Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, has stumbled into a public relations quagmire with her latest Netflix endeavor, "With Love, Meghan." The homemaking series, hyped as a personal glimpse into her life, has crashed spectacularly, barely registering a blip on the streaming giant's radar.
According to The Western Journal, the show languished at No. 383 on Netflix's list of most-watched programs for the first half of 2025, scraping together a mere 5.3 million global views. This puts it in the same league as decade-old reruns of "Gossip Girl" and a children's cartoon about grizzly bears and lemmings, hardly the company a $100 million deal with Netflix should keep.
Compare that to the top performer, "Adolescence," which racked up 145 million views, or even a canceled series like "The Residence" with 33 million, and the scale of this flop becomes painfully clear. For a project meant to be a flagship win for Meghan and Prince Harry, these numbers are a stark reminder that celebrity alone doesn't guarantee an audience.
The show's troubles started well before the ratings came in, with reports revealing that "With Love, Meghan" wasn't even filmed at her own Montecito home. Instead, a nearby rental property, valued at less than her own estate, served as the backdrop for this supposedly intimate look at her lifestyle.
This disconnect between image and reality only fueled the perception of inauthenticity, a critique that has dogged the Sussexes' post-royal ventures. When you're selling a personal brand but can't even shoot in your own kitchen, it’s hard to argue you're keeping it real.
Then there's the content itself, which critics and viewers alike have torn apart for its lack of substance. One guest, comedienne Mindy Kaling, praised Meghan's "practical" tips like avoiding overhead lighting and using little lamps for kids' parties, but such advice feels more suited to a glossy magazine than a relatable family gathering.
The reviews have been nothing short of brutal, with the show earning a dismal 36 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The U.K. Guardian gave it a single star out of five, calling it "toe-curlingly unlovable TV," a sentiment that seems to echo across the board.
Critic Chitra Ramaswamy didn't hold back, stating, "What 'With Love, Meghan' vibrates with most is a vacuous, over styled joylessness." Such a scathing line cuts to the core of the issue: a show meant to charm and inspire instead feels hollow, more about optics than heart.
Ramaswamy also noted the only redeeming feature was Meghan's beagle, Guy, described as a "real honey." When a pet is the highlight of a multi-million-dollar production, it's a sign the project has veered far off course.
Prince Harry hasn't fared any better with his own Netflix offering, a documentary titled "Polo," which dives into the elite sport. It ranked an abysmal No. 3,436, pulling in just 500,000 views worldwide, on par with reruns of "He-Man and The Masters of The Universe."
Doing the math, Netflix has paid the Sussexes roughly $17.24 per view across their shows, a figure that raises eyebrows given the hefty $100 million contract. This kind of return on investment would make any business executive wince, and it fuels the ongoing narrative of underperformance.
Past criticism from Spotify executive Bill Simmons, who labeled the couple as "grifters" after a lackluster podcast deal, seems to linger over these latest failures. While they’ve shown up for Netflix, the numbers suggest the public isn't buying what they're selling, no matter the platform.
In the end, "With Love, Meghan" and "Polo" represent more than just poor ratings; they highlight a disconnect between the Sussexes' ambitions and audience interest. With such a massive deal on the line, one might expect a sharper focus on content that resonates, not just repackages privilege.
Their brand, once buoyed by royal intrigue, now risks being seen as a pricey experiment in self-promotion that few care to watch. It's a tough lesson that even in the age of streaming, substance matters more than star power.
Perhaps there's room for a comeback, but for now, these projects stand as a cautionary tale about banking on name recognition over genuine connection. The numbers don't lie, and neither does the silence from viewers who simply tuned out.
