Story
Oct 20, 2026
Netflix shake-up puts Harry and Meghan’s future projects under fresh scrutiny
Supportive accounts cast the executive departures as a challenge for Harry and Meghan’s advocates inside Netflix, while more critical coverage sees the restructuring as evidence that the streamer is reassessing costly projects with limited returns.
The departure of two Netflix executives associated with Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Productions has intensified uncertainty around the couple’s remaining work with the streamer. What is clear across the reports is that Netflix is restructuring; what remains disputed is how directly the changes reflect a judgment on the Sussexes’ output.
Bela Bajaria, Netflix’s chief content officer, and Carolina Garcia, an original-series executive who oversaw the Archewell relationship, have left the company. One account describes Bajaria as the couple’s most important internal advocate, citing a consultant who said, “Effectively, their biggest champion has gone,” leaving uncertainty over “who will be shouting for their cause in the future.”1
That report stresses that Bajaria backed the Sussexes even as later programmes drew less audience interest than the 2022 Harry & Meghan documentary series. It also frames the situation as part of broader belt-tightening: Netflix has cut more than 1,000 jobs, and projects that do not produce results could face tougher review.1
A more critical account reaches a similar conclusion about the effect of the departures but presents it more starkly. It says the executives had been viewed as Harry and Meghan’s “human shields” and quotes a Netflix insider saying the cuts followed decisions with “zero financial return.”2 The same source speculated that viewers were unlikely to subscribe specifically for a Meghan-led programme, while another predicted that new content chief Peter Rice would prioritise major commercial hits over expensive projects linked to royalty.2
Both accounts note that Bajaria had publicly rejected suggestions Netflix was distancing itself from the couple, saying the company still had a relationship with them and projects in development. The difference lies in interpretation: one portrays the leadership changes as a difficult business transition for Archewell; the other treats them as a sign that its deal may face a more demanding commercial test.2