Royal expert slams the Sussexes for using their titles to earn 'huge amounts of money' - as bombshell German documentary exposes couple's 'elitist' California lifestyle

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle suffered a new blow after a German documentary accused the couple of hypocrisy while enjoying an 'elitist' lifestyle in the United States

The German documentary Harry: The Lost Prince has intensified scrutiny of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, accusing the couple of hypocrisy for maintaining a luxurious lifestyle while presenting themselves as global charity advocates. Key criticisms highlighted include:

1. Contradictions in Image and Actions:

   • Meghan's penchant for designer fashion during visits to economically challenged nations such as Nigeria and Colombia is flagged as tone-deaf, undermining the couple's messaging on socio-economic inequality.

2. Criticism from Ben McBean:

   • Former soldier Ben McBean, who has a personal connection with Harry from their time in the military, criticized the prince for his public grievances about family matters. McBean expressed frustration, stating that family disputes should remain private, likening Harry's behavior to airing personal issues unnecessarily.

The program, which aired to a wide audience in Germany, contrasts the couple's public philanthropy with their high-profile lifestyle in Montecito, California, sparking broader debates about authenticity and privilege.

The bombshell documentary that will be screened in Germany runs a fine-toothed comb through Harry and Meghan's work with their charity Archewell Foundation

Ben McBean's criticism of Prince Harry, particularly regarding his public revelations about family matters in Spare and the Netflix series, underscores a significant point of contention. McBean, who shared a flight home from Afghanistan with Harry, expressed disappointment over Harry's decision to publicly air grievances about his family, especially in a personal and highly publicized manner. He suggested that Harry should have kept such matters private, as family disputes are common but should not be exposed for public consumption.

The film is titled 'Harry: The Lost Prince' and includes expert commentary on the allegations the Duke of Sussex made against his family in his book Spare 

The German documentary also highlights the couple’s reliance on their royal past to support their current lifestyle. Critics accuse them of profiting from their former titles, emphasizing that this approach seems at odds with their self-presentation as social activists and philanthropists.

Additionally, the documentary takes aim at Harry and Meghan’s lifestyle in Montecito, where they live among other wealthy celebrities. Despite their public image as champions of causes like poverty alleviation, they are criticized for not integrating with the local community and for maintaining a high-profile, elitist lifestyle that distances them from the everyday lives of those they claim to represent. This narrative suggests that their actions and image do not align with their stated values, leading to perceptions of hypocrisy.

The programme takes a dig at the couple by detailing how their much-publicised visits to poverty-stricken countries such as Nigeria and Colombia sits uneasily with Meghan's love of expensive designer clothes. This picture was taken during the couple's visit to Bogota in August this year 

The German documentary continues to pile pressure on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle by highlighting several uncomfortable points about their charity work and public image.

Criticism of Archewell's Effectiveness:

• Minimal Charity Engagement: The documentary points out that Harry and Meghan admitted to working just one hour per week on their Archewell Foundation, which seems at odds with their public stance as committed activists. This raises concerns about the effectiveness and genuine impact of their charitable endeavors.
• Declining Donations: The sharp decline in donations to Archewell—from $13 million in 2021 to only $2 million in 2022—is also highlighted, suggesting that their charity's influence may be waning. This further fuels accusations of hypocrisy, especially given their lofty claims about social change.

'Megxit' Backlash:

• Ongoing Criticism in Germany: The documentary revisits the backlash from their decision to step back from royal duties in 2020, an event that sparked criticism from some media outlets, particularly in Germany. The couple's desire to remain part-time royals while pursuing personal ventures has continued to shape their public perception.

The new documentary – the first TV analysis of the couple in Germany since 'Megxit' - even questions the cost of the Invictus Games that were held in Dusseldorf by pointing out that they were funded by a €40million donation from Germany's Ministry of Defence

The Invictus Games and Its Funding:

• Cost of the Games: While Harry and Meghan's attendance at the Invictus Games in Düsseldorf boosted their image in Germany, the documentary questions the funding behind the event. It points out that the €40 million donation from Germany's Ministry of Defence raised eyebrows, especially given the public funding involved in such high-profile events.

Criticism of Their Luxury Lifestyle:

• Contradictions in Their Messaging: British royal reporters, like Russel Myers, criticize the couple for wearing designer clothing worth tens of thousands of pounds while visiting countries struggling with extreme poverty, such as Nigeria and Colombia. This juxtaposition of wealth and activism leads to concerns that they are not aligning their actions with their messaging, causing some to perceive them as out of touch with the issues they claim to champion.

The film will no doubt leave the couple unimpressed as it extensively quotes British Royal reporters and experts, talking about the gulf between their supposedly noble work and their luxury lifestyle

This documentary is likely to leave Harry and Meghan uncomfortable, as it continues to chip away at their carefully curated image as benevolent public figures, raising questions about the authenticity and effectiveness of their work and the tension between their royal status and their new celebrity lifestyle.

Experts have also called Harry and Meghan out for profiting off their royal reputation in the documentary. Pictured here is a grab from Harry: The Lost Prince 

Jack Royston, a royal commentator from The Royal Report, critiques Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s approach to their post-royal lives, particularly their desire to be "half in and half out" of the royal family—a stance famously rejected by the late Queen Elizabeth II. Royston argues that Harry and Meghan’s high earnings from Hollywood and their commercial ventures, when combined with their occasional efforts to align with royal duties, create a "huge compromise" for the monarchy.

Key Points:

1. Monarchy as a Platform for Commercial Gain:
   Royston warns that if Harry and Meghan use their royal connections to promote personal projects, it risks compromising the integrity of the monarchy. He suggests that presenting themselves as royal family members while earning money through personal ventures could border on exploitation, potentially undermining the monarchy's reputation by appearing to trade off their titles for financial gain.

2. Damage to Their Reputation:
   Royston also comments on the damage to the couple’s reputation, particularly after their departure from the royal family. He believes their public criticisms of family members, including their revelations in Spare and their Netflix series, have tarnished their credibility. The perception that they aired personal grievances publicly—referred to as "firing hand grenades" at the royal family—has made it harder for them to effectively champion global causes, as many people no longer take them seriously.

3. Impact on Their Activism:
   Royston argues that their controversial exit from the royal family and subsequent actions have had a significant impact on their ability to influence others. As a result, their efforts to make the world a better place are being diminished because many people feel disengaged or unwilling to listen to them due to the perceived hypocrisy and the focus on their personal drama.

This perspective suggests that the couple’s struggle to balance their celebrity status with royal affiliations may be eroding their effectiveness as activists and diminishing the public’s willingness to support their causes.

Royston and Mineards both address the growing criticism of Harry and Meghan’s lifestyle, especially in relation to their public image and the financial impact of their initiatives.

Royston's Criticism of the Invictus Games Funding:

Financial Burden on Taxpayers:

Royston underscores the immense cost of the Invictus Games, particularly pointing out that public funds—like the substantial German taxpayer contribution—are financing the event. The fact that the games are being funded in part by public money raises concerns about the financial responsibility of hosting such events. This becomes a particularly sensitive issue in the UK, where public funds are expected to support the 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham, a city that has recently faced financial struggles and was nearly driven to bankruptcy.

Harry and Meghan attended the 2023 Invictus Games - a paralympic tournament for wounded and injured veterans - that were held in Dusseldorf, Germany 

Further Alienation from the Royal Family:

Royston also criticizes the couple for distancing themselves from their royal roots while living a life that seems to set them further apart from the traditional royal duties and responsibilities. The couple’s luxurious lifestyle, now enjoyed in the celebrity enclave of Montecito, California, is described as emblematic of their shift into an elite circle, further separating them from the royal family’s more humble image and duties.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex pictured at the sitting volleyball final during day six of the Invictus Games in Dusseldorf on September 15, 2023

Richard Mineards’ Perspective on the Couple’s Montecito Lifestyle:

1. Wealthy Neighborhood:
   Mineards, a neighbor of Harry and Meghan in Montecito, highlights the opulent nature of the couple's lifestyle. Most homes in their area are valued at around eight to nine million dollars, underscoring their place within a wealthy and exclusive community. This lifestyle sharply contrasts with the couple’s earlier messaging about advocating for equality, charity, and social change.

2. Meghan’s Community Engagement:
   Mineards adds a personal touch to his critique by noting that Meghan does not seem to engage with the local community. He states that while Harry is more involved, Meghan is less visible and does not contribute to the social fabric of the area. This criticism points to a perceived disconnect between the couple’s stated values and their actual engagement with the communities they inhabit.

The documentary’s portrayal of Harry and Meghan’s lifestyle, particularly the focus on their wealth and the costs associated with their charitable endeavors, may fuel existing perceptions of hypocrisy. Critics argue that the couple’s luxury lifestyle conflicts with their public commitment to social causes, making it harder for them to be seen as genuine advocates for change.

The documentary continues to scrutinize Harry and Meghan's activities, with several experts and critics offering pointed commentary on their actions and choices since stepping down from royal duties.

Angela Levin's Critique on Harry’s Royal Ambitions:

1. Unrealistic Expectations:
   Royal biographer Angela Levin reflects on Harry's dissatisfaction with his and Meghan's new roles after "Megxit." She asserts that Harry sought to strike a balance between staying partially involved in the royal family while also pursuing personal, commercial interests. Levin recalls how the late Queen Elizabeth II firmly rejected this notion, emphasizing that royals should not use their positions for financial gain. This rejection is presented as a significant point of tension in Harry's royal journey.

Dr. Ulrike Grunewald's Analysis of Archewell:

2. Ineffectiveness of Archewell Foundation:
   Dr. Grunewald, the documentary's director, also expresses disappointment with the way the Archewell Foundation is organized. She highlights the sharp drop in donations from $13 million in 2021 to just $2 million in 2022, suggesting a lack of broad support for the foundation's initiatives. This financial decline raises questions about the effectiveness and appeal of their charitable efforts. Grunewald also points to Harry and Meghan’s minimal involvement, with the couple reportedly working just one hour a week on the foundation, further tarnishing their image as dedicated philanthropists.

Dai Davies' Criticism of Harry's Memoir:

3. Exposing Sensitive Information:
   Dai Davies, a former royal protection officer, criticizes Harry for the contents of his memoir Spare, particularly the revelation about his actions during his military service. Davies argues that by detailing how many Taliban fighters Harry had killed while piloting an Apache helicopter, Harry made himself and others more vulnerable to harm. This disclosure, according to Davies, could have serious security implications for both Harry and his family, adding to the scrutiny around the couple’s decision to publicly share such intimate and potentially dangerous details.

Meghan's Public Absence:

4. Meghan's Low Profile:
   The documentary also reflects on Meghan’s apparent absence from public life. While Harry is described as more visible and engaging with his charity work, Meghan is criticized for being less involved in both public and community affairs. This further isolates her from the causes they advocate for, giving the impression that she is more detached from their purported mission.

This documentary paints a picture of a couple struggling to maintain the credibility of their public and charitable endeavors, facing criticism from various angles—from their foundation’s inefficiency and minimal engagement to their opulent lifestyle and the fallout from their royal exit. It casts doubt on their ability to balance their philanthropic goals with their personal and financial interests, as well as the potential consequences of their public disclosures.

Dai Davies’ criticism of Prince Harry in the documentary deepens as he underscores concerns about the consequences of Harry’s public disclosures and his lack of connection with everyday people during his international trips.

Harry’s Memoir and Security Risks:

1. Security Risk from Memoir:
   Davies revisits Harry’s controversial revelation in his memoir Spare about killing Taliban fighters while serving in Afghanistan. He argues that this disclosure was highly imprudent, noting that Harry and the royal family were well aware of the risks posed by such information. According to Davies, groups like the Taliban have placed a bounty on Harry's head, which he suggests still stands, making him a potential target. The detailed accounts in Spare, Davies claims, have only worsened the security threat to Harry, making it harder for him to justify why he still needs heightened protection.

2. Potential for Further Vulnerability:
   Davies also emphasizes that by publicly sharing these sensitive details, Harry not only jeopardized his safety but also handed his critics ammunition. He suggests that Harry’s penchant for revealing personal and security-related information may backfire, with some seeing him as a target rather than a victim.

Harry’s Distance from Ordinary People:

3. Failure to Engage with the Local Populace:
   Davies criticizes Harry’s approach during international trips, describing them as "carefully orchestrated" and lacking genuine interaction with ordinary people. He highlights the example of their visit to Colombia, noting that while there are wealthy people in the country, the majority of Colombians live in poverty. According to Davies, Harry and Meghan's trips are carefully planned to shield them from the realities faced by ordinary citizens, creating a stark contrast between their lavish lifestyle and the conditions of those they claim to be helping.

4. Disconnection from Reality:
   The criticism points to a broader disconnect, as the couple is seen promoting charitable work while seemingly insulated from the struggles of the communities they visit. This detachment, Davies argues, undermines the authenticity of their supposed advocacy and makes it difficult for many to take their efforts seriously.

Davies’ comments continue to paint a picture of a couple whose public image as activists is increasingly questioned. By exposing highly sensitive details and failing to genuinely engage with the people they aim to help, Harry and Meghan risk deepening their reputation issues, according to their critics. The mix of personal revelations and perceived elitism from their public trips further complicates their attempt to balance celebrity with genuine social advocacy.

Dai Davies' criticism continues, with a sharp focus on what he perceives as the superficial nature of Harry's and Meghan’s public engagements during their international tours. He argues that the couple's interactions are carefully staged, designed more to enhance their own image rather than address the real issues facing the communities they visit.

Orchestrated Public Engagements:

1. Selective Interactions:
   Davies observes that Harry’s and Meghan’s interactions are often limited to the upper classes or carefully controlled environments where they can present a polished, well-managed image. He suggests that when they do engage with "ordinary" people, these encounters are also orchestrated, giving the illusion of a genuine connection with the masses. According to Davies, these encounters are more about promoting the couple’s brand and bolstering their public persona than about making any meaningful impact on the communities they visit.

2. Focus on Personal Branding:
   Davies emphasizes that, based on the evidence he has seen, the couple’s tours seem to focus primarily on advancing their own image, rather than addressing the underlying issues of the countries they visit. He suggests that the couple’s charitable work and international trips often feel like a backdrop for self-promotion rather than a genuine commitment to social causes.

Davies' comments reflect a broader criticism of Harry and Meghan’s public engagements, which many see as staged and self-serving. He suggests that their charity work and international appearances are more about showcasing their celebrity status than genuinely connecting with and helping the communities they claim to advocate for. This perception may contribute to the ongoing skepticism surrounding their motivations and the authenticity of their activism.