Getty Image
Meghan Markle’s attempt to counter recent staff abuse allegations has been criticized by a royal expert, who described the Duchess of Sussex’s approach as “desperate.” The Duchess found herself at the center of controversy after The Hollywood Reporter published a story accusing her of being a difficult boss, with one senior staff member even referring to her as a “dictator in high heels.”
In an effort to respond to these allegations, Us Weekly ran a story featuring both current and former employees who came to Meghan’s defense, offering positive testimonials about their experiences working with her. However, this move was not well-received by royal expert Renae Smith, who believes Meghan’s response could backfire.
“While having named staffers defend Meghan publicly may seem like a tactical response, I don’t think it’s an ideal PR strategy in this case,” Smith told The Express. She argued that the approach appears reactive and overly defensive. “It comes across as reactive and somewhat defensive, which can appear desperate.”
Smith pointed out that just because some staff members have had positive experiences working with Meghan, it doesn’t mean the negative experiences of others are invalid. “Just because some staff members offer praise doesn’t negate the possibility of negative experiences from others—human behavior is complex, and even individuals who are difficult in certain contexts can still be admired or liked by others,” she explained.
The expert went on to suggest that Meghan’s team should have taken a different approach to handling the allegations. Smith emphasized that addressing personal accusations too directly can sometimes draw more attention to the claims, leading to further scrutiny. “In PR, it’s important to remember that defending personal allegations too directly can inadvertently draw more attention to the accusations themselves, potentially leading to further scrutiny.”
Instead, Smith recommended a more subtle strategy. “A more effective approach might have been to simply acknowledge the allegations in a more neutral, professional manner without resorting to personal testimonies, while subtly refocusing the narrative on her charitable work or upcoming projects,” she suggested. Such a move, she believes, would have helped minimize the negative attention and steered the conversation back to Meghan’s public image.
By focusing on her philanthropic work rather than directly addressing the accusations, Smith argues that Meghan could have mitigated the impact of the allegations while maintaining a positive public image.
