Their trip — the first since their widely followed 2018 royal tour — instead sparked debate, particularly around Meghan’s body language in public appearances.

As videos from their first day in Melbourne spread across social media, some viewers began making comparisons, accusing Meghan of imitating other royals.

“Stunts like this is EXACTLY why the titles need to be cut. They are gaslighting the public… and now they’re subjecting the poor Aussies to the same grifter a*use,” one netizen wrote.

Others were even more direct, with comments like: “She’s desperately trying to act like Catherine!” and “Reminds me of the Diana years.. phenomenon.”

A Private Visit With Public Attention

Unlike their 2018 tour, this visit is officially private and self-funded, combining charitable engagements with commercial appearances. The couple’s itinerary includes events focused on mental health, community support, and veterans.

On their first day, they visited several locations, including the Royal Children’s Hospital, the Australian National Veterans’ Art Museum, and McAuley Community Services for Women, where Meghan appeared solo.

At the hospital, they spent time meeting patients and families, shaking hands, taking photos, and accepting gifts. The visit also echoed a past moment, as Princess Diana visited the same hospital in 1985.

One young patient, 12-year-old Novalie Morris, shared her experience: “I gave Harry flowers and he said ‘thank you’ and he told me to ‘keep on being brave.’ It cheered me up a lot and I’ll keep thinking about that.”

During the visit, Meghan reportedly responded warmly when addressed by her title, saying: “Call me Meg.”

Criticism Over Body Language and Optics

Despite these interactions, online reactions quickly turned critical. Some viewers focused on Meghan’s gestures and demeanor, accusing her of copying both Princess Diana and Catherine, Princess of Wales.

“Literally copying Prince William and Princess Catherine. So pathetic,” one commenter wrote.

Others went further, criticizing the overall setup of the hospital visit. “Absolutely disgusting that the hospital wheeled out obviously sick children for this ‘ego trip!!’” one person said.

Another added: “This makes me angry. They’re treating this as a quasi-royal tour, not a private visit.”

Several critics questioned why the couple appeared to be receiving large crowds and attention despite no longer being working royals. “What the actual f**k is this? They are doing a pseudo-royal tour here,” one wrote.

Defenders and Context

Not all reactions were negative. Some pointed out that Meghan’s gestures — such as bending down to speak to children at eye level — are common in public engagements and not unique to any one royal.

It was also noted that Harry and Meghan continue to support charitable causes through their foundation, Archewell Philanthropies.

Questions Around Motives

Beyond body language, some experts suggested the visit may serve broader purposes. Royal commentator Giselle Bastin described the trip as a “desperate attempt to monetise their status as royalty,” adding that their current appearances resemble a “quasi-royal tour.”

She also referenced past remarks attributed to Meghan, saying: “During the 2018 tour, Meghan was overheard to say that she couldn’t believe she ‘wasn’t being paid for this’, and the irony is that this time she is coming to Australia and being paid.”

While there is no confirmed evidence that the couple is being paid for the visit itself, Meghan is scheduled to headline a luxury women’s retreat, with tickets priced up to $3,199, and Harry is set to speak at a separate summit.

A Divided Public Reaction

As the visit continues, reactions remain sharply split. While some see meaningful engagement and charitable intent, others view the tour as overly staged or self-promotional.

“It’s insulting, honestly. Crowds to meet 2 private citizens who brought nothing with them besides a camera crew,” one critic wrote.

In the end, what was meant to be a high-profile return has once again placed Harry and Meghan at the center of a familiar divide — admiration on one side, skepticism on the other.