Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are again under fire following their reported decision to restructure their team into a hierarchy reminiscent of the traditional royal court they once publicly distanced themselves from. According to reports, the couple has established a senior staff structure based in Montecito, California, and the UK, under the leadership of Meredith Kendall Maines, a seasoned communications strategist. This new setup has ignited accusations of hypocrisy, given their previous criticisms of royal courtiers and the institutional structures of the monarchy.
Royal commentators have not held back in their critiques. Richard Fitzwilliams remarked that Harry's past denouncements of courtiers, particularly in his memoir, Spare, where he described them as “the enemy,” clash sharply with his current actions. “The hypocrisy lies in the act that Harry has… attacked courtiers and the Royal Household,” Fitzwilliams noted, expressing surprise that he would seek to replicate a similar structure at home.
In a similar vein, royal author Tom Bower suggested that the couple appears eager to establish their own “royal court” from their California residence. He described the collection of staff—comprised of 11 senior members each commanding six-figure salaries—as less a regal entourage and more “a hugely expensive group of bureaucrats.” This decision, Bower suggests, is part of a “desperate bid to save their brand,” as they navigate their evolving commercial and lifestyle ventures.
The updated team structure reportedly includes provisions whereby both Harry and Meghan will each have a chief of staff, operating independently of their philanthropic arm, the Archewell foundation. This has sparked political and social commentary on their choice to mirror royal traditions while positioning themselves as advocates for progressive change. Critics have raised valid concerns regarding their repeated embraces of monarchical structures against the backdrop of their stated desire to break free from royal constraints.
The couple’s recent activities have been scrutinised in broader contexts as well. Their international visits to countries such as Colombia and Nigeria, where they appeared in high-fashion attire, have drawn sharp criticism for sending mixed messages about solidarity with impoverished communities. Royal commentator Russell Myers has pointed out the disconnect, suggesting that their luxury wardrobe choices during these trips serve to undermine their purported mission of advocacy.
This trend of perceived hypocrisy does not stop there. The couple’s decision to grant royal titles to their children, Archie and Lilibet, has also been condemned by many as a calculated manoeuvre to maintain relevance in public life—despite the fact that they stepped back from royal duties in 2020. The recent christening of Princess Lilibet Diana has intensified scrutiny of their actions in this context, raising questions about their commitment to stepping away from royal conventions.
Adding to the narrative, criticism has mounted surrounding Meghan's public stance against bullying. Biographer Angela Levin has pointed out a contradiction between their advocacy against cyberbullying and the couple's own conduct, suggesting that their actions sometimes fail to align with their stated principles. This dissonance further complicates public perception of the couple and their intentions.
Reports of their extravagant lifestyle, particularly in light of their charitable pursuits, have led to reluctance among some observers to reconcile their actions with their advocacy. A German documentary titled The Lost Prince highlights this contrast, examining their affluent lifestyle in Montecito while they assert their commitment to philanthropy. Critics argue that such a lifestyle raises ethical questions about the sincerity of their charitable work.
Ultimately, the restructuring of their team may not only reposition Harry and Meghan at the heart of a new brand strategy but also reignite scrutiny over their past controversies and current lifestyle choices. As they navigate this complex landscape, the couple faces a daunting challenge in aligning their advocacy with actions that critics deem inconsistent with their message.
Source: Noah Wire Services