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
