She doesn't get the A-list invitations she once did. The Clooneys, the Obamas, all those elite-level celebrities who once showed their support have withdrawn because they have calculated, quite rightly, that the Royal Family has more long term brand value than H&M.
If H&M hadn't done interviews slagging off the RF, it would never have had to be an either/or choice. That was an entirely unforced error on their part.
Contradictions abound in H&M's PR. On the one hand they had a Netflix documentary in which talking heads lined up to give a CRT reading of British history in which the RF are evil colonisers. Harry spoke of how the RF was a gilded cage which trapped his father and brother, and heavily insinuated that Kate Middleton was nothing more than a Firm-approved Stepford wife. The logical conclusion of this would be that H&M would bravely throw off the shackles and trappings of royalty and set an example of a postcolonial way of life. But they are in fact very wedded to their titles as can be seen from Archewell website and the order to US media that MM should always be referred to by her title. This is a glaring contradiction which does not reflect well on H&M's integrity.
The second contradiction is in their attitude to the media. Harry clearly hates and fears it. He is on a vastly expensive and wasteful legal campaign against the British media which has not yet and probably will not achieve the destruction of the tabloid press (which is what H seems to want) MM seems to like it more, and to want to court it. She enjoys red carpet events, he does not. It is very difficult when a famous couple is not on the same page as regards brand strategy. It dilutes the brand badly.
The third contradiction is the most dangerous. The Parents' Network. What is it? Is it a support group for parents who have lost children to suicide, in which case is it adequately staffed with specialist psychologists? it is well known that a person's risk of suicide rises precipitately if a family member has committed suicide in the past 5 years. It rises further when a person associates with actively suicidal people.
Or is The Parents' Network actually a pressure group to force social media companies to self-regulate more effectively, or differently? If so, what exactly are its aims? Have those aims been published? How ethical is it to use freshly grieving parents as part of a pressure group? Do all those parents agree with the political aims of the group?
In conclusion: their brand is capricious and contradictory. This is why their star is falling. And these are strategic errors which they have made, and presumably would not have made had they paid for, and listened to, good strategic comms specialists.