Prince Harry and Meghan are going on a high-risk trip to Colombia of their own volition. Photo / Getty Images
The Duke and Duchess are embarking on a high-risk trip to Colombia of their own volition - and alarm bells are already ringing.
Wherever the Duke and Duchess of Sussex travel, so do the eyes of the world.
When they went to Australia as newlyweds, they were dubbed the “republican slayers” for a charm offensive which saw them announce they were expecting their first child. In South Africa, Meghan’s “I am here as a woman of colour and as your sister” speech echoed around the Commonwealth.
Even in Nigeria a few months ago, when they were no longer representing Britain, they highlighted the Invictus Games - in which Nigeria became Africa’s first participant - and the Duchess’s own 43% Nigerian heritage to great effect.
Next, Prince Harry and Meghan will travel to Colombia. The question on lips on both sides of the Atlantic is: Why?
The Sussexes and their spotlight will not be there on behalf of the British government. They are not working members of the royal family or known to be representing a particular charity, nor do they have any public history or heritage in the country.
They are receiving no advice from the British Foreign Office, whose briefings and guidance underpin all official royal tours. Now, days before they are even due to arrive in Colombia later this week, the trip is generating controversy, with claims reported from Bogota their “star power” is at risk of being “manipulated” by a government “drowning in scandal”.
The King’s younger son and his wife have been invited by Colombian Vice-President Francia Marquez, who announced the trip herself by saying they had “kindly accepted my invitation to visit our beautiful country”.
“We are confident that their visit will further illuminate Colombia’s role as a beacon of culture and innovation,” she said.
That Colombia is beautiful and full of rich culture is unquestionable. However, the description does not capture the political turmoil in the country, which just last week saw Colombian President Gustavo Petro accuse the commander of rebel forces of paying to have him assassinated by snipers.
Both the UK and US warn tourists against travelling to parts of the country, and Britain’s representative at the United Nations told a UN Security Council last month that they “remain concerned about persistent levels of violence and threats” in some areas.
Petro, the first left-wing politician in the role, is reaching his mid-term point and faces criticism for promised reforms that he has been unable to get through. Tens of thousands of citizens took to the streets to protest against his social agenda earlier this year, with further disquiet expected as the summer rolls on.
For the Colombian government, the incentive for a high-profile, high-impact visit from international celebrities is clear.
A country which has struggled to overcome its reputation for drugs and kidnappings will gain a whole new audience of potential tourists from photographs of ex-royals smiling at government-organised engagements, dancing at music festivals, and banging the drum for the vice-president’s key causes.
For the Sussexes, it is also high-risk.
Questions about who is paying for their travel, accommodation and security have not yet been answered, although it is suggested the Colombian government will ensure a high level of security as they travel with Marquez - who has defended her use of a Black Hawk helicopter for her commute to Bogota.
There is no clear narrative yet about why that particular country or continent was chosen other than that the government issued an invitation the Sussexes were happy to accept.
“The Sussexes’ trip to Colombia is likely to generate more headlines internationally than it is in the South American nation, where most citizens have little interest in the British royal family and may not even know who the couple are,” says one journalist working in the region.
“Nevertheless, Meghan and Harry’s global fame means that their visit will shine an international spotlight on the communities and issues that they encounter during their four-day trip.”
The natural meeting of minds between the Sussexes and Marquez is evident - women’s equality, the environment and her pioneering role as the first Afro-Colombian elected to her position.
She has been criticised for her travel at taxpayers’ expense and has responded, saying of the press: “Anything I say, they’re always trying to twist my words.”
Elizabeth Dickinson, a Crisis Group expert based in Bogota, said: “Francia Marquez really has an incredible story of rising up from very humble, difficult beginnings to become a prominent, effective campaigner on social issues.”
“One of her primary missions as vice-president is to bring visibility to the issues of social justice that she cares so much about, especially racism and gender issues. I would interpret this trip as an effort on her part to showcase this for an international audience.”
The trip is also likely to feature a nod to the Invictus Games founded by Prince Harry, with Colombia the only South American country to take part, as well as the Sussexes’ new campaign for child safety online.
Meghan spent time as an intern at the US embassy in Argentina at the age of 20 and speaks fluent Spanish, which is likely to help smooth the pair’s encounters with Marquez.
But for long-term royal watchers and historians, the trip rings some alarm bells.
The last members of the royal family to tour in such high profile under their own steam were the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, whose poor judgment and lack of advice greatly damaged their reputations.
While there is, of course, no risk of the Sussexes getting embroiled in anything equivalent to emerging Nazism, as the Windsors did in 1937, for some, there are some parallels in the approach of the two couples. Prince Harry and Meghan will be travelling with their own small team of staff, but without the British government advice on in-country protocol and global politics they had to hand in the royal family. One source, familiar with the work of the Foreign Office, dismissed the trip as “utterly irrelevant” to British interests abroad.
At Kensington Palace, Prince Harry and Prince William both benefited from the advice of Sir David Manning, a former ambassador to the US and Israel. In California, Prince Harry and Meghan have been relying on a recently appointed chief of staff, Josh Kettler, a former executive at Patagonia, the outdoor clothing company, whose LinkedIn profile describes him as “an experienced executive accelerator, organiser and confidant”. On Tuesday it was reported Kettler had parted ways with the couple after just three months in the role.
Anna Pasternak, author of American Duchess: The Real Wallis Simpson, said there was a “real parallel” in terms of non-working royals being invited by foreign governments as “private citizens”, and accepting.
Of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor’s trip in 1937, she said, “They accepted because Edward felt so hurt and angered by the way Wallis had been rejected by the royal family and he desperately wanted her to experience the pomp and ceremony of a royal tour.”
“He wanted Wallis to be addressed as ‘HRH’ and for people to curtsy to her. I’m not suggesting that Harry wants the pomp and ceremony of a royal tour, but there is a feeling that he’d like [to elevate] Meghan to the status accorded to her.
“You feel they really value the approval of the people of the country they’re visiting. They can go and be honoured in their own right.”
She added: “When you have this quasi-royal status, you’re seen internationally as a royal and you’re treated as such on tour, but you don’t have the protection of the Foreign Office. This is a high-risk tour for them.”
“When a country invites you, you’ve got to wonder, ‘What’s the agenda?’ In what way does this fit into the narrative, and how they want to be seen on a global scale?”
Michael Cole, the former BBC royal correspondent, said: “There is a danger of their celebrity and willingness to help underprivileged people is being undermined by a certain naivety.”
One source further warned of a future risk of getting into “Prince Andrew territory”, where royals find themselves surrounded by those with money and their own agendas.
The reaction in Britain has been muted; the lack of crisis meetings at the palace became notable after years of drama from their former working family members in Montecito, California.
The Sussexes are not the first royals to travel to Colombia. The Duchess of Edinburgh was there just last year for a programme which saw her also meeting Marquez. Then-Prince Charles visited in 1974 and again with then-Duchess of Cornwall Camilla in 2014. But in each case, the trips came with the guardrails of official advice from those steeped in protocol and the potential risks for the royals in question.
The Colombian president has already offered a robust rebuttal of criticism of the trip. Responding to a British report on how they had “chosen to visit one of the most dangerous countries in the world”, he tweeted: “Dangerous countries are those that emit CO2, non-dangerous countries are those that absorb CO2.”
And if there are any diplomatic missteps, the public may never know.
The trip itself will be covered by a reporter from a hand-picked publication, with official photographers and videographers shooting material to be issued later. The coverage for Colombia and the Sussexes will no doubt be glowing.
The question, then, is: What happens next?
As the invitations from other countries in need of a little stardust roll in, how will the Sussexes manage the risks of being roaming royals without the safeguards of royal life?
Why eight hours a night is the sweet spot for sleep.