Staff Departures for Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan
Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan are dealing with another round of staff changes. On December 26, it was made public that Meredith Maynes, their chief communications officer, will leave her position after just starting in March. Shortly thereafter, James Holt, who has been with Archewell for a long time, declared he would resign as executive director effective December 29.
The announcements of these departures follow earlier resignations this year from three communication team members: Charlie Gipson, Kyle Boulia, and Emily Robinson. Additionally, Ashley Hansen, the couple’s global press secretary, departed last year to launch her own agency after two years of service.
Doug Eldridge, the founder of Achilles PR, noted to Fox News Digital that having five senior communications advisers exit in a single year is somewhat unusual, especially outside of the final months of an administration. He remarked that it casts doubt on whether internal budget issues at Archewell are a factor in these resignations, potential strategic realignment, or simply the end of prearranged commitments. What remains unclear, he said, is whether any of the resignations were voluntary or not.
Eldridge stated, “A successful strategic communications team and plan rely on clarity and continuity,” attributes that are hard to achieve when a team experiences so much turnover. Royal photographer Helena Chard also reflected on Maynes’ exit, humorously suggesting that Harry and Meghan may be experiencing a “merry-go-round of personnel changes.”
Chard further asserts that the recent controversy related to Kris Jenner’s birthday celebration might have influenced Maynes’ decision to leave, as she and her team faced scrutiny regarding their media relations. Harry and Meghan attended this party in November, and although photos of them circulated on social media, they were later deleted.
Chard mentioned a noticeable inconsistency in their communications, emphasizing that success is about maintaining authenticity and stability. There are whispers that Harry and Meghan may not have been following expert advice, which could be contributing to the chaos.
Critic Hilary Fordwich suggested that this pattern of staff exits underlines a persistent issue with control and hypocrisy within the couple’s work environment. She pointed out that roles like these often endure for three to five years, and high turnover typically indicates serious problems, whether personal or systemic.
Fordwich further contrasted the high attrition rates among Harry and Meghan’s staff with the stability observed in the teams of Prince William and Duchess Kate. This consistency, as she noted, is bolstered by established protocols and clear organizational structures.
Both Eldridge and Chard commented on the increased media scrutiny that these departures raise, highlighting the irony that the couple might unintentionally attract the very attention they wish to avoid. Without a dedicated team generating positive headlines, the focus naturally shifts to the reasons behind the mass departures.
As Eldridge put it, there seems to be an ongoing perception, rightly or wrongly, that Meghan is challenging to work with, leading experienced professionals to leave quickly. This scenario does not benefit her reputation.
Chard added that the situation’s unpredictability and disorganization could deter future talented professionals from seeking roles with the couple, affecting their ability to build a stable team going forward. It may become increasingly difficult to find qualified individuals willing to enter such an unstable environment.
