The Royals with Roya and Kate - Harry and Meghan in Australia: a 'royal' tour or PR stunt?

Episode Date: April 15, 2026

Why are Harry and Meghan in Australia and why now? Their four-day trip has all the hallmarks of a traditional royal tour but it has also raised questions – is this philanthropy or personal branding? Roya Nikkhah and Kate Mansey are joined by Australian royal correspondent Juliet Rieden to discuss how the visit is landing locally and what it reveals about their role on the global stage. We also turn to the mounting pressures facing Prince Harry back in Britain, including an extraordinary legal battle with his own former charity. So is this trip a show of strength or a distraction from the challenges closing in? And what does it all mean for a possible family return to the UK this summer.Queen Elizabeth II would have turned 100 next week — but how should she be remembered? And has her legacy changed in the three years since her death? Get in touch: [e-mail]: GettyProducer: Robert WallaceExecutive Producer: Priyanka Deladia Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals, the podcast where we discussed what happens behind palace walls and why it matters. I'm Royne Nicar. And I'm Kate Mansy. This week, Harry and Megan are in Australia on a trip that has attracted intense attention and plenty of controversy too. There are visits to frontline charities, children's hospitals, veteran organisations and sporting events. But is this a private visit, a philanthropic mission, or some. something closer to a pseudo royal tour. Well, this trip comes at a particularly delicate moment for Prince Harry. There's a return to the UK on the cards this summer and the possibility

that Meghan and their children could join him for the first time in four years. So what is the purpose of this tour and how is it landing in Australia? And what does it reveal about Harry and Megan's role now? They're outside the royal system, but still very much in the royal spotlight. Well, to help us take the temperature down under, we're delighted to be joined by Juliet Reden, journalist, author and royal correspondent for the Australian broadcaster ABC. Juliet, welcome to the Royals. Hi, Juliet. Hello there. Good day, I should say. Thanks for joining us. So Harry and Megan are now over on your patch. Can you give us a sense of what the mood is like down there, Julia? It's mixed, I would say. Certainly anyone who's on the ground meeting them.

It's all very happy. You know, Megan and Harry, as you both know well, present very well in public. They're charming. They talk to people. They engage with people very easily. And I think, you know, most people enjoy meeting them. But that said, there is this whole question mark as to why they're here, what this tour is about. Everyone is discussing the big question in the room.

Is this a pseudo-royal tour? is it part of a new way that Harry and Meghan want to work, where they mix business and pleasure and work and everything altogether? There's that corporatization of their world and the commoditisation of their world. Are they cashing in on the royal name? Are they using that in order to make money for themselves and in order to build their brand outside of the royal family? Julia, I know that you're covering elements of this tour. So far, we've had the first couple of days. I mean, it's a four-day public-facing tool. We've had engagements in Melbourne and Canberra. We've had them at the Royal Children's Hospital, which of course the Queen, late Queen visited and Diana, Princess of Wales too. We've had meeting with veterans. We've had Megan at a homelessness shelter. It all feels very much like the elements of a traditional royal tour. When Harry and Megan travel down under now, and they haven't done so since that first trip in 2018, how do Australians receive them. Do they receive them as senior members of the royal family on an official royal tour?

Or does it land slightly differently? Well, it's difficult, isn't it? I mean, you do see some people doing the odd curtsy, but mostly they see them as Megan and Harry. They are a bit confused as to what to call them. Many people have said to me, why are they still called the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? What do we call them? How do we address them? It is pretty murky. Are they royals or are they just Megan and Harry, who knows. And yes, those elements of the tour are so clearly elements of royal tours that we have seen before. Of course, the difference is there's no motorcade. There's no massive press pack because you're not allowed to be there. There isn't a facility for that. There are various things that are different about this as a journalist covering it. And also,

for the public, there's a bit of amusement about are they supposed to turn up? You know, lots of people would quite like to see them, I think, and would quite like to go and have a handshake or have a word with Harry. But it's very hard for people to know where to go when and for the journalists themselves. We're just being fed the information. That's interesting, isn't it? Because, Juliet, you've been covering the royal family, as we know, for a long time now. You're a real expert in the area. How does this differ then from the 2018 visit? Because that was such a moment, wasn't it? They were newlyweds. They were out on their, you know, first kind of major tour. together as husband and wife. We had the announcement, didn't we, that there was a baby on the way,

and they were all part of the palace then, part of the machine, if you like. What's the sense there that this has differed? Because by all accounts, it does look like a kind of pseudo-royal tour. It's obviously there for public consumption. What's the major difference, do you think, between then and now? Well, the major difference is the scale of it. Obviously, it's much, much shorter. The events are very choreographed and very short. Each one is there for a photo opportunity clearly. And also there are these other elements that are the speaking engagements, which of course was really the core of the trip and the reason for them coming here in the first place. They then built the tour as it stands around those engagements. They say to capitalize

on their time in Australia and they reached out to charities and organizations. that align with their interests and values and built this thing around it. But you have to ask why then do they want media there, if they want to just meet other places and organisations and charities that are in their wheelhouse? Why are they not doing it behind closed doors? Why are they not doing it privately? Why are we having this tour, if you like?

Therein lies the rub, isn't it, between the kind of the private lucrative moments where they're speaking, promoting themselves as a brand and those public elements when they're acting like members of the royal family. What is the reaction to them doing this visit again now outside the royal family? Is there still that sense of goodwill from the Australian people, do you think? Look, I think it depends who you talk to. And as you would know, Harry and Meghan polarise people, you either love them or hate them. And that's still very much happening here.

But that all changes when people are actually in front of them and they meet them and they shake their hands and they have a chat with them. People who may have been criticising them the day before suddenly become very positive towards them. I do think that in Australia there is generally more positivity towards Harry and Meghan than perhaps there is in the UK. I think there is an understanding of why they left the royal family. I think many people think just leave them alone and let them live their lives and who are they hurting. However, there are a lot of reports about, for instance, is this costing the taxpayer any money? And if it is, that's awful and it shouldn't. And yes, are they just using Australia as the launching point for their brand?

I mean, I've talked to the Inter-Ege organisation, for instance, which is the summit that Harry will be speaking at, And they told me that they did not pay, Harry, for that engagement. Although they are still charging. They are charging for those tickets. Part of that money does go to Lifeline. But yes, it's a summit for mental health. And he is a speaker at that summit. He's also doing a Q&A, I understand, at that summit.

He's not receiving any money for it. Megan's Wellness Weekend for women here in Sydney, those tickets are extremely expensive. I have had no response to my questions about whether she is being paid. So, you know, that all feels, that doesn't really sit well, I think, with a lot of people, that idea of selling their royleness and their celebrity for personal gain. Julia, to that very point that you just mentioned, I mean, that was one of the key elements that when Harry and Megan were negotiating their exit from the royal family with the famous Sandringham Summit,

The Queen made it very clear that if they wanted to pursue this new life of freedom, financial freedom away from the official royal fold, you could not be half in and half out. And I think that whole issue is what's making this trip quite controversial, because it's been controversial ever since it was announced. We've had this petition in Australia signed by nearly 50,000 people demanding that no public money in Australia be spent on the security funding this trip. You've had Australian regional press saying that the couple are using this trip as an ATM, and you talked about the ticketed events.

We know that they're very expensive. They're not fully sold out yet as we record this. The very fact, we had a member of the Sussex Camp yesterday telling the times, repeatedly telling the media, that no public money is being spent, that's just being privately funded this trip. The very fact that their aides are having to come out and keep saying this,

is that an issue in itself, the fact that they're not able to completely project a positive message, there's all this controversy surrounding the trip. Yes, I think it is an issue, but I think it's been built up into something that perhaps it shouldn't be by the media, I would largely say. Any person, any VIP, any celebrity that comes in and needs a bit of extra policing on the streets, they do get it. And yes, there is this pay-for thing. If you're doing an actual full engagement and you need policing for your concert, for instance, or whatever.

Essentially, the Victorian and the New South Wales police are just saying, you know, we will be providing a few extra officers to keep people safe. It isn't the level of security that is provided, for instance, all that was provided for Megan and Harry when they were here in 2018, which is incredibly expensive. They're not getting, as I say, those police motorcades. They're not staying at government houses. All of those extra expenses to the Australian taxpayer, we're not paying for their transport at all. They're on commercial planes. So I do think that side of it has been blown up out of proportion. But the controversy, I think, is more about what is this tour, how are we supposed to respond to it? Why are they doing it? Why are they having

these photo ops and publicity occasions when what they're saying is they're trying to meet with bodies who align with their values? Surely they would be having more meaningful meetings behind closed doors, not with 20 minutes here and 20 minutes there, and a photo op and kicking a football. These are very different to actually trying to grow their understanding of mental health issues in Australia, for instance. They're in lies to rub, doesn't it? Like you say, on the ground, we've had Megan say, call me Meg and people who they speak to, Harry being quite informal. You know, we've had him talking about his own childhood, being a father, talking about how he wants to raise his own children in the world and that will always be seen as a criticism of

his father the king. But then we've also had before the trip, Megan issuing through the Australian authorities trademarks for her brand as ever. So on the one hand, they're saying we're informal, we're here to do charity work with philanthropists. But then on the other hand, they're busy building a brand. It's clear to see, you know, there are signs of that with the trademarks and such. How does Megan fit into it all? Because we talk a lot about Harry and some of the controversial things that he says and does. But how is she being seen out there? And what do you think she really wants to get out of this? I think she wants to build her brand for sure. I think she wants to, she would probably say represent her truth. But I think she wants people to see who she is and come to their own conclusion meeting her. When you do meet Megan, she's a very charming and intelligent. woman and she's a role model for empowering women and especially for women of colour here in Australia. There's a lot of support for her, I believe, in that space. But then there's all the commercialisation isn't there. And in some ways I feel like it's a bit

unfair because she's always been a working woman. She was a working woman, a very successful one in her own right. She then obviously married into the royal family and a lot of that she had to put to one side and now she's not in the royal family, she's picking up on some of that. The issue is whether she's using her royal title for it. And that again is a hard one because she did marry into the royal family. They are senior royals. What are you supposed to do with that? Everything they do will always be said, you're using your royal title incorrectly. I think the simple fix would be to just not use their titles. But I and not advising them.

Well, Julia, that's a very interesting issue because the titles are something that's always been and we know incredibly important to them. They were very keen to retain the titles for Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. A lot of people question why they'll do that because they're never going to be official working members of the royal family again.

And that really goes to the heart of the issue, doesn't it? They want to be taken seriously as cause-driven philanthropists, but they're operating in a world of celebrity. People on the ground are questioning Australians, what is the purpose of this trip? It has projected some quite positive images of smiling Megan and Harry, with big crowds coming out to see them at some of the events. Do you think maybe the purpose of the trip as well as building brands,

making money, doing the cause-driven work publicly? Do you think it's also to project a sort of unified, happy brand Sussex and perhaps a reminder to the royal family of this is what you could have had? I don't know whether it is as cynical as that, but if it is, I think that is certainly what is being seen. There is certainly a sense when you see those two working the crowds doing their thing, that they are incredibly successful at it and that they do project a very good image for the royal family.

I mean, I remember back to 2018, and everyone talked about this breath of fresh air, this new couple in the House of Windsor that was changing everything, that was modern, that was attracting young people and a more international side to the royal family. And certainly that is how it seemed. And that was how people were talking about them here in Australia. There were lots of people who weren't interested before then and suddenly became interested in the royal family. And there is a sense of missing a trick, I think, for the monarchy when you see them doing these sorts of things.

I think it is also slightly problematic, though, seeing them do those things here in Australia, which is such an important royal realm alongside Canada and New Zealand, you know, the three most important, surely to the royal family. And for Harry to be sort of treading on those toes and doing the sort of engagements that the royals themselves do on official tours is a bit difficult, I think. Coming up, pressures are mounting on Prince Harry back in Britain. What does that mean for a potential return to the UK with Megan and the children? We'll be back after this. Just before Harry and Meghan went off on this trip to Australia,

there was more news about more problems, more reputational problems that are at hand for Harry, particularly an extraordinary story that his former charity that he was patron of, that he co-founded, sent to Bali, to help children affected by AIDS and HIV across Southern Africa. That charity is suing him. Kate, so this is a story that you've written a lot about. Bring us up to date on what happened. Yeah, well, you remember, Centi Barlow is a charity.

He's set up in his mother's name. It means forget me not to help children in Lesotho and Botswana. Last year, he had to step away from that charity. He had to quit. It was quite extraordinary, along with many of the trustees, over a fallout with the chair, who was Sophie Chanduka. Now, we had learned that she's, him for defamation over the way that all came about. The things that he said against her.

Now, it's been lodged with the High Court. The full papers have yet to be made public. But again, is Harry in the High Court being dragged back into legal action this time, not of his own instigation? Not of his own instigation, but possibly, you know, that the implication being the way that he and the other trustees handled that break from the charity. The very fact that Santa Bali is suing Harry and another trustee, Mark Dyer, who have strongly rejected the accusations of libel and defamation. And they've said it's an extraordinary move. Charity Commission has said, this is very last resort. The charity commission, there's even more scrutiny on the charity, and it's questioning why the charity is doing that and whether it's in the best interest of the charity.

That's right. I always speak to the charity commission who are saying, essentially, why is this a good idea for this to be dragged out through the courts? this can't surely serve the purposes of the people in Africa who the charity is designed to help. So it does beg the question why this is all exploded so spectacularly. You know, last year it was quite extraordinary for Harry to step away from his own charity anyway. And, you know, he said it was laid heavy on his heart and it was a real sense of kind of heartache for him and Prince Seizzo as well, who was co-founder of the charity. But stress a fallout that it's got to this stage. It sort of beggars belief, really.

It's led to another war of words, hasn't it? You had Centre Bali come out very strongly and say no charitable funds are being used for sophistication. It's being entirely funded externally. But it is another major reputational issue for Harry, which is going to rumble on possibly through the courts unless they settle. Which brings us right on to the other question hanging over Harry at the moment, which is his case against associated newspapers, the publishers of the mail and the

mail on Sunday. We've seen that trial play out now. That's concluded. and we are waiting for Mr Justice Nicklin, the judge, to deliver his verdict on that case where Harry had accused the newspaper group of illegal means of obtaining information for stories about him and his associates, including Elton John.

I mean, there's seven claimants in total. So we expect that to come down sometime in summer or perhaps the autumn. Certainly there's a lot of reading for the judge to get through on both sides of the case, But, you know, there was that kind of mic drop moment, wasn't there? At the end when we saw some of the private message between a mail on Sunday reporter Charlotte Griffiths and Harry being made public, which showed that in fact they did have a very fond friendship of sorts at some stage and were very close. Because Associated's argument was there were people within Harry's court, within his party of friends, who were leaking in some respects information to the media.

It wasn't obtained illegally. it was good old-fashioned journalism is their argument. It's important to say, associated newspapers denies any wrongdoing. And then we had this moment where we saw those messages in which Harry was referred to as Mr. Mistchief, talking about naughty weekends, that they'd all gone out as young people and had fun

and then chatting away about that. We should say, Harry said he met Charlotte Griffiths once, didn't know she was a journalist, and then after he found out he'd cut all contact with her. Well, there is a lot of reading for the judge to do. Harry would have wanted that judgment probably before the summer, before he comes to the UK. Juliet, things like these legal battles, the row with Santa Balay, the row with the male newspaper

group and associated, does that cut through to Australians? Of course, you know, this is a prince of their realm involved in these war of words and these huge legal battles. Does that cut through? And if it does to people in Australia, does it affect his image and his brand? Because traditionally Harry was when he used to go down under the happy chappy. Not so much anymore. It does. Yes, of course it does. You know, those stories hit the newspapers here in the same way as they do in the UK. And of course, on social media, they go down into some cauldron of hate. On one level, I think there is a good on you, Harry, for standing by what you think of and taking on those papers and it's the first time a member of the royal family has not, never explained and is

actually taking control. On another level, it's, Harry, can you just get on with your life? You want some privacy. Go and have your privacy. You've got two beautiful children, a beautiful wife, a wonderful mansion, and the opportunity to do something entirely different that presumably is why you left the royal family. So I don't think that there's... there is that viciousness, perhaps, that I see in some of the reporting over in the UK, because of course this is personally attacking some UK newspaper reporting. But I do think that it affects Harry's brand in that he's clearly still hung up on all this stuff. And we would only wish he could really put it in the past and let it go and move on

and be the happy man that he should be and can be. That's it, isn't it? You see him on the ground talking to people, being happy, being cheerful, doing what he does best. It's still years and years on from leaving the royal family. It seems unclear. Roy, you've spoken about him living his life, looking over his shoulder in the past. But what does that, how can we bring that into the future? What does he want now, do you think? Well, it's interesting, isn't it? What he wants, on his wish list is the ability to come and go to the UK whenever he wants, much more freely. That will come down to the security issue, which is well-worn. We've talked about. that a lot on here. Whether or not he'll get his security reinstated, we'll wait to see. He would like to come back more. We know that when he comes back in the summer, he'll come back for at least a week to do Invictus events in July. We know because his team mentioned to me that he's very keen to spend time with the king. He would like to be able to bring his children and spend family time. Of course, Archie and Lily haven't seen the king for it'll be more than four years at that point. So his wish list is spend more time in his homeland, which he constantly tells the world is still his

home and he loves, spend more time with the king. Because the king, you know, the reality is, the king is 77 years old. He is still suffering from cancer and he hasn't seen his grandchildren for four years. And that's something Harry would like to be able to change. I think Harry's future direction of travel is still quite unclear. Yes, he stands for Invictus. Yes, he supports the Invictus brand. Yes, we know that he champions veterans and mental health issues. But in terms of, as Juliet said, what is that path he's trying to carve? I think it's still a little bit murky. I think he still hasn't quite found his direction.

Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe he doesn't know. Or maybe he has an idea but can't quite put it all together because he says things hamper him like not being able to travel freely to the UK. But I think that very sort of strong Harry Brand that there used to be when he was inside the working role family of standing for sort of military mental health, very clear the way he went about doing that. I think it's a bit less clear now. It seems more clear to me what Megan wants and she's building her business and it's more straightforward. With Harry, it's unclear. You know, we're talking here, what is the point of his Australia visit,

apart from reminding everybody that he stands by veterans? He went to the last post-ceremony in Canberra. He still is in touch with his charities. He wants to promote better mental health. But what's the kind of purpose of it? I mean, that is sort of lost the narrative, hasn't he? Yeah. Julia, can I just ask on that point?

What is Brand Harry that Australians would like to see again, do you think? Because it's not entirely clear. but what do you think Australians want and love from Harry? Well, I think one thing that I would say is whenever you see him with other members of the Defence Force, he seems so at home. He seems like he's connecting. They're talking the same language. It is such a shame that he left the Defence Force because that clearly was where he felt most himself,

where he felt everything was working for him and that he was. was productive working person and could really do his best work. The other thing that I think really cuts through here is his support for men's mental health. There are huge issues with young men's mental health here. And I think there's a big pat on the back for Harry getting heavily involved in that space. And we need more role models in that space. And we need more people like Harry speaking out and speaking out on their own behalf, but also supporting others. And Harry's a very good person for that because he is that happy chap. He is the bloke you want to go down the pub with. I think there is still a lot of affection for Harry. As for where brand

Harry should go, we want him to be himself more. We want him to find his path and be himself and be happy in what he's doing. And tours where he's replicating the stuff that he left behind feel rather bizarre. Because, you know, he wasn't happy doing a lot of that work, the royal work, the handshaking. He was very happy doing the defence work. And he's happy when he's talking to people one on one. These events are not giving him those opportunities. They are PR stunts.

and I think there's still a lot of affection for Harry. I think that it's certainly not all over. But I don't think anyone really believes he's going to go back and live in the UK. He has to make his life properly in America and he's got to find what the path to doing that is. Juliet, it's so great to hear your insights from Australia. Thank you so much for joining us on the world. Pleasure. Thanks. Well, that's it for this week.

If you've enjoyed this episode, please do remember to subscribe wherever you're joining us so you don't miss what's coming next. And next week is a very interesting one because the royal family will be marking what would have been the late Queen Elizabeth's 100th birthday. And so will we. Three years on from her death, has her legacy changed? We would love to hear your thoughts. You can email us at the Royals at the times.com.com. And we might read them next week's episode. But until then,

Thanks so much for joining us on The Royals, and we'll see you next week.