Meghan Markle, the woman who told Oprah that the royal family was racist, claimed she was silenced and controlled, and left the UK in pursuit of privacy, has now unveiled her lifestyle brand, American Riviera Orchard.
However, there’s an ironic twist—her product line appears to be a near replica of King Charles’s renowned Highgrove brand. The very person who spent years publicly criticizing the royal family with baseless accusations and portraying herself as a perpetual victim is now capitalizing on a business model strikingly similar to that of her father-in-law. The hypocrisy is astonishing, but more than that, it feels exploitative.
For those unfamiliar, Highgrove is King Charles’s treasured estate in Gloucestershire. Long before sustainability became a popular trend, he was a pioneer in organic farming and environmental conservation. The Highgrove brand has sold premium organic products for decades, with proceeds supporting charitable causes. It’s not just a commercial enterprise; it represents Charles’s lifelong commitment to environmental responsibility.
Despite her years of distancing herself from royal life, Meghan has launched a lifestyle brand that is essentially an Americanized version of Highgrove. The similarities are so blatant that reports suggest Highgrove may consider legal action for copyright infringement. The evidence speaks for itself: Highgrove sells organic honey with honeycomb, and so does American Riviera Orchard. Highgrove is known for its herbal teas, and now Meghan is offering lemon, peppermint, and hibiscus teas. Highgrove sells organic raspberry preserves, and suddenly, Meghan has a raspberry spread. The resemblance is undeniable—this isn’t mere inspiration; it’s outright imitation. Even the shortbread cookie mix, crêpe mix, and floral sprinkles seem to be lifted straight from Highgrove’s product catalog.
What makes this even more frustrating is the sheer contradiction in Meghan’s actions. If she and Harry are so determined to sever ties with the monarchy, accusing it of racism, oppression, and neglect, why do they continue profiting from royal connections? If the institution is truly as toxic as they claim, why build a business that mirrors a royal brand? When they first stepped back from royal duties, they vowed to uphold Queen Elizabeth’s values with dignity and integrity. Yet, their post-royal life has consisted of Netflix documentaries, tell-all memoirs, and one self-serving venture after another, all while leveraging their royal titles. Now, they’ve gone as far as to copy the King’s business model.
Insiders close to Highgrove report that King Charles is furious. To him, this isn’t just a brand; it’s a deeply personal passion. Seeing his own daughter-in-law mimic his work while continuing to damage the royal family’s reputation is a profound betrayal. Adding to the controversy is Meghan’s claim that her products are homemade. Are we really supposed to believe she is personally pouring honey into jars, measuring tea leaves, and making jam from scratch? This is the same woman who allegedly found royal duties too overwhelming. The reality is obvious—these products are being mass-produced, with Meghan’s only involvement being her name on the label.
Even in the United States, many are beginning to see through Meghan’s façade. Hollywood figures who once championed the Sussexes are now distancing themselves. Netflix, which once handed them a lucrative deal, appears to be losing interest after their content underperformed. The issue with basing a brand on victimhood is that public sympathy eventually wears thin, especially when there’s little substance behind the complaints.
Ultimately, this entire situation highlights a lack of originality and integrity. True entrepreneurs build something unique; they don’t copy an existing model and try to pass it off as their own. Meghan has no background in organic farming, British culinary traditions, or sustainability, yet she is attempting to repackage Highgrove’s legacy under her own name, seemingly hoping no one will notice the obvious similarities.
The most unfortunate part is that this could have been an opportunity for reconciliation. Imagine if Meghan had reached out to King Charles, expressed admiration for Highgrove, and sought his blessing to create an American counterpart. That would have been a gesture of respect and bridge-building. Instead, she chose yet another self-serving endeavor that lacks authenticity.
Legal experts believe Highgrove has a strong case for copyright infringement, and if this goes to court, it could result in yet another embarrassing legal defeat for Meghan. But beyond the legal implications, this situation exposes the fundamental contradiction of the Sussex brand. They want the privileges of royal life without any of the responsibilities. They claim to seek privacy but constantly chase the spotlight. They denounce the monarchy while profiting from its prestige. Meanwhile, the real royals continue their duties with dignity and grace. And that is the stark difference between genuine service and opportunism.
