Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are facing renewed scrutiny over their post-royal strategy as public relations analysts and royal commentators question whether the couple's media-driven narrative has begun to lose traction, with critics pointing to stalled deals and growing audience fatigue.
Doug Eldridge, founder of Achilles PR, told Fox News Digital that the couple's messaging has leaned too heavily on a single theme since their 2020 departure from the royal family. "In the years following their highly publicised exit from the Royal Family, in 2020, the couple made a series of decisions that directly altered the public sentiment and perception," he said.
Eldridge cited a pattern across their major media appearances, adding, "From the Oprah sit-down, to the tell-all book, to the perpetual cycle of 'victim marketing' many observers on both sides of the Atlantic began to question their motives and gradually began to form a polarising view of the couple or even worse, lose interest altogether."
In Hollywood terms, Eldridge framed the issue as one of declining relevance. "In Hollywood, there's an old saying, 'it's not about talent, it's about temperature'," he said. "Interest and eyeballs are what validates investment in creative projects. When the temperature cools and the eyeballs wander, then deals are cut short, or in this case, simply aren't renewed."
The shift is reflected in the couple's commercial partnerships. Their widely reported $100 million agreement with Netflix, signed in 2020, has since been reduced to a first-look arrangement, while several projects have struggled to maintain momentum.
Key developments cited by commentators include:
- Netflix deal reportedly scaled back from a full production partnership
- "With Love, Meghan" not renewed for a third season
- End of collaboration tied to Meghan's "As Ever" lifestyle brand
Eldridge summarized the current position bluntly: "Markle isn't being cast for acting roles and their $100 million (£73.79 million) deal with Netflix is no longer in place."
Critics argue the underlying issue is identity. Eldridge said, "Their identity was almost singularly defined by their membership in the Royal Family; when that was no longer in place - much less with the manner and media-centric nature of their departure - it left the public wondering how to categorise them moving forward."
He described their broader strategy as inconsistent, adding the couple "took a scattershot approach to projects and public engagement, which to some, seemed like a 'spaghetti against the wall' approach to figuring out what sticks." He warned that repeated repositioning risks diminishing returns, saying, "A rebrand is effective once; maybe twice at most," and "the couple have been on an endless treadmill of purported rebrands at this point."
Other commentators echoed concerns about reputational erosion. Royal expert Hilary Fordwich said, "The couple continue to be hypocritical and that doesn't sit well with the public either side of the pond," arguing that "commercialising the very institution they claim to have left is at the core of all their issues."
Helena Chard took a more direct stance, stating, "Both Harry and Meghan are constantly changing advisers and the circle of constant drama is draining," adding, "No one wants to associate with a toxic brand." Fordwich also pointed to broader audience dynamics, saying there is now "more market fatigue than fascination."
Not all assessments were negative. Royal commentator Ian Pelham Turner described Meghan as a "successful survivor" and said the couple remain "a strong formidable team," suggesting the possibility of a longer-term recovery depending on future positioning.
The debate is unfolding as the couple prepare for a four-day visit to Australia, a privately organized trip combining philanthropic appearances, speaking engagements and commercial events. Richard Fitzwilliams characterized the visit as a "huge gamble," calling it a "faux royal tour" that is "certain to displease the Palace as it is one of the King's realms."
