While Harry and Meghan may share some similarities, such as their association with high-profile figures like Oprah Winfrey, Kinsey Scoffield, an expert commentator on GB News, pointed out the distinctions. The couple's constant presence on Netflix billboards and other branding elements have set them apart from the legacy of Princess Diana. Aside from their entertainment ventures, the Sussexes are known for their involvement in charitable sponsorships.
Recently, they released a mission statement expressing their commitment to ethical journalism. However, concerns have arisen due to their limited engagement in charitable work and the substantial salaries of their staff. Of note, James Holt received a notably high salary, witnessing a staggering 270% increase.
This considerable bump in compensation is believed to be linked to Holt's role in assisting Meghan and Harry in concealing a substantial sum of money, allegedly sourced from charitable donations. Lady C claimed that Prince Charles initially made substantial contributions, with the funds later transferred to a holding account. Such actions not only piqued interest but also created advantageous tax conditions for several account holders. Subsequently, this money was funneled into the Archewell Foundation.
Questions were raised regarding the income balance, particularly the lack of interest income despite a substantial cash balance. The discrepancy between having $8 million in cash and earning only $4,149 in profit raised eyebrows, particularly in the context of U.S. charities. Furthermore, Lady C questioned the need for three full-time staff members, deeming it excessive based on the cited projects.
The $91 in public donations also raised concerns, especially when juxtaposed with the legal expenses of the Archewell Foundation. This discrepancy appeared inconsistent with the reported projects. In essence, Lady C suggested that Meghan and Harry could be the primary source of donations, potentially enabling them to benefit from individual tax breaks. Allegedly, this money was strategically moved between accounts, leaving lingering questions about their financial performance.
While these actions may comply with certain legal standards, they have left behind a cloud of doubt and ethical concerns among some observers.
