‘I wonder which billionaire will pay their bills now’: The signs that Meghan and Harry aren’t as rich as they seem as insiders tell ALISON BOSHOFF about expensive hunt for a ‘forever home’… and how much they really made in US
Developing story first seen 2 days ago
The Daily Mail reported, citing unnamed sources, that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are seeking a long-term home in Britain while retaining their Montecito property and Portuguese holiday home. The article argues that the prospective additional housing, alongside private security, staffing and legal costs, may put pressure on the couple’s finances. Its headline quotation about a billionaire paying their bills is presented as a source’s opinion, not evidence of a current arrangement or of financial distress.
The report also revisits estimates of the couple’s earnings from US media and commercial work, including their Netflix partnership, but neither the Sussexes nor Netflix has publicly disclosed a complete account of their income, assets, spending or the value of individual contracts. Separate reporting by the Associated Press said the family planned an extended UK stay at a private, non-royal residence while maintaining homes in California and Portugal. The financial conclusions in the Daily Mail article therefore remain unverified claims based largely on anonymous sources and reported estimates.
- The Daily Mail says the Sussexes are looking for a permanent UK home.
- It suggests high running costs could strain their finances, relying on unnamed sources.
- Their actual wealth and earnings are not publicly known.
New here? Start with this
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to the United States, where they built a career outside the traditional royal framework, signing media and commercial deals including a high-profile arrangement with Netflix. Since then, there has been continued public interest in how the couple fund their lifestyle, given they no longer receive UK taxpayer funding for official duties and have kept details of their earnings largely private.
The Daily Mail has reported, based on unnamed sources, that the couple are looking for a long-term home in Britain in addition to their existing properties in Montecito, California, and Portugal, and suggests this could add to their outgoings alongside costs such as security and staff. Separate reporting, including from the Associated Press, has said the family are planning an extended stay in the UK at a private residence while keeping their overseas homes.
It's worth noting that neither the Sussexes nor Netflix has published a full account of their income, assets or spending, so specific claims about their finances in such reports are estimates or opinions attributed to sources, rather than confirmed facts.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who see value in this kind of reporting argue that Harry and Meghan chose to build a public brand around commercial deals, documentaries and paid speeches, which makes reasonable scrutiny of their finances a fair extension of that choice rather than an invasion of privacy. They note that maintaining multiple large properties alongside heavy security and staffing costs is a legitimate matter of public curiosity given the couple's earlier framing of their move as a bid for financial independence, and that reporters are entitled to canvass well-placed sources and lay out visible spending patterns even where a complete picture of income and assets is not publicly available.
The case against
Critics of the piece would argue that building a story around anonymous, unverifiable claims and a single loaded quotation about a billionaire paying their bills risks presenting speculation as insight into a family's private financial affairs, which neither the couple nor Netflix has confirmed in detail. They would say that reporting on where a family is house-hunting and inferring financial strain from it, without documented figures on income, spending or assets, is inherently speculative and unfairly invites the public to draw conclusions about the couple's finances that the available evidence cannot actually support.
More coverage