The Private but Very Public Visit to Australia of the Sussexes

An email I just received from the Australian Monarchist League. Harry and Meghan are up to their old tricks, trying to be "Royal" when it suits them and "private citizens" when it doesn't.

Dear Jovan The visit last week of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was the first time Australia has experienced a sort of quasi-royal visit. i.e.: one that had the appearances of being a Royal visit, but was not. The reason for it, at this stage, is difficult to comprehend. It would have cost a fortune, particularly with public relations management and staffing arrangements, monies that would hardly have been clawed back with payments they may have received. Harry did seem to get one back on his brother William by arranging his visit, while we’re still left wondering if the Prince of Wales will visit at all this year. However, at this point we do not know what the broader implications may be. There could be more serious constitutional consequences for Australia, and the visit itself tends to confuse Australia’s relationship with the monarchy proper, so let us take a look at the visit. What can be said to be the only ‘official’ part of the stay of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was the visit by the Duke of Sussex to the Australian War Memorial which the Duke attended as founder and Patron of the Invictus Games. We knew about the retreat at Coogee with Meghan, but little about the other matters that were planned, particularly the many instances in which the couple met members of the public, posed for photographs, and attracted crowds at locations including Bondi Beach and Sydney Harbour, used as hallmarks of earlier official royal walkabouts. They had also arranged visits to the Royal Children’s Hospital and Bondi Beach to meet with survivors of the tragedy at Bondi last December. Nearly all of these occasions were affected as though they were on an official royal tour. Of course, because of distances and the lack of official invitations extended by the government, we have so few proper Royal visits which means that so many amongst the general public would not have known much difference. The danger is that whilst the Duke and Duchess of Sussex paraded around as though they were proper royals, their alleged ultimate purpose was to both promote themselves and also raise money for themselves. Apparently, during the tour, the Duchess of Sussex had allegedly arranged for photographs of the outfits - dresses, coats, shirts and skirts she had worn to be posted onto the AI fashion platform called OneOff to advertise them from which she will apparently get a percentage from any sales. Disgracefully this also allegedly featured the $4000 outfit worn while visiting Bondi Beach ostensibly to meet with survivors of last December's tragic attack. It is called “shopping her looks”! Furthermore, on what would have been Queen Elizabeth II's 100th birthday, the Duchess of Sussex launched two new candles named for Princess Lilibet’s and Prince Archie’s birthdates costing $64 each! We do know that raising funds is something that most royals do in their position as patron of many organisations. Indeed, as Prince of Wales, the King was known to raise the largest amounts of money through donations than any other individual, but all monies raised by him went to the charities concerned with not one cent paid to him. Similarly with the current Prince of Wales and family whereas apparently the bulk of the monies raised during the recent tour to Australia allegedly went to the Sussexes. So, the Quasi-Royal Tour was not only promotional but money-making, but that doesn’t explain why they made this visit to Australia? After all, we are a pretty small country in terms of population so there would be few ‘rich pickings’ for them. Was it a test or was it something more serious? Apparently, some people have been making a call for the Duke of Sussex to be invited to become King of Australia, instead of our current arrangements, which would have grave constitutional problems and is in no way supported by the general public. In any event, one cannot see Meghan putting up with a small, old-fashioned, residence like Yarralumla. Or, we wonder whether it may be the start of establishing a rival court like those of the 18th and 19th centuries, but not based on politics and preparing a grounding for future leadership, but on using their titles to exploit pure hard commercial opportunities. Furthermore, all past rival-courts were headed by Princes of Wales and not by second sons. Of course, the British monarchy has had rival courts before. In 1717, George I banished his son and daughter-in-law, the Prince and Princess of Wales, from his court due to a family dispute leading to the Prince setting up a separate household at Leicester House in London which became a centre for political opposition, attracting figures excluded from the King’s circle and functioned as a sort of “counter-court” both socially and politically. That Prince of Wales became King George II in 1727 and his son, Frederick, became Prince of Wales (pictured) but it was not long before he, himself, was estranged from his father and excluded from court life and, as a consequence, himself set up a rival court again at Leicester House which became an alternative cultural and political centre. But this time, it also included patronage of the arts and established a clear political identity resembling a ‘government-in-waiting’. However, Frederick died in 1751 a few years before his father died in 1760. Frederick’s son, George, became George III, the first Hanoverian King to be born in England, as were every King and Queen born thereafter. George III was a devout Christian and a family man. However, as time passed, he was beset with problems caused by his young adult children, particularly the eldest, also named George (pictured) who, after becoming of age in 1783, established his own court at Carlton House. Thereafter Carlton House became the hub of a fashionable, lavish, counter-court aligned with the opposition party. In 1811, King George III fell ill with episodes of madness and the Regency was declared with George, Prince of Wales as Prince Regent. He later became King George IV in 1820. The next sort of rival court was during the reign of George IV’s niece, Victoria. Prince Edward was Prince of Wales (pictured), and because his mother excluded him from any sort of political involvement, he created a social-court at Marlborough House. It was not, like his grand uncle’s, a political court, but more a social and cultural hub which can be said was needed due to his mother’s descent into perpetual mourning over the loss of her husband, Albert, Prince Consort. Edward’s interaction with various Kings and Queens of Europe, mostly family members, and with government ministers trained him in diplomacy and proper governance so that when he himself became King, as Edward VII in 1901, he was able to quickly take the reins and proved to be a competent King, although his reign was very short. There were no more rival courts of any sort from 1901 until, possibly, now. The previous rival-courts were not really disruptive as they were all cheering for Britain and the Empire. The move by Harry and Meghan, let us call it the ‘Sussex court’, however is in no way cheering for the Commonwealth but is allegedly being set up purely for profit for themselves and could well bring ridicule and derision on our current system of governance if the King allows it to continue. Of course, King Charles has no power to stop Harry and Meghan swanning around the world, but he can remove Prince Harry’s princely title with new Letters Patent. After all, he is no longer a working royal and in this day and age, particularly with the concept of a ‘slimmed down monarchy’, any member of the Royal Family who opts out of being a working royal, should automatically lose not just their HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) prefix, but also their title of ‘Prince’. They want to be private citizens, so why would they want to keep their royal title? Certainly no individual within the Royal Family bearing the title ‘Prince’ should use it for commercial profit as is currently being done. It should be noted that only the British Parliament can remove their ducal title. This sort of thing should not be and, hopefully, the King, or, if not the King, the Prince of Wales, will ensure that it ends. The Australian Monarchist League will put these matters before the King. Yours sincerely Philip Benwell National Chair Australian Monarchist League