And you don’t think that the many charities & foundations supporting Ukraine can be classed as a campaign? What does constitute a campaign then?
You tell me. You used the expression.
Are you saying that most British people have roots in Africa?
I would have thought it was fairly obvious I was talking about people in the Caribbean.
Yes. I am writing from the UK, on a UK hosted platform so when I say ‘most’ I refer to the UK readership. Not host nations. It didn’t look like the Jamaicans were terribly happy to host so I would imagine they’d have been delighted if Ukraine had diverted The Duke & Duchess from attending.
There seems to have been a mixed reception to the visit. There were protests, and there were also crowds of people waiting to see them, as was no doubt expected.
However, cancelling a visit which will have been planned at a very high level for months or even years would have been very awkward diplomatically. As has been said repeatedly, wars have been pretty much a constant throughout the queen's reign, even if Sky News wasn't providing live updates or half of Twitter didn't add the country's flag to their profile. Nobody was demanding that royal tours or other soft diplomacy be suspended indefinitely, or that the money saved be donated to a 'campaign'.
However, your post misses the point that rising fuel & food costs make this seem all the more extravagant
I don't actually disagree with that. I think the tour is a bit cringey and seems like a relic from another age. However, it's a Jubilee year and these countries are for the time being at least, Commonwealth realms. So they couldn't really be left out. Going forward, more Commonwealth countries are likely to become republics and I doubt we'll see too many tours of this nature in the future.