JAN MOIR: Harry and Meghan remain imbued with a mutual god complex to deliver us from evil and make the world a better place… chiefly for themselves
The article is a highly critical opinion column about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s commercial and public roles, focusing chiefly on Meghan’s As Ever preserves business. It argues that the brand’s jam range appears at odds with the couple’s previous ambitions and questions whether their ventures have delivered the influence or success they sought in the United States.
The columnist compares As Ever’s prices with Cotswolds-based rivals, citing £8.85 for a 215g jar against Daylesford Organic’s £5.50 for 227g and Highgrove’s £7.95 for 340g. It also claims Harry has made limited impact in America and refers to reports about unsuccessful Spotify development ideas, though the article presents these points through a strongly mocking and subjective lens.
- A critical column questions the Sussexes’ commercial ambitions.
- It compares Meghan’s jam prices unfavourably with British rivals.
- The piece also challenges Harry’s professional impact in America.
New here? Start with this
Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to California. They have since pursued commercial projects and media work while continuing to attract international attention because of their links to the British royal family.
Meghan has launched As Ever, a lifestyle brand which includes food products such as preserves. The business is part of a wider effort by the couple to develop independent sources of income through entertainment, publishing, charitable work and consumer products.
Their decisions and public statements have prompted both support and criticism, particularly in Britain and the United States. Coverage of their ventures often compares their commercial ambitions with the public role they previously held as working members of the royal family.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics can reasonably argue that a public-facing lifestyle brand linked to a couple who have spoken often about social purpose should offer especially clear value, accessible pricing and a credible connection to those values. On this view, charging more than comparable premium preserves while relying heavily on celebrity association invites scrutiny about whether the venture is principally a commercial exercise, and whether the couple’s wider American projects have matched their stated ambitions for influence.
The case against
Supporters can reasonably argue that a small lifestyle business is entitled to set premium prices based on ingredients, production, packaging, positioning and the costs of building a new brand; direct comparisons between jars do not establish poor value. They may also say that Harry and Meghan should be free to pursue commercial work alongside charitable or public-interest activities, and that measuring their worth chiefly through reported setbacks or mocking assessments overlooks their autonomy and the continuing attention their projects receive.