Prince Harry and Meghan are in Australia (Image: Getty)
Viewed from across the Atlantic, from the country that gave them refuge, Harry and Meghan’s four-day trip through Australia exposes them—for us American observers—as opportunists who style themselves as humanitarians while seeking profit and projecting the royal lifestyle they publicly savaged and surrendered.
The couple landed in Melbourne on Tuesday aboard a commercial Qantas flight. They headed straight to the Royal Children’s Hospital within hours, where they met patients and families and accepted handmade welcome signs. Police provided security during public appearances, prompting debate about the extent of any taxpayer burden.
The Sussexes insist the visit is privately funded. Critics argue the schedule tells a different story. Two celebrity influencers—who represent no country nor institution, in fact no one but themselves—now stage events that echo the formulas they once used as working royals.
Their 2018 Australia tour drew genuine crowds because Harry and Meghan represented the institution. They operated as working royals with official backing. This week the hospitals, veterans’ events and gatherings appear without any official role. Meghan also visited a women’s refuge supporting domestic-violence survivors. Working royals conduct hospital visits every week. They focus on the patients.
Prince Harry and Meghan are in Australia for a four-day visit (Image: Getty)
To critics, the optics suggested a different priority. One local told the Herald Sun she would line the streets for William and Catherine but had no interest in Harry and Meghan. Public turnout appeared mixed, with curiosity as much as enthusiasm. A Change.org petition gathered tens of thousands of signatures opposing any taxpayer support.
The Sussex office dismissed concerns about such criticism before the couple arrived. Police in Victoria and New South Wales still carried out public-safety operations around events. Critics, including opposition figures, argued that diverting resources to protect wealthy private individuals was unjustified.
The couple’s schedule mixes these appearances with commercial engagements. Harry is set to speak at a leadership and workplace‑focused summit. Meghan headlines the “Her Best Life” retreat in Sydney, with tickets reportedly running into the hundreds and, at premium levels, higher. To critics, the contrast is stark: a humanitarian image alongside monetised access. They argue the commercial elements are not incidental but central.
The Sussexes left Britain in 2020 seeking privacy and financial independence. They now stage events that borrow heavily from the royal format they rejected. They retain and use their ducal titles while insisting they no longer perform royal duties. Every appearance inevitably draws on the aura those titles provide.
The couple are carrying out numerous visits Down Under. (Image: Getty)
They sharply criticised the institution in interviews, a memoir and a streaming series, yet now adopt elements of its structure for personal gain. They claim private‑citizen freedom while benefiting from the visibility and prestige those titles confer. To critics, the Australia visit highlights a willingness to exploit the very system they once attacked.
The couple have, at least, achieved one unlikely outcome: they have drawn criticism from across Australia’s political divide. Commentators from differing perspectives have questioned both the purpose and the cost of the visit. The couple will depart in a few days. Security operations will wind down.
The King, as Australia’s head of state, will continue the institution’s work without ticketed access or commercial tie‑ins. The monarchy trades on continuity and service. Harry and Meghan, by contrast, are widely seen as performing relevance they no longer possess—projecting the image of a royal tour while insisting they have left that role behind.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s visit has been controversial (Image: Getty)
This pattern persists because the titles remain. The Sussexes trade on a status they publicly abandoned while rejecting the constraints that once accompanied it. The monarchy’s strength has long rested on a separation between service and commerce. This visit blurs that line beyond recognition.
They see a couple who want the platform without the discipline, the visibility without the obligation, and the status without the restraint. For all of the unforgivable behaviour—notably actions many viewed as at odds with the wishes of Queen Elizabeth II—the time is well past to remove the enabling titles and take Harry out of the line of succession.
The institution deserves that clarity. Australians deserve an end to any taxpayer‑funded elements of this private visit. The public deserves honesty about what the Sussexes have become: two grifting former royals who rejected duty, then spent years exploiting the aura of that role for profit.
The four‑day trip does not damage the monarchy. It simply confirms what many already know to be true. Harry and Meghan could not make it as selfless royal public servants. They cannot keep pretending otherwise.