<\/p>\n
Prince Harry<\/a> and Meghan Markle<\/a> have made the same \u201cmistake\u201d and divided opinion with their latest move in Jordan<\/a>, a PR expert has claimed. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent two days in the Middle Eastern country<\/a>, carrying out engagements to highlight the humanitarian efforts of 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.<\/p>\n During their two-day visit, the Sussexes met Jordanian leaders and senior health officials, engaged with WHO teams, visited frontline health and mental health programmes and met World Central Kitchen staff co-ordinating food relief for Gaza from Amman. However, some royal watchers were not impressed with the couple\u2019s latest pseudo-royal tour, with one person calling it a \u201cuseless exercise\u201d.<\/p>\n Others defended the couple and praised them for their efforts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Now, a PR expert claimed that if Harry and Meghan keep using the same \u201cformula,\u201d it will always result in divided opinions among the public. Renae Smith, founder of PR and branding agency The Atticism<\/a>, told the Daily Express: \u201cFrom a PR lens, the visit wasn\u2019t meaningless, but it also wasn\u2019t transformational.<\/p>\n \u201cIt followed the now-familiar Meghan\/Harry formula: humanitarian settings, carefully curated visuals, light diplomacy tone, no institutional framework behind it.<\/p>\n \u201cThat structure is always going to divide opinion, considering who they are and what position they have (or more importantly, don\u2019t have).\u201d<\/p>\n Ms Smith added that for a visit like that to have an impact on public perception, the Sussexes would have to deliver \u201cmeasurable impact, a strong narrative hook, or a defining moment that cuts through the noise\u201d.<\/p>\n Ensure our latest royal headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. <\/strong>Click here to activate<\/a><\/strong> or just add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n But she said: \u201cThis trip had none of those. It felt casually competent, but not strategic.\u201d<\/p>\n She added: \u201cCritics see a scaled-down royal tour without the official mandate. In brand terms, it maintains their existing base and continues the exact same arguments for and against them, but it doesn\u2019t expand it, heal it, or fix it in any meaningful way.<\/p>\n \u201cShould they continue? Only if they tighten the framing. If these visits are positioned clearly as foundation-led, impact-measured humanitarian work with \u201cIf they continue to visually echo royal tours without institutional legitimacy, the \u2018cling to titles\u2019 criticism will keep resurfacing. It\u2019s not about whether they should travel. It\u2019s about narrative control and clarity.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n