses Bill Simmons calling them grifters as an example of why they’re loser, yet this same guy is no stranger to unprofessional behavior and was fired from ESPN because of it. They also use the example of being mocked by South Park as if it’s the end of their careers because they were parodied by a cartoon, but South Park has mocked, Barbara Streisand, Justin Bieber, Lorde, Paris Hilton, Ben Affleck, J Lo, and Family Guy, and they’re all doing just fine.

    • Jais says:

      This analysis is what’s interesting. The way the blurb was written was so bizarrely biased and void of context, especially in comparison to how the others were written about, that it just immediately looks silly.

  34. L4Frimaire says:

    Agree how they handled Spotify was really flat footed but that was their choice. I’m not sure if the Sussexes actually want to be considered Hollywood players though.They’re not in the thick of it and don’t feed that particular machine either. Everything they’ve done this year has focused on Archewell and philanthropy, so I think that’s what their primary focus will be. Archewell audio and productions are secondary but they work at their own pace. The rest of is just a biased screed.

    • Lady Esther says:

      Meghan signed with WME. You don’t do that unless you want to be a Hollywood player…it’s a feature, not a bug.

      I don’t understand why this is a bad thing, or why they should just focus like angels on philanthropy rather than filthy lucre? They are in the entertainment business, period, full stop and I for one look forward to Harry’s new conservation documentary series a la Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations and other projects they support as much as their philanthropy…whatever they do is interesting. They have my eyeballs and my cash lol

      • Becks1 says:

        They are absolutely in the entertainment industry – no one is saying they aren’t. But they’ve always been very clear that their primary objective is to use their platform for good in the world. A conservation documentary series is in line with that. Not every project is going to be philanthropy focused and Meghan and Harry are both very well connected as we know.

        I’m just scratching my head at the push on here that the philanthropy aspect is just a hobby to them when that’s not what they have ever said.

      • L4Frimaire says:

        @Lady Esther, I get what you’re saying but this year has been abut Spare, Invictus and Archewell philanthropy. It’s a strength of theirs and deserves the shine it gets. I know they have a few Archewell productions in the works but they’re not exactly red carpet visible in a way some expect them to be. I really like what they’ve produced so far but they slow cook things and its not their only focus.

    • Lady Esther says:

      I think that Meghan knows well the rule of Hollywood is “one for me, one for thee.” Do a big moneymaker that pays, pleases the studio bosses and raises your profile. That kind of win attracts talent to you. Then do an arty, “meaningful” project that’s close to your heart and ideally wins tons of awards. Then the moneymaker. Rinse and repeat.

      I’m completely comfortable with them doing both because as I said, whatever they do is interesting, so they’ve got my eyeballs and my cash. I just think they need a high-powered communications strategy to sell both

      • Becks1 says:

        @LadyEsther I think that sounds about right with the rinse and repeat. And I agree with a high powered communications strategy. I know we all know what they’re doing, but I think something a little more…..well pro Archewell I guess….might serve them better overall. IDK.

  35. Mary Pester says:

    See writers Like this make me wish I was 20 years younger and fit, just so I could fly to the US and ask him to explain why a couple who founded Archwell raised millions For charity, gets their hands dirty by working with the charities and help build things, donate their time wherever, and whenever they can, wrote a best selling book, won awards, staged another successful invictus games, had a number one podcast, to name just a few things, are “losers in his teeny tiny mind. Now, could he please list all his accomplishments in the last 12 months and tell us who purchased his morals, and his view of what losing is

  36. Lau says:

    It’s pretty clear that the THR had a certainn number of “losers” and “winners” they need to write down in these lists because the Sussexes’ inclusion in this one doesn’t make any sense and it just makes the THR look like idiots.

  37. vpd4 says:

    This fool needed clicks and the quickest way to get them is with H&M.

  38. lisaturtle says:

    The grifter comment was terrible PR and a lot of people who don’t follow them closely have that comment in the forefront of their mind.

    • sevenblue says:

      Since they have completed successful projects after that comment and collaborated with people with status in both government and private sector, I am sure no one gives a sh*t what an executive whose company houses the anti-vax conspiracy guy joe rogan says about H&M. If they replied to that unhinged guy, then it would be news all over the world for months.

      • Darkwing Duck says:

        My feeling was that the word gained widespread currency around 2016 as did the expression ‘(malignant) narcissist’ and for the exact same reason – Donald Trump and his presidency.

        Quite possibly it’s also to do with the rise of people making money from producing types of content on the Internet. For some reason it was used over and over again on a leftie politics podcast I tried listening to where every single contributor was way too ‘online’ and apparently engaged in numerous petty rivalries with other online people all accusing each other of being ‘grifters’.

        I don’t think there is any big mystery or hidden web of connections here leading to the Palace or to the British Media about this piece.

        Last year, to my extreme dismay, mainstream US outlets realised that the Sussexes are clickbait in the English speaking world and if you are able to contrive some negative lines about them you will get amplification in the obsessed British tabloids and probably the broadsheets too.

        Last year around this time we also got a crazy Politico piece on how Harry and Meghan (mostly Meghan though! 😉 ) was a new type of narcissist (for which read ‘no type of narcissist’) a ‘benign narcissist’ apparently defined as feeling sorry for yourself in public? For this she was lined up against destructive frauds and convicted criminals such as Sam Bankman Fried and Elizabeth Holmes. And this followed a piece in New Yorker, also stretching the ordinary meaning of words, in this case ‘nepo baby’, beyond breaking point to classify Harry and Meghan (mostly Meghan though) as one.

        The big tell is the citing of South Park, a cartoon no British journalist has ever watched before or since the Harry episode but which they have made central to their understanding of reality.

        It’s a sad sick world. If Fox News kept running stories on how a random cartoonist had made fun of Dominion Voting Machines why would anyone take it seriously even if they had a point? The obvious issue of bias, given the legal dispute, should have completely disqualified any reporting from that source? And yet the British Media, almost all implicated in Harry’s complaints, are taken to be honest witnesses who have dispassionately identified constantly delegitimising this couple as a worthwhile journalistic endeavour.

        I agree with Omid Scobie about what the Sussexes Comms problem is : they appear to now be briefing media through anonymous sources and I don’t think they have to. I think the moral high ground is better. Others have said this before but what do people have imagine they should have said in response to Bill Simmons? His outburst was not professional and did not warrant a professional reply??? If someone says you are grifter with dumb ideas how exactly do you ‘prove’ them wrong on that? You can’t really. Even being able to say “I made a load of money” wouldn’t? That kind of exchange occurs here and on social media all the time where it’s really clear the sides are using different definitions of ‘success’, and probably on purpose, so will never agree and end up talking at endlessly at cross purposes.

        Unfortunately, in Entertainment, there isn’t much of a relationship between something being good and being successful and I think we could all think of our own examples but I would say Netflix’s most watched show this year apparently being the Night Agent sort of sums this up.

    • Jais says:

      Eh, Harry and Meghan are playing the long game. They know what they have in the pipeline.

      • tamsin says:

        After suffering from briefing by anonymous sources, I doubt that Harry and Meghan are doing that. I think if anyone is not complaining and explaining, it’s the Sussexes. Omid himself said that he doesn’t know the Sussexes personally but when he phones their comms person or Archewell, they will answer. Is Omid getting his info through anonymous sources? Then shame on him.

    • Haylie says:

      Meanwhile, Spotify is collapsing and viewed as doomed real estate by industry insiders.

  39. JJ says:

    Spare is on every must-read list and Archetypes won awards THIS YEAR!!! How could they be on the losers list? I do agree that the “grifters” comment absolutely should have been addressed by their PR team and moving forward, I hope their team comments on that as opposed to whether they are going to whatever event in England or whether or not they were invited. This is all a matter of opinion though so whoever wrote this can call them losers if he or she wants but I hope that come 2024, the Sussexes get a new podcast deal, sponsorship deals, new shows and/or movies, etc., and continue to be happy.

  40. AC says:

    Interesting because I hardly saw this headline anywhere, not even mentioned on SM.
    They definitely weren’t losers when people were admiring them at the Beyoncé concert(which broke SM btw) or the Katy Perry concert. Or this years Invictus Games which was an international success. Or the US Navy appreciating them for all the work they do to help servicemen, their families and veterans as well as a visit to Camp Pendleton. Or meeting our US Surgeon General and our country’s Second Gentleman to advocate for mental health awareness. Or having a Best selling book on both the UK and the NYT list. Or Suits setting a record for one of the most streamed show on Netflix(even though this show ended years ago).
    That article to me has no substance and no wonder why no one really cared about it except the deranged BM. They’re prob deflecting because of the large number of brutal comments K is getting for her so called “volunteer” work with the baby bank that’s not doing her or her children any favors as they’re not really impacting real people.

  41. Macky says:

    They did alright to me this year. The only issue is the court battle is dragging on.

    And even that can be flipped. Harry seems to be fighting a battle for smaller people who the tabloids tarnished. The british tabloids will pick on poorly paid people. People who can’t afford security or car services. Someone like a prince harry needed to address it. He can answer honestly without fear of losing his job or life.

  42. Saucy&Sassy says:

    THR is pro studio, not labor. Go figure.

    It seems the brf and bm are angry that the Sussexes have not responded to any of their bait. I would encourage them to hold their breath. Indefinitely.

  43. B says:

    I know James Hibbard is trying to take a petty swipe at Harry and Meghan but I’m loving how hard he had to work to do it. They are so successful that this man had to resort to talking about them leaving in 2020 and calling literal record breaking projects from 2022 “whiny”. If he didn’t all he would have for 2023 is the Sussexes not renewing their contract with a sinking Spotify and a cartoon episode poking fun of them.

  44. Katie says:

    I made a similar comment on Mic Wright’s substack when he covered Spare and related properties, but there is so much lazy reporting in the United States. This should be a meaty story of the underdog taking on the English establishment, which includes the Murdochs and other right wing media tycoons as well as this anti-democratic institution of the Crown … which on top of hording quite a bit of wealth for themselves is used as pawns by the Tories and right wing media (and so much of the media in England is right wing that its fair to just say “the media”) to keep power and wealth concentrated amongst the “elite”.

    Instead these stories are farmed out to entertainment journalists that report on it as celebrities in a spat or just review the properties on “did I like it” vs “is what they are saying true and noteworthy” without bothering to understand the the larger context of the power dynamics at play.

    Sure Harry and Meghan have their blindspots and yes they are (now) rich, but this sort of lazy “well they’re rich so we don’t have to listen to them complain” mentality is what resulted in the Britney Spears travesty for 15 years.

  45. Jay says:

    Well, yesterday we saw how much of an impact these two ” losers” have had this year, so it seems like they have managed to achieve many of their philanthropic goals and do meaningful work, even if THR is still harping on about South Park.
    I assume this list was made before the Archwell video was released – THAT is why you should wait until the end of the year for this kind of content!

    The fact that the *Hollywood* reporter is adding the Sussexes to this year’s list at all is kind of an indicator of their influence – like the rota, maybe they need to throw in the name “Markle” to get clicks.

  46. slippers4life says:

    Meh, they’ve been through worse. The UK’s media game seems to be, “build up the white people, tear down the BIPOC people”. And the US media seems to be “build people up, knock them down, build them back up again. Yes we’re racist too tho”. Meghan and Harry aren’t going anywhere.

  47. StarWonderful says:

    Whenever M&H are successful at anything or get recognition for any one of their successes, the RR will lie outright by claiming the opposite. It’s a knee-jerk response — and the BRF’s long-term strategy to diminish such successes. And, of course, they also use projection to attack H&M (e.g. W&K’s crumbling marriage, K lying about M making her cry, and most recently, to counter media trends about the Middletons as grifters [that’s when Simmons attacked the Sussexes with that moniker]). Thing is, none of these vicious strategies are really working because H&M’s popularity and fan base are only growing, especially as the curtain is pulled back on the pit of vipers within the Palace and their media butt-snorkelers. The more they attack the more H&M’s popularity grows. But mostly, H&M’s popularity is growing because of their tangible successes — especially when compared to the lazy, tired, and racist senior royals. Yes, H&M have taken hits, but let’s not forget an entire country and its head of state (& minions) are on a war path against them, especially as the BRF’s relevance and “value” are waning by the minute and the republican movement grows. Nevertheless, I would agree that H&M would benefit from a more proactive communication strategy.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      StarWonderful, I agree with a more proactive communication strategy for their charitable and philanthropic moves. Anything to do with the brf/bm should be ignored. The fact that the brf/bm work hard to try and get a response from them tells me that a response would be the worst possible thing to do.

      Let’s not forget that Harry is suing the tabloid bm. They’re never going to say something positive about the Sussexes.

      They really hate it that H&M are ignoring them.

      • StarWonderful says:

        True, Saucy&Sassy, Harry’s court cases are coming up soon and the niche media is ramping up their attacks. We can expect more of this in the coming weeks. The more they attack the more desperate these “reporters” look. I’m almost embarrassed for them.

  48. Robert Phillips says:

    I’m trying to remember. The last time Meghan was out in public on purpose was for some award a couple of months ago wasn’t it. And before that wasn’t it Invictus for both of them. Yeah I know there are a few pictures of them taking the kids trick-or-treating. And Meghan running errands. So let’s see. They were out in public six or eight times this year. Yet there are still how many articles about them every day? Doesn’t sound like losing to me. They did fewer things in public even than William and Kate. Yet get better press. And a lot more press. You know it must kill the reporters that they could just ignore them and they would fade away. But if they ignore them then the reporters won’t make any money.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Robert Phillips, I just said the same above before I saw your comment. The brf/bm really don’t like to be ignored.

  49. Beverley says:

    If Harry and Meghan are “losers”, sign me up for the same plan.
    I wanna lose BIG just like them.

  50. equality says:

    A loser is someone who has to point at others and call them losers. This writer might want to consider the fact that the companies/people on this “loser” list are still way more successful, rich and well-known than he has ever been.

  51. ChillinginDC says:

    I am betting that their advisors wisely told them to not go after Spotify. After that mess came out how many people jumped out to say how great they were and Netflix was all we are good with them. That was one person who was being a unprofessional as hell and then looks like an AC when it comes out how many people Spotify are laying off. And considering him wanted them to do a podcast on the RF I am sure they were like this isn’t for us. I still think Meghan may just do what the Obamas are doing and move their stuff over to Audible. Especially after Harry tried to talk to them (Spotify) about the harm platforming Joe Rogan was doing. Why work with people like that?

  52. Her again says:

    I am a HUGE South Park fan, and the Sussex episode wasn’t funny, it wasn’t memorable, it wasn’t in the least bit “savage”. And this is probably wishful thinking, but I like to think that the creators of South Park simply weren’t inspired to do some brutal, hilarious takedown, because they DONT dislike the Sussexes.

    The most savage, brutal takedown they’ve done are ones where the creators GENUINELY LOATHE their subject. And THOSE end up being the really memorable episodes. Perfect examples;

    Paris Hilton (stupid spoiled whore)
    Kanye West & Kim K (I’m a gay fish & my girl ain’t no hobbit)
    Kickstarter/Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder
    Wasted Russell Crowe (foitin’ roun’ the wurld)
    And my personal favorite…..
    Caitlin Jenner (buckle up, Buckarooths)

    THESE are memorable episodes. These are brutal takedowns. The Sussex episode? 😴😴😴😴

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Let’s not forget the ones they did about QE2 and Wont and KHate. Those were brutal.

      • Her Again says:

        You know, if I’m being honest, I don’t really think the W&K episode was particularly brutal, at least not at the time they did it. I don’t think W’s passion for pegging was widely known then. It would be WAY more brutal if they had released the episode more recently. THEN it would come off as a DEFINITE reference to the Prince of Pegging.
        My honest opinion is that BOTH episodes were 😴😴😴😴😴

  53. JaneS says:

    Calling Harry or Meg “losers” is flat out idiotic and incorrect.

    #1. 2 beautiful, happy, healthy young kids.
    #2. Happily married.
    #3. Living and enjoying their personal lives and family, on their own terms.
    #4. Involved in several charity projects that help those in need.
    Disabled and wounded Veterans are terribly under served.
    #5. Each are in good health, something that should not be taken for granted, ever.
    #6. They seem to have settled into their CA area, after all the stress and hardship they have been thru.

    The constant battering of H&M. Weeping dogs, let them live on their own terms and be done with all this BS.
    I wish my personal life was going as well as H&M.

    • Square2 says:

      Meghan has said more than once the most important job for her is being a mother. Considering their kids are so young & they do grew up fast during that age, if it was me, I would get involved with my kids activities as much as possible.

      H&M should do what’s they feel the best for them & their children. Even if they don’t “flourish” like some people want them to or as quickly to, they have loyal, decent friends & the always loving Doria by their side. That is a blessing in anyone’s life.

  54. JaneS says:

    South Park episodes worth searching for include:
    #1. Tom Cruise, explaining what exactly CoS believes was very, very good.
    #2. Bono
    #3. Kanye
    #4. Brittany Spears
    #5. Ben and JLo

  55. blunt talker says:

    This article have the tabloid media of the UK written all over-leaving out info about the things that went well for the couple is not good journalism-this was a targeted attack to keep the negative narratives going-Meghan and Harry are going to live in peace and positivity which will serve and protect their own mental health and their children’s-Piss poor writer with no journalistic integrity.

    • kirk says:

      Probably a stressed-out writer, with a couple of screenwriting credits to his name, willing to hoover up anything on the page to get britmedia $$$.

  56. Rose says:

    I believe the old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The Sussexes are household names worldwide, increasing their impact. Currently as ‘losers’ they are mentioned with people and businesses who have achieved great things, though they may be controversial at times: Bob Iger, Elon Musk, Yellowstone, film franchises and so on. Real losers are struggling and unknown. And the wind is constantly changing.

  57. Ethan says:

    Does anyone watch Southpark anymore? I suppose they would have to; otherwise, why is it still being produced? I have not watched it in well over a decade.