Page Six: The Sussexes ‘have decreased their staff by at least 80-85 percent’??

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are ending 2025 on such an odd note, especially given that this year was enormously positive for them. With Love, Meghan was a success, they negotiated a new first-look contract with Netflix (and announced several upcoming projects under the new contract), Meghan’s As Ever was launched and repeatedly sold out, and they have a much better communications strategy in place. But in recent weeks, they’ve announced an overhaul and rebrand of their foundation and lost two of their most important senior staffers, Meredith Maines and James Holt. What will 2026 bring? Are they completely overhauling everything? Whatever is going on, I have my doubts that Page Six’s claims of “Sussex catastrophe” are accurate. But still, we should talk about this:

As Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s longest-serving staffer prepares to leave — their entire brand is under threat, multiple sources tell Page Six. On Monday, it was announced that James Holt is stepping down as chief of their charity, Archewell.

Now, Page Six can reveal that Holt’s long-time counterpart, Archewell VP Shauna Nep, is not even a full-time employee, but is working on a “consultant” basis. In addition to this, there are just a few employees left on Harry and Markle’s production business — and they could lose more staffers if Markle’s show, “With Love, Meghan,” is not brought back for another season.

“Anyone still there is simply an enabler, enamored with what the couple once was, not who they are today,” claimed one industry source familiar with the Sussexes. “From a year ago, they have decreased their staff by at least 80-85 percent.”

Another person familiar with Archewell added, “They’ve essentially shuttered Archewell.”

As Page Six previously revealed, the Archewell Foundation, which recently rebranded as Archewell Philanthropies, was down to just Holt and Nep. The Sussexes spent the past few months in cost-cutting talks for their charity and even discussed selling the foundation. Holt’s departure follows that of former Archewell senior staffers, Genevieve Roth, Christine Schirmer and Ashley Hansen.

“Every time someone leaves Harry and Meghan say they are staying on in some capacity,” said another source, “But they are never heard from again. Shauna hasn’t been a full-time employee in some time,” added the source, “This is crazy — they have lost their Foundation in a matter of weeks.”

On the production side, the Sussexes still have Chanel Pysnik as head of unscripted, alongside producer Tracy Ryerson. However, the source added, “If Meghan’s Netflix show isn’t picked up for another season then what happens to their staff?”

Over the summer, Harry and Markle also lost their Los Angeles deputy press secretary, Kyle Boulia, and their UK press officer, Charlie Gips. At the time, two additional employees also left the team.

[From Page Six]

The sourcing on this is so weird. “One industry source familiar with the Sussexes” and a “person familiar with Archewell”??? These are not Hollywood insiders or charitable insiders or Archewell insiders. They are royalist outsiders predicting gloom and doom because they don’t have inside information on what Harry and Meghan are doing. “They’ve essentially shuttered Archewell” – in what way? They’re rebranding it, which means Archewell will no longer be a foundation, so technically, yes, the foundation is being “shuttered”… in service of Archewell Philanthropies. And I don’t buy that Archewell Productions has lost 85% of their staffers either – I think there’s been steady turnover in recent years, but given the recent announcements of upcoming projects, it feels like the production side is well-staffed. As for their philanthropic side, it’s smart to only have a few full-time staffers? You don’t want to spend all of your charity’s money on staff salaries.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

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

66 Responses to “Page Six: The Sussexes ‘have decreased their staff by at least 80-85 percent’??”

  1. Tessa says:

    Page 6 is always negative about them

    • Beth says:

      Idiots. Page 6 doesn’t know how many staff the Sussexes had or have. There are a number of productions in the pipeline that we know of (which are not WLM, lol!), Meghan’s acting again, plus As ever has its own business team. And the Archewell Foundation changed to Archewell Philanthropies, which uses a fiscal sponsorship operating model (a different non-profit entity will now run their philanthropic projects for them, basically).

    • StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

      Unfortunately, although I love Meg & Harry, the money they must shell out to maintain their lifestyle, their security, their staff etc must be crazy. They need to work and hard. So I don’t think they’ll have much time for the foundation if they are themselves the pillars of the money coming in, and cant possible pay big shots the money their experience deserve, they hotta let go. They need to be out there and networking and getting more contracts coming because nothing’s gonna be given to them for free. So I do think that there is some trouble ahead, and it’s about money. I think we’re gonna see a lot more of them in 2026.

  2. ThatGirlThere says:

    Page Six has been throwing shit against the wall to see what would stick all year. Why even entertain them now?

  3. Neeve says:

    I hope this doesnt sound terrible but how about they find a way to do charity in a more secondary way. Harry has his better up job and his passion with Invictus and Meghan has found her stride in the lifestyle space. They can still be philanthropic and donate to many causes like the way others seem to, which is to donate or simply write a check to charities but still give priority to their for profit businesses. Not a crime in concentrating on building their wealth first.

    • Meredith says:

      Yes, I’ve said from the beginning that their view of themselves as great philanthropists was not realistic given their modest personal wealth. Noble goals— but not realistic ones. They are not living off a small portion of the interest of their wealth and donating the remainder of the interest— they are spending a lot of what they earn just on housing and security.

    • Visa Diva says:

      I wonder if that’s behind the shift. When I think of “Philanthropies” like Ford and Rockefeller Foundation, they’re in the business of giving money and not running non-profits. That seems like a better model for the Sussexes.

  4. Beverley says:

    Page Six is determined to ruin the lives and reputations of the Black Duchess and her black-adjacent Prince. There will never be peace for the Sussexes, as long as the tabloids have any say.

  5. Julia says:

    When have PageSix’s doom and gloom predictions about the Sussexes ever been right? Remember when they said WME was dropping Meghan, the articles about how Hollywood hates them(then Meghan was announced to have a cameo in Hollywood movie with A listers days later)? PageSix makes most of their Sussex coverage up because they know it gets clicks. I expect we will have a relaunch of Archewell Philanthropies in the new year!

    • Ginger says:

      Exactly. Page Six always predicts the worst with Harry and Meghan. They were doom and gloom when they re negotiated their deal with Netflix. Anyone could be a “source familiar with Archwell”

  6. Quinn says:

    Look, I LOVE Meghan. But seriously…what is going on? Why is Meredith Maines leaving? Apparently they’ve gone through 11 publicists in the past five years? I work in PR (although not celeb PR), so I kinda understand how and why high-profile people and foundations/corporations often churn through publicists. But on the other hand, for Meghan and Harry to lose such a seasoned, creative and talented publicist is baffling to me.

    I’m not bashing Meghan at all. But it’s a little worrying that she can’t seem to keep staffers long term. I temper this concern with an understanding that we don’t have access to the inner workings of her organizations and so there may be valid reasons for all of the staff switch ups.

    • Julia says:

      Looks like it’s time for the ‘I love Meghan but’ concern trolling. Note how it’s always Meghan but never Harry! Have they really ‘gone through 11 publicists in 5 years?’ Can you name all of them? James Holt was one originally then transitioned to running the Foundation. Ashley Hansen left to start her own PR company and wrote very warmly about the Sussexes, she even retained them as a client. There was some restructuring when Meredith joined and two staff members were made redundant because the roles not longer existed. It’s not like 11 people just quit in disgust. Many transitioned to other roles within the organisation. People are so quick to regurgitate tabloid talking points and it’s always Meghan that’s presumed to be at fault…

    • Missy says:

      It’s not 11. They go back past five years to include when they were so called “working royals” and were part of the Wiliieleaks Royal foundation to flub the numbers.

    • Al says:

      You mean to say you’re not bashing Meghan and Harry—or is it only Meghan? Because it often seems that some people genuinely believe the lies that have been told about her.

      For argument’s sake, why is it never suggested that Harry could be the problem? Considering where he came from and the environment he was part of long before meeting Meghan, why is the blame automatically placed on her? When Dominic Reid left the Invictus Games last year, did anyone blame Harry for being difficult to work with, that’s why Domonic left? Of course not.

      Meghan had no reputation for being difficult before meeting Harry. She worked for years on Suits without complaints or controversy. Suddenly, after entering the royal system, she’s portrayed as evil, vindictive, and abusive? People don’t fundamentally change overnight. A person’s history—especially a history of service and professional conduct—tells you far more about who they are than a sudden smear campaign ever could.

      People need to stop blaming Meghan for everything, particularly for decisions that were clearly made by both her and Harry.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Where is this narrative coming from? It’s like when the British press says they’ve lost 25 staff since 2020 when most of the staff that they lost were those the Royal Family refused to absorb into the institution when Harry and Meghan had to close their office after they stepped back. It would be great if you can provide that information.

      • jais says:

        Yeah. Is there a list of the 11 people who were publicists? I’m not saying there hasn’t been staff changes over the years but it’s a weird number to keep repeating as truth while also remaining vague.

    • Siri says:

      Why is that worrying though? I have worries as most people but my worries are definitely never about someone else’s staff. This is such a non issue to me.

    • Siri says:

      Why is that worrying though? I have worries as most people but my worries are definitely never about someone else’s staff. This is such s non issue to me.

    • KC says:

      I also used to work in PR/comms consulting and their turnover appears to be pretty high.

      I’m wondering though if they’re figuring out that having a whole foundation is a pretty big administrative to do and perhaps they’re shifting to just giving out money to specific projects and other granting organizations to reduce the administrative overhead. Honestly, I wish there was more of that.

      I don’t have any experience in the entertainment production world, but perhaps it’s easier and more cost-effective for them to have just a few people who work on contract basis and let Netflix handle the actual producing? I’d be interested to hear what someone with experience in that world thinks.

    • Blubb says:

      Who starts with I love Meghan and then I am not trolling is the opposite. A palace troll using the chance to spread lies. Better you try that with the royalists.

  7. The only thing I think that they lost lots of people was for WLM because they are not filming that anymore.

  8. Me at home says:

    Wasn’t the whole point of moving from the Archewell Foundation to Philanthropies that they could start outsourcing admin and other work on an as-needed basis, cutting costs and adding flexibility?

    • Al says:

      This is my best guess. Harry and Meghan are not stupid. They are surrounded by people who can give them sound advice, before making decisions. I am trusting the process.

    • Beth says:

      True. And Page 6 doesn’t know how many staff the Sussexes had or have. There are a number of productions in the pipeline that we know of (which are not WLM, lol!), plus As ever has its own business team. The Archewell Foundation changed to Archewell Philanthropies, which uses a fiscal sponsorship operating model (a different non-profit entity will now run their philanthropic projects for them, basically).

      • Ginger says:

        Page Six doesn’t know how many staffers have left just like they don’t know how much their Netflix deal is, they just throw random numbers out there hoping something will stick.

  9. Jay says:

    What I am getting from this is that it seems like the Sussexes are pulling back on the film/tv production side of things, which honestly makes sense to me. With the success of As Ever, expanding Archewell, Invictus, and various speaking engagements, they are actually stretched pretty thin. Now that they are no longer tied to their first look deal with Netflix, it seems smart to retool their staff to reflect those circumstances.

    • Emily says:

      Yes it looks like they will still be involved in production but will join forces with others (like the Cookie Queens project).

    • Beth says:

      Not sure about that. Cookie Queens, The Wedding Date, Meet Me At The Lake are just those in the pipeline that we know of. And Meghan has a cameo role in a film, too.

    • Amy Bee says:

      How are they pulling back on tv/film side when they’ve just announced 2 new projects?

  10. Amy Bee says:

    I was going to say the same thing. The industry insiders sound like members of the British royal press. I think most of Page Six stories about Harry and Meghan are actually written by the Sun anyway. I think it stands to reason that if the Archewell charity is restructuring that there won’t be a need for most of the staff and I don’t think the staff was that big to begin with. As for the production side, it’s clear that Page Six doesn’t know what’s going on there. The company is dependent on Meghan’s show for work because they’ve just announced 2 new projects and weren’t page six reporting a few weeks ago that Harry was going to do a documentary about Diana so what’s the truth?

  11. Jais says:

    “Anyone still there is simply an enabler” a source says. Yeaaaah. Well, that sounds like a legit source right there/s. Look, I don’t know the ins and out of everything but a page 6 article with that kind of sourcing is biased. Whatever the actual reality is, it’s not going to be found accurately portrayed in page 6.

  12. ElizaD says:

    Does anyone know how many publicists any other organisation/public figure has ‘lost’? Not that the claims are true here about staff loss anyhow. How many has Victoria Beckham had? Anyone know her staff numbers? No. Because only Meghan is being scrutinised- if it was Harry on his own it wouldn’t be reported on like this. People come and go, especially as much of the staff were consultants used for temporary projects or setting them up in new ventures. As far as I can see both of them have had busy successful years, especially with As Ever.

  13. Eurydice says:

    Looking at Archewell’s 990 for last year, it took in about $2.2 million (down from $5.3 million the year before) and salaries were close to $1 million (about the same as the year before). This isn’t sustainable from H&M’s personal wealth. Philanthropy is important to them, so they restructured. Ok.

    As for production staff – I don’t know how WLM is organized, but at one time I worked for a small film production company in Boston. The production company staff consisted of the 3 partners and myself. A film project would be a separately incorporated company with its own staffing, which would be disbanded when the project wrapped. Then we were back to 4 people. Did we lose 95% of our staff? No.

    • Julia says:

      I’m pretty sure most of the WLM staff were from Netflix. With just a couple from Archewell, which has always been a small production company. They wouldn’t have hired permanent staff just for WLM, maybe some contractors.

      • Eurydice says:

        Yes, that’s how things work – the “source” should know that. If WLM isn’t picked up or Meghan doesn’t want to do another season, Archewell Productions will have another project, like the rom-com.

    • Fina says:

      As someone working for an established humanitarian organisation I am much in favor of this decision. Paying 1 Mio in salaries but only awarding ca 150 000 in grants, does not make sense for any foundation. I generally like celebrities to support charitable work in two ways: 1) bring attention to the work of established organizations and the needs of the populations they serve (Angelina Jolie does that superbly) or 2) fundraise or donate to existing organizations (of course Mackenzie Scott is the dream of any humanitarian). Creating foundations or own organisations (hate Sean Penn) almost never makes sense (from a humanitarian point of view, I am sure there are tax benefits etc), unless they do some kind of work that has not been done before (Invictus Games is a good example). Otherwise they just create additional layers of overhead costs and less money goes to the communities. So yes, good that the foundation is dissolved. Wish Royal Foundation would follow their example.

  14. HeatherC says:

    Or they just had too much staff. They’ve reorganized Archewell, had time to figure out their production side of things, and the As Ever side of things. They now know who and what they need and are staffing accordingly.

  15. M says:

    Maines was mainly brought in to oversee the launch of WLM and As Ever. One of those is over, and the other is up and running. Job done. Archewell is changing to a different style of operating to reduce stress and overhead. All of this involves losing staff. Framing it this way is just another attempt to make the black woman look bad. Notice Harry is never the issue.

  16. bisynaptic says:

    How does one “sell” a charity? Is that even possible?

    • Eurydice says:

      No, it’s not possible. But the assets can be assigned to another charity.

    • Margaret says:

      I doubt it because who would buy a non profit and for what reason? They were probably just looking at different funding models because unlike the royal foundations Archewell needs to be completely self funded.

    • Dwi says:

      Yeah didn’t understand that, but yes, u can have another non-profit do the grant making with the archewell $ so that archwell doesn’t have that headache though they still control who gets the grants, along with the terms. I think that’s a good move.
      I worked for years at Carnegie corporation of ny and one year we did grant making for Bloomberg. It was a one- off.

    • Meredith says:

      Charities usually make a plan to distribute the corpus of funds and shut down — they don’t get sold.

  17. Shiela Kerr says:

    I believe in the Sussexes and only the Sussexes know what their end game is. The usual negative Nelly’s are selling their negative nonsense. Growth and change are part of any organization. Excited for what is to come from them.

  18. Maja says:

    They have reduced the number of employees by 1043%.

  19. Sophie says:

    The fact that it’s only tabloids talking about this and it’s all from sources that sound suspect is probably enough evidence it’s all nonsense. All the serious outlets that reported on James Holt’s departure kept their reporting mostly factual and didn’t speculate.

  20. Harla says:

    i trust Meghan and Harry (and their advisors) to make sound decisions based on the data and information they have, for their personal, professional and philanthropic lives.

  21. Siri says:

    Royal commentators are like psychics, they spew a lot of nonsense hoping that every now and then they get something right.

  22. monlette says:

    She is doing what all successful people do. Namely trying a lot of things and seeing what works and what doesn’t, and cutting her losses for things that don’t quite pan out. Unfortunately, she has to do this on a world stage, with the tabloids breathing down her neck.

    If any of her critics have done anything as impressive as her As Ever drops, I would like to hear about it.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      This! A lot of notable people have started and abandoned projects and it never gets this much scrutiny. The thing is they are never going to have a single desk job and just sit on a board or two. Neither of them are like that. They will constantly try new things and approaches, whether for financial, philanthropic or creative reasons. I wouldn’t necessarily say they’re restless but very curious, and experimental. Some things seem to be settling and hitting their stride like Invictus and even producing, while they are trying to restructure their philanthropic arm and play PR whack a mole with the tabloids and British Press. I think they will try to protect what they have built after what happened with Sentebale and the attempt to use Meghan’s dad to sabotage her with his latest health problems. Everything is amplified and dramatized. I think some changes have definitely been in the works. Everything is always timed after the fact.

      • Nic919 says:

        I want to know if Taylor Swift or anyone else has the linked in profiles of their employees monitored as the Uk tabloids do for the Sussexes.

  23. L4Frimaire says:

    Let Page 6 panic for the Sussexes while they just continue with their business. In the grs d scheme of things, if they narrow their focus, restructure or decide to completely change their approach, they’re doing it for a reason. It would be good to have some quiet on this perceived constant churn.

    • Emily says:

      As non working royals they are under no obligation to do charity at all. If they decided to just focus on highlighting good causes that would be fine. However, they obviously enjoy the philanthropy aspect of their work so I’m sure they will always do it in some capacity. I’ve looked at the Archewell accounts and while it seems they could do with cutting admin and staffing costs the charity has a balance of over £8 million so this weird concern trolling by PageSix is just silly.

  24. rachel says:

    It IS a lot of turnover but I don’t think it’s that uncommon for start-ups to go through different iterations. They are trying to figure out what they want to do. Their security costs are enormous and maybe they stretched themselves to thin with all the staff.

    IT doesn’t mean anyone is a monster.

  25. QuiteContrary says:

    What’s the opposite of fan fiction? Foe fiction maybe? That’s what this is.

  26. Nic919 says:

    They are including Holt who isn’t leaving but changing roles.
    Page six isn’t an industry paper. They are Murdoch owned regurgitating UK tabloid tripe.

  27. Al says:

    It’s interesting how the tabloids never know who is leaving, or when they’re leaving – only after the story breaks do they suddenly claim they had “sources” telling them bs.

  28. Kim says:

    If this is true I think it’s great news. I really don’t understand their desire to be philanthropists, to be seen as charitable, to be giving back — blah blah blah.

    What’s wrong with living a leisurely life? Why is it problematic to simply enjoy being rich and spending quality time with your children?

    Maybe Harry feels compelled to do that because of his heritage and his mother but I don’t understand why Megan would need to fulfill that kind of duty. I mean, she was just a working actress before Harry. Would she be trying to “make a difference in the world” if she’d married another actor?

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment