Nevertheless the tour can be broken down into its constituent parts just like any other, whether it is an Ashes tour by the England cricket team, a musical tour by pop idols, one by another royal couple such as Mary and Frederik of Denmark or by another celebrity like Oprah Winfrey. All tours have things in common.

Any major tour is a well-organised, expensive, professional product in which events are organised by the producers and then marketed to achieve a goal. This might be public acclaim, financial return or media attention. But there is always a goal.

The media plays a crucial role as to various degrees do federal, state and territory governments and public services, including the police forces who maintain public order. As the Australian Federal Police have explained, this is a big job.

Opportunities are provided for popular involvement. No one paid for a ticket during this tour but attendance was managed. The ordinary public, either by ballot or on a first-come-first-serve basis, could catch a glimpse, a word or a handshake. Prominent or eminent Australians were invited to private receptions by the Prime Minister and/or the Governor-General. The formula is well-established.

This tour can be seen through many different eyes: the royals themselves, the media, official representatives and those ordinary Australians attracted by the tourists.

Dr Merrick Jones of Kambah, in a letter to the Canberra Times, has written that ''this fabulously wealthy, privileged, unemployed couple and their child are enjoying an incredibly expensive, super-luxury holiday at the expense of the Australian taxpayer''. Among these genuine insights, neglected almost entirely by the media coverage, the missing point is that the royal trio were performing a professional task. Royals are professionals and their job is to perform in a way that enhances the popularity, longevity and constitutional place of their family. They are trained to do so. This is the family business.

This interpretation should be uncontroversial. The British media openly saw the task of these younger royals as to “win over” Australians once again. They are seen as having just the capacities to do so and enjoyed a range of well-chosen experiences in which to shine.

This doesn’t mean that these royal tourists, like other celebrities, sports stars and pop icons, do not enjoy their work and provide value for their audiences. They are attractive and probably very decent people. But they are a carefully presented package.

Australian governments were complicit in setting up this tour for a variety of motivations, including a sense that it is part of their constitutional duty to the monarchy. Royal tours are generally good politics. Politicians and governors, including the republican ones, may enjoy the opportunities for dressing up and making speeches to an uncritical audience in the mood for adulation. They are comfortable, unthreatening events, so long as you keep your hands off royalty. But the declared republicans among them, including the South Australian Governor and the ACT Chief Minister, must in their quieter moments wonder about the circus they are caught up in.

But even they can fall back on the media coverage, including by the huge British royal entourage, as bringing many economic benefits to their state or territory. Royal tourists beget more international tourists. The royal tour then becomes like the grand prix or the Lions Tour in generating tourist dollars immediately and in the future. Politicians just have to maintain their dignity because they are representing egalitarian Australia to the world.

They get precious little assistance from the media in maintaining perspective. The royals sell papers and generate audiences for media business owners. Circulation figures may tell the tale for magazines and newspapers. But it becomes a circular argument whether the media are generating or reporting on crowd numbers as with any celebrity.

The media often project demeaning images of Australian leaders' interaction with royalty. For instance, a Canberra Times reporter queried whether Katy Gallagher, despite her own status and experience, would be nervous about meeting Kate Middleton. When Barry O’Farrell resigned as NSW Premier the media commented that he was missing out on what would have been the biggest moment of his term of office. We live in an upside down society when our elected representatives take second place to young members of the British royal family. Of course our representatives may contribute to this impression as Tony Abbott did when he addressed young William as sir on Anzac Day.

What our representatives and our media do is our business, whereas what private citizens do is theirs. But it all reflects on us as Australians. It is just not possible to subject the comments made by those bedazzled by royalty to rational argument. For some the royal couple appear to represent a fantasy world of princesses and princes, a life beyond their dreams, an escape from everyday life and, perhaps, everyday politics. For others it seems to become almost like some sort of religious experience, which elevates royals onto a pedestal and which brooks no argument.

Ian Warden's “Please don’t fawn over royals” article is right. The most unsettling popular reactions to royalty, which should make us all uncomfortable, are ones which incorporate a belief, expressed in various ways, that they are better than us or represent values that are beyond us as a people. This helps perpetuate hierarchy throughout Australian society rather than the egalitarianism we aspire to hold.

John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.

John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au