The Daily Mirror recently ran a piece dissecting Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s finances—and let’s be honest, it read more like voyeurism than journalism. It’s part of a troubling pattern: no other public couple is subjected to this level of financial scrutiny, moral judgment, and petty commentary about who contributes what to their household.
When was the last time you saw a major newspaper analyze any celebrity couple’s mortgage payments, speculate about monthly expenses, and publicly question what the husband contributes to the family? Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds have multi-million-dollar deals, too—but nobody is asking whether Blake packs the kids’ lunches or calling Ryan a “grifter” if he takes a career break.
This specific narrative is being weaponized to sow tension. Consider the following highlights from the article:
First, we get this rhetorical grenade: “Where is Harry in all of this?”—as if readers are entitled to an itemized breakdown of how Harry and Meghan divide parenting, domestic labor, and career duties. The idea that a man must constantly prove he’s “pulling his weight” financially to avoid public shaming is regressive at best, and sexist when selectively applied.
Next, we’re told that Meghan gets up early, handles the kids’ breakfast and packed lunches, and then dives into work as a “girl boss.” Admirable, yes—but the implication isn’t admiration. It’s accusation. Meghan is framed as the competent, active partner, while Harry is cast as a passive dependent.
Then comes the financial fear-mongering. Their Montecito home? Too expensive. Their mortgage? Too risky. Security? Unjustified. Every penny is framed as excessive, imprudent, or suspicious. This, despite the fact that other wealthy public figures routinely buy homes in the same price bracket, employ private security, and take career detours without public audits.
Even worse is the decision to amplify a Spotify executive’s past remark labeling them “grifters.” There’s no new quote, no context, and no source willing to go on record—but it’s recycled here to stir outrage. Why? Because smearing them sells.
It’s clear the intent is not just to report, but to cast Meghan as the tireless worker and Harry as the “dead weight.” It’s a tactic as old as tabloids themselves: divide the couple, shame the man, and paint the woman as overburdened and underappreciated. That dynamic creates drama. Drama creates clicks.
But real life—especially modern marriage—isn’t always split into easily narrativized roles. Sometimes one partner leans into business while the other focuses on purpose-driven work. Sometimes contributions are emotional, logistical, or supportive. Couples don’t owe the public a balance sheet for how they sustain each other.
What’s especially disturbing is that this scrutiny isn’t applied evenly. Other celebrities launch businesses, have expensive security, and sign major media deals without being accused of failing their families or mismanaging their finances. Other former royals fade quietly into the background. But Meghan and Harry continue to exist at the center of a public interrogation—one that constantly questions their worth, their unity, and their choices.
Let’s call this what it is: a media spectacle designed to infantilize Harry, vilify Meghan, and reduce a marriage to a cash flow analysis.
They’re allowed to be messy. They’re allowed to experiment. They’re allowed to succeed or fail—together. That’s what marriage is. It’s time the public stopped treating theirs like a reality show and started respecting it as what it is: none of our business.
EARNINGS
Major Deals & Income Sources
| Source | Amount | Status/Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Netflix Deal | $135 million | 5-year deal (2020-2025), ending soon |
| Spotify Deal | $20 million | Already ended |
| Harry’s “Spare” Book Advance | $20 million | Received |
| Harry’s “Spare” Hardback Sales | $9.5 million | Additional earnings |
| Meghan’s Lemonada Podcast | $40,000 | New, much smaller deal |
| Suits Royalties | $200,000 | Recent addition |
Inheritances
| Source | Amount | When Received |
|---|---|---|
| Princess Diana’s Inheritance | $13.5 million | When Harry turned 30 |
| Queen Mother’s Trust Fund | $10.8 million | Recent |
Previous Royal Income
| Source | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Duchy of Cornwall (via Prince Charles) | $3.1 million/year | Stopped after Megxit |
Total Known Earnings: Approximately $190+ million
EXPENSES
Property & Housing
| Expense | Amount | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Montecito Home Purchase | $14.65 million | Family residence |
| Mortgage | $9.5 million | Outstanding debt |
| Monthly Mortgage Payments | $50,000-100,000 | Ongoing monthly cost |
Security & Protection
| Expense | Amount | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Security (Home-based) | $4 million | When staying at residence |
| Annual Security (Active) | $8-13.5 million | When traveling/public appearances |
Other Costs
- Four-car security convoy for public appearances
- General living expenses (amount unspecified)
- Children’s education and care
- Staff and household management
Estimated Annual Operating Costs: $4-13.5+ million (depending on activity level)
KEY FINANCIAL NOTES
- Mortgage Burden: Unlike other senior royals, the Sussexes carry a significant $9.5 million mortgage
- Security Costs: Major ongoing expense that scales with public activity ($4-13.5M annually)
- Income Decline: Major deals ending with no confirmed renewals
- Cash Flow: Relies heavily on inheritances ($24.3M total) and book sales for liquidity
- Future Earnings: Uncertain as major entertainment deals conclude
- Monthly Obligations: $50,000-100,000 in mortgage payments alone
celebchai.com 