Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have recently faced questions about their popularity, with one commentator suggesting that they may not have many projects in the pipeline.

Kinsey Schofield, a TV presenter on TalkTV’s Kinsey’s Right Royal Roundup, discussed this issue in a recent episode.

Schofield referred to an unnamed source who spoke to Us Weekly, expressing shock at Markle’s level of popularity.

However, Schofield dismissed the credibility of the magazine, stating that it is not respected enough to be quoted.

According to the report, the Sussexes are deliberately selecting projects based on quality rather than quantity.

They are being picky about the opportunities they choose to get involved in.

Schofield even took a dig at Markle’s recent acting return, mocking her appearance in a coffee ad as an intern.

She also commented on Prince Harry’s lack of episodes on their expected podcast.

While Markle interviewed famous personalities like Serena Williams, Mariah Carey, Paris Hilton, Mindy Kaling, and Andy Cohen on Spotify’s Archetypes, Prince Harry’s involvement was minimal.

Schofield speculated that this might be due to the couple prioritizing quality over quantity.

Schofield further discussed the reports surrounding the Sussexes’ popularity.

She emphasized that being known does not necessarily equate to being popular.

Schofield drew a comparison to OJ Simpson, who is widely recognized but not necessarily popular.

She highlighted that recognition can also be a form of infamy, rather than genuine popularity.

Another aspect that has come under scrutiny is Meghan Markle’s significantly higher salary for James Holt.

Holt played a crucial role in managing the funds designated for charitable purposes by the Sussexes.

Meghan and Harry released a mission statement expressing their commitment to ethical journalism, but concerns have arisen regarding their approach.

Critics question their limited involvement in charitable work and the substantial salaries paid to their staff.

In particular, James Holt received a staggering 277% raise, allegedly due to his involvement in managing a substantial sum of money for the couple.

Lady C, a prominent figure, raised concerns about the origin of these funds.

She contends that Harry initially made substantial contributions as donations, which were then funneled into a holding account.

This maneuver not only accumulated interest but also provided tax benefits for the account holders.

Eventually, the funds found their way into the Archwell account.

Lady C highlighted the discrepancy in income balance, noting the absence of interest income despite a significant cash balance.

This raises questions about how an organization with $8 million in cash could earn a meager $4,149 in interest, especially for a US charity.

Lady C also questioned the staffing levels at Archwell, as three full-time employees seemed excessive considering the cited projects.

Additionally, public donations totaling $91 raised eyebrows when compared to the reported legal costs of Archwell.

Lady C suggests that Meghan and Harry may be the primary source of the donations, allowing them to benefit from personal tax breaks.

The alleged strategic movement of funds between accounts ultimately casts doubt on their financial practices.

In conclusion, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s popularity has come under scrutiny, with questions raised about their choice of projects and the management of their funds.

While some argue that they prioritize quality over quantity, others have concerns about their limited involvement in charitable work and the significant salaries paid to their staff.

The alleged movement of funds between accounts raises further questions about their financial practices.