The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
My take on the security issues for the Sussexes in GB is that when they stepped back from being working royals for their own reasons quite a few people took it personally as an insult to the RF and also the British people. Their interview, the book etc either made people sympathize more with them or more against them. Not sure about the safety concerns in Columbia but I don't think the citizens there are vested in whether they are working or non working royals. I think their visit will bring attention to Columbia which is why IMO they were invited. I live in the US and I am sure my country is on a few high alert do not travel to lists.
 
My take on the security issues for the Sussexes in GB is that when they stepped back from being working royals for their own reasons quite a few people took it personally as an insult to the RF and also the British people. Their interview, the book etc either made people sympathize more with them or more against them. Not sure about the safety concerns in Columbia but I don't think the citizens there are vested in whether they are working or non working royals. I think their visit will bring attention to Columbia which is why IMO they were invited. I live in the US and I am sure my country is on a few high alert do not travel to lists.
I am avoiding the rehash of old stories, all I will say is yes some of the general public, posters on forums, the media, all share their opinions on the security issue. The bottom line is it is not public opinion that is the deciding factor.
 
IMO he is demonstrating that he does not require the security status he appears to crave, he is free to travel anywhere he wants without fear nor favour. If each country they visit provide them with security then fair enough.
I'm sure Colombia will surround them with massive security; it would look bad otherwise.
However, it also looks bad for Harry to demand status as an IPP and then disregard all warnings about safety. It appears very arrogant and entitled.
 
I believe the CBS interview is specifically about how Archewell is helping combat misinformation and harassment in social media. I hope to catch it as well.

I figured after their Nigerian trip they would be invited to other countries. It's very kind of the Colombian Vice President to invite them. I believe that the trip will also focus on combatting social media misinformation and harassment.

Since said misinformation can lead to severe mental health challenges up to suicide, I think it's an important topic to discuss.

I don’t think Harry and Meghan are really the appropriate people to talk about misinformation. They have proven to be part of the problem.
I have to say that for someone who is extremely concerned about personal safety, Prince Harry is continuing to travel to nations that the U.S. State Department website is giving its citizens and residents caution advice. On the U.S. State Department travel advisory, Colombia currently is considered a Level 3 "Reconsider Travel" status. That was the same rating for two of the nations that the Sussexes' have traveled to in 2024: Jamaica and Nigeria.

Thanks. Level 3- reconsider going.

I nearly laughed when I saw Harry was going to Columbia- given his safety concerns.

It’s been a long time, but my dad used to travel to Columbia on business. No way would I actually volunteer to go there. And I like to travel.

IMO- Harry and Meghan are part of the misinformation problem. Misinformation is a serious problem. But they are hardly the appropriate people to comment on it.
 
Harry and Meghan will visit Colombia in November. The tour will take them to Bogota, Cartagena and Cali.

Why would they go to Colombia?
The specific reason somehow eludes me.
Unless of course it turns out that Meghan is 12½ % Colombian... (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Seriously it puzzles me.

The only reasons coming to mind is that the Colombian VP for whatever reason believe it would a good PR stunt to have H&M around. And H&M will be happy to accept the invitation, any invitation, and get an official semi-royal treatment.

Anyway, despite some heavily armed drugs cartels and a few rebels (I believe they have made peace with the government - right now...) and a habit of kidnappings I don't believe H&M are in any particular danger. With the exception of the odd independent kidnap-gang I doubt anyone in Colombia are interested in rocking the boat.
Certainly not enough danger to cause concerns in comparison to the obvious risks of living in Montecito.
 
Last edited:
The F.O. helped to arrange a visit to Columbia for Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, in November 2023 for a three day official tour. She toured the same places the Sussexes will be seeing later this month. As well King Charles and Queen Camilla went on a tour of Columbia in 2014. So it appears that Columbia is not quite so dire a danger spot as expected. The Sussexes will be well protected anyway.




 
Last edited:
So it's a trip to show off Colombia in a positive light, why else visit the scenic coastal area and the scenic walled city? With the secondary objective of putting focus of women's rights, which is (naturally) a commendable thing to do. - Women in Colombia, as in other places of South America, suffer from domestic violence, including an alarming murder rate, sexual abuse in various forms as well a widespread gender discrimination.
I suspect the Colombian VP is very much using H&M to profile Colombia as a place tourists can actually visit, provided they stay clear of other areas - but then Colombia is a pretty big country! And of course to push forward her own political agenda in regards to the plight of women. Because IMO H&M have very little political weight in regards to such issues. But what they do have is media attention and lots of it! And I guess the Colombians hope some of that attention will also help the tourist industry.
In that light I think it makes good sense (for the Colombians) that this visit is so shortly after the visit by Duchess Sophie, that her footprints can still be seen in the sand. It will also flatter H&M I'm sure.
 
It's a good sign that, four years after leaving as working members of the firm, there are high-ranking foreign officials who still view the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as a good draw for their country. How long this lasts will depend on how beneficial other countries see the Sussexes' visits to Nigeria and Colombia, especially if there remains a dearth (not a value judgement but a statement of fact) of official royal tours.
 
The F.O. helped to arrange a visit to Columbia for Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, in November 2023 for a three day official tour. She toured the same places the Sussexes will be seeing later this month. As well King Charles and Queen Camilla went on a tour of Columbia in 2014. So it appears that Columbia is not quite so dire a danger spot as expected. The Sussexes will be well protected anyway.




What is great though is that Harry and Meghan were invited. 🤓
 
I think that is the point though- to maintain the illusion of being working royals and global humanitarians- which is quite simply, an illusion.

They will always get media attention because of Prince Harry’s background, but in reality, the last four years have been very rough for them. None of their large deals have really worked out, and some of their more recently announced ventures have verged on farce. (I don’t think even their most ardent fans could argue that American Riviera Orchard is going the way it was intended to go.) The only ventures that have really attracted money and attention have been “Spare” and their documentary which ultimately did their reputations far more harm than good, as evidenced by the sharp turns in how public perception of them polls.

Their foundation is tiny, with little money brought in and little money going out to programs and services. It’s also widely focused, which makes very little strategic sense for an organization with so little funding. If you can only afford to suppprt a program or two, they really need to be targeted and well-defined for it to have any impact.

They are getting these “invitations” as private citizens because someone in Colombia believes it will enhance something they want to promote, like tourism. That’s fine, but it’s also not comparable in scope or intent to official diplomatic tours arranged by the foreign office on behalf of the UK government.
 
The F.O. helped to arrange a visit to Columbia for Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, in November 2023 for a three day official tour. She toured the same places the Sussexes will be seeing later this month. As well King Charles and Queen Camilla went on a tour of Columbia in 2014. So it appears that Columbia is not quite so dire a danger spot as expected. The Sussexes will be well protected anyway.





Well yes- high profile people go to Columbia, and it’s fine. It’s still not a particularly safe place to go. It has the reputation it has for a reason.

I still think it’s an interesting choice for the Sussexes due to the safety issue that Harry spends so much time and money on in the UK (of all places). OTOH- their choices of locations may well be rather limited.

I think they want to maintain the illusion of working royalty and being great highly successful humanitarians; trips to places like Nigeria and Columbia let them do that. And, they haven’t been particularly successful at anything beyond family bashing. This allows them certain illusions of success too. It makes them look important.

I imagine Columbia wants the PR and hopefully big tourism boost that comes with the Sussexes visiting. I personally think the latter is rather unlikely. It’s still Columbia at the end of the day no matter who visits.
 
Just a general question but do the royals when they go on tours on behalf of the UK govt do they have any input or are all the places and people they meet chosen for them?
 
Just a general question but do the royals when they go on tours on behalf of the UK govt do they have any input or are all the places and people they meet chosen for them?
I believe they’re planned in collaboration between the Foreign Office (who chooses the places) and palace staff (who are also serving the government) who help tailor it to the individual family member’s profile and interests and what they’d be most able to contribute to.

I’m admittedly not an expert though, and I’m sure we have members focused on the technical aspects of planning who might be able to give examples.
 
Just a general question but do the royals when they go on tours on behalf of the UK govt do they have any input or are all the places and people they meet chosen for them?
TBH I do not know if they do have a great deal of input, the UK government as well as the host will have an agenda, but I think that if the Royal has a particular interest they would try and include it. Or it might already coincide . Or in some cases particular royals are invited/ told because it is connected with their particular interest.
Catherine went to Denmark and it was all children related. Sophia does work with women and vision.
Other times it is because the government of the day want some soft diplomacy.
 
They are getting these “invitations” as private citizens because someone in Colombia believes it will enhance something they want to promote, like tourism. That’s fine, but it’s also not comparable in scope or intent to official diplomatic tours arranged by the foreign office on behalf of the UK government.
This reminds me of something that came up often with the Nigeria trip and will probably come up with the Colombia trip. Many people pointed out that the Sussexes' visit was nothing like an actual royal tour: the events were smaller scale, there weren't a lot of high-ranking officials, there were only dozens of people rather than 100s, etc. But it wasn't a royal tour, nor was it ever presented as such: it was always a visit from two individuals. I would presume that any event involving two private individuals representing only their own independent organization would be much smaller than one for an official tour created by two or more governments for the sake of international relations. Why would that expectation be different because it's Harry and Meghan? Also, the Duke and Duchess seemed really happy with the Nigerian visit and everything they accomplished there. Has there been any indication that they were unhappy with the scale of the visit and desired it to be larger?
 
Is it related to Archwell or Invictus? If not: what is the point of accepting an invitation. esp. as they stopped royal duties a few years ago and had quite enough of the UK, the royal family and royal life. Did the duke not document in one of his books or interview how he disliked public functions? I don't understand anything of this.
 
Last edited:
Why the Sussexes are going to Colombia.

Thank you, this is a helpful article.

There are quotes that make me think of a particularly stern writing professor I had in graduate school.

“The Archewell Foundation, founded by The Duke and Duchess, is renowned for its global leadership in fostering a safer online environment.”

Her red pen would be all over this. She’d want to know who the foundation is renowned by, what is meant by global leadership, and how fostering a safer online environment is measured.

Then there’s this bit “We are confident that their visit will further illuminate Colombia’s role as a beacon of culture and innovation."

She’d say illuminate is too imprecise as a verb, she’d want to know who defined Colombia as a “beacon of culture and innovation” and what criteria they used and she’d want to know how the program specifically advances culture and innovation as defined by these criteria.

I think of her often when reading these press releases.
 
Last edited:
I, like many others, believe that the Sussexes are eager to hold on to royal trappings, despite stepping back and, more importantly, bashing the institution. So yeah, I roll my eyes and think of them as ridiculous.

I often think of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor going to Nazi Germany after the abdication, and that does not bode well, but at the same time Diana's trips to Angola and Bosnia, arranged by the Red Cross IIRC, can also be considered an ex-royal doing quasi-royal activities, and, at the time, she received criticism for those trips.

Time will tell if these trips are seen as a good thing or bad, or vary on a case-by-case basis. The Columbia trip seems less problematic than Nigeria, at least in terms of its intent. I hope the Sussexes are properly vetting the politicians inviting them, the activities and security arrangements.

Why the Sussexes are going to Colombia.



I read the link and then there is a link embedded in that statement
While no specific date has been shared yet, Prince Harry and Meghan's visit will come before the first Global Ministerial Conference on Ending Violence Against Children, which will be held in Colombia this November.​
As I read about the conference I kept thinking that this sounds like Sweden's Queen Silvia's work, and lo and behold
Convened by the Government of Colombia, with the support of the Government of Sweden, UNICEF, the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, and the World Health Organization,​

I know that Government of Sweden does not automatically mean Queen Silvia, but interesting connection.
 
The pretty words come from the invitee, the Vice President of Colombia, Francia Márquez!
I guess she tries to justify the invite… She probably felt that writing I like lots of press attention was a bit meager but I cannot really think of any other reason. From H&M’s perspective I somewhat understand that they are doing these tours as in their half in-half out mandate, royal tours were about the only activities they wanted to continue. They weren’t given what they wanted but found a way to still be treated like VIPS and admired by some while touring a foreign country.
 
I didn't see this mentioned anywhere, but Harry and Meghan were part of a story on CBS this morning. They talked about The Parents' Network, a resource for parents who have lost children through online bullying. It wasn't clear from the story what their role is, but Archewell apparently is supporting the new group.

Not really much about them, although Meghan expressed her surprise when interviewer Jane Pauley asked about the "suicidal ideation" that she described on the Oprah interview. She mentioned that she hasn't "really scraped the surface" on being open about her "experience."

She said: "I understand why you are [asking about her suicidal ideation], though – I wasn't expecting it, but I understand why you are, because there is a through-line, I think. And when you've been through any level of pain or trauma, I believe part of our healing journey (certainly part of mine) is being able to be really open about it. And you know, I haven't really scraped the surface on my experience. But I do think that I would never want someone else to feel that way. And I would never want someone else to be making those sort of plans. And I would never want someone else to not be believed."

Here's the transcription of the entire interview on CBS's website: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle launch Parents' Network to address the dangers of online harm

Here's a link to the video on CBS's YouTube channel:
 
The Parents’ Network sounds like a great support for these parents. I think a lot of the time parents don’t even realize what their children are subjected to. Any initiative that helps people get through this pain is good no matter who started this group.
 
[.....]

Harry should have read his great-great uncle ex-King Edward VIII’s biography and he would have had a hint of his future before he bolted.

Alas he probably wasn’t much for reading. You would think that his Northwestern-educated wife would have taken a history class.

JMHO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was a subdued, reflective and intelligent woman I witnessed in the interview from CBS. The only moment that was a ‘bit off’ for me came from Harry. He was a little too pushy/passionate when speaking his view on parenting and being the first responder. I didn’t like it. In fact I would say that a mellowed Meghan was a much better fit for these parents, not Harry.
 
The Parents’ Network sounds like a great support for these parents. I think a lot of the time parents don’t even realize what their children are subjected to. Any initiative that helps people get through this pain is good no matter who started this group.
Social media access and mobile telephones are the biggest threat to mental health in our children. I’m one of the lucky ones and my child is safe today and she is 20. My heart goes out to the parents who have lost children to suicide. My heart goes out to Meghan also. I think when we finally hear from Meghan in a fuller sense it will be in the form of her own autobiography. I for one will be buying a copy.
 
I watched Jane Pauley's interview on Sunday Morning today. Harry and Meghan met with a group of parents who all lost their children to suicide. Glad to see the Sussexes Archewell Foundation support/help fund their new Parents' Network program. I hope they are successful.
 
Back
Top Bottom