So what was the purpo$e of the Australia trip? For Harry to show Charles that being a halfsie royal can work? But work for whom? And at what cost?

From the article:

A source close to the Sussexes insisted that the Australian adventure has been a success - and that the 'half in, half out model' opposed by the late Queen and the Royal Family can work.

'We’ve tested the playbook, it worked,' a source close to the Sussexes told The Daily Telegraph in Sydney as the couple head back to LA.

'They’re doing the right thing. Whether you want to call it half in, half out or – as they would probably describe it – just doing what they want to do and doing it in a really positive way, this week has given us reassurance that it is the right course of action. This could absolutely act as a blueprint for the future.”


And then there's this:

It comes after Meghan received backlash when the outfit she wore to meet survivors of the Bondi terror attack was immediately available for her fans to buy on a website where she is paid a percentage from sales.

( ... )

Meghan is expected to earn a portion of OneOff's sales commission, which ranges from 10 per cent to 25 per cent per item sold.

She is also an investor in the AI-powered fashion business.

Critics have said that the decision to advertise the duchess's 'look' on a visit to meet terror attack survivors is 'the starkest example yet of Harry and Meghan’s efforts to commercialise their royal brand'.


Wasn't the agreement Harry made with Queen Elizabeth not to commercialize his royal status? This "tour" proves that neither of them are "half in", as they've done nothing to support the monarchy or represent GB. They've shown up to promote and commercialize themselves, but no one else. So they aren't "half in" on being royals, they're just all-in on the grift.

===