Prince Harry and Meghan seem especially chatty this week, and I’m enjoying it. Just this week, their spokesperson slammed that idiotic emotional-support petition about their upcoming visit to Australia. Then Harry and Meghan posted a direct statement about the successful lawsuits finding Google and Meta liable for negligence. And now this – a “source in Harry’s camp” has pushed back on all of the hand-wringing about the Sussexes’ relationship with Netflix. Earlier this week, Archewell gave an exclusive to Deadline, announcing that they were working on a scripted drama about polo. The timing was important, because just one week earlier, Variety reported that everyone at Netflix hates Meghan and Harry and the Sussexes’ first-look contract is going nowhere. Whoopsie! Well, this source in Harry’s camp (??) spoke to Tom Sykes about the polo show:
A source in Harry’s camp said of the new commission: “It knocks back the Tom Bower narrative that ‘Netflix want nothing to do with the pair’. He keeps repeating that while ignoring the facts. We have a new drama commissioned with them, there is more in the works, and while there will naturally be attrition, that’s the business. There is plenty on the slate with Netflix and other streamers that will be coming down the pipeline over the next few years.”
The same source added: “[Tom Bower] shouldn’t rely on ex-employees (out of date) or junior Netflix sources who aren’t read into the high-level sensitive commercial discussions. Basically, the only people who really know are the Duke and Duchess, Sarandos, and Bella. Unless you’re speaking to one of them, you don’t have the full picture.”
I doubt this was official pushback from the Archewell team, but I don’t doubt that this is actually Harry and Meghan’s perspective on the whole drama. I also think it’s interesting that this person connected the “Netflix hates H&M” storyline with Tom Bower… and not Variety. Is Team Sussex insinuating that Variety used Tom Bower as a source on their hit-piece? That’s interesting, isn’t it? Now that they mention it, it would make a lot of sense. They’re also clearly pointing out the same thing that I theorized while reading Variety’s story – that while Harry and Meghan have the support of Netflix’s C-suite, certain middle-managers and junior staffers are constantly bitching about the Sussexes. “…Ex-employees (out of date) or junior Netflix sources who aren’t read into the high-level sensitive commercial discussions…” Interesting.
Photos courtesy of Netflix.
Is it possible these ex- and junior employees were paid for their uninformed bs? I mean, they could be run-of-the-mill derangers, or they could hate the Sussexes because they heard something. But also, the media-palace hate complex has been outed for offering cash for lies. If Variety just called up Tom Bower (or even just read his book) then attributed his rant to a junior employee, and I wouldn’t put it past them, that’s really despicable and unethical.
Indeed, paid to say yes to preprepared quotes! The british media culture.
I do not for a moment believe anything from tom sykes. Kaiser, when is it safe to believe tom and when is it not safe? Tom creates his stories! Tom sykes has been william parker-bowles’ chief nanny and spokesperson. I just cannot imagine The Sussexes’ people talking to tom sykes.
It is very interesting!! Usually the Sussexes will use a spokesperson when they want to say something regarding false information! I hope this “source “ is credible but you never know. As for Tom Bower talking with the leak at Netflix that does sound exactly like something he would do.
I guess my instinct though is why would a sussex source talk to Royalist? That’s against everything they’ve ever said about communication. Everything attributed to the sussexes, or Netflix sources or whatever, I believe, is entirely fictional. Substacks need to churn content.
While Skykes very well be his own source for this story, it doesn’t mean that Bower being the source for the Variety article is false he could have insider information because Bower is arrogant enough to brag to cronies if he contributed to that article and Sykes is still in that circle of Royal cronies.
This suggestion that Bower was behind the variety piece isn’t from a Sussex team source. The source is Tom Sykes himself and is just Sykes trying to extend the Variety piece which was subject to multiple denials on the record by Netflix spokespeople, Netflix’ chief content officer and H&M’s lawyers. The idea that Netflix was done with H&m was also debunked by the announcement of a new drama series, articles of which Ted Sarandos is posting in his social media stories.
This is also just Sykes trying to give Tom Bower & his fan fiction more limelight & credibility than he or it deserves.
Unsurprising Bower is indicated as the Variety source, he is as unscrupulous as they come. Unsure abut current Netflix folks being a source, does not make sense to me to jeopardize employment in this market, maybe a former employee but not a current one. Either way, the depth of the attacks on the Sussexes suggests this is personal and dangerous.
I don’t know if any one of the Sussexes team is actually speaking to Tom Sykes, I don’t see how that would be beneficial to them given his ranting. However, I could see someone using common sense and not lying to themselves about how everything carrying Meghan does is wrong could make that natural deduction.
Given the hyper scrutiny around them, most of the deals that they make and most of the projects that they are working on are probably going to be eyes only for the top executives. It’s unnecessary in my opinion to have to react that way, treating it like it’s the latest Marvel script, but the British media has made it that way.
As far as Bower being a variety source, I could see that tracking. Just like Sophie Chanduka was clearly used as a source a lot last year. I’m not sure why these ones respected entities are allowing themselves to be embarrassed like this pretty much a week later by using these obviously bitter sources, but continue. It was just highlight even more how they’re not reliable on their reporting.
Yeah, I don’t see a Sussex source speaking to Sykes. As for Bowers being a source for variety? Maybe. Or throw a stone and find someone who holds his views and is willing to talk. Who’s to say Sykes wasn’t the source and he’s trying to blame it on Bower, lol. Sorry I’m just throwing out conspiracy theories now. I’m more curious about the ex or lower-level Netflix employees who are talking. Bc they seem like bitter gossips who don’t actually know anything but like to gossip like they’re in the know.
I don’t think it came from any source in the Sussexes’ camp. I think it came from members of Sussex Squad on social media, who have been saying the exact same words ever since that hit piece came out.
The Squaddies have essentially been reminding people that Harry and Meghan and their people say things ON the record, with their full names and full chests, and that any article filled with anonymous sources is never to be trusted (and that perhaps the haters ought to have listened to Bella, who knows more about their Netflix projects than anyone else, and who had shut down the lies in the same article). Same here. Someone is simply attempting to give Bower more relevance than he has, to give the impression that they are spending more time on him beyond their previous statement, in order to give him another excuse to make the rounds on television sofas.
It’s smart of them to keep things close to their chests, that way they’ll immediately know where the leaks are coming from. It also prevents the usual suspects from attempting to plant people on projects or sabotage their work and working relationships.
Well said.
I don’t know what to think about this but I believe that one of Bowers sources for his book was Angela Levin’s twitter feed. A lot of the stories from the book mirror what Angela Levin spews online and he did admit that many of sources were derangers on Twitter.
Oh wow. That’s wild. Angela Levin’s Twitter feed, my god.
If we call BS when — insiders, friends or anonymous source when it’s about the Sussexes, we should do the same when it’s for the Sussexes. Harry and Meghan have spokespersons that talk for them, they don’t need anonymous sources.
Or, maybe, this person is reading you, @Kaiser, regarding junior employees?
Apparently, the Netflix employee cafeteria is a fertile source for information about the Sussexes. And, yes, of course the sources are paid. That’s why you should always be skeptical of British tabloid stories.
Re: junior staffers. These are the people being asked to re-edit, rewrite, book this thing—no, cancel it! Wait, rebook it! Can you delete the whole draft and start over? And on and on for months at a time while working on projects like the ones for Netflix. I’m not saying H&M are guilty of the endless runarounds, but this type of thing drives people nuts and makes lower-level staffers easy targets for the likes of Tom Bower or Variety. This describes what it’s like for jr staffers working at an entertainment company who deal with a-list celebrities’ content. Ted and Bella do not do this type of work.
I could see that, and I can imagine that would be annoying, but they should also have enough experience then to realize that being asked to edit or rebook things doesn’t mean that projects are canceled.
This happens in the music industry too where you’ll work on an album, you record songs, sometimes they’ll make an album, sometimes they won’t, sometimes you’ll have to remix or add verses. It’s all part of the game, so it would be odd to me that they would take particular umbrage with it happening with Harry and Meghan like it’s some sort of anomaly.
Contrary to reports and wishful thinking, Harry and Meghan (especially Meghan who has had more years of WORKING at paid jobs, even as a low level staffer), are organised and methodical and most importantly, considerate in their work and to the people with whom they work. There is NO way they would be jerking low-level staffers around like that. This plays into the UK media narratives that they don’t know what they are doing, or how things work, or can’t make their minds up.
They did not have the successes they have been having over the years, and continue to have, by stumbling around, or by accident.
It’s true, juniors should be able to happily do their jobs since that’s what they signed up for. However, chatting with people who work on various shows at various networks all talk to each other. That’s how I’ve heard all sorts of stories about every type of celebrity show. And to be fair, it’s almost always the celeb’s team who call at all hours (seriously) and yell down the phone (seriously) for the million change because someone can’t make up their mind. But these stories make for fodder over drinks or events when you run into people. Is it unprofessional? Yes. Does it happen? Absolutely. Everyone wants to know what it’s like working with that person and their team. All that said, it doesn’t shock me that a reporter heard commiserations or paid for one.
Again, I can’t say anything about H&M — they seem lovely and hardworking.
I think the best rejoinder to all of this truth is reality — Variety looked ridiculous when news emerged of the Sussexes’ new polo series.
I would not believe anyone with authority to speak for the Sussexes which would be their named comms people would speak to Sykes. I think Sykes is just starting to refer to the voices in his head as sources now, just like all the other royal vermin. I’m trying to make sense of the idea that Bowers is a source for Variety. Isn’t Variety and industry rag? Why is an industry rag using a gossip writer as a source. Mind you, Variety I guess is no longer to be respected as an industry publication.
The piece in Variety was a hit piece ordered by some powers that be. It was a hit piece not because it was critical of the Sussexes but because the way it was put together. They deliberately used the same reporter that interviewed Meghan when she was on the cover, they commissioned a ridiculing cartoon to accompany the piece, they promoted the piece with a thread on Twitter, one click bait after another. This is not how Variety usually goes about publishing an article. This was a placed hit piece serving somebody’s agenda, just like the Sinners piece was.
As for Sykes, my guess his only sources are the comment sections. He prefers the Sussex hate on Reddit but I guess he lurks here too and he picked up our talking points re the Netflix gossip sources for the Variety piece. I remember many of us here and Kaiser especially speculating this was sourced by the junior level Netflix staff.
I continue to see this whole saga as a comparative study in working cultures. Work has its own culture. And it tends to reflect the broader national culture in which it suppurates, if you’re in the UK. There is a genuine cultural obsession with “having a moan,” “having a grumble,” “letting off steam,” “having a go,” “throwing a wobbly,” “having a rant,” “having a meltdown,” “banter” of all forms, in all settings, etc……. It never ceases to astonish me how disinhibited British people are about *complaining* about stuff that is part of their *jobs* but uniquely about the job. You can’t complain in a restaurant if your food is cold or undercooked, you can’t complain if someone is late or just doesn’t show up for a furniture delivery, (real life examples, LOL), you can’t complain if you book a car and it never arrives (more real life)…. There’s all manner of stuff you can’t complain about that you absolutely should be complaining about. But you’re allowed to complain about work. Which is Opposite Day, to an American, like me, who came here originally for work. But here’s the real wrinkle: complain all day, nothing will change. It’s seen as harmless. So when you moan about your boss asking you to do a million things, the assumption is, obviously, you’ve done a million things. But done them badly. Half-assed. Then your boss gets to take a turn complaining about *you* and the whole thing kicks off on another cycle. It’s a working culture fuelled by passive aggression, simmering resentment, and malicious compliance. “I thought you said that’s what you wanted…..” smirk. Bottom line: productivity in the UK is the lowest in Europe, if not the EU, since we crashed out of the EU. Germans do more in 4 days than British people do in 5. That’s not politics. That’s the economy. Meghan clearly has an American work ethic. I can see — from my own experience — how she got fed up with people who chronically underperform whilst moaning. Apologies. But that’s my take.
I think you are spot-on.
I think this is really good insight. Because I remember some of the ” examples” of Meghan being a bully, was her sending emails early in the day even without the expectation that you answered them at that time, but it apparently was stressful to even receive them. Also, I remember one of the criticisms in last year’s Vanity Fair article was that she was upset with an employee who she had given an assignment to complete on a project, and they didn’t do it. Well, no s*** your boss was upset by that? Where have you worked when they wouldn’t be?
I think there is definitely outside of just trying to portray her as some sort of monster, a genuine cultural divide. Even if Meghan wasn’t incredibly driven I do think that constantly being in a complaining and non-solution-based space as one of her employees would annoy her very quickly. And while you do have to be cognizant of navigating cultural differences, I know this personally as I manage a team in another country as well as my own, you’re still allowed to have expectations of your staff.
As to the junior staff speculation, I believe it. As a person ho’s worked in support positions for a long time in several industries, having people at the top who talk about putting families first and work life balance means a lot of extra work for. Juniors and support staff, who do have lives and families and minds of their own So anyone saying they should be happy to have a job, listen to yourselves.