Since stepping back from official royal duties in early 2020, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have remained among the most closely scrutinized public figures in the world.
Their highly publicized decision to leave the British royal family was presented as a break from institutional constraints and a step toward personal autonomy, privacy.
And self-determination. Yet in the years since that departure, the couple’s professional and personal lives have continued to generate controversy, particularly around repeated allegations concerning workplace culture, leadership style, and staff relations.
The latest wave of attention was sparked by a report published by The Hollywood Reporter, which revisited long-standing claims about Meghan Markle’s treatment of employees and collaborators.
Drawing on interviews with individuals described as current or former staff members, as well as people familiar with the couple’s professional environment, the report reignited debate over whether these issues represent isolated conflicts or a deeper, recurring pattern.
The “Duchess Difficult” Label
According to sources cited in the report, Meghan Markle has allegedly been referred to by some staff as “Duchess Difficult,” a nickname that has circulated privately for several years but has periodically surfaced in media coverage.
While the term itself is informal and unverified, its reappearance has fueled renewed discussion about her reputation as a leader.
Several sources quoted anonymously describe Meghan’s management style as highly demanding and emotionally intense.
One individual characterized her approach using the phrase “a dictator in high heels,” a remark that quickly gained traction across tabloids, online commentary, and social media platforms.
It is important to note that such descriptions reflect personal perceptions rather than established facts, but their repetition across multiple reports has kept the narrative alive.
Insiders interviewed by The Hollywood Reporter allege that Meghan’s expectations were often rigid, with frequent changes in direction and a strong emphasis on perfection.
Some claimed that this created an atmosphere of uncertainty, where staff members felt under constant pressure to anticipate shifting demands.
According to these accounts, even experienced professionals with long careers in media, communications, or institutional settings reportedly found the environment stressful and emotionally taxing.
Workplace Atmosphere and Alleged Emotional Impact
A recurring theme in these reports is the claim that staff felt they were “walking on eggshells,” unsure of how decisions or feedback would be received.
Several individuals alleged that criticism could be sharp and personal, leading to emotional distress. Some accounts suggest that tensions escalated to the point where staff members were left in tears after difficult interactions.
However, because these claims rely heavily on anonymous sourcing, they cannot be independently verified. Meghan Markle has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and has rejected the characterization of her behavior as abusive or bullying.
Prince Harry’s Role
Prince Harry is also mentioned in these accounts, though generally in a different light. Sources often describe him as personable, approachable, and polite in one-on-one interactions.
At the same time, some insiders characterize him as an “enabler,” suggesting that while he may not have initiated confrontations, he allegedly failed to intervene when conflicts arose.
According to these perspectives, this dynamic may have contributed to unclear lines of authority and accountability within their organizations.
Critics argue that leadership requires not only vision but also the willingness to address internal conflict directly—something they claim was lacking.
Supporters, however, caution that such interpretations are speculative and may oversimplify complex interpersonal dynamics.
Staff Turnover and Organizational Instability
One of the most frequently cited data points in discussions about Meghan and Harry’s leadership is staff turnover.
Since leaving royal duties, the couple has reportedly worked with—and parted ways with—a significant number of advisors, assistants, public relations professionals, and executives across various ventures, including media production, nonprofit work, and commercial partnerships.
In 2021, Meghan’s top adviser and private secretary reportedly left her role. In subsequent years, several high-profile staff members, including communications leads and senior executives, were said to have exited after relatively short tenures.
Most recently, reports claimed that a chief of staff resigned after only a few months in the position.
While high turnover can have many explanations—including shifting priorities, evolving business strategies, or external pressures—critics argue that the frequency and pattern of departures point to underlying organizational challenges.
Supporters counter that start-up-style operations, particularly those driven by high-profile individuals, often experience instability as structures evolve.
Allegations Within the Royal Household
The controversy surrounding Meghan Markle’s management style did not originate solely after the couple’s move to California. Allegations date back to her early period within the royal household following her 2018 marriage to Prince Harry.
That year, reports emerged that several palace staff members had raised concerns about workplace treatment, leading Buckingham Palace to initiate an internal review of staff conduct and complaints.
The palace later confirmed that such an inquiry had taken place but declined to release details or findings, citing confidentiality policies. No public disciplinary action followed.
The existence of the investigation itself, however, was notable, as such inquiries are rarely acknowledged publicly. Meghan has strongly denied the allegations linked to this period, describing them as false and damaging.
Leaked Communications and Reinforced Claims
Further attention was drawn to a reported leaked email from a former communications secretary, allegedly stating that “the Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights.”
This message, frequently referenced in media discussions, has been used by critics as evidence of a pattern of behavior involving singling out individuals for criticism.
As with many elements of the controversy, the context and full content of the communication have not been publicly released, making it difficult to assess its intent or accuracy.
Nonetheless, its repeated citation has contributed to the broader narrative surrounding Meghan’s leadership.
Meghan Markle’s Response and Defense
Meghan Markle has consistently rejected all allegations of bullying or mistreatment. Through representatives and legal filings, she has described the claims as part of a “calculated smear campaign” designed to undermine her credibility, particularly during moments of professional visibility or personal significance.
Her supporters argue that she has been subjected to disproportionate scrutiny compared to other public figures and that her assertiveness has been mischaracterized through a gendered and racialized lens.
They contend that women—especially those who challenge entrenched systems—are often labeled as “difficult” for behavior that would be praised as decisive or strong in others.
This perspective gained traction among commentators who point to broader cultural debates about leadership, power, and double standards in professional environments.
Critics’ Counterarguments
Critics, however, argue that the volume, consistency, and duration of the complaints cannot be dismissed entirely as bias or misunderstanding.
They note that similar descriptions have emerged from multiple, unrelated sources over several years and across different organizational settings.
From this viewpoint, the issue is framed less as a matter of personality and more as a leadership challenge—specifically, whether high standards were communicated and enforced in a way that fostered collaboration rather than fear.
Pre-Royal Career Context
Before joining the royal family, Meghan Markle worked for years as an actress and lifestyle influencer, most notably on the television series Suits. Accounts from colleagues during this period are mixed.
Some have praised her ambition, discipline, and professionalism, while others have described her as intensely driven and uncompromising.
Observers suggest that traits beneficial in competitive entertainment environments may not always translate smoothly into roles requiring diplomacy, institutional sensitivity, and large-scale team management.
Critics argue that this transition may have exposed gaps in leadership adaptation rather than personal malice.
Timing and Public Reaction
The timing of the most recent reports intensified public reaction. They surfaced shortly after Prince Harry’s 40th birthday celebrations, which had been framed as a moment of personal stability and forward momentum. Instead, attention quickly shifted back to unresolved controversies.
For a couple that has publicly championed mental health awareness, emotional well-being, and compassionate leadership, these allegations carry particular weight.
If accurate, critics argue, they raise difficult questions about consistency between public messaging and private practice.
An Ongoing and Unresolved Debate
Whether Meghan Markle deserves the “Duchess Difficult” label remains a matter of interpretation rather than established fact. What is clear is that the allegations have persisted across years, continents, and professional contexts, refusing to fade from public discourse.
As long as former staff members continue to speak anonymously and questions about organizational stability remain, the debate is likely to continue.
For some, the story represents a cautionary tale about leadership under pressure and the complexities of power. For others, it illustrates how narratives can harden into reputations, even in the absence of definitive proof.
Once framed as a modern fairy tale turned independence saga, the story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has evolved into something more complex—an ongoing examination of leadership, perception, accountability, and the high personal cost of life under constant public scrutiny.