Devastating Los Angeles Wildfires Spark Controversy Around Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Actions
The recent wildfires sweeping through Los Angeles have left countless people displaced, with the community rallying together to provide aid. Among the helpers were Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, who appeared at a food bank to offer assistance. While their gesture seemed commendable at first glance, it quickly ignited controversy—something that has become all too familiar with the Sussexes.
Meghan Markle arrived at the Pasadena Convention Center in a carefully curated "casual" outfit: a light blue shirt and a baseball cap, clearly designed to appear relatable. However, despite her evident intention to help, critics soon began to question her motives.
During a Fox LA broadcast, anchor Susan Hirasuna referred to her as "Princess Meghan," a term that sparked immediate debate. Observers were quick to point out that Meghan is not technically a princess and has been repeatedly accused of leveraging royal titles for publicity.
When Meghan and Harry stepped back from royal duties in 2020, it was understood they would refrain from using their titles for commercial or public gain. Yet, their appearances often suggest otherwise. This food bank visit is the latest in a string of highly publicized events where their use of royal connections has raised eyebrows.
Critics have drawn comparisons between Meghan’s approach and the conduct of other royals, such as Princess Catherine (Kate Middleton). Catherine has consistently embodied quiet dignity and genuine compassion in her public engagements. Whether championing mental health, early childhood education, or environmental sustainability, her actions speak louder than words, without the need for cameras or titles to validate her efforts.
As news of Meghan and Harry’s food bank visit spread, so did skepticism. Social media platforms were flooded with comments questioning the couple’s motivations. Observers pointed to the presence of cameras and the highly publicized nature of the visit, contrasting it with past examples of discreet royal charity work.
Los Angeles Mayor Victor Gordon commended their generosity, mentioning their previous “anonymous” visit to serve food. However, critics questioned how anonymous it truly was, given the presence of a full camera crew during the visit.
Adding fuel to the fire was the timing of this appearance, coinciding with King Charles III’s recent crackdown on the use of royal titles. For some, the overlap seemed far from coincidental.
At the heart of the debate is a question of intent: is the couple’s philanthropy genuine, or is it merely a calculated effort to maintain public relevance? True charity doesn’t require press releases or photo ops. Princess Diana, for example, often visited hospitals and shelters in secret, prioritizing the cause over the coverage.
In contrast, Meghan and Harry’s actions often appear meticulously orchestrated. From staged photo opportunities to publicized announcements about opening their Montecito mansion to wildfire evacuees, the calculated nature of their efforts is hard to overlook.
This controversy isn’t just about one food bank visit. It touches on deeper issues of respect for the monarchy and its traditions. The institution has endured for centuries, built on duty, service, and humility—not self-promotion.
King Charles’s recent efforts to enforce stricter royal protocols reflect an attempt to preserve the dignity and traditions of the monarchy. As the royal family continues to adapt to modern times, it’s clear that these values remain essential for its survival—something the Sussexes appear to have overlooked.
