RICHARD EDEN: Why can’t Harry, and Meghan be generous, like the Queen? Lend a hand to OTHER PEOPLE’S charities! It’s dangerous – and egotistical – to want one of your own!
Selfish royals should stick to helping existing charities rather than setting up their own, according to the Daily Mail's Richard Eden.
Establishing personal foundations makes the royal family open to criticism, he suggests, and vulnerable to “generous donors with questionable motives.”
Instead, members of the royal family should “follow the wise example of Queen Elizabeth and Princess Anne and act as patrons of existing charities.”
In the latest edition of his Palace Confidential newsletter, Eden takes aim at Harry and Meghan's Archewell Foundation, which is under scrutiny after an 'plunge' of £8.8m in donations last year – but still a huge salary plus bonus paid to executive director James Holt.
The Princess of Wales and her children, including Princess Charlotte, pictured here wearing a little cardigan, visited their local baby bank. The visit was featured in a slick video from Kensington Palace
Coincidentally, the next day, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle released a video montage of the work of their charity Archewell
A scene from the Netflix documentary Heart of Invictus, featuring Meghan, left, Prince Harry and advisor James Holt, right. Archewell paid Mr Holt $207,405 (£165,800) plus a $20,000 bonus in 2023
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex leave the Commonwealth Day Service at Westminster Abbey in 2019
“Charity begins at home when it comes to their most loyal lieutenants,” Eden notes.
'James Holt, who previously worked for Prince William and Catherine, as well as Harry and Meghan, was rewarded for his loyalty to the Sussexes with a pay package of $207,405 (£165,800), plus a $20,000 bonus.
'Holt, a friend of Archewell executive director Omid Scobie, certainly worked hard for Harry and Meghan, appearing extensively in their tawdry 'reality' series on Netflix, in which Harry revealed intimate conversations with other members of the royal family and Meghan seemed to mock Queen Elizabeth with her exaggerated bow.'
Of course, the Sussexes aren't the only royals who have set up their own charities.
The Prince's Trust and Prince's Foundation (now The King's Foundation), founded by King Charles, have become two of the best known in Britain.
The Prince and Princess of Wales have established their own Royal Foundation, which also includes the Princess's Center for Early Childhood. Prince William also administers the Earthshot Prize for environmental initiatives.
In the newsletter, Eden writes that “in one of those 'coincidences' we have become accustomed to, just a day after Kensington Palace aired a charming video of the children of the Prince and Princess of Wales helping their mother volunteer at a 'baby bank' . in Windsor, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released an equally slick video of their own.
'Prince Harry and Meghan's video was meant to highlight the work they have done over the past year for their Archewell Foundation, which published its 28-page annual report.
'What they were less keen to report, however, was the fact that their foundation suffered a drop of $11 million (£8.8 million) in donations last year.'
The Sussexes' Archewell Foundation logo. Richard Eden suggests royals should follow the example of the Queen and Princess Anne in supporting existing charities rather than setting up their own
The Prince and Princess of Wales have established The Royal Foundation as an umbrella group for their charity projects
Tax returns in the United States, where they live, show Archewell received $2 million last year, compared to $13 million in 2021.
The Sussexes maintain that this type of fallout would be normal after a successful first year, that there is no suggestion that Archewell is insolvent and that the charity account has sufficient reserves.
Eden concludes: 'For me, the revelations highlight the dangers of members of the royal family having their own charitable foundations, which can leave them open to criticism and at the mercy of generous donors with questionable motives.
'It may not be great for boosting royal egos, but it can achieve more with far less chance of controversy.'