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.

Costs of judicial review are entirely at the discretion of the court but the usual cost consequences likely apply. Losing party pays the costs. That’s an entirely standard position.

Well i think I would say he is either self employed, free lancer etc.

The point being he isnt in a typical job that requires 9-5 hours 5 days a week as far as can tell thats keep him away from his children like the typical parent is.

Therefore if he is away because of what work he is doing and its a 2 or 4 week trip somewhere a few times a year that doesn't mean he spends less time with his children compared to someone going to work 9-5 all week for most of the year

So unless someone has the data to proof otherwise its unfair to criticise them and say they dont spend enough time with the children with no facts.

Self employed or a freelancer of what? Rent a Royal?

Hmmm I didnt see you remarking or commenting about the fact they cut down protected Amazon rainforest to build a road for COP30 and William attened in person as reported:

In November 2025, Prince William visited the Amazon rainforest in Brazil for the COP30 climate summit, focusing on environmental protection and meeting with indigenous leaders. He criticized deforestation, addressed illegal wildlife crime, and highlighted the role of indigenous communities in conserving the Amazon.

Dont you think its ironic and hypocrital of him to be flying all the way there to go in person to criticise deforestation and be highlighting how important it is to conserve the Amazon when the very event he attended in person cut down millions of trees in the Amazon...

Im sorry but if he is going to lecture and criticise on those points surely by not going and refusing to attend in person because it flies in the face of the very things he is lecturing on would have more of impact by saying I refuse to come in person because cutting down the Amazon to build a road for an event highlighting the importance of our environment is wrong.

So you can criticise H&M all you like but other members of the RF are no better either. They are all hypocrites.

Wish they would STFU and disappear. They have nothing of substance to offer and are a waste of space. Sick of seeing their mugs.

It’s not a tour it’s a holiday with a bit of “work” thrown it. Making official sounding announcements about it makes them look like dicks.

Quite apart from the internal and external legal costs racked up by the Home Office in Harry’s two separate judicial review claims, which would not have been recouped by costs awards against him, Harry has brought another 4 court claims over phone hacking a defamation.

So far his record his two losses on the judicial review application, one defamation case discontinued by him, one phone hacking case settled by Harry after his phone hacking allegations were held to be out of time, he won one case (against the Mirror) and one against the Mail is still ongoing.

Six actionsin as many years plus to date only one win and one settlement makes him a serial litigant - something the courts in the UK actively discourage to protect (publicly funded) court resources.

Thank you.

So easily could have been paid for by the tax payer, if Harry was successful? It’s a genuine question as I’ve no idea.

So he’s not allowed to use court services? aren’t you a lawyer? I can tell you that plenty of companies are involved in litigation ongoing for many years in multiple cases. Do you have any objections to say - Google using the courts? Or banks? They all win and lose cases over and over again every year. Using the same court resources.

Thanks once again for the summary, @Serenster; among the acres of reporting it's good to have it all in one place like this

Just one thing though ... I think it was the sun case which Harry settled (?), but I think you said the settled one was also the case which was held out of time?

Not for the first time I'm confused; if it was out of time, why would the Sun have paid up and apologised?

Is that to me @kirinm ?

it was a genuine question.

It's still true though, they are free to do what they want and the consequences fall on them. It isn't the crown who get criticised for Meghan drinking water in public on Ramadan, it's Meghan.

Would i prefer them to stop cosplaying royals, yes, but as no one can stop them I think it's better to keep reminding ourselves that in the grand scheme of things they are very minor, powerless irritants despite all the grandiose speeches and statements.

Late reply sorry, I've put timers on my phone!

Sorry no that was for @Serensterwho has an issue with prince Harry using court resources.

Tax payers pay for the government to function. Our tax would go to paying the salaries of the home office staff and the lawyers who work in it. I think a lot of the ‘spending our money’ tedium was about the costs the home office would spend in dealing with the court case. Whether or not costs were awarded - I don’t know - but yes the home office would potentially be liable for adverse costs.

The discussion arose from this comment in a previous post:

And it's not my taxes funding them either.

which led to people pointing out that to date we are funding security for Harry, and that there have been certain court costs, also funded by the taxpayer.

On a different note, apparently Meghan is wanting to expand As ever to Australia

https://archive.is/4vzA1

I'm surprised as my general impression of Australian social media is that they are quite critical of Meghan. They have little tolerance for " real" Royalty and I can't imagine them being impressed by " wannabees".

Flattered but not interested, as usual.

The courts are there to be used to resolve genuine disputes that cannot be resolved otherwise. Not as a tool of a PR strategy (see Harry’s defamation action where he was trying to hit back at the inconvenient - though accurate - news reporting that he had only made the offer to pay for his own RPO security after he had already sued the governement to reinstate it). Or as part of a wider crusade that has already been reviewed at length (see the judicial criticism of Harry’s barrister in his current case for trying to drag in other irrelevant issues).

And you say banks and Google are constantly in the courts. This is true, but if you were a commercial litigator you would know two very relevant factors here:

• Large corporates are far more often sued than they bring claims themselves - they are viewed as being “deep pockets” and so are often dragged into court by claimants hopping for a financial settlement. And if you are a defendant, you have no choice about being involved in the court process.

• At a small level, debts customers owe banks, and various rights under credit agreements can only be enforced by court action. So banks have to bring individual court claims or hey just write off vast swathes of debt (which would cost consumers more in the long run).

Large corporates also recognise that litigation is both costly and risky (financially and reputationally) so they have well-developed internal governance processes to make sure that any litigation they commence has been well-thought through and is supported by robust advice as to their prospects of success. They don’t tend to see themselves as a “dragon slayer” fighting crusades about issues that matter to them via the courts, as Harry sees himself. Or to shore up their reputation. It’s a big difference.

Is Harry actually paying tax in the U.K.?
do we know?

Why would he be paying tax here he doesnt work here...

I don’t think he “work’s” anywhere

He will pay UK tax on any U.K. investments or income.

Was just reading an article where Harry claimed that it was the Oz tour that he and Meghan went on that finished it for the RF. The RF realised how popular she was so the campaign to bring her down . Hence why they left. Hmmm...

In reality, how can she ‘expand’ to Australia or anywhere. Netflix cut her business lose, in her only market and her home market, they wouldn’t have done that if all was looking fantastic. It is probably the deathknell for her business.

Maybe they are looking to emigrate ? 😜

i know you are joking @Thedom! But Australia has very strict emigration rules, nobody without legitimate work are eligible!
so sorry Harry ex working royal or kings second son, just doesn’t cut it.