The quiet elegance and solemn duty of the British monarchy were, once again, dramatically outmaneuvered by the sensational power of Hollywood spectacle. It was supposed to be a night of classic royal grandeur: Prince William and Princess Catherine, the future King and Queen, arriving in glittering finery at the annual Royal Variety Performance, fulfilling their roles as the steadfast anchors of the Crown. Yet, in a ruthless display of media choreography, the couple’s dignified appearance was brutally overshadowed, their spotlight snatched away by a perfectly timed, highly intimate, and profoundly calculated move from across the Atlantic.
Just as the flashbulbs were popping and the world’s attention was turning toward Kate and William, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, deployed her nuclear option: the trailer for her new Netflix Christmas special, With Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration. And in that trailer, she included a single, potent, headline-grabbing moment—a kiss with Prince Harry.
The reaction from royal commentators was swift, furious, and visceral. Veteran royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams did not mince words, labeling the timing of the trailer’s release, which coincided precisely with the Waleses’ high-profile engagement, as “execrable.” This is not a word tossed around lightly in royal circles. It implies something utterly vile, abominable, and unforgivable. It is the language of an intentional sabotage, a declaration that the Sussexes are willing to tear down the narrative of the Crown to build their own brand.
The Calculated Coup d’État of the Spotlight
The trailer itself, featuring Meghan engaged in domestic bliss—preparing a holiday wreath, wrapping presents, and offering a quote about the importance of making people feel comfortable as a host—is the epitome of the aspirational, yet accessible, lifestyle brand she is clearly cultivating. She is aiming for relatability married with high-end, Californian glamour. The special also boasts celebrity endorsements from names like tennis player Naomi Osaka and chef Tom Colicchio, signaling an attempt to leverage genuine star power.
But the centerpiece, the moment that drew the oxygen from the air around the Royal Variety Performance, was the brief, rare public display of affection between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. A kiss. In a traditional royal context, PDA is heavily frowned upon, especially during official engagements. By showcasing this intimate moment—a rare sight for a couple whose relationship is already under the world’s microscope—Meghan created a moment of irresistible, tabloid-ready content.
Fitzwilliams pinpointed the chilling efficiency of the strategy. He suggested that despite the trailer being, in his opinion, “cringey” and rooted in a smiley world that is unlikely to go “anywhere new,” the presence of the kiss would ensure it received “more coverage” than the Prince and Princess of Wales’ dutiful appearance. In the cutthroat world of 24-hour news and social media, the sensational often triumphs over the substantial, and the engineered, intimate moment will always defeat the dignified, traditional performance.
This is the crux of the emotional impact. The Royal Variety Performance is a cornerstone of the royal calendar, a visible demonstration of the monarchy’s enduring commitment to the arts and charity. For William and Kate, it is a moment to shine not through forced intimacy or manufactured glamour, but through years of steady, predictable service. It is a moment where their dedication to the institution is meant to be acknowledged and celebrated. By deploying the Netflix trailer at that exact moment, the Sussexes made a statement louder than any formal decree: their brand, built on emotional transparency and marketable personal drama, holds the power to eclipse even the highest-ranking members of the Firm.
The Cringe Factor and Harry’s Diminished Role
The criticism extends beyond mere timing; it strikes at the heart of the quality and purpose of the Sussexes’ professional endeavors. Fitzwilliams’ use of the word “cringey” suggests a lack of genuine substance, implying that the carefully curated, overly enthusiastic portrayal of holiday cheer is difficult to watch and lacks the gravitas expected of figures who once held such prominent roles. He casts serious doubt on the future of the partnership with the streaming giant, stating, “I strongly doubt that Netflix will want more of what she’s produced so far in With Love, Meghan in the New Year.”
This skepticism regarding the commercial viability of “Brand Sussex,” particularly when stripped of its initial novelty, is deeply revealing. The commentator suggests that the content is merely self-serving and lacks the compelling narrative arc that a major production house like Netflix requires to justify the massive investment. It raises the alarming question for the Duke and Duchess: once the drama of the feud fades, what is left to sell?
Perhaps the most stinging indictment for Prince Harry, however, is Fitzwilliams’ chilling observation about his role in the special. “When Meghan’s festive show airs he may be little more than an extra – he should beware, it may be a sign.” This single phrase encapsulates the profound transformation of Prince Harry’s public identity. A man who was once one of the most beloved and celebrated figures in the world, renowned for his military service and emotional openness, is now relegated by critics to a secondary player—a walk-on, a supporting character in his wife’s meticulously orchestrated American reality. The implications of this are immense, suggesting a public perception that Harry is losing his own narrative agency in favor of promoting his wife’s ambitions.
The Battle for Narrative Control
This clash of timing is the latest, and perhaps most calculated, salvo in the ongoing, trans-Atlantic battle for narrative control. The royal rift is not just a personal feud between brothers and their wives; it is a fundamental ideological conflict over how modern royalty should operate.
On one side stand William and Kate, embodying the traditional model of service, reserve, and a measured approach to public life. Their power is derived from the history and stability of the institution, and they communicate through carefully scripted statements and solemn, meaningful engagements. Their strength lies in their predictable commitment to duty.
On the other side are Harry and Meghan, champions of the modern, celebrity-driven model, where authenticity, emotional vulnerability (or the appearance of it), and the ability to command media attention are the true currencies. Their power is derived from their ability to manipulate the media cycle and monetize their personal stories and intimate moments.
The release of the trailer was a masterclass in this modern media manipulation. While the Waleses were engaging in service—a night dedicated to raising money for performers in need—the Sussexes were engaging in self-promotion. By timing their content drop to collide with the Royal Variety Performance, they forced a comparison, and in the digital age, the intimate kiss proved to be a far more potent click generator than Princess Kate’s flawless gown or Prince William’s polite applause. The irony is palpable: while Meghan’s quote in the trailer stresses the importance of making people “feel comfortable,” the actual effect of her strategic move was to inject profound discomfort, tension, and rivalry into the heart of the festive season.
This strategic brilliance, which commentators deem “execrable,” has successfully undermined the Monarchy’s attempt to project stability and unity. The world is not talking about the charity event or the elegance of the future Queen; they are talking about the kiss, the timing, and the escalating tension between the two couples. As the festive period approaches, a time traditionally dedicated to unity and goodwill, this incident serves as a stark reminder that the rift between the two sides of the Atlantic is not healing. It is, in fact, being aggressively marketed, monetized, and weaponized, guaranteeing that this will be a Christmas defined not by celebration, but by conflict and the undeniable, sensational power of a single, perfectly timed headline. The question remains whether the price of the spotlight is worth the cost of their reputation within the very circles they left behind.
