Prince Harry's shots at his family and the monarchy sparked 20 times more discussion on social media than his inspirational documentary about veterans—undermining a key plank of his argument about the media.
The Duke of Sussex has spent his life raging against the machinery of the U.K. press, with public swipes dating back at least as far as his 21st birthday.
And many a journalist writing about the prince's life has been urged by many a palace press officer to focus on his work, including his charity projects, rather than his private relationships.
However, since Prince Harry quit the palace in 2020 and signed with Netflix and Spotify he has himself become the media, leaving him in a similar position to countless newspaper editors before him with a decision to make about how much to focus on his private life and how much on his work.
Last week, Harry launched Heart of Invictus, a docu-series that set out to shine a spotlight on his Paralympics-style tournament for wounded veterans after multiple past projects dwelled on the royal soap opera.
And research conducted for Newsweek by audience intelligence platform Pulsar suggests that however worthwhile the Invictus Games cause may be, his good deeds simply do not generate anywhere near the attention and audience gained by his private life.
Alex Bryson, content marketing lead at Pulsar, studied the reception Heart of Invictus received on X, formerly Twitter, on behalf of Newsweek.
He said: "The first thing to note is that this conversation has not achieved mainstream recognition in anything like the way Spare, or even their previous Netflix doc, did.
"A high percentage of the participants online have a strong emotional reaction to this topic, and are not 'casual' fans.
"A lot of the conversation is split between two hyper-engaged groups. British Royalty Fans are a community with a strong affinity for the royal family as a whole, ie, they follow official royal accounts and conservative journalists.
"Supporters of Duchess Meghan and Prince Harry, meanwhile, are a more American group who follow the Sussexes, as well as journalists and accounts viewed as friendly to them."
"British Royalty Fans primarily view the doc as a platform for Prince Harry to air further grievances," he continued. "Supporters of Duchess Meghan and Prince Harry, on the other hand, report their strong emotional reactions to the doc, and express gratitude towards Harry for facilitating."
There was one other contingent of people talking about Heart of Invictus but this too appears to be a specialist rather than a mainstream audience and including among U.S. veterans and their families.
Bryson said: "It's intriguing that, beyond these, the only online community to engage with the doc on the day of its release is Public-Service-Minded Democrats.
"These are a largely socially liberal group, also American, with familial or personal connections to institutions like the army or police force."
"Finally," he continued, "Public Minded Democrats are most likely to engage with the official Invictus channels and other prominent figures within the charity. They also show strong affinity towards Harry, but view him slightly more as a conduit through which important stories were told rather than as the focus of the story."
Perhaps the most interesting observation, however, is just how much larger the conversation was in the days after Spare compared to Harry's latest documentary.
In the 48 hours following the memoirs' release in January it earned 970,000 mentions on X compared to a little over 50,000 for Heart of Invictus, Bryson's research showed.
In other words, the royal bombshells and private arguments of the couple's first Netflix project Harry & Meghan and the prince's book Spare achieved a mass audience but his Invictus documentary remained niche.
And yet Harry and Meghan's Netflix deal earned them dizzying amounts of money, reportedly in the ballpark of $100 million.
The fact that Harry and Meghan's account of the private lives and family rows taking place behind palace walls earned so much more engagement than his undeniably benevolent work with wounded veterans will send a clear message to newspaper editors the world over.
Many will no doubt believe they were right to focus on his private life all along because there simply isn't a mainstream market for his charity work and will feel vindicated that now even Harry himself has cashed in on the soap opera.
Harry would likely argue that his widespread criticisms of the media have extended beyond the simple decision to focus on his love life and as far as allegations by him of criminal behavior by journalists.
That is no doubt true, but the fact remains there is a long history of palace press officers imploring journalists to switch the focus away from family drama and towards the good deeds done by royals.
One major high-profile example came in the early days of Harry and Meghan's relationship when Harry decided to fight the British press over their treatment of his new girlfriend.
A statement released by then Kensington Palace press secretary Jason Knauf on Harry's behalf in November 2016 read: "He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it."
Yet, Harry's own revelations included the fact he and Prince William had been circumcised as babies, an extensive account of him getting frostbite on his penis, that Princess Charlotte had cried over her bridesmaid's dress, Prince William resenting the fact Harry got to wear a beard on his wedding day and that King Charles III, for health reasons, had to do regular headstands in his underwear, to name a few.
In other words, in sacrificing the moral high ground himself, Harry may well have demonstrated more powerfully than words can ever do that money wins and private life will always sell more than good deeds.
One positive for the prince, however, was that Pulsar's research did show that the conversation around Heart of Invictus was more positive for him reputationally, meaning there may still be a draw for him to continue in future to try to gain success through philanthropy.
Bryson said: "Given the nature of the subject matter, and the fact that many traditional Sussex-sceptics also display affinity for strong patriotic values, this is potentially the most positive conversation we have seen about the couple.
"It does not, however, appear like it has necessarily changed anyone's mind on the couple as people."
Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.
Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
");jQuery(this).remove()}) jQuery('.start-slider').owlCarousel({loop:!1,margin:10,nav:!0,items:1}).on('changed.owl.carousel',function(event){var currentItem=event.item.index;var totalItems=event.item.count;if(currentItem===0){jQuery('.owl-prev').addClass('disabled')}else{jQuery('.owl-prev').removeClass('disabled')} if(currentItem===totalItems-1){jQuery('.owl-next').addClass('disabled')}else{jQuery('.owl-next').removeClass('disabled')}})}})})
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrK6enZtjsLC5jqmpoqaTmnqprdGrsGamlamzrbXXZqqhp6divbO71Z6qZqiimsC0edGinqGsXai8pLXApWSmnZSerm61za%2BgnKylqHpyhJFtaXFo