Harry and Meghan Face Backlash for ‘Positioning Themselves as Heirs’ During Australia Visit
While officially it is not Harry and Meghan's royal tour, it is still very similar in terms of execution and tone.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had a tightly structured series of appearances across Australia that, while officially not a royal tour, seemed very similar to one in terms of execution and tone. Their four-day Aussie tour’s schedule spans Melbourne, Canberra, and Sydney, with engagements involving veterans, youth empowerment, mental health, sports, and so on. Be it visiting the Royal Children’s Hospital as a duo or Harry’s solo appearance at the Australian War Memorial and the Movember event, their presence drew both warm public reception and criticism. Some Australians labeled them as 'irrelevant,' while others decided to welcome them with enthusiasm.
Amidst this backdrop, royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams offered a sharp critique. According to the Mirror, he declared that “they were obviously positioning themselves as heirs.” He went on about how the Sussex clan’s approach carried deeper implications and said, “It has never been disputed that when Harry and Meghan stepped down as senior royals after wanting to be 'half in half out,' it was a blow to the contemporary image of the institution.” He also revealed, “This subsequently and infamously degenerated into a deep and lasting rift.” Through his remarks, it was clear that he isn’t viewing their Australian visit as isolated but as part of a broader narrative about their evolving public role.
The commentator’s narrative seems poignant when one examines the nature of the couple’s carefully curated engagements, which seem to echo royal tradition. He opined, “Watching them at carefully pre-planned events on their ‘faux royal’ tour of Oz, you can, however, see the appeal.” As the couple posed with young patients at the Royal Children’s Hospital, the latter revealed that such warm moments brought them much-needed smiles. Yet, Fitzwilliams believes that their appearance was rather calculated for such an event. He shared, “The visit was carefully planned to make them successors to a royal tradition. Queen Elizabeth had opened it in 1963, and Harry’s parents visited in their 1985 tour.”
There has been a buzz of contradiction after many witnessed the Sussexes’ attempt to fuse warmth and strategy. Fitzwilliams elaborated, “The images of them with the children were touching and heartwarming. To pretend that they were 'call me Meg' non-royals was totally hypocritical; they were obviously positioning themselves as heirs to a royal tradition.” He also suggested an alternative by adding, “Had they simply stepped back but been positive about the institution, a way might have subsequent to the Sandringham Agreement, have been found for them to use their undoubted talents when pressing the flesh.”
Meanwhile, Harry’s solo engagements during the tour added another dimension to the narrative. It not only reinforced his personal credibility but also brought to the surface his lingering tensions with the rest of the royals yet again. Fitzwilliams observed, “Harry’s engagements too, on Day 2, saw him in his element. His Invictus links do give him special status when dealing with the military, which has meant so much to him.” But as his remarks got candid, the commentator said, “When he said he needed to 'deal with stuff from my past' and 'cleanse' himself, it almost certainly resonated with those he was with; it is the way he has done this that has caused the breach with his family.”
At last, the commentator concluded with a sharp contrast, “The Sussexes relentless positivity in their public appearances in charitable events is so at odds with their actual private behaviour.” He added that Markle “appears ruthless and artificial.” As the tour continues, it seems like it is unfolding largely just the way the Sussexes expected, though it’s not happening without immense discourse regarding their place in the royal framework they publicly left behind many years ago.
