On September 12, the Hollywood Reporter’s Rambling Reporter did a completely bizarre story called “Why Hollywood Keeps Quitting on Harry and Meghan.” The evidence of “Hollywood quitting” the Sussexes is that Harry fired a chief of staff after three months (the guy has been leaking about it ever since) and… something something Netflix! Honestly, the bulk of THR’s story was recycled gossip from 2018-19, when Harry and Meghan lived in the UK and they were under siege on a daily basis from an unhinged national media and a monarchy set on destroying them. That’s when Kensington Palace gave birth to the “Duchess Difficult” narrative, a narrative about Meghan “bullying” staffers and “making grown men cry.” Remember the 5 am emails? THR dusted that off too. One source claimed, “She’s absolutely relentless. She marches around like a dictator in high heels, fuming and barking orders. I’ve watched her reduce grown men to tears.” Goals, truly. A vibe, as the kids would say. Well, it took a week, but now the Daily Mail is trying to piggyback on THR’s story. The Mail’s Alison Boshoff screeches the same question the Mail has been desperately obsessed with for years: “Has Hollywood turned on the Sussexes?” Some highlights:
The Sussexes were missing from WME’s Emmys afterparty: Missing, though, was one of Emanuel’s most famous clients, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. She signed with him in April 2023 in what seemed to be a certain harbinger of some big-ticket commercial tie-ups and maybe more deals in entertainment to go alongside her existing Netflix gig. But – just three days after a brutal take-down in the usually placid industry bible The Hollywood Reporter, which labelled her as ‘Duchess Difficult’, neither she nor husband Prince Harry were showing their faces. They weren’t nominated for any Emmys either – obviously.
Were they invited? Whether they didn’t get an invite or declined to go, their attendance at the event would have made the couple appear at least sanguine in the wake of the article which talked about her working practices, saying she was ‘just terrible’, ‘a dictator in high heels’ and had ‘made grown men cry’. However, for whatever reason, the pair stayed home. It matters if you work in TV and don’t go to the Emmys. People notice and judge which rung of the ladder you are on accordingly.
Schadenfreude & venom: One senior figure, who has watched Harry and Meghan’s progress in Hollywood with interest, said this week that they seem to be reaping the kind of ‘schadenfreude with extra venom’ at which the entertainment business excels. He adds: ‘It was only a matter of time before the industry Press started taking shots. It’s hard to find anyone with a good word to say for their film and television credibility.’
The Hollywood Reporter hit-piece: In all, the Hollywood Reporter article was just the kind of unflattering ‘hit piece’ which you might expect the talent agency WME to have strangled at birth for their client, Meghan. One senior Hollywood publicist tells me: ‘First of all, everyone industry-wide, EVERYONE reads The Hollywood Reporter. It’s really striking that WME did not stop this running.’ She adds: ‘WME normally – you would think – would have been threatening and denying access to other stars. Was this done here? The only thing the Sussexes could rally with was ‘no comment at this time’ from a spokesman.’
The Sussexes were never taken seriously: A senior producer says: ‘I don’t think mainstream Hollywood ever took them seriously. From day one Archewell felt to most industry onlookers more like a brand building exercise than a genuine production operation. Netflix were handing out vanity deals like candy at the time and so everybody just shrugged their shoulders and assumed their company wouldn’t get much done despite the generous backing. But even Harry and Meghan naysayers would have been shocked at how little they’ve actually achieved. And in the more austere climate of the industry in 2024 when thousands of people have lost jobs and the entertainment industry economy is struggling, there’s now a genuine dislike and distrust towards them by some.’
Meghan’s Netflix cooking show: Netflix is understood to have offered to run the ARO brand for Meghan, which makes sense as it has huge experience of global marketing and merchandising. And Netflix boss Ted Sarandos, in London this week for the Royal Television Society conference, is a voice on her side. He said of Meghan: ‘I’ve been out with a lot of famous people before – the way that people react to Meghan is otherworldly.’
The second half of the piece is just Boshoff trying to mock Meghan’s ARO venture (it hasn’t launched yet) and the cooking show (it hasn’t aired yet) and it all has the whiff of bullsh-t. ALL of this does, from the Hollywood Reporter piece (which mimicked years-old smears on Meghan) to the NY Post picking up THR’s story, to this. The only legitimate point I think Boshoff makes here is that WME should have done more to push back on THR’s story, or Archewell should have pushed back with their own operation. Y’all have yelled at me for this for years, but it’s incredibly stupid for Harry and Meghan to let these nasty “industry stories” sit and fester unchallenged. I get why the Sussexes mostly give the silent treatment to the lunacy from Salt Island. But when these sh-tty, out-of-nowhere attacks come from the Hollywood Reporter or Bill Simmons, you can’t just no-comment the situation. Fight back, it’s about your business! It’s about your professional reputation!
Also: no, Hollywood hasn’t turned on them. They are still famous and well-connected and they have many industry allies and friends. Harry just won an ESPY Award and he’s about to speak at the Clinton Global Initiative. Meghan is one of the most talked-about women in the world and her most recent interview was to the NY Times, where she described her investments in women-led fashion labels. Even if Harry and Meghan were not hilariously successful by every metric, they still wouldn’t come crawling back to Salt Island. Which, let’s be real, is the narrative the Mail is trying to sell.
Photos courtesy of Netflix.