The promise was seductive. A duchess steps away from palace constraints, enters Hollywood with moral authority, global attention, and the backing of the world’s biggest platforms. For a brief moment, it looked as though Meghan Markle and Prince Harry had achieved what no modern royal ever had: complete control of their narrative, free from the institution they claimed had silenced them.

Yet narratives in Hollywood survive only as long as they remain useful.

Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams, who has watched the monarchy evolve for decades, now suggests that the Sussexes’ Hollywood experiment has quietly run aground. While no studio executive will say it publicly, the signs are increasingly difficult to ignore. Projects stall. High-profile collaborations fail to materialize. Invitations dry up. What was once framed as “selective” has begun to look uncomfortably like exclusion.

Hollywood insiders, speaking off the record, describe a growing hesitation around the couple. One former television executive put it bluntly: “They brought drama, not momentum.” Another noted that the entertainment industry is ruthless about one thing above all else — reliability. “If you become a liability,” the executive said, “people simply stop answering your calls.”

Meghan’s Netflix ventures were supposed to mark her return to center stage. Instead, they appear to have highlighted a deeper problem: star power without stars. Reports that producers struggled to convince A-list guests to appear alongside her have raised uncomfortable questions about her standing in the industry. As one commentator remarked online, “Hollywood loves fame, but it loves safety more.”

The contrast with Meghan’s early post-royal period is stark. Back then, proximity to Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, and other cultural power brokers signaled acceptance. Today, those associations feel increasingly distant. A media analyst observed that celebrity proximity is transactional. “Once the story stops evolving,” she said, “the spotlight moves on.”

Prince Harry’s role has also come under scrutiny. While his royal background initially gave projects a veneer of significance, critics argue that it also tethered the couple to a past they claimed to have escaped. “You can’t build a future by endlessly litigating the same grievances,” one London-based columnist wrote. “At some point, audiences expect growth.”

Fitzwilliams suggests that Hollywood’s retreat may not be accidental. According to him, the industry has quietly reassessed the Sussexes’ credibility following years of public disputes, media attacks, and legal battles. None of these individually are fatal in Hollywood — but together, they form a pattern that executives prefer to avoid.

A former public relations consultant, familiar with crisis management in Los Angeles, explained it this way: “Hollywood doesn’t punish you. It distances itself. That’s far more effective.”

There is also the matter of institutional power. Meghan and Harry positioned themselves as outsiders challenging entrenched systems, but both Hollywood and the monarchy operate on unspoken rules. Break too many of them, and access evaporates. As one royal watcher noted, “They underestimated how coordinated silence can be.”

Some supporters argue that Meghan’s ambitions were never about Hollywood approval, but about influence on her own terms. Yet influence, by definition, requires willing participants. Without collaborators, platforms become echo chambers. One longtime Sussex observer commented online, “It feels less like rebellion now and more like isolation.”

Behind the scenes, speculation has grown that Meghan understands the shift all too well. Fitzwilliams hints that her greatest concern may not be bad press, but irrelevance. Hollywood can forgive controversy; it rarely forgives exhaustion. When a brand becomes predictable, the industry looks elsewhere.

Meanwhile, comparisons with the Royal Family have resurfaced. While Meghan and Harry struggle to maintain cultural traction, the monarchy — the institution they rejected — continues to generate relevance through continuity rather than confrontation. A former palace aide remarked, “They thought leaving meant freedom. They didn’t realize it also meant losing the shield.”

The idea that “outside forces” contributed to the Sussexes’ decline has gained traction among commentators. Not conspiracies, but systems: media fatigue, industry caution, and a growing reluctance to invest in personalities perceived as volatile. As one entertainment journalist observed, “Hollywood didn’t turn against them. It simply stopped believing in the return on investment.”

For now, neither Meghan nor Harry has publicly addressed these assessments. Silence, however, has become its own statement. In Hollywood, absence is often read as an answer.

Whether the Sussexes can recalibrate their strategy remains uncertain. Reinvention is possible, but it requires humility — a quality critics argue has been notably absent. As Fitzwilliams himself put it in a recent commentary, “You cannot trade on royal mystique forever once you’ve renounced the crown.”

In the end, their story may serve as a cautionary tale. Power does not disappear when you leave an institution. It reorganizes itself — and it rarely waits for those who assume it will follow them.