Meghan Markle Criticism Spurs Calls to Separate Prince Harry from Ventures

The Invictus Games, Prince Harry’s flagship initiative for wounded veterans, faces unprecedented turmoil as military veterans launch scathing attacks against its royal founders. Edward Fortescue, a former British Army Major and intelligence officer, ignited a firestorm with an August 7, 2025 social media post declaring: “The wounded veterans of Invictus are done—utterly and irrevocably done—with Harry and that fame-hungry parasite he married.” This explosive condemnation reflects growing sentiment that the Sussexes have transformed the event into a personal publicity platform at veterans’ expense.

Why Are Veterans Turning Against Prince Harry’s Invictus Games?

Fortescue’s viral statement articulates frustrations simmering within the veteran community. He accuses the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of redirecting focus from soldiers’ sacrifices to their own image rehabilitation: “They’ve seen war. They’ve faced death. They’ve dragged their broken bodies through fire and blood—and now they are expected to play supporting roles in [the Sussexes’] grotesque theatre.” The criticism centers on perceptions that Harry abandoned military values after leaving royal duties, with Fortescue noting he discarded “his regiment, his family, his Queen” only to return seeking validation through the veterans’ event.

Meghan Markle faces particularly vitriolic attacks, branded “a scavenger—circling the sacred with cameras in tow, draped in designer grief and counterfeit empathy” in Fortescue’s post. This sentiment resonates with veterans who feel the Games’ original mission—honoring service and resilience—has been overshadowed by celebrity spectacle. Public reactions reveal deep divisions, with one social media user asserting, “Invictus is just another cash cow for the grifters,” while others counter that participation remains voluntary and beneficial.

What’s the Future for Invictus Without Royal Leadership?

Fortescue demands decisive action: “Rip the microphone from Harry’s hands. Bar Meghan from the premises. Not politely. Not discreetly. Ruthlessly.” This ultimatum presents existential questions about the event’s future direction. While the Games have undeniably raised global awareness for wounded veterans since their 2014 inception, recent controversies threaten institutional credibility. Supporters argue the Sussexes’ star power attracts essential funding and media coverage, with one defender noting: “No one forces countries to attend—they come because it works.”

Organizers now face mounting pressure to address veterans’ concerns about commercialization. The charity must balance the Sussexes’ proven fundraising appeal against accusations of exploitation. With the 2026 Invictus Games planning underway, stakeholders are closely watching whether management will restructure leadership to preserve the event’s integrity while maintaining its global profile—a challenging tightrope walk between honoring heroes and hosting celebrities.

The explosive veterans’ revolt against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle reveals a critical juncture for the Invictus Games—one demanding immediate reconciliation between its noble founding mission and accusations of royal exploitation. As wounded warriors worldwide await meaningful resolution, the world watches whether this vital institution can reclaim its soul from the shadows of celebrity spectacle.

Must Know

What specific accusations do veterans make against the Sussexes?
Veterans led by Major Edward Fortescue allege Harry and Meghan use Invictus as a publicity vehicle, diverting attention from wounded soldiers to their personal narratives. They criticize Meghan’s involvement as performative and accuse Harry of betraying military values after stepping back from royal duties.

How did Prince Harry initially establish the Invictus Games?
Harry founded the adaptive sports event in 2014 after witnessing similar programs during his military service. Inspired by the Warrior Games in the US, he envisioned a global platform celebrating wounded service members’ resilience through competition.

What has been the public reaction to veterans’ criticisms?
Responses are polarized. Some social media users strongly endorse Fortescue’s views, calling Invictus a “cash cow,” while others defend the Sussexes’ contributions and note participation remains voluntary. Many veterans’ organizations have yet to issue official statements.

Could Harry and Meghan actually be removed from Invictus leadership?
While possible, their removal faces significant hurdles. As founders, they hold influential roles, and their celebrity attracts sponsors. Any dismissal would require board consensus and risk alienating supporters who credit their involvement for the event’s visibility.