The royal loser of the week (nope, not Harry)
The week is marked by a happy return, an unhappy return, and a notorious return
I thought about titling this post “The good, the bad, and the ugly” but while the “good” category fit that news, I wasn’t convinced that the latter two items fit the “bad” and “ugly” descriptors. So I’ve opted for happy, unhappy, and notorious — sure, not that different, but enough for me.
A HAPPY RETURN
The good news came in the form of a 26-word item in the Court Circular. On September 17, it announced that “The Princess of Wales, Joint Patron, the Royal Foundation of The Prince and Princess of Wales, this afternoon held an Early Years Meeting at Windsor Castle.”
It’s a bog standard entry into the official engagements of the working members of the House of Windsor, yet marks an important milestone. It’s the first such regular engagement undertaken since she recently announced the end of her preventative chemotherapy, which began in late February. It’s only the third time that Kate has undertaken an official engagement in 2024, following her attendance at Trooping the Colour in June, and the men’s final at Wimbledon in July.
That September announcement also said that she’s “looking forward to being back at work and undertaking a few more public engagements in the coming months when I can.” Though still recovering from a year of illness, she had started working from her home, Adelaide Cottage, which is just outside of Windsor Castle. And that work included her including on her early childhood programme. Now, she’s held a Early Years meeting at the castle itself, which was recorded in the Court Circular.
Yes, it’s a baby step but one in the right direction. We’re not going to see her plunge back into public engagements this autumn, but all signs point to a slow return to work. And that’s a good thing, especially given what she and her family have gone through this year.
AN UNHAPPY RETURN
“Oops! … I did it again” was the hit that launched Britney Spears’s career. The official video on YouTube has been watched a half billion times. And that phrase instantly found a home in the modern lexicon.
And that’s the start of a scathing article published by Hollywood Reporter on September 12, in which it outlines how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex “chewed up yet another American advisor,” this time Josh Kettler, who had just been hired to be their chief of staff.
Hollywood Reporter talked to a dozen people, most “who had worked very closely with the couple, the magazine’s co-editor-in-chief told Access Hollywood. The article paints a negative view of the couple as employers. “Everyone’s terrified of Meghan,” alleges one source close to the couple. “She belittles people, she doesn’t take advice. They’re both poor decision-makers, they change their minds frequently. Harry is a very, very charming person — no airs at all — but he’s very much an enabler. And she’s just terrible.”
If this sounds a familiar, it’s because similar accusations were raised three years ago, involving their royal staff. Days before Harry and Meghan’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey aired in early March 2021, the Times published its own royal blockbuster: “Royal aides reveal bullying claim before Meghan’s Oprah interview.” In the story, royal correspondent Valentine Low laid out the allegation that Meghan had bullied staff members, which Jason Knauf, the couple’s communications advisor, had detailed in an email sent up the management chain in the royal household. “The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying Y and seeking to undermine her confidence,” Knauf wrote.
In addition, Low talked to two senior staff who said they had been bullied by the duchess, with another claiming that it felt “more like emotional cruelty and manipulation, which I guess could also be called bullying.”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s camp responded in the article: their lawyer telling the Times that it was “being used by Buckingham Palace to peddle a wholly false narrative” while a spokesman said that they were victims of a calculated “smear campaign” and that Meghan was “saddened by this latest attack on her character.”
What is different about the two sets of allegations is that while Harry and Meghan’s camp went on the record for the Times, they didn’t for the Hollywood Reporter, which included a statement, “Harry and Meghan’s current spokesperson declined to comment.”
A week later, there seems to be an attempt to push back against the Hollywood Reporter article. GB News reported that Archewell sources deny the allegations in the Hollywood Reporter article: “These quotes were fabricated by someone lacking knowledge of our company” a source said.
In addition, GB News reported that Meghan’s signature on emails contains a notice: “My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged to reply to this email outside your normal working hours.” That’s an increasingly common refrain in California. Earlier this year, a bill was introduced in the state legislature earlier this year that would have employers “establish a workplace policy that provides employees the right to disconnect from communications from the employer during nonworking hours,” except for emergencies and scheduling. The bill, AB2751, is currently in committee, according to the legislature’s website.
While the fallout continues, it’s worth noting that there have been several industry media reports on unhappiness on the business side of the entertainment world with how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex operate. In June 2023, I wrote a timeline of their Hollywood experience, including a Wall Street Journal article that labelled them a “Hollywood flop” and a Bloomberg piece on their Spotify woes.
Prince Harry will be in New York for a series of high-profile events surrounding the UN General Assembly, including appearing at a Clinton Global Initiative alongside former U.S. president Bill Clinton and a host of other A-list folk. His memoir comes out in paperback in October, and his Polo series will appear on Netflix in December. Comebacks are a staple of Hollywood — can the Sussexes add their names to that list?
A NOTORIOUS RETURN
Perhaps the worst hour of Prince Andrew’s life was when his interview with Emily Maitlis aired on the BBC’s Newsnight program in November 2019. “A plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion-level bad” was a favourite reaction to the interview, which was so disastrous that two dramatic versions have been released this year — Netflix’s Scoop starring Gillian Anderson and Rufus Sewell premiered in April while the three-part A Very Royal Scandal starring Ruth Wilson and Martin Sheen premiered today on Amazon’s Prime.
The 2019 interview on the BBC focused on his relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and friend Ghislaine Maxwell (Epstein had died by suicide a few months earlier in August 2019; Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking of a minor and other crimes in 2021 and is serving 20 years in prison.) As I wrote that night for Maclean’s, the interview “revealed a 59-year-old man seemingly devoid of empathy for Epstein’s victims and bewildered about how his gilded, privileged life has somehow ended up like this.”
His self-serving answers turned “an already terrible situation into a catastrophic, irretrievable one as far as his reputation went,” wrote the Telegraph. Ninety-three hours later, Buckingham Palace put out a statement by Prince Andrew announcing that he was stepping back from public duties “for the foreseeable future.” His life as a working royal was over.
A Very Royal Scandal portrays Andrew as an arrogant buffoon who:
Screams and swears at staff (lots of “f*** off”)
Refuses to accept advice, including not to be interviewed by Maitlis (“I’m the second f***ing son of the f***ing sovereign. If I want to go on telly and defend myself, I will.”)
Thinks that the interview was a triumph, at least until it aired (“Obviously it was a risk but I felt it [was good]. Thank you, Emily.”)
As well, being a three-part series gives the Prime drama space to delve deeper into the sordid relationship between prince and pedophile — including how it continued after his conviction, and how the extremely wealthy Epstein paid off some of the debts of his ex-wife, Sarah, Duchess of York, who was and continues to be Andrew’s staunchest defender.
If Andrew’s world fell apart on 2019, then this week’s premiere of A Very Royal Affair makes it clear to yet another worldwide audience why there’s no possibility that he’d ever be allowed to resume duties on behalf of the monarch. He’s been relegated to “family of the monarch” status, and allowed to be seen with working royals at “family events” such as Royal Ascot or the walk to church service at Christmas.
His notoriety is toxic. And that makes him the royal loser of the week.
My latest Royal Roundup on Global TV’s The Morning Show on September 16:
My latest article for Zoomer: “Prince Harry at 40: From Hollywood to Philanthropy to Tabloid Takedowns, the Duke of Sussex is Charting His Own Path Forward”
Five years ago, Harry joined hands with his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and together they leapt off the proverbial cliff, leaving the strictures of royal life for one that they could shape and control more to their liking (the continued gaze of the world’s media notwithstanding).
Now, as the Duke of Sussex turns 40 this weekend, Harry is building his own life away from the comforts of palaces and castles, and he’s doing just fine.