Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s rebranding under fire for being too transparent
Pic: GETTY IMAGES
Lee Cohen, a US-based journalist, has recently levied significant accusations against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. He claims that the couple’s recent three-day tour of Nigeria was an attempt to regain some of the royal prestige they relinquished upon their departure from the Royal Family.
During their tour, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex participated in a series of cultural exchange activities aimed at strengthening ties and promoting mutual understanding between the UK and Nigeria. However, Cohen suggests that the underlying motive of their visit was to reclaim a semblance of their former royal status.
“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have just been accused of trying to turn back the hands of time and win back some of the royal status they lost when they decided to leave the Royal Family,” said Cohen, reflecting on the couple’s actions and public appearances during the tour.
This tour, dubbed ‘quasi-royal’ by many has been branded as “fake” and “transparent”. During Mr. Cohen’s interview with GBN America, he was quoted saying, “The royal tour was nothing more than an attempt to recapture the status that they gave up by stepping back in 2020.” “The couple has been widely mocked for these kinds of behaviors” too. “So, I would add, that they have no substantive credentials to make quasi-royal appearances or diplomatic visits to foreign nations.” After all, right now “They are selling jam and making fake royal tours to transparently promote themselves and this would do nothing to provide the pair the official qualifications they rejected years ago.”
The journalist’s commentary comes amid ongoing scrutiny of Harry and Meghan’s activities since their high-profile exit from royal duties. Their decision to step back was marked by a desire for greater personal freedom and independence from the traditional obligations of Royal Family members. Since then, the couple has embarked on various initiatives, often drawing media attention and public speculation about their intentions and the impact of their actions on the Royal Family’s image.
Cohen’s critique suggests skepticism about the genuineness of the couple’s efforts in Nigeria, implying that their engagement could be more about image rehabilitation than genuine cultural exchange. His observations have sparked a broader discussion about the couple’s role on the global stage and their use of their public platform.
This ongoing narrative around Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s activities continues to generate diverse opinions, reflecting the complex dynamics of their relationship with the public and the Royal Family. As they navigate their post-royal life, each of their moves is closely watched and frequently interpreted through various lenses, adding layers to their evolving public personas.
