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
