Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's recent arrival in Colombia for a four-day tour has ignited a firestorm of criticism, with detractors accusing the couple of hypocrisy over their stated security concerns about visiting the United Kingdom. The Sussexes touched down in Bogotá on August 15, embarking on a trip that has reopened debates about their relationship with the royal family and their approach to public engagements.

The controversy stems from Prince Harry's continued assertion that the UK poses significant security risks to his family. In a recent documentary, "Tabloids on Trial," the Duke of Sussex expressed his reluctance to bring his wife and children to his homeland, stating, "It's still dangerous, and all it takes is one lone actor, one person who reads this stuff to act on what they have read. And whether it's a knife or acid, whatever it is, and these are things that are of genuine concern for me."

Critics have been quick to point out the apparent contradiction between these concerns and the couple's willingness to visit Colombia, a country with its own security challenges. Adam Brooks, a commentator speaking to GB News, did not mince words in his assessment: "I've never hidden my thoughts on these two, I really can't stand them if I'm honest. He's as wet and as hypocritical as they come, and she's one massive diva."

Former Labour Minister Bill Rammell, who has firsthand experience with Colombia, added weight to the criticism. "As a minister, I went to Colombia three times, and I only went with protection officers because it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world," Rammell stated. He went on to characterize the Sussexes' comparison of UK security to that of Colombia as "hogwash."

However, Rammell also offered a more sympathetic perspective on Prince Harry's situation. "He's a damaged young man, he lost his mother at a very early age and that's clearly scarred him," he noted. "He's estranged from his father and his brother, and speaking as a human being, not a monarchist, I think that's very sad."

The Colombia tour, which follows a successful trip to Nigeria in May, is intended to focus on issues such as online safety for children. Yet, this agenda has also come under scrutiny. Emma Webb, another commentator, questioned the relevance of the Sussexes' initiatives to the pressing concerns in these regions. "For young people in both Colombia and Nigeria, online harms are probably the least of their worries and the two of them just seem so out of touch," Webb argued.

The controversy surrounding the Colombia visit is compounded by recent staffing issues within the Sussex camp. The departure of their chief of staff after just three months in the role has raised eyebrows and prompted calls for a reassessment of their approach. Rammell advised, "They need to hire some decent staff. More importantly, they need to listen to them and bluntly be told what to do because they're trashing their brand."

Despite the backlash, supporters of the couple argue that their willingness to engage in international diplomacy and humanitarian efforts should be commended. The invitation from Colombia's vice president, Francia Márquez, suggests that there is still significant interest in the Sussexes' platform and potential influence.