Meghan Markle has signalled, through her choice of accessories, that she does not intend to lead a quiet life in the Cotswolds, according to an opinion piece by Eleanor Burleigh.
The Duchess of Sussex appeared in a new Instagram post unveiling a festive collaboration between her As Ever brand and an LA-based chocolatier. In the snap advertising a £112 advent calendar, she wore a $61,250 (£46,366) diamond necklace from Jennifer Meyer and $5,575 (£4,220) earrings from Logan Hollowell.
Luxury accessories and commercial ventures
The jewellery may have been gifted or loaned by the high-end brands, but it indicates the level of luxury Meghan expects to maintain, funded by the quasi-royal status she and Harry plan to re-establish in Britain. The piece argues that the Sussexes' actions over the last six years contradict any hope of a subdued family life.
Since stepping down as senior royals in 2020, Harry and Meghan have pursued various commercial opportunities, including interviews, a Netflix series, a memoir, and unofficial royal engagements. The article suggests their return to the UK was not a signal of a quieter existence.
Rebuking the Palace
The couple immediately engaged in a dispute with Buckingham Palace, rebuking King Charles's suggestion that they are “private citizens” and pushing for the title of “public figures” instead. Harry's approach appears to be a schedule of engagements similar to a working royal, while Meghan combines gestures at rejoining the Firm with commercial ventures in a way Queen Elizabeth II expressly forbade.
The article concludes that the couple's move back to Britain was a plot to combine their status and titles with self-aggrandisement. It predicts Harry will continue making public appearances despite his estrangement from the King, and Meghan will profit off his activities through her brand while wearing expensive outfits and accessories.
Security costs under scrutiny
The piece argues that the Sussexes' efforts to secure taxpayer-funded security akin to that provided to working royals are unreasonable, stating that “public figures, as they so wish to be considered, can cover their own costs.”
