Share and Follow
On May 25, 2026, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, found herself at the center of security discussions due to her recent appearances promoting her lifestyle brand, As Ever. The concern stems from her choice to wear jewelry and designer clothing valued at tens of thousands of pounds.
In a recent Instagram campaign, the 44-year-old Duchess showcased a range of products, including preserves, candles, teas, honey, and chocolates. Her look featured relaxed, Californian-inspired outfits paired with luxury jewelry and high-end fashion, which has sparked conversations about her safety.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is reportedly at the centre of security concerns after the Duchess of Sussex appeared wearing tens of thousands of pounds worth of jewellery and designer clothing while promoting her lifestyle brand As Ever
A security consultant with experience in celebrity protection shared insights with RadarOnline.com, noting, “When someone with Meghan’s international stature frequently displays expensive jewelry, watches, and luxury items on social media and in promotional materials, it inevitably raises concerns about personal safety. High-profile individuals are already subject to intense scrutiny, and flaunting wealth can exacerbate those risks.”
The consultant further explained, “There is a fear that Meghan’s image, which increasingly highlights exclusivity, glamour, and wealth, could attract unwanted attention from unsavory characters. Some experts worry she may inadvertently make herself a target for kidnapping or theft by frequently appearing in public adorned with valuable jewelry.”
“There are worries that Meghan’s carefully curated image increasingly emphasizes exclusivity, glamour, and wealth in a way that naturally attracts attention from the wrong kinds of people. Some believe she is unintentionally putting a target on her back for a kidnapping or heist by appearing draped in valuable jewelry almost everywhere she goes publicly.”
Meghan’s bling-heavy campaign reportedly featured nearly $110,000 worth of clothing and accessories, prompting discussion over the contrast between the brand’s understated “stealth wealth” aesthetic and the extraordinary value of the pieces Meghan wore throughout the video.
Attention quickly shifted away from the products themselves and onto Meghan’s jewellery collection, including diamond necklaces, Cartier pieces and designer garments worn throughout the campaign.
In one sequence, Meghan wore $406 “Upper Village” jeans by California designer Tracy James while standing inside a pantry stocked with As Ever products.
Another scene showed her pinning back her hair while wearing pearl-drop earrings as she ate raspberries.
Later shots featured Meghan in a white dress and blue cardigan accessorised with her Cartier Love bracelet, estimated to be worth around $9,482, alongside a Cartier Tank Française watch reportedly valued at $23,940.
She also re-wore several familiar pieces from previous public appearances, including a Logan Holloway diamond tennis necklace estimated to cost more than $63,000 and a custom Oscar de la Renta gown.
Meghan’s promotional rollout comes amid continued scrutiny surrounding her and Prince Harry’s life in Montecito, California, as the royal, 41, remains locked in a years-long legal battle over security arrangements for his family when visiting Britain.
The renewed attention also follows the end of Meghan’s partnership with Netflix earlier this year after the streaming platform collaborated with the duchess on her lifestyle and cookery series, With Love, Meghan.
The duchess, who rose to global fame starring as Rachel Zane in the legal drama Suits before marrying Harry in 2018, has increasingly focused on lifestyle ventures since stepping back from royal duties alongside Harry in 2020.
Her and Harry’s couple’s departure from royal life – often referred to as “Megxit” – remains a source of continuing debate, particularly as Harry continues legal action over taxpayer-funded police protection in Britain.
Harry has repeatedly argued that his private security team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction or access to intelligence information while the family is in the UK.
<!–
–>