Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been slammed as ‘grifters’ after their visit to Australia, which could reportedly have made them £5.3 million.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were in Australia last week, visiting a children’s hospital, a veterans’ art museum, a women’s services centre, and more. Sky News Australia host Danica De Giorgio called the pair’s visit a “circus”, saying: “It is all said and done for the grifters of Oz. So long, farewell. Meg and her spare handbag Harry have finally left Australia after a whirlwind circus.” She said the visit included “a taxpayer-funded walk around Sydney, a woe-is-me microphone tour, a blink-and-you’ll-miss-Meg two-hour girls weekend appearance, a cash-for-wear clothing scheme, oh and the grifters are set to pocket $10 million (£5.3 million) from their four-day visit”.
This comes after Ted Jenkin, managing partner of Exit Wealth Advisors, told Page Six that the Sussexes could have made millions by speaking at events and making brand deals during their tour in Australia.
He said: “Meghan and Harry could make money from audience aggregation, premium access, brand leverage. All totalled, this tour could fetch $10 million (£.35 million) or more for Meghan and Harry. Anytime these two get in the public eye, it usually follows with a flowing cash register.”
Jenkins estimated the pair could have earned £1.06 million from speaking engagements and appearances, £1.85 million from sponsorships and brand deals and £2.39 million from media and content value.
De Giorgio added: “Weren’t they supposed to be two private citizens? Didn’t they beg for privacy? Wasn’t that the big shtick for them leaving the Royal Family? To go about their lives away from the cameras? Please.
“But don’t worry, they got their privacy – no crowds for them at the Sydney Opera House. They clearly expected crowds, cause there were barricades up waiting in anticipation, and there was nobody.
“It’s a far cry from the tens of thousands who lined up and camped out in 2018, the last time they came…How dramatic and pathetic can this be?”
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.express.co.uk ’
