We need to talk about Harry and Meghan
Andrew Esiebo/The Archewell Foundation
Media narratives about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do the country no favours.
During a tour of North America in 1969 Prince Philip joined “Meet The Press” for an interview with Elie Abel. In it he talked frankly about the future of the British monarchy and the importance of it being able to change and modernise with the times. He said that the monarchies of Europe were ultimately destroyed by their most ardent and enthusiastic supporters, who were, he said, resistant to change. I think his words may prove to be prophetic.
Since stepping down as “working royals” Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, continue to their commitment to philanthropy and service. Despite relentless negativity in the media, their own PR mis-steps and apparent decline in popularity, their dedication to making a positive impact on the world remains steadfast, showing an extraordinary degree of resilience.
They have leveraged their platform to champion causes, ranging from mental health awareness to gender equality and, of course, the Invictus games. Their philanthropic efforts are not merely symbolic; they are actively involved in initiatives that drive meaningful change. Through their Archewell Foundation, they have supported numerous projects. Their commitment to mental health, for example, aims to break down stigma. And Harry, despite derision in some quarters, has been open about his own struggles, using his experiences to break down barriers surrounding mental health issues.
Meghan's identity as a biracial woman and her experiences with racism have informed much of their work, bringing attention to systemic inequalities and promoting inclusivity. Their efforts have inspired some to see the royal influence as a potential force for good in the modern world, rather than a force for ill. They appeal to a younger audience than the royal family and their image is friendly, open and relaxed that contrasts sharply with the dry and dusty formality of the royals.
However, there is a very real prospect that Prince Philip’s warning manifesting itself in a rather inglorious fashion. Let’s take Harry and Meghan's recent trip to Nigeria as an example. It was regarded as a huge success locally bringing focus to veterans and the Invictus Games. They also met women and girls affected by conflict and heard about the work of the organisations which support them. And yet, the British media – once again – saw fit to diminish and discredit their efforts.
Critics found fault with who they met, with Meghan's choice of attire, and with the couple’s supposed silence on Nigeria's social issues. It was a “faux” royal tour. They were “fake royals”, “a cheap imitation”. Royal “expert” Tom Quinn reported that the King was “angrier than anyone had ever seen him” and that the palace were “very worried”.
The media went further and criticised their hosts. In trying to denigrate the pair, they panned the visit as an unwise, unsanctioned endorsement a country that is “lawless”, “dangerous” and “corrupt”. Nigeria, we were told, was a country of “hidden truths” and “shady dealings”. One of the welcoming committee was “a fugitive”. “The [late] Queen would never have gone” bellowed Talk TV. Despite her visiting the country twice. As has Charles.
Royal biographer Christopher Wilson’s tweet caused a furore in Nigeria (and beyond).
Unsurprisingly, this portrayal has been perceived by Nigerian commentators as colonial and racist, a sentiment echoed not only by content creators and social media users but also in mainstream media. To watch the response in Nigeria to the UK coverage is to feel ashamed. The international community is watching. They can see us.
It’s not a pretty sight.
It risks portraying the royal family and the country as vindictive, punitive, and out of touch with contemporary global perspectives and values. It has echoes of cultural superiority and colonialism. It also undermines the royal family's image as a unifying and progressive force in a rapidly changing world. It diminishes its moral authority and relevance, especially with younger people. Indeed, in an era where transparency, empathy and inclusivity are increasingly valued, the royal family's alignment with traditional, exclusionary narratives erode public trust and support both at home and abroad.
The ongoing efforts of British royalists to contain and constrain Harry and Meghan may have the desired effect in that they damage the couple’s reputation. The motive for media owners is arguably more prosaic; scandal drives clicks and advertising revenue. But both come at a cost to our reputation.
Despite the unprecedented level of attack. Harry and Meghan have remained committed to their values and mission. They have proved that the essence of royalty lies, not in titles and ceremonies, but in a genuine desire to serve. By forging their own path and continuing their philanthropy, they exemplify a model of service that is both relevant and impactful in today's society. By opposing them and denigrating them rather than championing them, the British media run the risk of damaging both the monarchy's reputation and Britain's image on the international stage.
As a fundraiser, I believe my role is to support those among our supporters who serve in the same way as those who give. Like them or not, these are two individuals dedicating their lives to service, which is a form of philanthropy.
Harry and Meghan might be imperfect. They have made – and will make – mistakes.
But they are philanthropists.
Let’s be less judgmental.
⟶ About Giles⟶ Services⟶ Back to overview