Meredith Maines Exit Used By The Sun To Revive Attacks On Meghan Sussex

The departure of Meredith Maines, confirmed by the Sussexes’ team as a professional conclusion, was framed as collapse. Within hours, the article folded in long-disputed bullying allegations, blurred job roles, and recycled anonymous claims from both sides of the Atlantic. None of this was accidental. This was a familiar media manoeuvre. A routine staffing change became a vehicle to revive an accusation first seeded inside palace walls and never substantiated in public. The target, once again, was Meghan Sussex. The method relied on omission, misquotation, and repetition.

How The Sun Turned a Routine Departure into a Character Indictment

The Sun presented Meredith Maines’ exit as evidence of dysfunction, despite statements from both parties confirming goodwill and future plans. The article described her as the eleventh publicist to leave, a figure The Sun presented without context, and designed to imply instability. It then conflated Archewell operations, personal communications, and UK charity work into a single narrative of failure.

“A spokesman said: ‘Meredith Maines and Method Communications have concluded their work with Archewell. The Duke and Duchess are grateful for their contributions and wish them well.’
Meredith Maines said: ‘After a year of inspiring work with Prince Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Archewell, I will be pursuing a new opportunity in 2026. I have the utmost gratitude and respect for the couple and the team, and the good they are doing in the world.’” – The Sun

Crucially, the paper revived bullying allegations as if they were newly relevant. They are not. The claims date back to 2018 and were never tested publicly. Buckingham Palace launched an internal inquiry and chose not to publish the findings. That silence did not amount to proof. Past reporting shows that critical narratives about Meghan often moved unchecked through the media. What that silence created was ambiguity, which tabloids have exploited ever since. The Sun did not report new evidence. It relied on implication. By attaching old allegations to a new headline, the paper invited readers to draw conclusions unsupported by facts.

Where the Bullying Story Originated and How it was Distorted

The allegations emerged during a period of internal conflict at Kensington Palace, when rival households operated under one overstretched communications structure. In Spare, Prince Harry describes an office strained by press hostility, factionalism, and chronic understaffing. He does not describe Meghan mistreating staff. He does the opposite.

“Our staff sensed the friction, read the press, and thus there was frequent bickering around the office. Sides were taken. Team Cambridge versus Team Sussex. Rivalry, jealousy, competing agendas—it all poisoned the atmosphere…It didn’t help that everyone was working around the clock… we didn’t have nearly enough people or resources…More than once a staff member slumped across their desk and wept. For all this, every bit of it, Willy blamed one person. Meg. He told me so several times, and he got cross when I told him he was out of line.” – Spare

Harry writes that staff distress stemmed from relentless media pressure and a lack of resources. He records that Prince William blamed Meghan for the breakdown. Harry challenged that view directly. He states that Meghan remained calm, avoided speaking ill of anyone, and took active steps to support colleagues.

Tabloids routinely lift a single line about staff tears and strip it of context. They erase the context, remove William’s role, and recast systemic failure as personal cruelty. That distortion has endured because it suits the institution. It protects palace structures while placing blame on the woman who disrupted them.

How Recycled Allegations Get Weaponised Across Media Cycles

This tactic did not begin with Meredith Maines. British and US outlets have repeatedly used staff departures to refresh the same narrative, regardless of context or on-record rebuttals. When global press secretary Ashley Hansen left to launch her own consultancy, coverage focused on “instability,” not her stated reasons or continued professional ties. When Josh Kettler stepped down as chief of staff, headlines framed his exit as confirmation of dysfunction, even after he publicly praised the Sussexes as welcoming, dedicated, and hardworking.

The pattern extends beyond communications roles. Catherine St-Laurent, a former chief of staff, later described her work with the couple as meaningful and remained close to them. Ben Browning, who oversaw the Netflix series Harry & Meghan, spoke positively about the Archewell environment and confirmed ongoing friendship. Those accounts rarely received the same prominence as anonymous briefings.

Each departure follows a similar arc. A neutral or positive exit occurs. Media coverage strips it of context. Old allegations resurface without new evidence. The media pushes the individuals aside to protect a preferred storyline. This coverage does not test facts. It sustains a narrative through repetition and selective omission.

Final Thoughts

This story was never about Meredith Maines leaving a role. It was about preserving a narrative that shifts responsibility away from palace systems and onto an individual who challenged them. The bullying allegation persists because it remains useful. It requires no proof, only repetition.

Prince Harry put his account on the record. It details an underfunded office, hostile media, and senior aides who failed to act. Those facts have not changed. What continues to change is how willingly parts of the media obscure them.