According to multiple reports, Netflix has made the decision to discontinue the Duchess of Sussex’s show, a move that appears to go far beyond a routine programming adjustment. Beneath the neutral language of a corporate business call lies what some observers see as a deeply personal rejection—one that exposes a critical weakness in Meghan’s post-royal reinvention strategy. With Prince Harry simultaneously unraveling emotionally in a London courtroom thousands of miles away, the question is no longer whether the Sussexes’ California dream is in trouble, but how fast it may collapse and what consequences will follow.
The end came quietly. No dramatic announcement, no public confrontation—just the silent erasure of a show from Netflix’s future slate. Meghan’s flagship project, With Love, Meghan, which was meant to position her as a modern lifestyle authority, has been cancelled with no plans for a third season. The crews, cameras, curated celebrity friendships, and glossy Montecito backdrops will not be returning. For a couple who once signed a staggering nine-figure deal with Netflix, this wasn’t merely a cancelled show. It was a devastating blow to their brand and a clear signal that Hollywood’s confidence had evaporated.
Ads
The ambition behind the series was clear. Meghan was meant to emerge as a contemporary American lifestyle icon, following in the footsteps of figures like Martha Stewart—someone who could parlay elegance, domestic expertise, and personal storytelling into a lasting media empire. But according to Tom Bower, a seasoned royal biographer and one of the Sussexes’ sharpest critics, the project was flawed from the start.
Bower claims Netflix executives quickly realized an uncomfortable truth: behind the polished image and carefully scripted compassion, there was little substance. In his blunt assessment, he argues that Meghan simply lacked the authentic talent required to anchor a lifestyle brand. This criticism went beyond television performance—it challenged the very foundation of her public persona. Lifestyle programming depends on credibility. Audiences must believe the host genuinely lives the values they promote. Whether it’s cooking, homemaking, or wellness, authenticity is non-negotiable.
According to insiders cited by Bower, Meghan struggled behind the scenes. She was described as demanding, image-obsessed, and more focused on appearances than meaningful content. Scenes were allegedly reshot repeatedly, not to improve technique or storytelling, but because she disliked how she looked on camera. The result, critics argue, was a glossy but empty product—visually polished yet emotionally hollow.
Public skepticism only intensified when viewers contrasted the show’s emphasis on family, love, and home with Meghan’s well-documented estrangement from her ailing father, Thomas Markle. While the series highlighted warmth and togetherness, reports noted there was no evidence of reconciliation or even contact with her father during his severe health crises. For many viewers, the disconnect was glaring. As one commentator put it, you cannot credibly market devotion to family while publicly abandoning your own.
Ads
In the streaming world, however, sentiment matters far less than statistics. Netflix follows data, not titles. And the numbers for With Love, Meghan were bleak. Despite heavy promotion throughout late 2025, the show reportedly ranked near the bottom of Netflix’s global content library—outperformed by obscure documentaries and forgotten reruns. Over four months, it attracted just two million views, a figure that many independent creators surpass online with ease. Even a holiday special failed to revive interest.
Industry insiders reportedly found the situation almost comical. Algorithms do not lie, and they are immune to celebrity status. The verdict was simple: viewers weren’t interested.
So why did Netflix persist for so long? Bower suggests the streaming giant was never truly invested in a cooking or lifestyle series. Instead, they were betting on royal scandal—hoping for explosive documentaries, intimate revelations about Princess Diana, or even a Sussex marital breakdown that could drive massive viewership. What they got instead was content critics described as dull and overly rehearsed.
The Sussexes, Bower argues, made a fatal miscalculation. They believed royal fame could be seamlessly converted into American celebrity influence. But the applause Meghan once received was not for her as an individual—it was for the institution she represented. Once removed from the monarchy, she became just another celebrity in an oversaturated market, and her offering failed to stand out.
Ads
This misreading extends to Meghan’s repeated association with Princess Diana. From jewelry to fashion choices, parallels have been carefully cultivated. Yet critics argue this strategy backfires. Diana’s appeal came from raw, unscripted vulnerability and deeply personal compassion. Meghan’s approach, by contrast, is often viewed as performative—polished for cameras, packaged for profit.
As Meghan’s Hollywood aspirations faltered, Prince Harry faced his own public reckoning in London. Appearing in court for his lawsuit against the British press, he came across not as confident or composed, but visibly strained. Judges reportedly had to remind him repeatedly to answer questions rather than argue emotionally. The most striking moment came when Harry broke down—not over the alleged hacking itself, but over Meghan’s suffering.
Ads
To critics, the scene was troubling. Events central to the case predated Meghan entirely, yet Harry appeared unable to separate his grievances from hers. Adding to the unease was Meghan’s absence during this deeply personal ordeal. The image of a prince emotionally unraveling alone in a courtroom reinforced perceptions that he has become a vessel for unresolved anger rather than a credible legal claimant.
At the heart of it all lies a glaring contradiction. Harry demands privacy while monetizing his most intimate experiences through books, interviews, and streaming deals. Many now question the sincerity of his claims. As public commentary grows harsher, indifference may be the most dangerous outcome of all.
إرسال تعليق