Since then, Meghan and Harry have provided their own explanation for the departure, but it seems to raise more questions than answers. Mainstream media are now calling them out for downplaying the situation. According to People magazine—one of their favorite PR outlets—Josh Kettler’s departure was described as a mutual decision after a trial period. The article stated that Kettler, who was hired on a trial basis, left because it wasn’t the right fit for either party.
But here’s the issue: How does People magazine know this? The timing and details suggest that Meghan and Harry are trying to downplay the situation after speculation about Meghan’s alleged bullying tactics. The narrative that Kettler’s departure was just a trial period doesn’t quite add up, especially considering how he was previously portrayed.
A few months ago, during Meghan and Harry’s Nigerian trip, it was reported that Josh Kettler was hired to guide Harry through his next phase. If that’s the case, why would such a significant role be filled on a trial basis for just three months? It seems improbable that guiding Harry through a major transition could be accomplished in such a short time, especially when the only major event during those months was the Nigerian trip.
Richard Eden of the Daily Mail and other commentators are questioning the validity of Meghan and Harry’s explanation. Eden criticized the notion that Kettler was merely hired on a trial basis, calling it insulting and suggesting it contradicts earlier reports that Kettler was a crucial figure for Harry.
Additionally, Tribes Britannia labeled the explanation a complete lie, asserting that Kettler was once described as indispensable. The sudden shift in narrative raises suspicions about the true reasons behind his departure.
In summary, the story about the Chief of Staff’s resignation appears to be inconsistent, leading many to believe that Meghan and Harry are not being fully transparent. If the departure was indeed a mutual decision after a trial period, why did the headlines focus on the resignation rather than the mutual agreement?
