Pawning the Crown: Same Hustle, Different Lighting

By Michele Marra

I am stepping out of the Invictus Games for a moment to write about a topic I have been mulling over for quite a while: the Yorks versus the Sussexes. So you ask me, “How can we compare the two?” I would say, “How can we not?”

Yes, Sarah divorced Andrew (though he remained a “supporting” figure in the shadows) and lost her HRH. Yet, she peddled her title (Sarah, Duchess of York) for every ounce of mileage it offered, and I would offer that her proximity to the Crown paved the way for her tawdry endeavors. Meanwhile, in Montecito, we have Harry and Meghan—no longer “working” royals, restricted from using their HRH (wink, wink), and using their proximity to the Crown to chase the almighty dollar.

Does this sound familiar? It should. The Yorks provided the prototype for what we see today. The difference? We now have the “transparency” of social media and the public asking: “Why is this being allowed, and why is the King sanctioning this through his silence?”

The Beginnings: Pomp, Circumstance, and Polka Dots

I was living in the UK in 1986 when Andrew and Sarah—the second son of the monarch, was marrying a “commoner” with the right connections. I remember catching the train from Newbury to London, hoping for a glimpse of the spectacle. The papers called “Fergie” a breath of fresh air. Standing outside Clarence House and later Buckingham Palace, the vibe was electric. I vividly remember the surprise of Sarah not wearing a tiara initially, and the bonus of seeing Princess Diana in that iconic green and black polka dot outfit—the epitome of 80s fashion.

Fast forward: another second son marries a successful, biracial woman who was also deemed a “breath of fresh air.” The buzz was identical. I was glued to the TV at “zero dark thirty,” excited for the adventures that awaited them.

So how did we get to where we are today? To understand the present, we must go back to the late 90s and what I call the “York Prototype.”

The York Prototype

This term defines how a royal title can be converted into a high-stakes credit card and cash. While the Sussexes seek global prestige and entry into the billionaire entertainment clique, the Yorks built the blueprint for turning proximity into profit.

It wasn’t just Sarah. Whether she was married, separated, or divorced, Andrew supported her ventures while allegedly building his own alleged financial “Game of Tetris” as a UK trade envoy. As of May 2026, I am drawing an “Invisible Line” in permanent ink: what we are seeing with the Sussexes is simply York 2.0—updated software with softer lighting.

The Hall of Shame: York Versus Sussex

To understand the York”s business model, you have to look at the moments when the “private citizen” mask slipped to reveal a desperate scramble for cold hard cash.

York: Cash-for-Access (2010), an undercover reporter filmed Sarah offering access to Andrew for approximately £500,000. She later apologized for what she called a “serious lapse in judgment.” Andrew seems to have been supportive, while distancing himself from any involvement in the arrangement.

Sussex: Clicks-for-Clothing (2026), Meg joined the AI fashion platform OneOff as an investor and participant. During her Australia tour, her outfits were made shoppable, including looks from public engagements such as a children’s hospital and the Bondi Beach visit. Not selling access to Harry (he was there) directly, but monetizing access to her pseudo-royal-adjacent image, wardrobe, and public appearances.

York: Sarah goes on to write two books on her life (1996 and 2011) after her divorce from Andrew, My Story and later Finding Sarah, which were about personal survival, divorce, debt, humiliation, reinvention, and life after Andrew. Although embarrassing to the monarchy, it did not structurally threaten the future of the Crown.

Sussex: Harry’s Spare (2023) was different because it came from the King’s son and the brother of the future king. Harry spoke ad nauseum about telling his own story publicly for the first time, with “raw, unflinching honesty.” Its title itself turns his grievance into a constitutional/family role: the “spare” to William’s “heir.” Harry’s memoir did include embarrassing and grievances aplenty, therefore it was not just “my life after royal pain”; it directly challenged the Wales/King Charles/Camilla story and the palace-press system.

York: Andrew’s tenure as Special Representative for UK Trade and Investment (2001-2011), Andrew’s trade role was controversial because it placed a member of the royal family in a position that depended almost entirely on reputation, discretion, and trust. During this time, he was named Air Miles Andy and His Buffoon Highness based on his love of globetrotting at the public’s expense and the latter, well that is self-explanatory. Andrew is currently under criminal scrutiny by the police as of this date. Andrew denies all charges and proclaims his innocence.

Sussex: Sentebale filed a defamation lawsuit (2026) alleging that Harry and former trustee Mark Dyer helped fuel a damaging media campaign after their resignation as patron and board member. For Harry, the damage is moral and reputational — a charity founded in Diana’s memory becoming a legal adversary. Harry and Mark both refute the claims and reinforce their innocence. Harry’s case is a civil dispute tied to reputation and charity governance; Andrew’s is a police investigation tied to public office and alleged misuse of official access. The parallel is not that the cases are legally equal, but that each turned a prince’s supposed redeeming credential into evidence of the very flaws their critics already suspected.

York: Does anyone remember Sarah writing Budgie the Little Helicopter (1989)? I know it takes place before the divorce, but here we are already making money off of the proximity to the Crown. Honestly would anyone have published this book, if she wasn’t Sarah, Duchess of York at the time?

Sussex: Let’s talk about The Bench (2021). C’mon do we honestly believe that Meghan Markle would have gotten a book deal if she hadn’t hooked a British Prince and became Meghan, Duchess of Sussex? The answer is a resounding “no.”

One more, because there are really too many I could list.

York: Oprah’s Opportunity to Interview a Former Royal (1996 and 2011). Sarah first appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show during her publicity tour for My Story and secondly in a six-part series on the Oprah Winfrey Network, for the eponymous Finding Sarah. Both interviews were relatively tame and sought redemption and rehabilitation (I think she no longer has the ability to play this card again.) compared to what was to come in 2025. Oh, by the way, I think we are still playing this game of finding Sarah.

Sussex: Oprah’s Opportunity to Interview the Finding Freedom Royals (2021). Oprah’s interview was far more explosive and divisive. It provided a platform for Harry and Megs to challenge the royal institution itself. It touched on isolation, mental health, race, press hostility and the difference between the royal family and the institution. It has become the “my truth” versus “the factual truth” interview. Oprah has been criticized for not asking more probing questions

Harry’s Oprah project, The Me You Can’t See (2021), was the prototype Sussex model: royal pain turned into prestige content, trauma wrapped up as public service, and a chance to view his private anguish via a subscription platform. It was not “cash for access” in the Fergie sense. It was something newer: access to the royal gaping wound.

So without getting into the Sussexes forays into Netflix, Spotify, As Ever, etc., and Sarah’s forays into Weight Watchers, Waterford Wedgewood, Hartmoor, etc., do we see the similarities? I am not even going to go farther into the charity side of this sordid tale, because to me, this is the saddest of it all.

The Silent Sanction: Why Is This Allowed?

People often ask why the late Queen allowed the “York Hustle” and why King Charles remains silent to the continuing “Sussex Shuffle.”

The Queen’s Approach: Family First, Institution Second.

In the York’s case, it would appear that Queen Elizabeth II operated on a policy of “benign neglect.” I have read and it has been reported that she had a notorious soft spot for Andrew, often prioritizing family unity over public optics. It would seem that she believed that if she didn’t acknowledge the “sideshow,” it wouldn’t define the Crown (I would say that is no longer the case). This basically allowed Sarah to operate in a gray area for decades—technically “out” but socially “in.” It has also been reported that she was tired of bailing her out, and we all know that the royals love it when others are footing the bill.

The King’s Dilemma: The Silence of Strategy.

King Charles III is in a different position. His silence isn’t necessarily a lack of will, but he may be using the age-old defensive strategy, which is no longer working, in my humble opinion. You know the one, to comment on the Sussexes’ commercial ventures would “feed the beast” of the 24-hour news cycle. However, his continuance of allowing them to monetize their titles instead of stripping them or issuing clear disclaimers, he is risking the Crown, thereby appearing to be a silent partner in their business ventures. Silence, in this case, could be viewed as a “soft sanction” of the brand. I would also add that silence did not work so well for the late Queen as it relates to the Yorks, so he really needs to change his approach.

Harsh Reality

The Yorks trampled on their royal aura clumsily with briefcases and hotel lobbies (this is even without including the painful Epstein matter). The Sussexes have “water-marbled” it through the language of healing, performative empathy, and female entrepreneurship. The Yorks made the bargain look cheap and tacky; the Sussexes made it look joyfully curated and of course with candles missing wicks.

But make no mistake: the box is the same, even if the bow is more expensive. Whether it is “paying for access” or “shopping the moment,” the transaction remains the same: the Crown is being sold, one affiliate lin

k at a time.

What do you think? Is the “York Prototype” a fair comparison, or have the Sussexes created an entirely new beast? Let’s discuss in the comments below.

[Like] [Comment] [Subscribe]