RICHARD EDEN: Why can’t Harry, and Meghan be generous, like the Queen? Lend a hand to OTHER PEOPLE’S charities! It’s dangerous – and egotistical – to want one of your own!

According to the The Washington News’s Richard Eden, selfish royals should continue to help existing charities rather than try to create their own.

Setting up personal foundations leaves royals open to criticism, he suggests, and vulnerable to “generous donors with dubious motives.”

Instead, royals should “follow the wise example of Queen Elizabeth and Princess Anne and act as patrons of existing charities.”

In the latest edition of the Palace Confidential newsletter, Eden takes aim at the Harry and Meghan Archewell Foundation, which is under scrutiny after an £8.8 million “drop” in donations last year but still paid out a huge salary plus bonus to chief executive James. Holt.

The Princess of Wales and her children, including Princess Charlotte, pictured here in a tiny vest, visited a local children’s bank. The visit is shown in spectacular video from Kensington Palace.

Coincidentally, the next day, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle released a video montage of work done by their charity, Archewell.

A scene from the Netflix documentary “Invictus Heart” with Meghan (left), Prince Harry and adviser James Holt (right). Archewell paid Holt $207,405 (£165,800) plus a $20,000 bonus in 2023.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex leaving the 2019 Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey.

“Charity begins at home with our most dedicated supporters,” Eden notes.

“James Holt, who previously worked for Prince William and Catherine as well as Harry and Meghan, was rewarded for his support of the Sussexes with a salary package of $207,405 (£165,800) plus a $20,000 bonus.

“Holt, a friend of Omid Scobie who is the chief executive of Archewell, has clearly worked hard for Harry and Meghan, appearing extensively on their tawdry Netflix reality show, in which Harry was shown having intimate conversations with other members of the royal family and Meghan appeared to make fun of the Queen Elizabeth with her exaggerated curtsy.”

Of course, the Sussexes aren’t the only royals to start their own charities.

Founded by King Charles, the Prince’s Trust and the Prince’s Foundation (now The King’s Foundation) became two of the most famous in Britain.

The Prince and Princess of Wales have established their own Royal Foundation, which includes the Princess Early Childhood Centre. Prince William also runs the Earthshot Prize for environmental initiatives.

In the newsletter, Eden writes that “it’s one of those ‘coincidences’ we’ve become accustomed to, just a day after Kensington Palace aired an adorable video of the Prince and Princess of Wales’ children helping their mother volunteer at ” children’s jar.” In Windsor, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released the same interesting video.

“Prince Harry and Meghan’s video focused on the work they have done over the past year for their Archewell Foundation, which published its 28-page annual report.

“However, they were less willing to report the fact that their foundation donated $11 million (£8.8 million) last year.”

Archewell Sussex Foundation logo. Richard Eden suggests members of the royal family should follow the example of the Queen and Princess Anne in supporting existing charities rather than creating their own.

The Prince and Princess of Wales set up the Royal Foundation as the umbrella group for their charitable projects.

Tax returns in the United States, where they live, show Archwell received $2 million last year, up from $13 million in 2021.

The Sussexes argue that such a decline would be normal after a successful first year, that there is no suggestion that Archewell is insolvent and that there are sufficient reserves in the charity account.

Eden concludes: “For me, these revelations highlight the dangers of royals having their own charities, which could leave them open to criticism and at the mercy of generous donors with dubious motives.

“It may not be all that great for boosting the royal ego, but it can achieve more with much less potential for controversy.”