Harry and Meghan’s new charity won’t fight inequality – it will perpetuate it

The couple’s new charity Archewell is a prime example of ‘philanthrocapitalism’: a means of legitimising social injustice through good works

Hannah Yelin
Wednesday 15 April 2020 17:05 BST
Comments
Harry and Meghan to launch charitable organisation named Archewell

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have traded the contradictions of royalty for the contradictions of capitalism. Before they couldn’t fail – now they can.

Last week, Harry and Meghan renamed their charity, Archewell. It replaces Sussex Royal, the name the couple devised for themselves in January when they announced their intention to leave the royal family, and which the Queen demanded they stop using less than three months later. Indeed, a short history of the Sussexes’ self-branding reveals much about the contradictions of royal celebrity.

Harry and Meghan announced their departure in January with the launch of a heavily branded website. But the Sussex Royal brand represented an impossible attempt to have both freedom and royal status. The royal brand is enabling (hence Harry and Meghan’s desire to maintain association with it), while also being disabling (as shown by their need to exit); enabling as it catapulted Meghan to a new level of stardom, disabling as it created a public interest justification for scrutinising her every move, and prevented her from engaging in politics.

There are parallel tensions in royal do-goodery: a huge proportion of royal “duties” are photo opportunities with charities, when in fact royalty depends upon the maintenance of an unequal status quo. Harry and Meghan will need to make huge sums of money if they are to cover their own security costs. This puts Archewell squarely in the conflicted space of “philanthrocapitalism”: a means of legitimising social inequality through “good works”.

Take Travalyst, Harry’s eco-tourism venture with Skyscanner, TripAdvisor and Booking.com. Its environmentalist tactics include carbon offsetting, one on which Harry and Meghan have themselves relied in order to justify their use of private jets. Harry’s attempt to make air travel guilt-free is at odds with the environmentalist movement they seek to support. But then, calling for the collapse of global air travel would hardly garner the support of the companies with social-responsibility budgets to spend.

In Archewell, Markle will be able to parlay her celebrity status. But at the same time, class politics will proscribe what kinds of work are acceptable for a royal-adjacent celebrity charitable enterprise.

While rags-to-riches stories have always been spun for royal brides, there is a public record of Markle’s past work, from Deal or No Deal and Suits to her lifestyle blog The Tig. The continued visibility of her historic hustle is anathema to a repressive class system in which those at the top are supposed to pretend it was always thus.

This is why the Sussex Royal brand has been a site of such a power struggle. When the Queen barred Harry and Meghan from using the word “royal” in their branding after their departure, Meghan’s American PR team responded by leaking to the Daily Mail that there was nothing “legally stopping” them from using the name, since “Harry and Archie have royal blood and no one can take that away”. In this rebrand to Archewell, apparently derived from Greek word for ”source of action”, Harry and Meghan centre their privilege. At the very moment of claiming financial independence, the Sussexes are taking pains to distance themselves from the unroyal grubbiness of having to work for a living.

Hannah Yelin is a senior lecturer in Media and Culture at Oxford Brookes University

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in