Meg and Harry Face Backlash Over Hypocrisy Charges

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle find themselves in hot water as they desperately try to defend themselves against accusations of hypocrisy following a damning verdict.

The sustainable investment firm, Ethic, which is backed by the royal couple, has come under fire for its ownership of shares in Rupert Murdoch's Fox Corp and manufacturers of laser-guided bombs.

Despite Ethic's branding aligning with left-wing political activism on issues such as climate change and poverty alleviation, the company claims to be different from other ethical investment funds by allowing customers to choose their own political priorities for investments and providing customized portfolios.

However, some of the holdings within Ethic's $1.3 billion under management contradict the Sussexes' green campaign.

Prince Harry recently wrote an article in The Washington Post, urging firms to cease exploiting Africa for oil, specifically mentioning countries like Botswana where he and Meghan have sought refuge.

Royal expert Penny Junor warns that the couple's association with Ethic could lead to difficulties for them, stating that it is a recipe for trouble and sets them up for failure.

In announcing their roles as chief impact officers for Ethic, Harry and Meghan expressed their desire to revolutionize investing in order to address global challenges.

Nevertheless, allegations of hypocrisy have arisen, questioning the compatibility between their stock holdings and the company's supposed ethical standards.

In response, an Ethic spokesperson emphasized that their responsibility is to create investment portfolios based on customer preferences, not their own ethics.

Ethic's purchase of $539,000 worth of shares in Fox Corp, a part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire that includes Fox News, has raised eyebrows.

Fox News has been critical of the Sussexes and their treatment of the royal family, prompting Harry to voice his dissatisfaction with Murdoch's papers and their coverage of his and Meghan's departure from social media.

Notably, Tucker Carlson, a prominent Fox News host, has referred to Harry as “Prince whatever his name is” and Meghan Markle as his “angry wife in Los Angeles.”

Another Fox News host, Sean Hannity, took issue with Prince Harry's criticism of the First Amendment, stating, “Harry, we really don't need you coming from England to give us lectures on the First Amendment.”

The revelation that Ethic's clients also hold stock in Raytheon, a major weapons manufacturer, has further fueled the controversy.

Raytheon recently tested a hypersonic missile capable of reaching speeds five times faster than the speed of sound, earning it the reputation of being a death sentence for anything it strikes.

Additionally, Ethic holds shares in W&T Offshore, an oil exploration company in the Gulf of Mexico, and B2 Gold, a mining company operating gold mines in Namibia and Mali.

These holdings contradict Ethic's purported commitment to environmental impact, human rights, and social justice.

Ethical Consumer, an organization advocating for responsible consumerism, has criticized many well-known companies held by Ethic's clients.

Amazon, for instance, has faced a boycott since 2012 due to its alleged tax avoidance practices.

The company was also called out in July 2021 for its treatment of Chinese workers and its policies regarding toxic chemicals in clothing and electronics.

Similarly, Walgreens Boots Alliance received a poor score due to concerns over its environmental reporting, tobacco sales in its US stores, and its use of toxic chemicals.

Despite Harry and Meghan's personal experiences with online hate and their campaign against fake news, Ethic's wealthy clients own millions of dollars worth of shares in social media giants like Twitter, Facebook, and Google (the owner of YouTube).

Moreover, these investments are made alongside oil companies and other major corporations in America.

As the backlash intensifies, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex find themselves caught between their public image as advocates for progressive causes and their association with a company whose investment practices do not align with their stated values.

The question remains whether they can effectively navigate this predicament and maintain their credibility as leading figures in the fight against hypocrisy.