When is a royal tour, not a royal tour?

They are using their titles for personal financial gain and publicity. They're not introduced or referred to as Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, but the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

If they had any integrity they would not use the titles bestowed upon them by the late Queen with the specific caveat that they were not to trade on them.

Rosie51

Ever thought of sourcing links that aren't behind paywalls Granatlast? Although what other Royal behaviour has to do with it all I'm at a loss. For someone who claims I don't get distracted by red herrings. suddenly you're referring to a story about Pippa Middleton, which I haven't read because it's behind a paywall. I'm amazed you obviously have a subscription to the Telegraph, wouldn't have thought it was your cup of tea.

And cyclists! 😁
Talk about red herrings.

foaming at the mouth 🤔
There's only one poster foaming at the mouth on here, methinks and it's one who claims that they actually don't care about the Royals.

They are private citizens but we know who they just like loads of other well known people - the Beckhams etc. royal titles are just that- made up names bestowed by ancestors who gave themselves land, castles, palaces , privileges by murdering or out manoeuvring any other contenders. Anyone could call themselves Prince, Lord or Baron Hogwash and noone would care but hey guess what Harry is the son of the King and so would attract attention whatever he called himself. So even without a title he would get attention.

I don't think you understand the digital world, RosiesMawagan,(sic) influencers, social media platforms. information exchange, corruption, pornography, the dark net, networks you can't even begin to know about if you only read the Telegraph and the Mail, in fact you are helping the Sussex Royal Brand stay alive by being on this thread! That is what you don't understand

What rubbish you do spout!
Apart from slagging me off - I understand a heck of a lot more than you give me credit for, I dont read the Mail and I am fully aware of the other elements you allude to but proud to say my familiarity with the dark web, pormobraphy, corruption etc is entirely theoretical.
What do you expect to gain by bandying these concepts around especially in connection with the Sussexes? Street cred? Perceived wisdom? Or are you implying they are part of all that sinister side? Do I need an elderly poster on Gransnet to instruct me in the digital world - perhaps in between advising me on crochet, knitting Shreddies or walking frames?
Words fail - apart from "totally irrelevant! "

Love my typo for pornography

I see Granatlast's last post got deleted, ironically the one where she used exclusively Telegraph links, while simultaneously insulting RosiesMawagain by referring to her only reading the Telegraph and Mail. Very strange.

Do I need an elderly poster on Gransnet to instruct me in the digital world - perhaps in between advising me on crochet, knitting Shreddies or walking frames?

I'm not sure that Granatlast007 is elderly herself, RosiesMawagain as she appears to despise eighty-somethings.

Have we been infiltrated?
Thought Meghan would be too busy to look at Gransnet.

So those people saying he’s only getting attention because of his title - do they think he wouldn’t get a mention without it? Andrew Whatsit gets plenty.

Harry will always get attention, another speech about his mother

vegansrock

So those people saying he’s only getting attention because of his title - do they think he wouldn’t get a mention without it? Andrew Whatsit gets plenty.

No, he will always get attention because they seek it.

I take your point, though, if he was Captain Henry Markle of Paddington, London, he wouldn't have warranted another mention - unless he'd written a controversial book about his time in the military.

The title is neither here nor there as far as the media goes. We know they print any old tosh about people the public are nosey about. Why do the Beckhams get so much attention? She hasn’t been a Spice girl nor he kicked a football in years, but they engender oodles of gossip- nothing to do with titles.

Firstly Prince Charles and Diana were divorced when she tragically died. She had been involved with other men. So why was the late queen expected to make so much of the funeral.
Secondly, Harry and Meghan are not very bright. Nevertheless, unless you have lost someone suddenly as Harry has (and I have) you have no idea how you are affected by this. He will never get over losing his mother and the bitterness will never leave him.

You have to wonder about this need to trash Harry all over the place, insist he is a liar but maintain an absolute silence about little spoiled boy ANDREW. I put his name in caps because if anyone is a liar, he certainly is and his behaviour is astonishingly appalling, why aren't we having a column destroying him and his reputation as a ROYAL?

Erm..... maybe because this is a thread about ROYAL TOURS granatlast007 and as far as I'm aware, ANDREW hasn't so much as stuck his head outside his front door for months, let alone go on a tour of Australia. Feel free to start a "column" about nefarious activities 9f ANDREW but this one isn't it. clue is in the title

I don't give a stuff about either of them

vegansrock

The title is neither here nor there as far as the media goes. We know they print any old tosh about people the public are nosey about. Why do the Beckhams get so much attention? She hasn’t been a Spice girl nor he kicked a football in years, but they engender oodles of gossip- nothing to do with titles.

David Beckham I believe is an Ambassador for several of the Kings Charities, is designing a garden for Chelsea Flower Show with the King.

Victoria is a successful (after many years) fashion designer and has her own cosmetics range.

Cardamom

^And, how does she know?^

She knows in the same way that she knows that she was secretly married to Harry 3 days before the actual wedding even though the claim was thoroughly denounced by any family members and officials And she knows that a member of the royal family made racist comments about their unborn child even though Harry subsequently retracted the claim And she knows that the royal family took away her passport and wouldn't return it even though she travelled overseas several times during that period But she definitely didn't know that Harry was a Prince when she went on a blind date with him even though she had Googled both him and William And she most definitely didn't know anything whatsoever about the royal family --even though there are photos of her, as a young teenager, standing outside Buckingham Palace with a friend--

Brilliant summation 👍

wow, this thread is still running

Yes, I'm a little surprised it's in the top 10 out of 50 in the News and Politics section!

Yes, it was never intended to be a thread, or column about Andrew, so I've no idea how that came about.

And to the poster who called it a classic case of framing shaping perception, in order to influence belief in your personal opinion, eat your heart out seeing as you started a thread in N & P which had zero posts!

Anyway, it's a wrap. The tour, Royal or celeb is done and dusted. I can't say I would have rushed to attend the girlie afternoon tea party with Meghan for £1,800. I wonder if there were scones and Victoria sandwich on offer, or fruit cake with royal icing?
Have a good weekend! 🍷

😁

I'm so surprised at the normally sceptical, sensible Australian public gushing so much over these celebs.

Now, if it was Hugh Jackman I could understand it.

The Australians haven't exactly been falling over themselves to pay £1500 to spend an evening with her at her Best Life girly night; they're still trying to flog tickets.

It’s a shame that Harry, yet again, feels the need to criticise his father by saying he wants to give his children a better childhood than he had.
Not a way to build bridges

He doesn't want to build bridges sundowngirl and if I was a member of his family, I wouldn't want to either.

Sundown: It’s a shame that Harry, yet again, feels the need to criticise his father by saying he wants to give his children a better childhood than he had. Not a way to build bridges

Smileless2012: 'He doesn't want to build bridges sundowngirl and if I was a member of his family, I wouldn't want to either".

Many people want to give their children a better childhood than they had for many reasons. Perceiving this as unfair criticism of the King is just that- projected criticism based on a biased perception.

The Royal family, like the majority of families world wide, over the ages, experiences relationship ups and downs and a proportion strained relationships and some estrangement. Few children in those families, world wide, over the ages, however have come into the world as a son of a royal heir and have their from birth onwards played out in the world's media. Of the very very few children born into such circumstances few of those were born to an royal heir, in a toxic, warring marriage, also played out in the media, with a mistress in the background, cared for by nannies, sent away to boarding school at a young age and whose mother died in a fatal car crash whilst a child.

Such circumstances would damage many. There is little point or projecting Harry, Meghan, the King or the Royal family as to either role of saints or sinners. Life and relationships are never that simple or black and white.

You don't have to like H and M, you don't have to read about them, you don't need to 'give them a break' and you don't have to fund them.

Harry constantly bemoans his childhood and criticises his family Lemsip so when he says he wants his children to have a better childhood than the one he had, it's obvious that it's yet more criticism.

If there's any biased perception it's predicated on Harry's behaviour.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Well, I suppose they must have some fans, even on Gransnet!
Do you read the Daily Mail, then Syracute, as you seem to know the content?

I don't.

I think the discussion points are valid ones.