Prince Harry and Meghan’s huge Aussie plans revealed. Visit to Sydney and Melbourne in Mid-April​.

[ThatAvidViewer]

Prince Harry and Meghan’s huge Aussie plans revealed. Visit to Sydney and Melbourne in Mid-April.

EXCLUSIVE

More than seven years after then-newlyweds Prince Harry and Meghan embarked on their hugely successful Aussie tour, the couple is reportedly heading back Down Under.

A source confirmed exclusively to news.com.au that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are planning to visit Sydney and Melbourne in mid-April.

While their last trip to our shores was in an official capacity as working members of the royal family, this time around they’re travelling as private citizens – and it’s understood they’ll be focusing on activities related to their businesses and philanthropic work.

Details of their specific plans remain unclear, but it’s been rumoured that Meghan will appear as a guest on the Her Best Life podcast, which was initially launched and co-hosted by Jackie “O” Henderson and Gemma O’Neill through their “Besties” company. Earlier this year, just a couple of weeks before her high-profile and abrupt recent exit from her KIIS breakfast show, Henderson revealed that she had decided to “step away” from the venture.

It’s rumoured that Meghan will also appear as a special guest at an upcoming “Besties” event, following in the footsteps of previous VIP speaker Gwyneth Paltrow.

The actress took part in a wide-ranging Q&A with Henderson back in 2023 which attracted around 3,000 ticketholders to the ICC in Sydney’s Darling Harbour – so Meghan’s appearance could be in a similar capacity.
Despite Henderson’s recent departure from the Besties company, she hinted last month that she may return in some capacity in the future - and perhaps Meghan’s involvement could be one such occasion.

Gwyneth Paltrow was the special guest at a Besties event, run by Henderson (left) and Gemma O'Neill, back in 2023 – and Meghan is now rumoured to follow in her footsteps. Picture: Supplied
While details of the couple’s itinerary are expected to be confirmed in the coming weeks, it’s likely that Harry’s plans will involve Australia’s armed forces or veterans’ community, given his strong connections to both.

It’s understood he also has a number of friends locally, fostered across multiple previous visits, including during his month-long stay with the ADF at an army barracks in Darwin back in 2015.
And in his 2023 memoir, Harry gushed over his time living in Australia as a 19-year-old in 2003.
He wrote in Spare that working as a jackaroo on a farm in rural Queensland had helped him find inner peace during what were “some of the best” weeks of his life.

It’s not yet known whether the Sussexes’ children, Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4, will join them on the trip next month or stay back at the family’s home in Montecito, California.

News.com.au understands that the royal couple’s Aussie visit has been in the works for almost a year.

Yes that’s my recollection as well. WLM which aired in early 2025 was actually filmed the year before.

Doria always looks to me to be ‘composed’ but I also sense she is walking on eggshells. Probably had to get used to that with TM, raising his hideous teens and then her own prickly precocious DD.

One thing MM would have been disappointed by at Balmoral is the publicity opportunities. It is very private - it covers 78 square miles of mostly mountain and moorland with a very low density of visitors (who are mostly walking up lochnagar or round loch muick) and the area around the castle was always closed to public when the RF were in residence. The gate is nearly a mile from the castle. Sure there were masses of press near the gate by the next day but you couldn’t ‘accidentally’ be spotted by them and the number of people were much much smaller than London and much more controlled (they stopped parking near the castle and people had to park at Ballater or Braemar, both more than seven miles away, and take a bus to the castle).

Not that that would have stopped her taking notes though.

Which is why that time the Queen was 'papped' driving Carole Middleton all over Balmoral it was a deliberate message to stop all the rumours in the press that the Middletons weren't welcome and were overstepping their role in Kate and William's life.

This is the nub of my problem with H& M - why did they think it appropriate or a reasonable ask that M be there, after that she had said and done (and this is just tge stuff that we know of). That was total batshittery on their part.

In terms of being the only other Grandchild there in addition to William - unlike any of the other Grandchildren, Harry and William alongside Andrew and Charles (immediately prior of the Queens death) were Counsellors of State and responsible for carrying out the Queens duties whilst she was incapacitated.

I don't see the relevance of them being Counsellors of State.

First, the Queen didn't have a significant period of being incapacitated, for which CoS would be required.

Secondly, Harry is not a working member of the RF, and lives abroad, so would not in practice be called on to act as CoS. That was one reason why Princess Anne and Prince Edward were made additional Counsellors.

The following day all the other grandchildren came up - presumably to say their own farewells and they all went to a church service and then looked at the floral tributes at the gate. Not one had a spouse with them. It was just them and their parents.

If that was always the plan - and they'd had years to think about all of this, then as soon as Megzit happened, Harry should have been briefed that he would be would be part of the grandchildren group all showing up together the next day without spouses.

Unless it was just so unexpected that Harry and Meghan were actually in the UK when it happened.

I still can't believe his recounting of the phone call he had with his grieving father, berating him about Meghan.

Anne and Edward were not made additional counsellors until after the queen died. The fact they were not needed in their role of counsellor of state does not mean the role did not exist. The point is Harry did have an additional constitutional role to other grandchildren prior to the Queen’s death. Once the Queen died, he and William were also the only ones of the grandchildren who were children of the monarch. So there were reasons to treat him differently to his cousins.

Not that that would have stopped her taking notes though.

And being interviewed at length for a prime time show on her return to the US so she could spill the beans on every little detail. For a huge fee, of course.

Just to develop this point, for most of us treating all grandchildren the same seems most ‘fair’ and logical. But this is a family whose whole existence rests on birthright, order of precedence and line of succession. It was one thing that annoyed MM - that this order of precedence also operated within the family not just in public. I suspect it must have grated that Beatrice and Eugenie were higher in the order of precedence than her if Harry was not present.

Anne and Edward were not made additional counsellors until after the queen died.

Correct; before the late Queen died Prince Charles would have been one of the Counsellors of State.
Once she died he was monarch, and the number of CoS practically available reduced, especially if he and the Queen were abroad, hence the need for the additional two.

The role certainly exists; the duties typically include Privy Council meetings, receiving ambassadors, signing documents/granting Royal Assent.

My point is that the role is irrelevant in this instance. It's not a ceremonial role related to a monarch's death. It carries specific duties, which Harry was not eligible to fulfil.

They had to change the law to make Anne and Edward CoS - when the Queen died it fell to Beatrice as the 4th adult in the line of succession. But like Harry, she is not a working Royal. Nonetheless Harry and Beatrice remain CoS and if Harry were to return to the UK he could undertake the role.

Yes, I know - I've read the Regency Act.

Harry remains CoS due to his 'domicile of origin'. However, the Royal Household was clear in 2022 that non-working royals would not in practice be called on to act as CoS.

Interestingly, there is not a requirement to use Counsellors of State. The wording is 'the Sovereign may ... delegate ... and may in like manner revoke or vary any such delegation'.

This parliamentary briefing is an interesting summary.

Regency and Counsellors of State

Honestly? Yes, absolutely.

The fact that AMW and Harry are still CoS and in the LoS is a nonsense .
I know people will say that neither are likely to become Monarch or be required to be a CoS but the optics are bad .
Both AMW and H have behaved appallingly in different ways .

As CoS state - they clearly should be removed. But not so sure about the line of succession - either we have a system where people are in the line of succession due to birth or we do away with the monarchy and elect a president. The whole point about the line of succession is we don’t get to choose. Though I think if PH ever were in that position I am not sure the monarchy would survive.

It is a conundrum. God forbid something should happen to the entire Wales family. I do worry about it. Not keeping me awake at night worrying - hopefully this is very unlikely to happen,(it could conceivably be something benign like William throwing in the towel and making that decision for his children too) but I am a royalist and a situation that meant the line of succession moved on would be a disaster, and imo the end of the monarchy. I don't think many in the UK would accept Harry as King, let alone Meghan as Queen, and the fact is both are completely unsuited to such a role, so it would be a disaster even with the best support and goodwill (if there was any). Then it is Archie followed by Lilibet. Well they are both young and live in another country, so not realistic candidates. So then it moves on to AMW who is obviously ruled out. Does ruling out AMW automatically disqualify B & E? Anyway, again I can't see them (and their husbands) being acceptable to the public or particularly well suited to the role. Their children are also very young.
Then it is Edward, at number 15, who would probably make a decent stab at the job, and possibly his children might be capable candidates after Edward - if they were prepared to rise to the challenge. Anne would no doubt do a good job but she's not young, and her children have been brought up untitled so that they can live normal lives (of a sort of normality), peripheral to the Royal family.

I agree with @Chainlinkferry that the whole point of the system is we don't get to choose. But the options are not appealing , and not much more appealing even if we could choose.

Of course history is full of spares who ended up with the top job, Henry V111 was one. Queen Victoria's succession involved quite a few deaths higher up in the line of succession. I live near a Ducal estate - the current Duke inherited by virtue of his uncle having died in WW2, meaning the estate passed to his father.

Hopefully Meghan has never seen Kind Hearts and Coronets. I love that film and there was a marvellous radio 4 play "Kind Hearts and Coronets - Like Father, Like Daughter" that was a very amusing sequel.

It's tricky.

I can see why people might feel they don't want certain people there, but that's what happens with a hereditary monarchy; it's simply their position in that line.

With regard to succession, if we ever got to that point, enough horrendous things would have happened (death of a minimum of 5 people in a short space of time) that I'm sure parliament would be considering options. You do, of course, have the issue that any change in the line of succession needs to be approved by all the Commonwealth realms, so a total of 15 independent states all of whom have their own legal processes.

CoS is similar. It's not compulsory to appoint them, but if you do appoint them who they are is defined in legislation*, with the additions in 2022 as discussed. Any changes for them only need to go through the UK parliament (as far as I understand it).

*the Counsellors of State shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign (if the Sovereign is married), and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, are next in the line of succession to the
Crown, or if the number of such persons next in the line of succession is less than four, then all such persons

Crossposted with @ShamedBySiri as I was taking some time and doing other things, but this sentence probably summarises what I meant:

I agree with @Chainlinkferry that the whole point of the system is we don't get to choose. But the options are not appealing , and not much more appealing even if we could choose.

It’s one of the reasons William gets targeted so often - the Wales are a very appealing option and very palatable to those in the vast majority of not really bothered either way people.

Those Middleton genes have gone a long way to creating a picture perfect brand.

If the next in line was Harry, or god forbid Andrew, I suspect we’d be a republic by autumn.

Unless George turns out to be a wrong ‘un we’ve got at least another 70-80 years of constitutional monarchy.

Hopefully Meghan has never seen Kind Hearts and Coronets. I love that film and there was a marvellous radio 4 play "Kind Hearts and Coronets - Like Father, Like Daughter" that was a very amusing sequel

One of my very favourite films, @ShamedBySiri but I'd never heard of that sequel ... really must look it up

The petition against Australian taxpayers’ $$ being spent on the H&M jaunt is slowly but steadily rising. Now at 42,590.

I was just watching a clip of the late Queen's funeral and it struck me that her death was the end of a certain type of monarchy. Charles is the interregnum and how William rules will I think determine whether there is a role for George to step into.

They are cute enough. They will demand security while bleating how great they are for paying for everything else

I agree.

The late queen was born into a caste system, and seems to have bought into all aspects of her role fully. She was to be admired for her sense of duty and service, but her vision was the only one, for 70 years.

Charles seems to want a slimmed-down version of the circus, but still seems to buy in to the concept of the circus.

William has had his mum, and then the Middletons, showing him life outside the circus and questioning how the circus was run. He probably realises what a crazy situation he's in, and is looking for ways to wind the circus down while lot causing a constitutional crisis.

In what way did his mother show him life outside the circus?