Mail: Duchess Meghan probably made $200K in ‘Suits’ residuals last year

One of the entertainment-industry stories of 2023 was the massive streaming popularity of Suits, the USA Network cable show which starred then-Meghan Markle. Once all of the seasons of Suits were licenced for Netflix and Peacock, it felt like everyone in the world started binge-watching the entire series. The result was that millions of people fell in love with the Duchess of Sussex, and Suits’ creators were encouraged to reboot the show, and the new Suits is already in production. Last year, there was some conversation about how much money Meghan could have made in residuals from Suits’ streaming success. Giving that the issue of residuals was such a huge conflict in last year’s SAG-AFTRA strike, my guess was always that Meghan probably didn’t make much from it. Now the Daily Mail is trying to do some Sussex Math™ on Meghan’s residuals.

Meghan Markle has netted a six-figure sum from the sale of her TV drama Suits to broadcasters around the world, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The series ended in 2019 but has recently enjoyed an astonishing resurgence on Netflix, and it has now been sold to more than 240 territories across every continent, with repeat fees lining the pockets of its stars.

Media giant NBCUniversal, which manages sales of the series, is tight-lipped about exactly what royalties actors earn from the deals, but it’s been estimated that the Duchess of Sussex could have earned nearly $200,000 (£155,000) from Netflix alone. That comes on top of whatever she was originally paid per episode to play fiery paralegal Rachel Zane from 2011 to 2017, when she quit to get engaged to Prince Harry.

But instead of fading into insignificance, the series broke records last year when it dropped on Netflix and the US platform Peacock, becoming the most-streamed show of 2023 and topping the charts for 12 weeks running. The surprise success led the BBC to use licence-payers’ money to outbid ITV and buy the UK rights for iPlayer. The Corporation has not revealed how much it spent on the deal, or whether the Duchess benefited financially.

When asked about the show’s resurgence last year, the Duchess described the success as ‘wild’, adding that she had ‘no idea’ what was behind it.

An NBC source confirmed that ‘principal performers’ like Meghan get paid royalties, called ‘residuals’ from global sales, generally earning a percentage of the deal price. Media website Deadline has estimated that Netflix paid $37.5 million (£29.5 million) to license Suits, with the six leading actors sharing 3.6 per cent of that fee. That would mean Meghan could have earned nearly $200,000 from 108 episodes she starred in from this deal alone.

[From The Daily Mail]

The Mail goes on to credit the public’s fascination with Meghan as the reason for Suits’ streaming success, and then they mention the Sussexes’ mortgage, hahahaha. The Mail continues to be fascinated with the very idea that Harry and Meghan have careers, collect paychecks, pay for their own home and security and that the British media doesn’t get a say in any of it. As for Meghan’s residuals… I actually think $200K is probably accurate. And that’s pathetic, honestly – Suits was legitimately the “show of the year” and people logged billions of viewing hours. The actors should have been getting paid Friends-type residuals in the millions for the streaming success. But here we are.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

50 Responses to “Mail: Duchess Meghan probably made $200K in ‘Suits’ residuals last year”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. girl_ninja says:

    Yes, do tell us how Meghan is the gold digger here.

    • Oldgranny says:

      Exactly. It must burn their butts to actually sheepishly admit she was successful before she met Harry.

  2. Clove says:

    I don’t understand why they’ keep reporting on her. she hasn’t lived there in nearly 5 years.. So now they count her money? They really don’t have any news to report except Harry or Megan. SMH. I bet this more than they make reporting on her.

    • sunnyside up says:

      Meghan is the tabloids best click bait by far, they would go bankrupt is their readers lost interest.

  3. Becks1 says:

    well good for her if she did. 200k obviously seems lower than what she should have gotten with better agreements re: streaming residuals etc, but 200k is 200k and its nothing to sneeze at. She deserves to be paid for her work.

    • sparrow1 says:

      Yes. Why shouldn’t she enjoy the payback from her work. It sounds a lot to most people, and rightly so, but she is a wealthy woman who made her money. Also, they have to pay huge amounts on security.

  4. B says:

    Lol I’d bet my house she made far more than 200K when Suits was licensed to Netflix but the British Media hate to think about how independently wealthy Meghan is. I bet they puke thinking about her residuals. An actor’s residual check from a network show isn’t impacted when the show is licensed to a streaming platform so Meghan is making MONEY.

    Sigh…hopefully the successful actor’s strikes will continue to chip away at the highway robbery that was happening to actors whose shows were developed on streaming platforms. My heart goes out to them because those 2 cent residual checks were disgusting.

    • Jan90067 says:

      My BIL *created* and *exec produced/wrote* one of Disney’s top tween/teen shows that aired for 5 yrs. (which is Disney’s usual cancellation/ cut off date, so they didn’t have to pay network prices to produce the show). My BIL got one residual check for 4¢. Yes, 4¢. He framed it lol.

    • Mario says:

      Partner’s former colleague has a mildly successful film on Prime Video (enough it attracted the attention of one of those “One Million Moms” type groups to run a ratings/review-bombing campaign on it 2 years after it came out, causing a predictable bump in streams) and he gets something like 2-4¢ (yes, CENTS) for every hour the film is streamed on Amazon Prime. So for a two-hour film, he gets 4-8¢ each time someone watches it. The streaming deals pay nothing. And that’s not per actor or per producer, that’s what Amazon pays for the entire film. The rest of the streamers aren’t much different, though they might license an older show or film for a fixed amount up front. Only the juggernauts have the power to cut exclusive deals for more money As Suits went to both Netflix AND Peacock, it wasn’t an exclusive deal.

      Any residuals of substance, I suspect are coming from markets where the show is still broadcast on cable or TV channels, not the streamers.

    • Gennessee says:

      She definitely made more—much more. Suits has been on Netflix since way before it dropped last year. I was in Latin America in the fall of 2021 and was rewatching it on Netflix over there. It was called “La Ley de los Audaces” (The Law of the Bold).

      Not sure why they are only calculating residuals for this past summer…

  5. Grant says:

    Good. She’s one of the best parts of that show, TBH! I would love her to get back into acting because I think she’s a fabulous actor and with her profile, I bet she could get some great roles now.

    • GTWiecz says:

      I’d have loved if she had made a cameo on this new “Suits” season. But can you imagine the furor and criticism she’d get from the bullies?

      • sunnyside up says:

        The late Queen didn’t have a problem with her going back to acting, but no doubt the Tabloids would.

  6. Bad Janet says:

    Wait, which is it? She is a grifter and broke? Or she made $200,000 off work she already did? Make it make sense!

    I’d love it for her if she did, but is that number realistic? Mandy Moore said she literally got a check for a penny in 2023 for This Is Us streaming on Hulu, up to 81 cents (which was still heavily streamed, though probably not as much as Suits was last year). I know they all probably negotiate their own contracts per show or network, but I doubt very much that she cleared $200,000 unless it was back pay after those strikes.

    • Becks1 says:

      The article seems to be saying that she might have gotten a percentage of the sales price to Netflix – so its not that she gets that much because of the streaming numbers, but she might have just gotten one big check for that much after Netflix bought the rights. The article is citing an NBC spokesperson, but of course that doesn’t mean it applied to Meghan.

    • sunnyside up says:

      The Mail is just guessing what she got.

  7. Hypocrisy says:

    Leave it to the tabloid trash in Britain to be so concerned over Meghan getting paid for her work. I hope she earned more than they are reporting, they all deserve it with the popularity of the show the last year. It was once again in Netflix top ten just a few days ago. It truly upset the rota that the BBC brought Suits also.

    • Debbie says:

      I don’t blame the BM for being upset at BBC’s interest in acquiring the show. Apparently, they outbid iTV for it. Hah! Imagine after the poop they threw at Meghan when she lived in their country and what they still continue to write about her, they pay lots of money to keep her in their lives and on their tv screens.

  8. Isabella says:

    The faux concern about the mortgage is hilarious. The Sussexes could pay off that house if they wanted to.

  9. sevenblue says:

    Didn’t one of the british channels also license the show? I remember reading that. Anyway, they don’t know anything. They don’t have any access to Meghan’s agreement with the show, which would be negotiated once a couple seasons while the show was on. They tried to minimize this show just because Meghan was starring in it, even though it was popular at the time too. Even the future King and Queen were fans, remember? 😂😂

    • sparrow1 says:

      It’s on BBC iplayer. I’ve been watching episodes recently to get me through a bout of illness. It’s light hearted and she’s really good, isn’t she. Not my usual kind of thing, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed it and it’s taken my mind off other stuff.

      • sevenblue says:

        Someone said it is a cops show, but with lawyers. I love shows like that especially when I just want to watch it to keep my mind out of other things. I think, that is why I enjoyed this show too.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, I think its appealing because its just low stakes drama. and you know the series is complete, so you’re not wondering if they’re going to cancel it halfway. It’s just a good old fashioned network TV drama – I feel like so many shows now are either really heavy (House of the Dragon) or are just rom coms in TV series format (which is fine and cute) – but sometimes people want something in between, something that isn’t a comedy or completely light but is low stakes like I said.

        We got into the third season and then had to finally stop because we’re both lawyers and if they scheduled a deposition for the day before the trial that’s set one week after the lawsuit was scheduled, my husband was going to lose his shit, lol.

        but it had attractive people with chemistry and different storylines and DONNA – makes you wonder how it would have fared on NBC all those years ago.

        I hope its success prompts more networks to make similar drama series again.

      • sparrow1 says:

        Becks1 you made me laugh. Several solicitors in our family, and my partner is one. He smiled/groaned throughout one of the episodes I showed him. I said, “perhaps that’s just how law works in America, stop with the eye rolling”. He said “law doesn’t work like that anywhere!”. It’s high production froth with a kind element to it, and laughs. I enjoy it.

      • KLaw says:

        Becks1 and Sparrow1, that’s exactly why I couldn’t watch it. Even to say it is loosely based on the practice of law is a generous description. Lol.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Didn’t it originally air on USA Network? The one with ChrisnRita (Silk Stalkings), Burn Notice, Psyche, Royal Pains, White Collar, etc? Good looking people, fun locations (mostly Canada), interesting but light stories? Those kinds of things are fun to watch & you can take them or leave them.

      • deering24 says:

        Becks1 and Sparrow1, you guys should really check out the “Real Lawyer” YouTube series. The host loves comparing media-portrayed law with the real deal–and his take on Ghostbusters 2 alone is hilarious… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl9E56BqO_0

  10. Flowerlake says:

    Good for her!

    Funny how this is supposedly the gold digger, while she is the one making her own money.

    • sparrow1 says:

      Also the narrative about Kate’s family being laudably socially aspirational for pushing their lazy work shy daughter into the royal family, yet Meghan being a gold digger for bettering herself and marrying into the BRF after making her own money.

  11. sparrow1 says:

    And why not? She, get this, earned it. Of more concern is, how much totally unnecessary kickback does Charles get from his Highgrove products? This kind of shock horror either proves a complete ignorance of how TV works, and therefore what kind of professional role Meghan had before the BRF, or a faux ignorance that knowingly seeks to provoke condemnation.

    • Bad Janet says:

      I suspect they are scorning her for earning it as an actress, because for all the crap they peddle about supporting the arts, they still think she is trashy for being an American actress on a drama.

      Unlike the royals, who EARN their money from hoarding land they’ve inherited for generations, and all that back breaking work they do hosting garden parties and putting on weird military cosplay robes.

      It’s all about their perception that she is low class and self-made, and they’re not – to them, this is one more thing they can be outraged about. I will never get the English/New England fascination with old money and thinking it makes you better than other people.

  12. Kelsey says:

    British Media: Meghan is a GOLDDIGGER

    Also the British Media: Meghan just keeps making all this money!

  13. Mina_Esq says:

    “Fade into insignificance”, “use licence-payer money”. Someone is bitter and just can’t hide it hahaha

    • Debbie says:

      Yeah, I caught those gratuitous lines too. Things like “repeat fees lining the stars’ pockets”, “astonishing resurgence” and “surprise success.” Subtle, aren’t they?

  14. Lavendel says:

    It doesn’t matter what Meghan earned, acting is very hard work. The only thing that matters is that she earned her money through her own hard work and still did charity work on the side. Just as Harry is a real soldier with real medals and awards, Meghan earned money through her own real hard work.

  15. Amy Bee says:

    I hope she got that amount and more but we will never know. One of SAGs complaints was the little or no money they were getting from streaming so the DM is probably pulling that figure out of thin air. With all of that, the DM was still insist that she’s a gold-digger.

  16. Lulu says:

    Yesterday everyone was tired of the Sussex’s, and something something flop era.

  17. Saucy&Sassy says:

    Who knows how much Meghan got in residuals? What I find interesting is that they come up with this, but they’ve never tried to figure out what Harry is making as COO at BetterUp. Now, I suspect that some serious money. I guess the bm doesn’t want their populace to know that Harry is quite capable of (and is) earning a living, paying his bills and has money to invest. That really must burn them.

  18. HeatherC says:

    So THAT’S how she bought Harry’s ESPY award.

    The above statement is sarcasm.

    • sevenblue says:

      OMG, how will they pay their mortgage now?? All the money went to buying awards 😭😭😂

  19. Eurydice says:

    The DM are such weasels. They start out with a statement of fact, that Meghan has netted a six-figure sum and then weasel their way to the end with “could have.” And I love how they quickly gloss over the fact that Meghan isn’t special here, the other actors “could have” gotten residuals, too.

    • kirk says:

      DailyFail is just hoping you make it to the end of the paragraph after breathlessly informing you of their secret info “we can reveal.” Think of all the eyeball seconds they can count if you just stick it out a little longer. DFail knows squat about how “tight-lipped NBC Universal” gets revenue from streaming reruns, especially those negotiated before the writers’ and actors’ strikes. But they do know about ad revenue paid to mendacious BRFCo Assoc (brittabloids).

  20. Shoegirl77 says:

    I mean, she was in her flop era just yesterday, right? Loving the indignation on behalf of UK licence payers that they might be contributing to her residuals. Now, I’m off to Netflix to see if I can add a bit more to that 200k 🤣

  21. Scotchy says:

    I have music that has been licensed to various shows on streaming services and can tell you streamers DO NOT pay residuals on anything. It’s part of their licensing terms so they would have given US network a licensing fee and they would have given out what they had to various actors based on their contracts but not there are no residual royalties piling up.

  22. tamsin says:

    I was under the impression that streamers don’t pay residuals. I’d be interested to know the general principles of a streaming deal with network series.

    • sevenblue says:

      The residuals are mostly nothing in streaming. I don’t think they are even transparent enough with sharing the numbers. The actual money comes from the initial agreement when the production company licenses the show. That is one time amount they are receiving. So, even if your show becomes very successful in terms of numbers, you don’t get paid much later.

      • Fortuona says:

        They do get some money from the streamers – not a lot but !

        I know this because if the Evans/Gruffudd divorce as they had to release the numbers during the financial bit where they had to release the residuals to the court – Alice was in The Originals and Netflix has the license and they are paying for her 6 episodes on the reg

  23. Shoegirl77 says:

    Unrelated to this thread, but the envy I have for her ability to wear a crisp white shirt is off the scale. I can see the food falling on myself even trying to imagine myself wearing white.

  24. blunt talker says:

    the strike last year was suppose to iron out the differences between streaming services to give something to the actors.