In a striking departure from traditional royal engagements, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s recent tour of Colombia has garnered significant attention—not for what was said, but for what wasn’t. Unlike the usual royal walkabouts, characterized by open interactions and the exchange of pleasantries, the Sussexes’ visit was marked by tightly controlled and largely silent public appearances.
Since the late Queen Elizabeth II popularized the practice of meeting crowds face-to-face, royal walkabouts have become a cherished tradition, symbolizing the connection between the monarchy and the people. However, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex seem to have taken a different approach during their four-day sojourn in Colombia. The couple’s interactions with the public were so limited that video footage of their meetings was released to the media without sound, leaving many to wonder about the substance of these encounters.
For instance, during their visit to a school in Bogotá on the first day of the tour, the footage provided showed Harry and Meghan engaging with students, but without any audio. The same occurred the following day when Harry participated in a sit-down volleyball game with Invictus Games athletes in the capital. This lack of transparency contrasts sharply with Harry’s previous, more open engagement at a similar event in Nigeria just three months earlier, where reporters had full access to his remarks.
The tour, organized by the Sussexes’ Archewell Foundation in collaboration with Colombia’s Vice President Francia Márquez, was intended to highlight issues such as cyber-bullying and mental health. However, the controlled nature of the tour and the absence of meaningful public discourse have led to criticism from both local and international observers.
Meghan’s address at a forum on “Afro Women and Power” in Palenque de San Basilio, a village with a rich history founded by former slaves, was one of the few moments that included sound. Yet, the disconnect between her sermonizing on self-expression and the silent tour was palpable. Critics have suggested that the couple’s selective transparency may be a reflection of their desire to control their narrative, especially given their previous openness in airing grievances in high-profile interviews and Harry’s tell-all memoir.
Adding to the controversy, it was revealed that only a trusted magazine writer was allowed to accompany the Sussexes, ensuring that media coverage remained uniformly positive. Journalists who strayed from the approved narrative faced swift repercussions. Several were removed from a WhatsApp group managed by the Vice President’s office for reporting on the tour in ways that displeased the organizers. Others were reprimanded for merely asking questions of a school principal during a visit in Cartagena—questions that were answered without issue.
Back in California, the couple’s achievements during the tour remain unclear. Critics, including local politicians, have dismissed the visit as a mere publicity stunt. In a country where 42% of the population lives below the poverty line, the perceived extravagance of the tour has sparked backlash. The costs associated with the Sussexes’ visit, particularly the security expenses, have drawn sharp criticism from Colombian opposition figures. One politician remarked, “The bill for security will be astronomical—a fact people will not easily forget.”
Right-wing senator and 2026 presidential hopeful Maria Fernanda Cabal was particularly scathing in her assessment, stating that the tour “brought absolutely no cultural exchange or anything of the sort.” She accused Vice President Márquez of engaging in “showmanship” disconnected from the realities facing Colombia, a nation grappling with significant economic and social challenges.
As the Sussexes return to their life in the U.S., their Colombian tour has left behind a trail of questions and criticisms. While the couple may have intended to raise awareness on important issues, their tightly controlled, soundless approach has only fueled further controversy, leaving many to question the true impact of their visit.
