Meghan Markle is once again under scrutiny, as fresh reports claim she is still trading on her Duchess of Sussex title to secure lucrative deals. The allegations have reignited a long‑running argument over how former senior royals should monetise their status after stepping away from official duties.
Is Meghan Markle Using Her Royal Title for Bigger Paychecks?
The controversy follows publicity surrounding Meghan’s appearance at a luxury wellness retreat in Australia, where premium ticket packages reportedly cost more than USD$3,000 and included exclusive experiences such as photo opportunities with the Duchess of Sussex. The event has prompted critics to argue that Meghan’s royal title remains central to her commercial appeal, even years after she and Prince Harry stepped back as working members of the royal family.
Meghan and Harry officially left royal duties in 2020, a decision that became known globally as ‘Megxit’. Under the agreement reached with Buckingham Palace, the couple stopped using their ‘HRH’ styles in practice, but they retained their Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles. Since then, both have pursued private income through media deals, speaking engagements, documentaries, books and business ventures.
Critics say Meghan’s latest projects demonstrate how valuable the title remains in the commercial marketplace. Promotional materials for events and media coverage frequently identify her as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, rather than simply Meghan Markle. Opponents argue that this branding creates prestige, exclusivity and global recognition that can be directly converted into ticket sales, product demand and audience attention.
Some royal commentators have gone further, describing the title as a ‘cash cow’ that gives Meghan an advantage unavailable to ordinary celebrities. They argue that while the couple chose independence from palace rules, they continue to benefit from the institution they left behind. That criticism has intensified whenever royal styling is linked to premium-priced products or luxury experiences.
Supporters, however, reject the backlash as unfair and outdated. They note that Meghan legally holds the title through marriage and has every right to use the name by which she is internationally known. Defenders also point out that many non‑working royals around the world maintain titles while pursuing careers, endorsements or private business interests. In that view, Meghan is not exploiting royalty but using her platform in the same way public figures have always leveraged fame.
They also argue that Meghan’s success cannot be explained by a title alone. Before marrying Harry, she had an acting career, lifestyle interests, and an established online presence through her former blog The Tig. Since relocating to California, she has expanded into new ventures, including the lifestyle brand As Ever, Netflix productions, and charitable work through Archewell.
The timing of the latest debate is significant. Meghan and Harry’s Australia visit has drawn heavy media coverage, with some outlets calling it a ‘faux royal tour’ because it blends charitable appearances with private commercial events. While the Duke and Duchess are no longer official representatives of the monarchy, public fascination with their royal identity remains strong.
That tension lies at the heart of the controversy: can former royals ever fully separate personal enterprise from inherited prestige? For critics, every premium event and branded appearance confirms that Meghan’s title is being monetised. For supporters, it reflects a modern reality in which public figures build businesses from name recognition and influence.
Neither Meghan nor Prince Harry has directly responded to the latest criticism. But as long as the Duchess title continues to open doors and provoke backlash, the question of whether Meghan is simply using her name or cashing in on royalty is likely to remain a divisive one.