The UK Government appeared to distance itself from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s pseudo-royal tour in Jordan. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent two days in the Middle East to highlight the humanitarian efforts by the Jordanian authorities and a range of agencies supporting the health and wellbeing of Syrians and Palestinians who have sought sanctuary in Jordan over the decades.
Harry and Meghan travelled to Jordan at the invitation of Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organisation (WHO). The Sussexes carried out various engagements and met with officials and diplomats, including being hosted by the British Ambassador in the capital, Amman, Phillip Hall.
The UK’s Foreign Office was criticised for the meeting, with former Tory minister Tim Loughton saying it was ‘entirely inappropriate’ that they were guests of Mr Hall, given the couple’s claim to be private citizens.
The Foreign Office declined to comment on the Sussexes’ visit to Jordan, but a source with inside knowledge of the trip set the record straight.
They told the Daily Mail that the British Ambassador had not invited Harry and Meghan to his Iftar reception – the meal Muslims eat at sunset to break their fast during Ramadan.
They clarified that the invitation was extended to Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who then brought the Duke and the Duchess along as his guests.
The source “insisted” that the British Government was not involved in any way in “arranging or facilitating their trip because they are ‘private citizens’”.
Harry and Meghan said in a press release this week about the meeting: “At sunset, the Duke and Duchess joined World Health Organisation officials and Embassy staff at the British Ambassador’s residence for Iftar as day one closed with a renewed sense of urgency and resolve.”
A royal source called the reception an “intriguing part,” saying: “Once again, British diplomats are involved.”
Mr Loughton added: ‘They are not working royals and do not represent the British Government or UK PLC. Given their capacity to say unhelpful things which border on political, giving them an official platform could be construed as them saying something that represents official UK policy.
“It would be legitimate for the embassy to assist on security issues and neutral briefing but not anything that platforms them on what should clearly be seen as a private visit by private individuals.”
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.express.co.uk ’
