Have Prince Harry and Meghan Markle "Reinvented" the Royal Tour?

With the help of savvy politicians and an ardent fanbase who wear blinders, the Sussexes profit from the status of Monarchy while removing themselves from any accountability for its history

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: The Prince and Princess of Wales in Jamaica in 2022 (Top) and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in Colombia this month (Bottom). Only one was labeled a problem. — Credit: Getty Images

“On their tour of the South Pacific, Harry had looked out of sorts. His relations with the media pack had been prickly and strained. On the five-hour flight back from Tonga to Sydney, his press handlers promised that he would come to the back of the plane and thank the media for coming. The hours passed with no sign of Harry and Meghan.”

- Excerpt from Courtiers by Valentine Low

When Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced their departure from royal duties in 2020, they promised to “carve out a progressive new role”. They envisioned building bridges with “grassroots media organisations, young, up-and-coming journalists and credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting”. Many eagerly embraced this progressive, utopian-sounding model and looked forward to the Sussexes innovative and reformist roles to come. Even more rallied to defend the Sussexes, embracing their perceived anti-monarchy, anti-royal tour, anti-taxpayer funded stance and lifestyle. The challenge, Dear Readers? Jam-making simply doesn’t offer the same level of prestige or earning potential whilst Monarchy remains a lucrative brand.

Nearly five years and two faux-royal tours later, it’s our belief that the Sussexes’s “progressive new carveout” looks increasingly like a pale, tightly-regulated imitation of what they left. With the backing of savvy, “vain” politicians and a devoted following wearing selective blinders, Harry and Meghan are maneuvering a course which enables them to capitalize and profit from Harry’s royal lineage without being held responsible for its historical shortcomings. They bask in the privileges of royalty, shielded from the scrutiny that others face, while claiming to serve the people. And that Dear Readers, isn’t forward-thinking or modernizing. It’s self-serving.

[For a deeper dive into why which other actions of theirs have escaped scrutiny, check out our April newsletter titled “White Savior Tourism: Why Prince Harry and African Parks won't receive the scrutiny they, rightfully, deserve”.]

Prince Harry's Charity Facing MORE Torture Claims

A stream of glossy images.

Valid criticism from councilmen and important leaders, whose voices should matter.

Select footage released with no sound.

Local journalists and photographers barred from covering events and removed from WhatsApp groups when they ask questions.

Scrubbing debunked tales from the official record to save face.

Netflix used as justification for an invite. Being feted by wanted criminals. Admissions of being used as political pawns to drum up “tourism”. Angering local politicians and citizens. Racking up an ₱8 Million peso ($2 million USD) security bill for Colombian taxpayers to cover (where 60% of the Afro-Colombian population lives in deep poverty). And a tight-fisted control of the press that’d make Pyongyang proud. Our assertions are grounded in fact. The list of supporting evidence is extensive.

Why Nigeria? Why Colombia? The link will surprise you.

Welcome to our Analysis: Faux royal tours, the Sussex Way.