Harry and Meghan: Tour of Southern Africa - September 23-October 2, 2019

[ACO]

Originally Posted by muriel

Given how young A will be at the time, why do Megan and Archie bother going, let Harry go and do the tour on his own?

Why not go? There is no pressing issue to not travel. I have been on planes with babies that age and younger.

Originally Posted by Abbigail

I anticipate that there will be criticism no matter what they decide. So Harry and Meghan should go with what works for them and not worry about what angle people will run with to criticize them.

Basically. They will do what is right for them. People will fine fault in anything and everything regardless.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I find this question to be a bit odd. A woman with a child that age can work. Most of my friends who have had children went back after 12 weeks, although the lucky ones get some adjustment (one of my friends requested not to travel until her child is 6 months old since she can’t take the baby with her and she was still breastfeeding). And if they think they are ready when requested by FO, why wouldn’t they go? Like traveling at any age, it’ll be more difficult than when it was just them, but obviously they aren’t first ones to travel with a baby.

> It is not about your friends having to go or being able to go back to work at 12 weeks. If Meghan is keen to return to regular royal duties at 12 weeks, I do not believe anybody would stop her. There will be plenty of places in the UK that could do with royal patronage and attention, and I am sure she would do a very competent job.

>However, if she has not returned to full time duties and merely pops up on the tour, the optics certainly will not be great. It will be easy to interpret it as it is ok to be on leave for UK duties, but not for South Africa.

> As regards requests from the FCO, I am sure the FCO will be contend with the Duke carrying out those engagements. I don't believe they will be carrying out engagements of such a sensitive nature that the maternity leave of the duchess needs to be interrupted. That has certainly never happened for either the Queen nor for the previous Princess of Wales.

> Not that we know the specifics of the trip just yet and so this may be a bit premature, but I just can't see the point of dragging a 4-5 month old baby to SA, having Meghan do a few engagements with Harry, wait in SA whilst he does the rest of the tour to return to SA and then come back. Eager as she is, the question to ask is if all the costs and work involved in putting all of this together will be worth it from the point of view of the FCO? Perhaps it is better for the Duke to do the trip on his own.

[Lumutqueen]

I genuinely don’t understand why people are questioning Meghan and Henry bringing their son on tour with them. I’d actually question it if they didn’t bring Archie with them. They can, so why not?

The FCO has asked both Henry and Meghan to go and it’s clear this tour has been planned for a while with important elements for both of them.

The criticism is just unreal.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I genuinely don’t understand why people are questioning Meghan and Henry bringing their son on tour with them. I’d actually question it if they didn’t bring Archie with them. They can, so why not?

The FCO has asked both Henry and Meghan to go and it’s clear this tour has been planned for a while with important elements for both of them.

The criticism is just unreal.

Right.... I wouldn't leave my 4-5 month old behind without either parent if I was going to be away for more than a couple of hours.

[Hanim]

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

Right.... I wouldn't leave my 4-5 month old behind without either parent if I was going to be away for more than a couple of hours.

Amen to that, i cannot understand either. People will find anything to bring them down

[loonytick]

Let’s be honest, no matter what they choose, someone will declare that the optics are a disaster. Whatever royal or royal couple is most in the spotlight at any given time, there’s such a rush by all too many royal watchers to respond to the tiniest scrap of information with a declaration that the public will be mightily displeased, with strong hints that the monarchy itself could be threatened by such a PR SNAFU.

Truth is, we don’t yet know much of anything about what this trip’s schedule looks like, much less how it will come off to the broader public. I mean, it’s a given that some will be displeased and some elated no matter what, but we don’t have even half enough information to make educated guesses about what the broad public opinion will be. And that’s super normal! First comes the broad announcement, with details to be rolled out bit by bit, as always.

[Mbruno]

I agree with Muriel that, if Meghan feels she can go out of maternity leave in six months' time to tour South Africa, then she should also resume official royal duties in the UK by the same time. Otherwise she will attract negative criticism and the usual allegations that she is taking a taxpayer funded vacation (even if her presence on the tour is explicitly requested by the FCO).

[muriel]

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

Right.... I wouldn't leave my 4-5 month old behind without either parent if I was going to be away for more than a couple of hours.

I don't believe anybody is suggesting that the baby be left without the mother. I am only questioning why the maternity leave needs to be interrupted at M&A have to be taken to Africa when Harry could well do the tour himself.

[ACO]

When was it announced Meghan is just going on tour but continuing her maternity leave? Did they announce the tour itinerary? Someone please fill me in. Clearly I missed it.

I get the feeling even if Meghan started working next week people would find fault in that too. Oh wait... they have. I am still seeing comments on how evil she was for not attending the state dinner.

I think the parents know what is best for their own child.

*shrug*

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I agree with Muriel that, if Meghan feels she can go out of maternity leave in six months' time to tour South Africa, then she should also resume official royal duties in the UK by the same time. Otherwise she will attract negative criticism and the usual allegations that she is taking a taxpayer funded vacation (even if her presence on the tour is explicitly requested by the FCO).

There is nothing that says that Meghan won't be doing engagements, only that she isn't traveling to the other countries and will stay in one. If the rumors (via Chris ship) are correct and the tour is in September, Meghan will only be 4-4.5 months postpartum not taking the full 6 months so maybe that was taken into consideration with her travel plans.

Originally Posted by muriel

I don't believe anybody is suggesting that the baby be left without the mother. I am only questioning why the maternity leave needs to be interrupted at M&A have to be taken to Africa when Harry could well do the tour himself.

The Foreign & Commonwealth offices asked for Harry and Meghan and she agreed. Being that she is ending her maternity leave early and the knowledge that this will be her 3rd tour in 1.5 years of marriage/working royal shows me that she is serious about the role.

[DuchessMia]

Let me get this straight. Meghan’s first events post-maternity leave will be a tour and people are complaining that she needs to do something in the UK first? She’s working at the behest of the Foreign Office and representative of the Queen and people are still complaining? And she isn’t even taking the full 6 months and people are still griping about her? Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

[theroyalfly]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I agree with Muriel that, if Meghan feels she can go out of maternity leave in six months' time to tour South Africa, then she should also resume official royal duties in the UK by the same time. Otherwise she will attract negative criticism and the usual allegations that she is taking a taxpayer funded vacation (even if her presence on the tour is explicitly requested by the FCO).

She's already maligned and treated unfairly by the press. This trip is no different. We can only speculate. But considering Meghan's virtue, she must have been requested to join too and she can't let that go since Africa is close to her heart.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by muriel

> It is not about your friends having to go or being able to go back to work at 12 weeks. If Meghan is keen to return to regular royal duties at 12 weeks, I do not believe anybody would stop her. There will be plenty of places in the UK that could do with royal patronage and attention, and I am sure she would do a very competent job.

>However, if she has not returned to full time duties and merely pops up on the tour, the optics certainly will not be great. It will be easy to interpret it as it is ok to be on leave for UK duties, but not for South Africa.

> As regards requests from the FCO, I am sure the FCO will be contend with the Duke carrying out those engagements. I don't believe they will be carrying out engagements of such a sensitive nature that the maternity leave of the duchess needs to be interrupted. That has certainly never happened for either the Queen nor for the previous Princess of Wales.

> Not that we know the specifics of the trip just yet and so this may be a bit premature, but I just can't see the point of dragging a 4-5 month old baby to SA, having Meghan do a few engagements with Harry, wait in SA whilst he does the rest of the tour to return to SA and then come back. Eager as she is, the question to ask is if all the costs and work involved in putting all of this together will be worth it from the point of view of the FCO? Perhaps it is better for the Duke to do the trip on his own.

Did I miss the part where they announced she'll only take a break from maternity to do this? Have the full Fall and Winter schedule been announced? Do women, and especially royal women, always return to full time schedule right away or do they ease into it overall and make adjustments along the way? Even without maternity leave, royals typically have less packed schedule in UK as they are on tour as they are only in the country for a short period of time. It seems that people are jumping to premature conclusions just to criticize her for something.

And since none of us have insight to FCO's thinking, I think we should questioning if it's worth it from FCO's point of view without evidence. This is obviously the final version they all agreed on was the best. I'm sure if they didn't see the point of the Duchess being on tour, they could've just asked her not to go as they are footing the bill for travel and accommodation on this. They clearly see value for the money as they agreed to it. I'm sure they aren't shy if they have concerns.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by muriel

I don't believe anybody is suggesting that the baby be left without the mother. I am only questioning why the maternity leave needs to be interrupted at M&A have to be taken to Africa when Harry could well do the tour himself.

Someone upthread said they should leave Archie in UK. Or Meghan shouldn't go if she can't agree to that. So yes, it was suggested.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That can be partly fixed by arranging a relevant parallel program for Meghan in SA while Harry is away (and leaving Archie with the nanny in the mean time), but my personal opinion still is that Archie should be left home in the UK or, if Meghan wouldn't agree to it, that Harry should travel alone to Africa.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Did I miss the part where they announced she'll only take a break from maternity to do this? Have the full Fall and Winter schedule been announced?

This is what I’m confused by. Nobodies said such a thing. We don’t even know long Meghan’s “maternity leave” is going to be, we didn’t even know it had started.

[Osipi]

As this is the first overseas tour for Harry and Meghan since the birth of Archie, I believe it sets the precedence for the family that if they're going to be away for an extended period of time, they're going to be traveling as a family. Children included. This isn't something new either. It sends a clear message that as working royals, they also put their families first and include them if they're going to be away for an extended period of time. I like this. It shows they're human and not puppets on a string.

Personally, I feel that those that complain about the "cost" or "taxpayer monies" or "expenses incurred" see the whole thing in terms of monetary cost and are leaving out the importance of the family unit, familial closeness and relationships (especially with a baby so young) and see the world in green dollars that aren't even coming out of their own pockets. Harry and Meghan know what is best for them and their family and this trip is being arranged so that they can go as a family.

I'm looking forward to following this tour however they work it. I'm going to enjoy it for what it is and take it as it comes and leave the details to those that take care of details.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

This is what I’m confused by. Nobodies said such a thing. We don’t even know long Meghan’s “maternity leave” is going to be, we didn’t even know it had started.

Ofcourse it started. Doesn’t maternity leave always start right after the baby is born?
People are now criticising her for things that might happen, but haven’t happened yet? Maybe they should wait a bit.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Ofcourse it started. Doesn’t maternity leave always start right after the baby is born?
People are now criticising her for things that might happen, but haven’t happened yet? Maybe they should wait a bit.

In many countries maternity leave starts before the actual birth. In the UK it starts at the earliest 11 weeks before the calculated week of birth while in my home country of Sweden it's possible for it to start 60 days before the calculated date of birth.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Someone upthread said they should leave Archie in UK. Or Meghan shouldn't go if she can't agree to that. So yes, it was suggested.

Yes, I do think that, other than if Meghan is still breastfeeding, leaving Archie in the UK is better for him than taking him on such a long overseas trip to Africa.

The best option of all, however, would still be for Harry to go alone. If Meghan’s presence was indeed explicitly requested by the FCO, I wonder why, especially, when they know she is still on maternity leave and probably will still be four months from now.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Yes, I do think that, other than if Meghan is still breastfeeding, leaving Archie in the UK is better for him than taking him on such a long overseas trip to Africa.

The best option of all, however, would still be for Harry to go alone. If Meghan’s presence was indeed explicitly requested by the FCO, I wonder why, especially, when they know she is still on maternity leave and probably will still be four months from now.

I'm not sure why it's an issue here. It's not the first time for a baby to go on tour with their parents. It's been normal to do so since the previous generation. I'm not sure what is the difference between The Sussexes traveling with their baby versus others who traveled with their babies.

It doesn't mean Meghan should just stay home now that she has a baby. If she feels she'll be up for it and there is no reason Archie can't go, there is no reason not to go. If there is a reason he can't go, they wouldn't have reached this decision.

Based on what I read in the annual report, it seems that trips carried out are decided on by a committee which include both Private Secretaries to certain royals and government officials. FCO requests royals for tours, and then they will determine who should based on a variety of reasons.