Cynthia Nayla Irandu, Financial and Entertainment journalist.
Meghan & Harry — and Her Past Relationships: Gold Digger or Genuine Partner?
Encounter & Relationship with Harry
Meghan and Prince Harry met in 2016 after a mutual friend introduced them. Their relationship, engagement, and eventual marriage were highly publicized. From the start, Meghan’s celebrity status and independent career brought her into sharp contrast with traditional royal norms (e.g. her prior work as an actress, her outspokenness) — which some defenders argue brings modernization, and critics dismiss as self-branding.
In public narratives, Meghan is often painted as driven, ambitious, and intensely image-conscious. To her supporters, that’s the flip side of being determined and breaking molds. To detractors, it fuels suspicion: is she a “gold digger”— someone who attached to Harry (and royalty) for status and money?
But that label is simplistic. The couple has pursued independent income streams (Netflix, her lifestyle brand, speeches). Meghan has repeatedly said (for instance, in a NYT interview) that “I need to work, and I love to work.” Critics argue many of her ventures lack financial substance or sustainable revenue, and sometimes veer into self-promotion more than philanthropy.
Meghan also seems sensitive to criticism of “being out of touch” — she questioned in interviews, “Don’t they know my life hasn’t always been like this?” when accused of being unrelatable. That said, when your income and projects are measured at millions, the threshold for “relatability” is steep.
Former Girlfriends of Harry & Comparison
When you bring up Harry’s past relationships (e.g. in the late 1990s or early 2000s), the contrast is sometimes used by critics to imply Meghan is opportunistic. But human relationships are complex. Harry’s earlier relationships were long before he became prominent as the “exiled duke with celebrity spouse,” and often involved less scrutiny and fewer stakes.
To brand Meghan as a “gold digger” implies her principal motive was financial gain. That’s an oversimplification. But the public — especially in tabloids — loves these framing narratives. They exonerate deeper scrutiny of power, media influence, and the institution she joined.
So, while there are reasonable critiques of her business ventures, branding her purely as a “gold digger” ignores nuance: she has agency, ambition, and supports causes she cares about (at least publicly). The backlash is as much about public perception, double standards, race and gender, as it is about finance.
Being a “Non-Working Royal”: Privilege, Scrutiny, and Public Funds
One of the fiercest lines of criticism against Meghan (and Harry) concerns their status: post-2020, the Sussexes stepped back from “senior working royals.” They no longer carry out many of the traditional royal duties funded by the Sovereign Grant (i.e. taxpayer money) or are exempt from income-tax scrutiny the way working royals might be. But they still retain their titles (Duke and Duchess of Sussex), and some perceive that as a loophole: they benefit from royal branding without carrying traditional obligations.
Critics argue:
Title advantage without responsibility: They can trade on “royal” status (media visibility, book deals, speaking fees) without serving in the ways full-time royals must.
Expectations of self-funding: Because they no longer rely on public funds, they must generate income. But when they do, every step—from Netflix deals to lifestyle brands—is picked apart.
Tax and public scrutiny: In the UK, the royal family’s finances are opaque. The Sussexes, based in the U.S., are under different tax regimes, and the perception of “royal benefit without accountability” fuels criticism.
There are also murmurs of marital strain and divorce rumors. Some speculate that the pressure of public life, media attacks, and clashes over roles contribute to tension — though no solid evidence of separation has emerged. In the court of public opinion, rumors thrive where facts are scarce.
A Financial Lens: Glamour, ROI, and Brand Sustainability
From a business perspective, Meghan’s public persona is a brand — carefully curated. If the brand is royalty + lifestyle + advocacy, she must monetize it. But the ROI is murky.
Her Netflix series With Love, Meghan has garnered lukewarm reviews and been labeled “out of touch.”
Her lifestyle brand As Ever (formerly American Riviera Orchard) has had internal leadership shakeups, trademark issues, and is scrutinized for viability.
A video highlighting designer clothes can look like a marketing push, but in times of public economic stress, it also looks tone-deaf.
If the public perceives she trades in luxury spectacle more than substance, the brand risks collapse. In business terms: the cost of optics (damage to reputation) may outweigh marginal gains from glamor videos.
Also, when your “product” is yourself, you’re vulnerable to accusations of superficiality, inconsistency, and insincerity — all of which critics lob at Meghan.
Comparing with Diana: Legacy, Sympathy, and Speculation Around the 1997 Crash
Diana’s Public Image & Legacy
Princess Diana remains the “People’s Princess” in many eyes — empathetic, accessible, scandal-resistant (in her own way), and deeply beloved. Her charitable work, particularly with landmines, HIV, and children, built an aura of genuine compassion. Her divorce from Prince Charles and battles with the media cast her as both victim and icon.
In contrast, Meghan is more studiously managed, more polarizing, and less afforded the benefit of doubt. The media, especially British tabloids, often compare her to Diana — sometimes flattering, often critical. But that comparison is dangerous: it invites impossible standards and emotional overreach.
What Happened in 1997? The Crash & Conspiracy Theories
The official investigations (in France and later the UK inquest) concluded:
The driver Henri Paul lost control, driving at high speed in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel.
Diana, Dodi Fayed, and the driver died; only bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones survived with severe injuries.
The British inquest (2008) delivered a verdict of “unlawful killing” — finding that negligence by the driver and pursuing paparazzi contributed.
However, conspiracy theories remain persistent. Some suggest MI6 or royal involvement, or that Diana was pregnant with Dodi’s child—claims officially discounted or unproven.
When Meghan posts a video near (or claimed near) the tunnel, critics read it as insensitive or manipulative — using Diana’s memory for clicks. Supporters argue the backlash is exaggerated, that location claims are misrepresented, or that the outrage is weaponizing Diana’s legacy.
What many believe happened: Diana’s death was a tragic accident compounded by media pursuing her, poor driving conditions, and structural risk factors (no seatbelt, impact with tunnel pillar). The conspiracy theories persist largely because the world doesn’t want to believe such icons perish so randomly.
About the Author
