Since his official withdrawal from the British royal family in 2020, the Prince Harry y Meghan Markle They have focused much of their efforts on Archewell, their charitable foundation. However, the recent report on its finances has called into question the management of its donations and the destination of the funds raised, recalling similar episodes carried out by public figures such as Ana Obregon in Spain.
According to an exclusive from the magazine PeopleArchewell managed to raise a total of $5.7 million in 2023, a considerable growth compared to the $2 million obtained the previous year. Much of this figure came from a single anonymous donor who contributed $5 million, leaving just $335,000 coming from five small donations. Despite these million-dollar figures, the accounts reveal that only a quarter of the funds raised have been allocated to charitable causes: 1.3 million dollars.
Where does the money go?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex Foundation claims to support causes such as the fight against misinformation, mental health and female empowerment. Among his contributions, the following stand out:
• $250,000 to Ashley Biden’s Women’s Wellness (Spa)ce, a trauma support center run by Ashley Biden, daughter of US President Joe Biden.
• $125,000 to the NAACP, a civil rights organization working in the digital arena.
• $130,000 to Humanity Crew, which provides psychological support to displaced children.
• $50,000 to mental health workers in Israel and Gaza, and $80,000 to Türkiye and Syria after the earthquakes.
Although these contributions add up to a positive impact, many question why only a fraction of the money raised goes to charitable causes, while the rest appears to be lost to “operational costs” and “overhead expenses.”
Operating costs under scrutiny
According to published accounts, Archewell spent nearly $2 million on salaries, events, travel and programs. These expenses include the salaries of James Holt and Shauna Nep, co-executive directors of the foundation, who received $228,500 and $272,241 respectively, in addition to generous bonuses. In total, “salary costs” amount to almost a million dollars, while another million was invested in “overhead expenses.”
These figures, although common in large-scale nonprofit organizations, have drawn criticism in the context of a relatively young foundation that raises much of its money from philanthropic donations.
A controversy that adds to their legal problems
The financial report comes at a delicate time for Archewell. In May, the foundation was placed on a default list by California’s attorney general due to debt that prevented it from operating legally. Although the problem was quickly resolved – the dukes attributed the situation to an “administrative failure” with the sending of a check – the incident further clouded their public credibility.
Parallelisms and inevitable comparisons
In the Spanish context, this case is reminiscent of the scandal that surrounded Ana Obregon and the management of the foundation created in honor of his deceased son, Aless Lequio. The similarities between both situations—foundations that do not donate all of the proceeds and raise doubts about their true intentions—have served to fuel criticism in the media.
The publication of Archewell’s accounts highlights one of the biggest criticisms faced by foundations managed by public figures: opacity. Although spokespersons for Harry and Meghan insist that the funds are used to fulfill their charitable mission, the disproportion between income and donations raises suspicions.
Defenders of the dukes argue that investments and expenditure on personnel are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the organization. However, detractors point out that much of Archewell’s success depends on public trust, and these numbers do nothing to solidify it.
An uncertain future for Archewell
The challenge for Harry and Meghan will be to demonstrate that their foundation is not just a public relations showcase, but a true tool for change. Although their contributions to important causes are undeniable, the percentage allocated to direct action is insufficient for some critics.
The controversy over Archewell underscores the importance of transparency in the philanthropic world, especially when media figures are at the forefront. Although the couple has managed to position their foundation as a relevant player in the charitable field, public scrutiny of their finances could compromise their credibility if they cannot better justify the destination of each dollar raised.
LinkedinBeloud