Meghan Markle’s extravagant spending in both the UK and the US has raised fresh questions about how she and Prince Harry are going to continue financing their luxury lifestyle – after the Duchess of Sussex stepped out in London wearing designer clothes and accessories worth an estimated $36,000, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
The 45-year-old was recently photographed outside Claridge’s hotel with Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, 29, following afternoon tea to discuss a fundraising campaign for International Day of the Girl.
The appearance comes amid mounting speculation about the Sussexes’ finances, their expensive California estate and the commercial performance of Markle’s lifestyle brand, As Ever.
An insider familiar with the couple’s circumstances exclusively told us their spending was attracting increasing scrutiny, as there appears to be no answer to how they are going to continue to be able to bankroll their lavish lifestyles without huge incomes.
Our source claimed: “Harry and Meghan have spent years building relationships with some incredibly wealthy and influential people, and there is no question that those connections, alongside their commercial deals, have helped them maintain an extraordinarily expensive lifestyle.
“But the question is whether the money coming in can continue to match the money going out. They have become accustomed to a certain standard of living, and once you are operating at that level, it is very difficult to scale things back. There is a big difference between being able to afford that lifestyle today and being able to sustain it for another 10 or 20 years.
“For Meghan, projecting an image of luxury and success is not simply about enjoying the finer things in life. It is also an important part of the brand she is trying to build. She wants to be associated with exclusivity, beautiful homes, expensive clothes, and the kind of aspirational lifestyle that appeals to wealthy consumers.”
The insider noted, “Harry has always been incredibly supportive of her ambitions and appears happy for her to enjoy those things. But maintaining that image comes with enormous costs, and there are now questions about how sustainable it all is, especially in the long term.
“Nobody outside their immediate circle really knows the full picture of their finances. They clearly have valuable connections and potential earning opportunities. The uncertainty is whether those opportunities will consistently deliver the sort of income needed to support their spending over the long term. Their lifestyle is built around an expectation of considerable wealth, and the challenge is making sure the financial reality continues to match that expectation.”
Markle’s recent lavish London outfit is said to have featured a $21,400 necklace, $9,360 handbag, $2,270 coat, $840 sweatshirt, $940 trousers and $1,060 shoes.
Days later, she visited three Nottingham charities wearing a $2,000 Joseph coat and a $470 cashmere sweater.
Her spending has attracted attention, alongside reports that billionaire hedge fund manager Ian Wace has hosted the Sussexes and their children, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, on his private Scottish island.
The Sussexes’ Montecito mansion, which contains nine bedrooms, 16 bathrooms, extensive gardens and a swimming pool, also comes with massive maintenance and security costs.
Royal author Tom Bower alleged in Betrayal: Power, Deceit and the Fight for the Future of the Royal Family that the couple required at least $3million annually to sustain their lifestyle.
Other reports have suggested expenditure reaching $6million a year.
The pair has reportedly explored purchasing a Cotswolds property costing upwards of $16million. Meanwhile, Markle has been promoting a $150 As Ever advent calendar as she expands the brand’s commercial offerings.
Harry has also appeared in a 99-minute MasterClass production discussing grief with neuroscientist Mary-Frances O’Connor.
Reports suggest he received up to $100,000 for the appearance.
The program examined Harry’s experiences following the death of his mother, Princess Diana, in 1997.