Harry and Meghan are set to cash in on their royal connections like never before. They seem to think we're all stupid - but their 'cunning' plan will never work: AMANDA PLATELL

Just when you thought the Sussex saga could not become any more jaw-dropping, the latest round of reports has set royal watchers spluttering into their tea. According to fresh speculation, Harry and Meghan are once again poised to trade on the very royal aura they once insisted they wanted to escape — only this time, critics say, the strategy is bolder, shinier and far more transparent.

For years, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have walked a tightrope between distancing themselves from Palace life and benefiting from the global fascination that comes with it. That contradiction has been at the heart of their post-royal brand from the very beginning, and it is precisely why every rumoured new venture sparks such fury.

Insiders and commentators have long claimed that their biggest asset is not Hollywood sparkle, Californian wellness or streaming ambition, but the simple fact that they remain tethered to the House of Windsor. The titles, the family links, the whispered access to gilded circles — all of it keeps them marketable in a way ordinary celebrity simply does not.

Now, according to reports, there is growing belief that the couple are preparing to lean harder than ever into that connection. Whether through lifestyle projects, media appearances or carefully curated public positioning, the impression many critics have is that the Sussexes still want the prestige of royalty without the restraints, duties or discipline that come with it.

That, of course, is what enrages so many people. The complaint is not merely that Harry and Meghan are making money. It is that they appear, in the eyes of detractors, to be monetising an institution they have repeatedly criticised, while expecting the public to overlook the contradiction.

Amanda Platell’s argument, which has struck a chord with many royal traditionalists, is essentially that the public are not nearly as gullible as the couple seem to imagine. Fans may remain loyal, but there is a strong body of opinion that believes this latest supposed manoeuvre is simply too obvious — a polished repackaging of the same old formula: royal mystique, anti-royal grievance, and a commercial pitch wrapped in moral seriousness.

The history matters here. Ever since Megxit, Harry and Meghan’s departure has been sold by supporters as a brave break for freedom, and by critics as a calculated half-in, half-out attempt that was never going to satisfy either side. The late Queen reportedly made clear that public duty and private profit could not be mixed, and that principle has haunted the Sussex story ever since.

Every interview, documentary and rumoured business move has been measured against that line. Are they building an independent life, or are they cashing in on the very status they claim brought them so much pain? It is a question that returns again and again, because the couple’s value in the marketplace remains inseparable from their royal story.

And that may be the flaw in the alleged new plan. If the public mood has shifted, if audiences have grown weary of what some see as selective outrage and strategic victimhood, then trading even more heavily on palace glitter could backfire badly. Familiarity can breed contempt, especially when people feel they are being sold a brand built on contradiction.

To be fair, there will always be those who argue the Sussexes have every right to use their platform as they choose. They were born or married into extraordinary circumstances, and stepping away from royal work did not erase global interest in who they are. In that reading, monetising fame is not sinister, merely inevitable.

But royal watchers know that royalty is not just another celebrity backdrop. It carries tradition, sacrifice and public service, and many Britons still bristle at the idea of its symbolism being reduced to a glossy commercial mood board. Crowns and carriages may dazzle, but they also come with obligations — and that is where the resentment lies.

If these reports are true, the Sussexes may be betting that the lure of royal glamour still outweighs public scepticism. Yet the danger is obvious: each new attempt to bottle Windsor magic for private gain risks looking less cunning and more cynical.

So is this smart reinvention, or one more misjudged effort to have it both ways? And do Harry and Meghan still understand how sharply the public can spot the difference?