Meghan’s friend Gayle King introduced her in the warm, exciting and friendly manner that a true professional has. Meghan then played on the audience’s heartstrings by revealing how very much she loves Harry, who is, of course, a wonderful man worthy of the love of a good woman, and how her love had saved him from the horrors of a royal life without financial independence. Having set the stage amongst this clutch of multimillionaires and billionaires, all of whom would be sure to appreciate the importance of money but equally understand the significance of royalty, which usually isn’t for sale or hire, hence the high premium placed upon its worth, she then introduced Harry. He gave an impassioned, highly emotional speech about the mental challenges he has had to face as a result of his mother’s death. Meghan is known to write her own speeches as well as Harry’s, and the end product was moving and held nothing back. Harry’s suffering was laid bare for all to see and empathise with. He hit home with how badly his mother’s death had affected him, resulting in his entering therapy aged 28. He talked a lot about his and Meghan’s decision to step down as senior royals, laying the blame at the feet of the trauma he had suffered and how he doesn’t want the same to happen to his family. In so doing, he introduced a non sequitur, for there are no parallels between Harry and Meghan’s situations and Diana’s or indeed Harry’s childhood circumstances, nor has there ever been any prospect that what happened to him as a result of her death happening to Archie. He then shared how painful separating from the Royal Family had been for him, but confessed that he had no regrets about the decision he had made, for this was the only way to preserve his family unit. In so doing, he implied that his marriage might not have survived without his sacrifice of giving up his country and royal life for what would essentially be a California life. He maintained that he and Meghan remain optimistic about the future, optimistic about being able to be financially independent, while working on the projects that mean a lot to them, and how they will be supporting the charities they believe in. To one canny observer, ‘it was a neatly packaged bundle, somewhat illogical but very emotional, all adding up to: Gimme the money in exchange for my class.’
Mark Borkowski was but one of the many commentators to question whether such conduct wouldn’t ultimately ‘cheapen’ and ‘tarnish’ the brand. ‘This shows how difficult it’s going to be. They’ve got to make a lot of money and they are going to slip up along the way. The worry is; How many of these types of gigs are there going to be? How often can Harry play the card about his mental health?’
Piers Morgan, who lost his father when he was a little boy, condemned Harry for ‘profiting’ from his mother’s death by sharing intimate details of how he had coped with it in a commercial setting, stating, ‘there’s a big difference between talking about it to raise public awareness of grief-related mental health issues, and doing it privately for a big fat fee to a bunch of super-rich bankers, business tycoons, politicians and celebrities. By commercially exploiting his mother’s death to make vast pots of money like this, Harry is surely behaving in exactly the same way he professes to despise from the media?’ A disproportionately large percentage of social media agreed, accusing Harry of cashing in on his mother’s memory. A Twitter user summarised the consensus: ‘I’m literally disgusted that Harry is now dragging up Diana’s death to earn money. I really didn’t think he would stoop that low. This is disgusting on a whole different level. Shameful. Their titles must be stripped completely.’
Not everyone shared these sentiments. Forbes Magazine, knowing that financial considerations usually come before high-flown beliefs, had the opinion that ‘it was a very smart move to get in with some of the world’s richest people. The conference is all about building wealth for future generations, and making the world better for future generations, a topic close to Harry’s heart.’ There was no doubt that Meghan, who has a longstanding reputation for being a networker par excellence, understood that the way for them to make money was to link up with the richest companies and the richest people on earth. There was speculation that the Sussexes received $1m for the speech he made. What was less speculative is the way that world works. From here on in, they will have forged a relationship with JP Morgan, who will trot them out as ambassadors, or guests, or whatever is the most convenient or appropriate label to give them, as and when required. All for fees ranging from $250,000 to $1m+, depending on the occasion and their degree of input.
While commentators in Britain have decried their selling out, and believe that the Sussexes will inevitably becoming an increasingly busted flush, the more seasoned and sophisticated ones in America will understand that there is always a clientele ready and willing to pay good money for personalities, even those on the decline as long as they once possessed sufficient eminence to be categorised as A-listers. Tony Blair’s presence alone confirms that JP Morgan is none too fussy about associating itself with eminences who have peaked, including politicians who have been accused of fostering war crimes, albeit war crimes on the right side of the fence. While the former Prime Minister clears rooms in Britain, he still has drawing power in the US, and Meghan’s statements confirm that she fully expects Harry and herself to emulate Blair not only in earning power but to surpass him as a star attraction in her native land. Her assessment, that British royals will be more valuable and prestigious than a former Prime Minister, might well turn out to be right, for Meghan and Sunshine Sachs understand how America and American attractions work, and, if they have anything to do with it, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will turn into the main attractions of the A-List world.
CHAPTER 12
The Sussexes, whose royalty is their main attribute, are still royal, if only just, and therefore they will continue to have a value, especially in the United States, where their reputations remain unsullied in a way they no longer are in Britain. It is difficult to envisage them losing popularity in the United States to the extent they have in Britain, or to such an extent that they become a valueless commodity. They will therefore more than likely always have people who want to read about them. With that will come commercial activity to fill their coffers and enhance such popularity as they possess amongst their followers. Nevertheless, they face the danger of ever diminishing returns with the passage of time. The dilemma for public figures like Tony Blair and Sussexes is simple. The more you sell yourself, the less desirable you become. But that does not mean they still won’t have a high monetary value. It’s just that busted flushes are less valuable than they would have been, had their reputations remained pristinely above commercial activity.
To their supporters, Meghan and Harry’s pursuit of wealth is not an ignoble activity but a noble quest for financial independence. But to their critics, the couple has been justifying what is essentially greed as a quest for financial independence when they already possess it. Harry is worth some $40m, while their income from the British state, exclusive of expenses amounting to at least another $2m, was well in excess of $3m per annum. Meghan herself was worth at least $4m. According to that reasoning, they have been trying to excuse extreme acquisitiveness as a quest for financial independence, when in fact the former is greed and the latter is a sleight of hand.
Criticism aside, the reality is Meghan and Harry simply do not have the amount of money they require to fund the lifestyle she, as opposed to he wants, or to secure her future irrespective of what it is. Because they cannot say this, they pass off what to the average Briton looks like inexcusable rapacity as something that is intelligible and desirable to the average American: financial independence.
Both Harry and Meghan have well-trodden track records with charity, and while the Doubting Thomases point out that her forays were always to her ultimate benefit, his were not. There is no doubt that Harry has a streak of care born of exposure through his royal links, to include his mother’s charity work and his father’s even greater charitable accomplishments. Royalty always supports charity, so it was inevitable that this would continue to play a part in their lives. Prior t
o Meghan’s entry into his life, the idea of actually mixing such activities with personal benefit would have been beyond contemplation.
In Spring 2020, they took the first steps to set up the entity which they intend to utilise as they go about doing their charitable and humanitarian activities, by hiring as their chief of staff and executive director Catherine St. Laurent. She was the director of Pivotal Ventures, Melinda Gates’ foundation for women and families. They later announced that they had named this entity Archewell, following the Queen’s refusal to allow them to use Sussex Royal, when the prestigious right-wing broadsheet The Telegraph in Britain asked them about it. They explained on one of their direct posts to supporters, ‘Like you, our focus is on supporting efforts to tackle the global COVID-19 pandemic but faced with this information coming to light, we felt compelled to share the story of how this came to be. We connected to this concept for the charitable organisation we hoped to build one day, and it became the inspiration for our son’s name. To do something of meaning, to do something that matters. Archewell is a name that combines an ancient word for strength and action, and another that evokes the deep resources we must draw upon. We look forward to launching Archewell when the time is right.’
This was not the first time they had taken the time and trouble to explain that their charitable enterprise would be neither a charity nor a foundation but an entity which will assist others as and when they feel the need. Their flexible and unstructured approach will assure them of maximum scope for manoeuvre as they go about finding causes to support while also providing them with financial freedom. Although Harry and Meghan have maintained that a fundamental part of their goal will always be their humanitarian work, the reality is that financial reward has been an equally powerful consideration. Had altruism been their sole or even their main motivation, they would have been able to exercise far greater influence and do far more sterling work from within the Royal Family. As independent operatives, they will always be in a different category and will, as such, be able to coin in rewards that could never have been theirs had they remained working royals.
Had they remained in the royal fold, Meghan and Harry would have had to rub along in what they now regard as relative penury: an approximate income from the royal coffers of $3m or $4m per annum, another $1m or $2m per annum in expenses, an equal sum for her clothes, aside from top-ups from Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall into another seven or so figures, not to mention the free housing they would have been given. If you compare all that labour with being flown by private jet from wherever you’re basing yourself, turning up at an agreed venue and speaking for forty five minutes about yourself or some cause dear to your heart, and earning a quarter of your annual British income in less than an hour, it’s obvious what will win if you desire financial independence, as they have said they do.
Hopefully Meghan and Harry will be able to create a charitable entity which is convincing enough for them to achieve some of the good they would otherwise have been able to do as royals. Nevertheless, they will find themselves saddled with problems that would not have existed had they remained within the royal fold. By linking charity and humanitarianism with themselves now that they are avowed financial agents, they will inevitably find themselves being suspected of profiting for their own monetary reward. Where formerly their presence would have been perceived as being a pure benefit, they will hereafter have to guard against questions being asked as to how the financial rewards are divided between their entity and the couple themselves. Of course, they have excellent financial advisors as well as superb PR representatives who are well practised in presenting one thing as another and vociferously lambasting any who question their claims. Nevertheless, the danger they hereafter face is one aspect of their operation demeaning the other.
As a result, they will inevitably have to cope with the overt and covert ill effects that suspicion brings in its wake. That is not to say that they will not be able to accomplish some good in their charitable endeavours, but it is to say that they will accomplish less than they would otherwise have been able to do, unless they are very careful and resourceful. Their aim is to end up covered in glory, acknowledged as the world’s most benevolent couple, and they might well achieve their objective. But they will need to be very careful as they go about doing so, for the one thing the press on both sides of the Atlantic likes more than the privileged flourishing is the privileged tripping themselves up.
In America especially, there are a thousand and one ways in which charity, philanthropy and humanitarianism benefit the individuals raising funds. These include such standard subtleties as generous expenses, tax breaks, and quid pro quo deals. These are the creative processes which Buckingham Palace has always avoided and would have wished Meghan and Harry to avoid. They are also what will bring the Sussexes the financial independence they want, and with those benefits will come a host of dangers unless they are careful.
Although it might have appeared to the uninformed outside that JP Morgan had been the only financial institution with which Meghan and Harry have been dealing, since 2019, they have also been forging links with Goldman Sachs, ostensibly on behalf of charity but again with the couple benefiting financially once the fig leaf of humanitarianism is cast aside and both sides get down to the real business of exploiting each other financially. For woke activists whose concern for the environment is so great that Harry sometimes struggles to get out of bed, his and Meghan’s choice of Goldman Sachs as their second institutional benefactor might seem surprising. This is a company which was criticised during the Credit Crunch for unethical conduct as it bet against financial products it was also recommending to clients, in the process making itself billions while costing its clients a commensurate amount. This resulted in them agreeing to pay $5.1 billion to settle accusations of wrongdoing in their RMBS business with the US Justice Department and state agencies including the New York Attorney General’s Office. A decade later, they were still being fined for malfeasance, this time £34.3m by the British Financial Conduct Authority for misreporting more than 200 transactions over a ten year period. Had Harry and Meghan still been functioning under the aegis of the Royal Family, there is no doubt that they would have been prevented from entering into ongoing relationships with institutions whose performance has attracted such penalties. But now that they are free agents, they are able to make what deals they wish, though the hope remains that they will not end up tainted the way the former Duke and Duchess of Palma de Mallorca were.
To ensure that they retained the liberty to wheel and deal as they saw fit, Meghan and Harry closed down their royal office in England. This meant that the limited policing to which they were subject disappeared. They gathered their Buckingham Palace staff together and gave all fifteen members of them notice at the same time. ‘This came as a bolt out of the blue,’ one of them told a friend of mine. ‘No one saw it coming.’ All of them had displayed commendable loyalty and tremendous dedication, sometimes in the face of great provocation, as they were the ones who were the frontline operatives dealing not only with a critical press but also an upset couple who could not handle the frustrations placed in their way. As a result, neither Meghan nor Harry had been easy to work for, nor had their staff found the tasks with which they were faced cut and dried. Despite this, they were, to a man and woman, committed, and expected, when they were hired, that they would remain en poste for a considerable length of time.
Royal positions used to be for life, and while they have become merely long lasting, they are not expected to be transient appointments. Yet that is what all the Sussex jobs turned out to be. Some, like Sarah Latham, were controversial, though she has behaved so impeccably that she has been snapped up by the Queen to advise on special projects, reporting directly to Her Majesty’s Private Secretary Edward Young. However most, like Fiona McIlwham, their Private Secretary who was on secondment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, were not. David Watkins, poached from the fashion house Burberry to act as their
social media expert, found himself out of a job when he had been promised job security, as was Marnie Gaffney, assistant communications secretary who had helped to organise their tours of Australia and Africa. All had performed excellently, had given constructive advice, had often tried to fulfill their tasks under extremely trying conditions, not the least of which was the counterfoil office across the Atlantic Ocean pushing a different agenda and causing many of the problems with which they then had to deal. This of course is what sealed their fates, for Meghan and Harry did not want to hear that associating with companies like JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs on an ongoing basis was tantamount to despoiling their royal status, nor were they prepared to run the risk of having their Buckingham Palace office scupper deals by tipping off the powers-that-be about activities that would be deemed dubious in Britain but would be regarded as admirably sharp in America. Like all people who operate at the highest level, Harry and Meghan wanted to achieve the maximum that the traffic would bear, and did not wish to be limited with what the palace regarded as the niceties of what is suitable and unsuitable for royalty. As someone from the palace told me, ‘Meghan’s attitude is: All dollar bills are green, and once they’re safely in the bank, it doesn’t matter whence they came. All that matters is that they’re there. Harry backs her up totally, in this as in everything else.’
Ultimately, Harry and Meghan have only one thing to offer that no one else does: his royalty. Neither of them has a talent beyond putting themselves forward as performers on the world stage. Being good public speakers is one thing, another is what do they have to say? As long as they were functioning under the royal umbrella, they were protected against the perception of opportunism, but now that they are openly in the marketplace, they no longer enjoy the kudos that non-commercial royals possess. They are in reality royals for sale or hire, a tricky position to be in while having to retain the prestige customarily associated with the non-commercialism of royalty.
Meghan and Harry Page 44