Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Slammed as 'Total Hypocrites' Over Shock Plan for Archie and Lilibeth

When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex famously stepped back from royal duties in their explosive 'Megxit' departure, the narrative was clear: they were fleeing a life of unbearable intrusion. Their stated desire was to escape the 'toxicity', 'racism' and relentless media scrutiny of the British press to forge a private existence for their growing family. Yet, in a move that has left observers bewildered, they chose to settle in the United States — a nation with no federal privacy laws comparable to the UK and significantly higher risks of violence.

It was a geographical pivot that, to many, 'didn't make mounds of sense' at the time. Now, a fresh development regarding their children has reignited accusations that the couple's actions are fundamentally at odds with their proclaimed values.

Prince Harry, 41, has frequently spoken of his fraught relationship with public life, famously comparing his royal existence to a 'mixture between The Truman Show and being in a zoo'. His protective instincts towards his children, Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4, have been evident; he once told Good Morning America that his home life was 'classified', and images of the children released by the couple often have their faces obscured.

This fierce guarding of their privacy was supposed to allow Archie and Lilibet to 'make their own way in life', free from the 'control and fear' Harry and Meghan described to Oprah Winfrey. They have spent years constructing a veritable ring of steel around their Montecito sanctuary to shield their offspring from the very circus they have leveraged to amass an $81 million fortune.

Harry and Meghan Face Hypocrisy Claims Over New Strategy

However, the Sussexes' recent pivot has left critics branding them 'total hypocrites'. Just days before Christmas, the couple released an official statement announcing a significant rebranding of their charitable vehicle.

After five years, the Archewell Foundation is to be renamed 'Archewell Philanthropies'. Crucially, the statement declared: 'This charitable entity allows the couple and their children to expand upon their global philanthropic endeavours as a family.' This explicit inclusion of Archie and Lilibet marks the first time Harry and Meghan have formally positioned their children as active participants in their public-facing operations.

The move signals a shift from a protective parental stance to what appears to be a full-scale family enterprise. One old friend of Prince Harry expressed genuine confusion to a royal writer, noting the stark contradiction with the couple's previous insistence on privacy.

'I am genuinely confused,' the friend remarked. 'Harry and Meghan were always so insistent that their children would be able to make their own way in life without the pressure of expectations or titles.nI can't believe Harry is behind this. It must be Meghan's influence'. The implication is clear: the children, once strictly off-limits, are now being woven into the fabric of the Sussex brand.

Streaming Giants May Force Hand of Harry and Meghan

While supporters might argue that involving children in philanthropy is benign, cynics are drawing a direct line to commercial pressures.Following the reported 'review-bombing' of the duchess's Netflix show, With Love, Meghan, speculation is mounting that the couple realises they need to offer more personal access to maintain the interest of US streaming giants. To keep the lucrative deals flowing, they may need to monetise their most protected assets: their children.

This could mean Archie and Lilibet appearing in future content, much like Harry's awkward cameo in the With Love, Meghan Christmas special, where he tasted his wife's fennel salad and spicy gumbo — only to face her wrath after declaring the gumbo 'worse than her mother's'.

If Harry and Meghan are indeed planning to let the cameras in, it suggests a transactional approach to privacy: the steel fence comes down only when it benefits the family brand. For a couple who fled the UK to save their children from the spotlight, inviting the world in on their own terms looks less like protection and more like a strategic business decision.