Nigeria?

[MaturingCheeseball]

Can this be true? That Harry and Meghan are off on a “royal” trip to Nigeria? What’s the game now? My head is spinning!

Say what?

It would depend why the President was visiting Nigeria.

Nigeria has chosen to be a Commonwealth Country. The interesting point is that, as King, Charles has no say over the government or their policies. He is not an autocrat.

Me neither.

I think someone is being deliberately obtuse.

🙄unless it's Harry.

Eh?

Charles is Head of the Commonwealth. He does not have to be. He has a choice.

It has been said many times that Harry and Meghan going to Nigeria are lending legitimacy to a corrupt regime. But if that is true, then Charles is playing a greater role in lending legitimacy.

As a visiting Head of State. Like Charles (representing QE2 at the time)

@NoisySnail What Charles, President Biden et al do is irrelevant to this conversation, tbh.

I personally don’t think that H&M are making the best choices. I’m a dual citizen so I’m not anti-American, I’d genuinely like to see them make a success of their lives here.

I don’t think this trip is going to help them at all, I don’t know who advises them.

@smilesy The President of the US is more than a Head of State and may be visiting to negotiate treaties, or other initiatives. Charles is only Head of State, a ceremonial role.

Charles does not lend legitimacy to any commonwealth country, because it is their choice to be a member and they rule themselves.
Harry and Meghan are not people with such roles anymore.
Charles would not go to self promote, or promote any clothing or products.

Of course Charles lends legitimacy. I am shocked you think anything else. Charles is Head of the Commonwealth and this lends legitimacy to the Commonwealth as a whole and to individual members.

Members of the royal family visit foreign nations having been requested to do so by the governments of both nations. That is part of their role, and they can't refuse to visit because the country is not a Western liberal democracy, in much the same way they have to smile and indulge in polite dinner table conversation with the likes of Trump.

Meghan and Harry are private citizens who found freedom from those obligations. It's not the fact of them visiting Nigeria in itself which is suspect, but that their reasons for doing so seem rather murky. Unless you know better?

And if Charles did not lend legitimacy by being the Head of the Commonwealth, they could draft in any old civil servant to carry out the role. They have not. The Queen held this role and now the King. Queen Elizabeth was reportedly very proud to be Head of the Commonwealth and viewed it as an important role.

Why are you comparing a CHIMPO and an influencer to a Head of State?

@IcedPurple Of course the Royal Family could refuse to visit a foreign country and the Foreign Office may sometimes advise this. But for the sake of diplomacy there would not be an outright refusal. An excuse would be made about the business of their schedule.

Oh fgs. Charles as (now) monarch is Head of State. He visits at the behest of the government. The president of the US Head of State. He too represents the government. He is not “more” than Head of State. He doesn’t suddenly decide to visit somewhere without the government of the US being In agreement

I'm shocked you think that I am shocked at the head of an organisation visiting a member of said organisation for ceremonial or other purposes.
I am shocked that Harry wants to visit Nigeria, being too terrified to go to St Paul's Cathedral without significant UK taxpayer funded security.

@IcedPurple what does CHIMPO mean?

This is fun 🤣. There was a similar one on another thread where someone kept refusing to believe H&M lied. It went on for some time.

Chief Impact Officer.
I can't remember what the business actually does, or what his impact is, but he's certainly a chief.

@NoisySnail To me, the next step would be to protest to the actual UK government ( The people you elect):

1. The inclusion of the UK in the Commonwealth if you don't like the members ( possibly another financial hit for the UK)
2. Charles stepping down as Head of the Commonwealth, which might not go down well with other members.

I would personally add that the elected government should also:

1. Make it clear that Harry is not making a royal visit.
2. Make it clear to Invictus that transparency should be provided in their use of funds.

The President is a political figure who may be actively involved in political negotiations.
Charles as King is a ceremonial role. It is not a political role and he would never be involved in political negotiations.
You really can not compare the roles, they are very different.

Charles has a diplomatic role on behalf of the government.