Meghan Markle is determined to be a money-making influencer.
After months of anticipation, products from the Duchess of Sussex’s As Ever line went live on Wednesday. The gourmet products, including teas, baking mixes and, yes, jams, sold out in under an hour. The $28 wildflower honey sold out in less than five minutes, Vanity Fair reported.
Duncan Larcombe, former royal editor of The Sun, claimed to Fox News Digital that the “Suits” alum’s success with her brand is what the British royal family has been worried about from the start.
“What this represents is Meghan effectively cashing in on her fame … even using her children to try and boost her presence online and sell units of her products,” he claimed. “This is exactly what the royals feared would happen. … [But] it’ll take a few weeks before we really know whether she hit the jackpot.
“She might have struck gold, but I think the overwhelming view here is just more of her cashing in on her fame, based upon her association with the British royal family,” Larcombe added. “[But] she isn’t popular here [in the U.K.]. And I can’t imagine that having a range of products like this is going to make any difference.”
The 43-year-old’s ability to make sale skyrocket has been called “The Meghan Effect.” Similar to her sister-in-law, Kate Middleton, the mother of two sparks major sales of anything she wears or is associated with.
British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard accused the 43-year-old of using her royal family ties and even her children, whom she’s given glimpses of to her followers on social media, “to help make a quick buck.”
“This seems pretty lowbrow, although it’s bound to bring Meghan success,” said Chard. “The product prices are not astronomical. They are … affordable for her fans wishing to buy into ‘The Meghan Effect.’ But … are the products priced competitively enough, and are they tasty enough to keep continuous sales? Meghan is not a trained chef or even a professional foodie. She is playing a role.”
Meghan, a former American actress who had a lifestyle blog, The Tig, became the Duchess of Sussex when she married Prince Harry in 2018. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back as senior royals in 2020, citing the unbearable media intrusions and lack of support from the palace.
The couple, looking to become financially independent, were said to be frustrated Buckingham Palace prevented them from developing their “Sussex Royal” brand, the BBC reported. They moved to California, where they are now raising their two young children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.
While they still have their duke and duchess titles, they are not addressed as His or Her Royal Highness (HRH). Harry also had to give up his military titles.
According to the BBC, when they stepped down as senior royals, Harry’s father, King Charles III, gave them “a substantial sum” to help establish a new life. They set up the Archewell foundation and took on several commercial deals, including one with Netflix.
In March 2024, Meghan launched her lifestyle brand, which was originally named American Riviera Orchard. Due to trademark woes, it was renamed “As Ever” in February. Her Netflix show, “With Love, Meghan,” which showcases her love of cooking and entertaining, premiered March 4.
British royals expert Hilary Fordwich slammed Meghan, insisting she’s “using the very royal family name and heritage she wanted to leave” to make her mark as a successful influencer.
“Who is the target demographic?” Fordwich wondered. “Those with less money couldn’t afford it. … The ‘keepsake packaging’ and aspirational marketing … is out of touch with the average consumer. … It seems inauthentic, and only those with a highly privileged lifestyle, not the mass consumer [would purchase her items].”
The New York Times, which was invited to interview Meghan in her Montecito kitchen, pointed out that many critics have called her Netflix show unrelatable and inauthentic. Meghan told the outlet she put herself back in the spotlight because “I need to work, and I love to work.” She pointed out that, until she met Harry, she hadn’t been without a job since she was 13.
And with two young children to raise, “This is a way I can connect my home life and my work,” she reasoned.
The outlet noted that Meghan and Harry’s production deal with Netflix, which was signed in 2020, ends this year. Their two previous documentaries about polo and Harry’s Invictus Games flopped. Still, the streaming giant is not only an investor in Meghan’s As Ever brand, but new episodes of her show will premiere in the fall.
Meghan also isn’t the first royal to cash in using honey and jam. Buckingham Palace sells Scottish heather honey for $13.09 and Windsor Castle strawberry preserves for $9.17. The king’s Highgrove estate honey is available for $34, and royalists can stock up on organic house marmalade for $10.
And it seems that, with the right name, luxurious food products sell. Vanity Fair pointed out that Flamingo Estate sells honey from the bees at LeBron James’ Bel Air mansion for $250.
“The royal family has their products sold in shops, which can be quite expensive and are meant for commercial consumption,” Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital.
“Meghan is just following royal traditions with her own ‘royal range.’ … We must not forget that, [before her exit], Meghan was instrumental in working with women serving food to those in distress from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, eventually creating a recipe book to raise funds for those who have lost their homes.”
When asked about Meghan naming her dessert Chantilly Lili after her 3-year-old daughter, Pelham Turner responded, “Naming it after Lilibet is a term of endearment by a loving mother to her daughter. … What’s wrong with that?
“Meghan deserves respect, not criticism, for enduring the painful times she has experienced.”
The recipe, which was shared by The New York Times, is said to be “based on a banana pudding recipe by Meghan’s grandmother.”
WATCH: MEGHAN MARKLE ‘MOVED ON’ FROM ROYAL FAMILY DRAMA, AUTHOR CLAIMS
Chard said whether viewers love or loathe Meghan, she’s here to stay.
“Many would say that Meghan Markle is ‘cashing in’ and ‘selling out,’” said Chard. “However, she has to make money somehow. … She is determined to make good money, hoping to make billions from the success of her brand. … She firmly believes in herself and is working hard to win over all the nonbelievers.”
We forced the government to take some action, but still it closes it eyes to the impending climate collapse. A new method of confrontation is needed
Indigo Rumbelow is co-founder of Just Stop Oil. She is currently on remand in HMP Styal
After three years, Just Stop Oil is ending its campaign of non-violent civil disruption: we are hanging up the high-vis. But this does not mean the resistance is over. Sitting here in a prison cell in HMP Styal, I am still demanding an end to oil and gas. Every prison key that rattles, every door that is bolted shut, every letter that is read by the prison staff – it all reminds me that 15 Just Stop Oil supporters are currently locked up for refusing to obey governments whose climate inaction is frankly murderous.
There has been some progress. The Labour government was elected last year on a manifesto including the pledge that they will “not issue new licences to explore new [oil and gas] fields”. This is a victory for civil resistance and the climate movement. To everyone who donned an orange high-vis, who leafleted on the streets, who got arrested for their actions, ran a social media page, gave a talk in a community centre, or answered a phone call from someone in custody, I say: you are part of this change.
Indigo Rumbelow is co-founder of Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain. She is currently on remand in HMP Styal having been found guilty of conspiracy to intentionally cause a public nuisance. She is due to be sentenced on 23 May at Minshull Street crown court in Manchester
The Senate passed a framework for a sweeping bill promoting President Donald Trump’s agenda after an hourslong series of amendment votes during which Democrats sought to put Republicans on record on issues like tariffs and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
It passed mostly along party lines in a 51 to 48 vote around 2:30 a.m. ET on Saturday morning. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., were the only two Republicans to join Democrats in opposing the measure.
The amended framework would raise the debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion within the reconciliation process, taking future leverage away from Senate Democrats. It would also make President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent by using what’s called a current policy baseline that Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., decides.
The scoring tool essentially means the cost of making Trump’s tax cuts permanent would be factored at $0 because it extends current policy, rather than counting it as new dollars being added to the federal deficit.
Some conservatives have signaled they’re wary of using that method, however.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote series, “I have been assured that there is a commitment and other ways to pay for the eventual reconciliation bill.”
“Now, I am not saying that I think that it is better that we use current policy as baseline. It’s never been done before in a setting like this. I think it establishes a dangerous precedent. It might be within the rules to do so, but it doesn’t mean it’s wise to do so,” he said.
Some House conservatives have gone so far as to call it a “gimmick.”
Senate GOP leaders made clear they were in lock-step behind the framework, however.
“This resolution is the first step toward a final bill to make permanent the tax relief we implemented in 2017 and deliver a transformational investment in our border, national, and energy security – all accompanied by substantial savings measures and commonsense reforms to our government,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said on Friday evening.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said, “The American people gave us a mission and a mandate: secure borders, lower taxes, affordable energy, peace through strength, and, of course, efficient, effective government. Senate Republicans’ bold budget blueprint delivers.”
Budget reconciliation lowers the vote threshold in the Senate from 60 to 51, which lets Republicans approve certain priorities with no Democrat support.
Washington’s Republican trifecta thus sees reconciliation as a key tool for delivering on Trump agenda items.
The Senate’s Friday night “vote-a-rama” was triggered by the chamber agreeing to a motion to proceed to the budget resolution amendment on Thursday night. Nearly a day of debate followed before the vote series was initiated.
During this type of voting series, senators of both parties can introduce an unlimited number of amendments, and many get floor votes.
No amendments were adopted during the roughly six hours-long vote series.
Some notable measures, however, included an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to raise the federal minimum wage to $17 over a period of five years, an amendment by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to limit many of Trump’s tariffs, and a bipartisan amendment aimed at blocking the reconciliation bill from making cuts to Medicaid.
“Tonight, Senate Democrats gave Senate Republicans the chance to hit the kill switch on Donald Trump’s tariffs on DOGE, on the attacks against Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid,” Schumer said after the vote. “And at each opportunity, Republicans refused.”
Graham said in a statement on X after the vote, “Tonight, the Senate took one small step toward reconciliation and one giant leap toward making the tax cuts permanent, securing the border, providing much-needed help for the military and finally cutting wasteful Washington spending.”
The budget would address border funding for the Trump administration as well as extend the hallmark tax cuts Trump passed in 2017.
Initially, there was stark disagreement between Republicans in the House and Senate on how to organize a budget reconciliation resolution. The House GOP leaders preferred one bill with both the border and taxes included, while those in the Senate wanted to have two separate resolutions for them.
House Republicans passed a framework that closely resembles the current Senate-passed version last month.
But it’s still not clear that House conservatives will accept the Senate plan, despite its similarities to the lower chamber’s framework, with the Senate’s bid to permanently extend Trump’s tax cuts likely to be one of the biggest points of contention.
The House Budget Committee’s Republican majority wrote on X just before the Senate kicked off its vote series, “Cutting taxes without cutting spending doesn’t reduce taxes, it merely shifts the tax burden to our children. We have a generational opportunity – and maybe our last – to get our fiscal house in order.”
After matching frameworks pass the House and Senate, the relevant congressional committees will begin filling it out with policy and spending changes under their jurisdictions.
Trump expressed support for the Senate framework earlier this week, saying at an unrelated event, “If we get this done, it’ll be the most incredible bill ever passed in the history of our Congress.”
A record number of humanitarian workers were killed last year. My staff’s red uniforms should have protected them. Instead they became their death shrouds
Jagan Chapagain is secretary general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Which was most horrific? The agonising week-long wait – silence after our colleagues went missing, as we suspected the worst but hoped for something different? Or the confirmation, seven days later, that bodies had been found? Or, since, the ghastly details of how they were found, and killed?
Their ambulances were crushed and partly buried. Nearby were their bodies – also buried, en masse,in the sand. Our dead colleagues were still wearing their Red Crescent vests. In life, those uniforms signalled their status as humanitarian workers; they should have protected them. Instead, in death, those red vests became their shrouds.
Jagan Chapagain is secretary general of the IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies)
Marine Le Pen, figurehead of France’s Rassemblement National (RN), one of the most established far-right parties in Europe, has been found guilty of embezzling funds from the European parliament.
During her time as an MEP between 2004 and 2017, Le Pen and her team paid party staff with funds that should have gone to European parliamentary aides. The ruling estimates that a total of €2.9 million (£2.4 million) in European parliament funds were involved in the crimes and that Le Pen personally embezzled €474,000 of that total.
She has been sentenced to four years in prison, two of which would be electronic monitoring. She is also unlikely to see the inside of a cell for the other two years as she is appealing her conviction.
More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that she has been banned from holding public office for five years. Crucially, the ban is to start immediately, meaning that even with an appeal, Le Pen is highly unlikely to be able to stand as a candidate in the next presidential election in 2027.
For many in the RN, the court’s decision will be a major blow. The party appears to have lost the candidate they believed was on course for victory in 2027. However, others will no doubt see this as a chance to distance the party further from the Le Pen name, following the death of Marine Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen earlier this year.
This process has been in motion for some time. Jordan Bardella took over from Le Pen as president of the party in 2022 and has clearly been waiting and preparing for this eventuality. Allegations were first levelled at Le Pen many years ago and her crimes relate to her time as an MEP between 2004 and 2017. He has been the plan B option throughout her trial.
Bardella led the RN to victory in the 2024 European election in France. He also managed to send a record number of parliamentarians to the National Assembly after French president Emmanuel Macron called a snap election just weeks later.
This was, nevertheless, a somewhat disappointing outcome as many on the far right had started to imagine Bardella as prime minister. Since failing to meet this expectation, his leadership has come under more scrutiny. His reaction to Le Pen’s sidelining will be watched carefully.
Playing the victim
Overall, it is good news to see corruption being taken seriously and justice being served. However, Le Pen’s conviction comes after years of embezzlement which has allowed the far right to build its strength. All this has come on the back of a system it has vowed to destroy. As such, it feels like too little too late.
Furthermore, this decision, and the fact that it is tied to the European Union, is likely to feed into typical far-right propaganda on the domestic stage. Le Pen and the party will play the victim, blaming Le Pen’s fate on a wide conspiracy organised by something akin to the deep state operating via Brussels.
The deep levels of distrust in public institutions and mainstream politics are likely to play a role here. Le Pen will aim to paint the decision of an independent court as the political assassination of the “champion of the people”.
She could become a martyr, turning her cause into a revolt against “the system”. Bardella has already said that Le Pen’s conviction amounted to the “execution” of democracy.
Crucially, though, this outcome isn’t inevitable. Whether such a narrative takes hold is a choice that is very much in the hands of mainstream elite actors. Those who have a privileged access to shaping public discourse, such as journalists, politicians and experts will therefore play a key role.
Instead of giving pride of place to Le Pen and the far right in a tempting sensationalising coverage, the mainstream media must turn to serious analysis. This would involve removing the focus from individuals and putting it on the wider issues at hand. That would lessen the potential for a narrative of victimisation to take hold.
Beyond providing an accurate picture of the case itself, good coverage should predominantly focus on politics rather than on the spectacle the RN will inevitably try to construct as a diversion tactic. This would mean engaging seriously with what the RN actually proposes as a model of society: one that is not against the “elite” and for the people, but merely in favour of a different elite taking control at the head of a top-down authoritarian state.
This would then allow voters to understand that the far right is not on their side, but on the side of power, wealth and hierarchies. Those who oppose such a takeover could go some way to fix the damage that has been done with carelessly associating these parties with “populism”.
Finally, good coverage would also mean shifting the agenda away from the far right and its pet issues. Had politicians – left, right and centre – not continuously used the far right as a diversion from their own failures to tackle the many crises their countries face, the far right would not be as powerful as it seems.
As opinion polls show, when people are asked what are their biggest concerns personally, issues core to the far right such as immigration are low. Instead, it is issues that would require radical measures to tackle economic and social insecurity which are prioritised.
The far right offers nothing to address these – only division to make citizens powerless to fight back. Now that Le Pen is out of the picture, it is a good time to shift the agenda back to democracy and hope.
Fun note: This graphic is from 2018 and the first Trump Trade war. It’s almost like this could have been predicted.
Look, I know I’m not a business genius or investment banker, so naturally I was shocked to learn that businesses have a hard time doing long-term capital planning when they are unsure of what the policy landscape will be months from now, let alone years from now. This is a massive problem with the Trump Tariffs. Business Writer Derek Thomson points to the underlying conflicting strategies and goals that the President and other administration surrogates and whispers have expressed:
Nobody knows what’s going on.
You’ve prominent Trumpsplainers saying the goal of the tariffs is to raise trillions in revenue and move us off income taxes.
You’ve got folks who seem super plugged into the Trump-tech alliance like Palmer saying no no no, the goal is the… https://t.co/Fo3omknjhT
So, are these short-term tariffs intended to get other countries to remove tariffs on our goods, or are these long-term strategies to generate revenue and force companies to reshore manufacturing? I realize some galaxy brains will respond, “If the Trump administration clearly telegraphs what they want, then foreign governments can figure out ways to sabotage that strategy.” See for example:
Sometimes the best strategy in a negotiation is convincing the other side that you are crazy.
Beyond demonstrating the type of zero-sum thinking that has led us to this mess, this perspective also misses out on the fact that many domestic organizations need to know the short and long-term goals to do their own planning.
Setting the issue of tariffs on raw manufacturing materials (or the average American consumer’s willingness to pay more for American-made products that cost more than their low-cost import competitors), reshoring manufacturing is not a quick or cheap investment for companies (especially in industries with narrow profit margins).
President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime will completely transform America’s economic relationship with the rest of the world, all in the name of revitalizing domestic manufacturing.
And yet, many businesses won’t be rushing to shift their supply chains to U.S. shores.
For all the detail in Trump’s Wednesday announcement, his endgame is still shrouded in confusion. That’s lethal for long-term investment, making confident planning all but impossible.
“If you want stuff being put in the ground, you have to tell people the price, and the price needs to be fully inclusive of the tariff risk,” one former administration official in Trump’s first term, granted anonymity to speak freely, told me.
[…]
I’ve asked multiple corporate executives in recent weeks whether companies are likely to start investing in manufacturing in the United States in response to Trump’s policies, and the message has basically been: That’s an unanswerable question right now. Because making those decisions requires understanding the relative costs of doing it versus not doing it, and Trump is far too unpredictable to allow for that kind of calculation.
If the markets bloodbath gets much worse, will Trump back off? How much will tariffs change over the next three-plus years? And tariff policy could change drastically under a new president in 2028. Might companies just wait it out rather than making a long-term commitment of resources and hoping for the best?
[…]
The administration argues that it is “setting the stage for long-term economic growth,” as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent put it to Fox News on Wednesday. “We are putting ourselves back onto a sound trajectory.”
In the meantime, the domestic manufacturing sector is shrinking amid corporate paralysis.
“Manufacturers are putting these decisions on hold,” said Jay Timmons, head of the National Association of Manufacturers, in a CNBC interview ahead of the tariff announcement. “They’re waiting to see whether they should invest and hire. And that’s not good for the economy.”
Anyone with manufacturing experience (I have from my first gig within Kodak’s Digital) or bare imagination can understand precisely why an unstable market is not a great time to make significant changes to where materials are sourced and where manufacturing happens. That said, in the interests of evenhandedness, if someone has links to content from reputable business or economics sites (no Zero Hedge does note count, and further it looks like even they may be buying into the woke mind virus TDS that these tariffs are a bad idea) please add them in the comments.
And just to demonstrate the North Korea-esque nature of our current administration, we get this (source: CNN) from the White House Press Secretary.
“To anyone on Wall Street this morning, I would say trust in President Trump,” Leavitt said. “This is a president who is doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first term.”
Sure. That’s how all of this works.
If these measures stay in place, and note that the main hope is that this is all some kind of bluff,* this could end up being one of the biggest self-owns in the history of the world.
Wrecking the US-European military alliance, destroying the rules-based international system, and removing the US as the main driver of the global economy will make America weak, not great.
I marvel that anyone thinks any of this is a good idea.
And while many people tried to warn American voters, here we are.
*Think about it: if your main hope is that the person you support isn’t really going to do the crazy-ass thing they have been promising and are actively doing, then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be supporting this guy. And (spoiler alert!) this isn’t going to bring about some new mythic golden age of manufacturing.
Organisations that pumped money into overturning Roe v Wade are making inroads in Europe. Women’s rights are truly at risk
With Donald Trump as president, there is now a heavy strain of Christian nationalism driving the US political agenda. From draconian abortion policies to ending birthright citizenship, some of Trump’s first executive orders sound startlingly like something out of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the dystopian novel turned TV show set in Gilead, a fundamentalist, fascist version of the US where women have no rights. But it is urgent we understand that what is happening in the US could happen here. This road to Atwood’s Gilead is charting a course straight through the UK and Europe, and we may well be sleepwalking on to it.
In November 2024 I debated with the American conservative lawyer Erin Hawley at the Oxford Union. The motion was “This house regrets the overturning of Roe v Wade”, the US supreme court’s landmark decision that once protected the right to have an abortion at the federal level. Hawley is vice-president of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an “anti-LGBTQ+ hate group”, according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, founded by the US Christian right. She is also a high profile lawyer and supported the state of Mississippi on the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned Roe.
