Oh dear.
I think it's pretty presumptuous and pompous to talk about "creating a humanitarian legacy" when you haven't done anything yet. I also think it's for others to call a person "a humanitarian" rather than to declare yourself so. Isn't it as a result of such sterling efforts over many years that people feel an individual is "a humanitarian" and has moved beyond the role they have into embracing something larger? Princess Diana only described herself as such after 15 years and as an attempt to not have her work with landmines and their prevention politicized. You don't find "being a humanitarian" as a degree or a job description because it's a quality as a result of going far beyond the normal expectations of your role. H & M haven't done anything extraordinary at all when it comes to public service as far as I can tell, compared to many of the other royals: the Queen herself, Anne, Charles or Sophie. This seems just a cynical money maker.
Although I am sure they are very frustrated at their inability to talk back and defend themselves when senior Royals. I can't see how this won't seriously damage their relationships with all of Harry's family even more and completely infuriate the Queen.
Won't they look like complete fools if noone wants to touch them with a barge pole after this and all of their big dreams and assumptions about how they will bless us all from on high (while hanging with A listers and Royals) in the future don't come to fruition?
As someone in the USA this seems like extremely bad timing. I don't think anyone who is identified with a monied elite wants to draw attention to themselves at the present time. Considering such great suffering and fear in the country and the world that could potentially last years and cause a financial crisis worse than the Great Depression.