Meghan Markle’s Plagiarism Non-Story

Last week, author Mel Elliot accused Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, of proposing a show similar to a series she had worked on for years.

In July 2021, Markle announced a new deal with Netflix to produce the animated show Pearl. The show was to feature the titular character, a 12-year-old girl who overcomes daily adversities by being inspired by influential women.

The original deal was worth $100 million. However, Netflix ended the agreement the following year. In a statement, Netflix said it was pivoting away from animation. The show was never made, and Markle removed references to it from her site.

Elliot told The Daily Mail that she became concerned when she first heard about the deal, as both her series and the proposed show featured the same name and premise. Though she didn’t know if anyone on Markle’s team was aware of or inspired by her work, the similarities were “too great for me to ignore.”

She said her lawyers wrote a formal letter to the Duchess and her production company, Archewell, in July 2021. She also wrote personal letters to Archewell and Netflix in October 2021 and February 2022.

According to Elliot, she has heard nothing back. However, Netflix cancelled Pearl in May 2022, just 10 weeks after the last letter.

The story has received widespread international coverage, including in People, Deadline, and The New York Post.

However, the attention has far more to do with Markle’s celebrity status than actual plagiarism. In fact, it’s impossible to say if plagiarism occurred at all, much less if Markle is directly responsible for it.

The Problems with the Case

The biggest problem with this case is also the most obvious: Netflix never made the series. The only thing we have of Netflix’s Pearl is a two-paragraph press release announcing the deal.

We have nothing to compare it to other than the name of the series and the concept.

That said, they are very similar. Both feature a girl named Pearl who is inspired by famous and influential women in history. While no one owns this concept, it would still be an amazing coincidence without cross-pollination. However, such coincidences do happen.

However, it’s impossible to know how similar they are without seeing the series or the works in progress. They could have pronounced differences that we can’t see right now.

Elliot herself is unsure about calling this plagiarism: “Of course, I can’t know if anyone on her team had seen it and been inspired by it.”

That said, I fully agree with Elliot. She was very right to be concerned and took reasonable action. Even if it is just a coincidence, something that close raises a slew of intellectual property questions and could seriously harm her brand.

That said, we don’t know how the show might have changed and evolved if it had moved forward. Shows and films often become very different from their original concept. There’s no guarantee that the final series would have shared much in common with Elliot’s work or the original pitch.

So why is this such a major story? Simply put, it’s because Markle is such a popular target.

The Problem with Celebrity

Markle is no stranger to plagiarism allegations. In May 2021, online critics accused her of plagiarizing her new children’s book. However, even the original author denied the validity of the allegations.

In February, she faced similar allegations after two attempts to rebrand her jam brand ended with plagiarism allegations. The first shared the name with a small New York fashion brand, and the second featured a logo similar to a Spanish town’s coat of arms.

These allegations come out just months after the rebranding scandal. However, they date back almost five years, to the timeframe of the children’s book allegations.

None of these allegations are particularly worrisome on their own, least of all the most recent ones. Pearl wasn’t Markle’s personal project. The announcement listed her as the executive producer, not the author or creator.

The project was almost certainly someone else’s brainchild. Though Markle bears responsibility for any plagiarism that did take place, it was almost certainly someone else who directly committed that plagiarism (if it happened).

What Markle is guilty of, in both this case and the others, is not performing due diligence. Her celebrity status makes her an easy target and a giant in any space she enters. As such, she has an obligation to ensure she is using that power and privilege responsibly.

This is another example of not doing that. Even if the backlash is excessive and disproportionate, she and her employees should be held accountable.

Bottom Line

As discussed, Markle’s celebrity status is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives her a massive platform from which she can launch any endeavor. On the other hand, it makes her a magnet for fair and unfair criticism.

Markle has to understand that every move she makes is closely watched by fans and critics alike. She has an obligation to use her position responsibly. However, she also has a self-interest in preventing such stories.

There’s no excuse for not performing due diligence. She has the resources and is certainly aware of the dangers by now.

That said, this isn’t a new case. It deals with five-year-old allegations—allegations that the original author isn’t even sure amount to plagiarism, allegations that we can’t verify. To make matters worse, these allegations, if true, don’t point the finger directly at Markle.

Ultimately, this story is only a story because of Markle’s fame. It falls more into the camp of celebrity gossip than serious plagiarism or copyright issues.

As with political plagiarism scandals, that means the nuance gets lost. Most people reading about or discussing their case form their opinions around how they feel about Markle, not the allegations.

That is unfortunate. These types of cases can raise interesting issues that are well worth discussing, and this could be one of them. But with the limited information and lack of nuance, we will likely never know what actually happened.