The British media was furious that they had zero access to the Sussexes’ Colombian tour

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s tours this year have been hugely successful. Their multi-day trip to Canada was focused on the Invictus Games and honoring First Nations and the larger Whistler community. Their tour of Nigeria was specifically undertaken to highlight Invictus and veterans’ causes, plus it was a celebration of Nigerian culture and, frankly, tourism. The Sussexes’ tour of Colombia was in the same vein, although I think this tour was more based on Meghan and women’s empowerment and racial issues within Colombia. Yes, there were Invictus and veterans events too, but the bulk of the visit was about celebrating Colombian culture, art, race and women.

That still isn’t enough for the Telegraph, which published this completely snide piece at the end of Harry and Meghan’s tour: “More questions than answers over Harry and Meghan’s Colombia visit: The Sussexes’ quasi-royal tour produced a stream of glossy images, but reasons behind it remain a mystery.” This reminds me of Kamala Harris releasing a detailed plan to decrease grocery prices and it was called “gimmicky,” meanwhile Donald Trump stood by rotting groceries and ranted about Hillary Clinton and no one said anything. Like… the Telegraph is so clearly mad that Harry & Meghan’s quasi-royal tours are better and more substantive than the neo-colonialist dumbf–kery that passes for the Windsors’ “royal tours.” But Harry and Meghan are held to a different standard, apparently.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s four-day quasi-royal tour of Colombia generated a stream of glossy images, along with gushing reports of locals cheering and children dancing. But as the couple head back home to California, questions remain about why they chose to visit this troubled Latin American country and what exactly they managed to achieve. There were woolly statements about “uplifting communities” and “showcasing the nation’s heritage”. But why Colombia and why now? Many feel as baffled today as they did before the couple set foot in Bogota.

Part of the answer may lay in the fact that the entire trip was carefully filtered through their own PR lens. Unlike a traditional royal tour of old, the media were not invited, save for one handpicked reporter whose job it was to relay each event to newspapers and other outlets across the world. The chosen journalist was an online reporter from US publication Harper’s Bazaar, who duly filed a brief overview of each engagement. As the Sussexes had no doubt intended, it was a saccharine-sweet account that took a broad brush approach to detail.

There were very few quotes from anybody, forcing media organisations keen to present a full account scratching around for snippets of video and local accounts published online in an attempt to piece it all together. With no access, there is no independent scrutiny.

The couple, now operating as private individuals no longer reliant on public funds, can do as they please. It was part of the reason they turned their backs on the royal household and its many constraints, after all. But by throwing a veil over the tour, they have simply thrown up more questions than answers.

[From The Telegraph]

Completely unhinged: “There were very few quotes from anybody, forcing media organisations keen to present a full account scratching around for snippets of video and local accounts published online in an attempt to piece it all together.” You mean that two private people traveled to Colombia after being invited by the vice president, and the British media barged into the country, demanding access to events and they were forced to… do their jobs as journalists instead of being spoon-fed briefings from a royal comms secretary? “With no access, there is no independent scrutiny.” And? Do you think Harry and Meghan are public servants? Were they elected to public office? Where’s this smoke for Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Sophie and Edward as they constantly make asses out of themselves internationally with very little in the way of “independent scrutiny.”

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

77 Responses to “The British media was furious that they had zero access to the Sussexes’ Colombian tour”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. SAS says:

    “British media barged into the country, demanding access to events and they were forced to… do their jobs as journalists instead of being spoon-fed briefings from a royal comms secretary?”

    I’m constantly embarrassed for how inept these royal reporters come across in their own articles. I’m picturing Kaiser as Elle Woods – “what, like it’s hard?”

    No words for how gorgeous Meghan is in these pics.

    • Cali says:

      Her skin is absolutely luminous. She looks vibrant and beautiful.

    • JanetDR says:

      Meghan is glowing! 💗

    • Again Harry and Meg were invited to talk about Invictus and their other charity work. This should not baffle so many as to why they went to Colombia. I think what really baffles them is that the leftovers are never invited they have to invite themselves. They are all just jealous of the WORK that Harry does for others. They don’t understand that concept and they never will.

      • Folks seem to be forgetting that the Sussexes were invited to talk about cyberbullying, and Invictus.

        They participated in a panel discussion on the topic and it was publicized as one of the major reasons for their trip.

        “Prince Harry and Meghan participated in a panel for the Summit on Responsible Digital Future, where they talked about fostering a safer environment for young people in the age of social media.”

        In a powerful speech, Meghan told attendees: “It doesn’t matter where you live. It doesn’t matter who you are. Either you personally or someone you know is a victim to what’s happening online. And that’s something we can actively work on every day to remedy.”

        “Prince Harry echoed Meghan’s sentiments. He told onlookers: “For as long as people are allowed to spread lies and abuse, then social cohesion as we know it has completely broken down.

        “Now what happens online within a matter of minutes transfers to the streets.”
        ~ Harper’s Bazaar

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Like @Idles said – addressing cyberbullying was a key feature of their working visit!

        Harry & Meghan’s principal cyberbulliers in the UK press are trying to gaslight, rather than admit that the UK press’ own behaviour is the reason they have no access.

        Just admit it Rota – you’re all racist af, and THAT is why you will never be invited to Meghan’s BBQ.

        Feel bad? Go lick the bottom of a pot of “Duchy Originals” jam.

  2. ncboudicca says:

    How anyone could read that newspaper article and take it seriously is beyond me. It reads like it’s deliberate satire from The Onion, only less funny. Sometimes I wonder if that’s what the writer is going for; yet knowing it will be printed and read at face value.

    Anyway…every article in the British press about Harry and Meghan just reminds all of us that the UK has boring grifters living off the people’s taxes and making profits off the people’s lands. I’d love to see a real ROI summary on those losers…

    • swaz says:

      The British media is like Trump, whiny whiny 😎 same old show 😎

      • Gill says:

        What’s wild is that the one reporter feeding back is EXACTLY the way the royal rota operates (hence their name so they all get a turn!) Suddenly it’s turned into a sycophant writing for pure PR with no independent scrunity but when it’s one of the rota doing it it’s ’reporting without fear or favour’??? Got it….🤦‍♀️ SMDH

      • Christine says:

        Exactly, Gill.

    • Kathleen says:

      I hate to bring it up, but does the UK media understand the meaning of IRRELEVANT? Are they in the habit of travelling over 5500 to cover the every move of every IRRELEVANT couple they know?

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Dear Rota:

        “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya

  3. Amy Bee says:

    Cry more, British press. Harry and Meghan have no obligation to invite the British press or to tell them anything. I love this for Harry and Meghan and the British press brought this on themselves but they will never admit it.

    • Hninzi says:

      Love the way the British press is made to expiate their sins against Harry and Meghan. Love the way H & M gets the last laugh

  4. Hypocrisy says:

    You don’t invite your abusers anywhere with you, and when they show up that is called stalking. Loved the rumors that the rota were kicked out of the WhatsApp group chat. Also there is a change this year, the Sussex’s just shine and the others are frankly looking unhinged. Peg especially is reminding me of Trump, except instead of rage post Peg rota rages. What they have failed to notice is they are really pissing people and countries off with all the slander and attacks. Maybe it’s time the left overs come out of hiding and actually represent their country with a little dignity, the entire institution looks like pathetic buffoons.

  5. Rapunzel says:

    The Fail had an article screeching about Harry was in for a “telling off” for putting his arm on the back of his female translator’s chair. Implying … ????? IDK.

    They say what they want, access or not.

    • Wagiman says:

      That’s the usual M abuses H shtick they perpetrate. Angry /abusive black woman trope they’re determined to push. Harry is led by the nose, etc. It’s their usual.

    • Tessa says:

      They are totally off the wall. And these articles talk about how unhappy he looks. These writers want to appeal to the derangers.

      • Darkwing Duck says:

        100% I think these takes originate in deranger spaces on social media. It’s not something that would ever occur to most regular journalists even ones with a clear mandate to write negatively. It’s the kind of poring over detail and close reading you get from anti-fans freeze framing and the like, same as the ‘Meghan prevents Royal Fan [actually Sentenbale co-chair fact fans] from standing next to Harry’ narrative.

        I saw a post on twitter that the Monagasque RF have forbidden the photo sharing site Getty from publishing photos of their events if the photos are then licensed to the Daily Mail! Had enough of the body language experts and who can blame them.

        Why should anyone cooperate with people who hate them and worse, *profit from that hatred*? Let the DT take down its paywall and all its adverts, if scrutiny is the issue….

    • Tessa says:

      It’s incredible that a man who loves his wife is dominated by her according to deranger spin. Do these writers think that men should treat their wives badly. Not a word said about how William pulls his arm away when Kate tried to show pda.

  6. s808 says:

    They still want that royal access from people they don’t treat with the level of decency and respect a royal usually receives. Several publications had full access and write ups (including H&M’s own website), if they couldn’t piece much together from that then that sounds like a skill issue.

    • Dee(2) says:

      They are lazy, but they want to be the ones breaking the stories. They don’t want to have to get the stories from an embedded reporter from Harper’s, or People. And they don’t want to have to ask for photos from an Archewell photographer. Their ability to curate what the public knows and sees, is how they kept control. They want the fear of them writing a less than flattering article or using less than flattering pictures to be what makes the BRF play ball. The Sussexes have completely removed that option from the table. They hate it. And I wish they would stop with the whole, ” they left the monarchy because they only wanted to make money nonsense”. They offered you guys the right of first look at tours just like this, and you crowed ” no half in or out”, if you don’t want to do what we say then leave and make it on your own. They did.

      • s808 says:

        Completely agree and it’s why I’m dreading IG27. With these people having first look, they’re going to completely derail the publicity that should be the vets. I still don’t get the decision but hopefully IGs reasons are sound and they have a plan for this. Expecting BM to respect the event and the veterans is foolish.

      • Jais says:

        I’ll be curious @S808 to see how much they lock down the press in Birmingham. Just bc the press is there in the country doesn’t mean they’ll get access to the events. I foresee some members of the BM getting mad that they don’t get the access they were expecting.

  7. equality says:

    I wasn’t there, but I’m not baffled. Does the writer want to sound stupid in coming out with a pointless article?

  8. sunnyside up says:

    Why should the Telegraph have independent scrutiny, to make un nice un true comments about Meghan.

    • Eurydice says:

      Not just that, but there’s no reason for private citizens to be subject to “independent scrutiny” at all. If there were to be any scrutiny, it would be of the Colombian government that spent money and resources on H&M’s visit, but it seems that the visit went very well and the expense was worth it.

      • Becks1 says:

        Also, as a general matter, its not like the British media is known for its “independent scrutiny” of the royal family.

  9. Eleonor says:

    HAHAHAAAAHAHAAA!
    That’s all I have.

  10. Jais says:

    Isn’t this just criticizing their own system? The royals tour with the rota journalists who give out spoon-fed info. But then, they’re the special ones included. And it’s worse in their case. Bc they’re covering tax-funded heads of state. Whereas Harry and Meghan are private citizens and if they want to just include one reporter, then that’s what they can do. The British journos are super jealous that Bianca Betancourt of harpers bazaar got to be on the inside and not them. Boo hoo 😢. The Sussexes included one female journalist. Good for them.

    • Wagiman says:

      But ‘independent scrutiny’ is so hilarious it must be a joke, right? I wish they’d explain how they independently scrutinise the left behind liars!

      • Jais says:

        Independent scrutiny from the Telegraph is a joke. I don’t even think the bbc can report on the Sussexes without bias.

      • Wagiman says:

        The BBC are barely any better than the fail. They lie as much as the rest of them. It’s no wonder so many Brits are brainwashed. There’s no truthful mainstream media when it comes to the Sussexes.

  11. Scooby Gang says:

    Why the need for access when you never report anything factual anyway?

    • Christine says:

      Well, exactly. Remember when Meghan wasn’t wearing her wedding ring, and you all wrote endless “articles” about the imminent divorce? Do you also remember when Kate didn’t wear her wedding ring, and none of you said a single word about it?

      Meghan and Harry don’t owe you a damn thing, so get used to it.

  12. Maxine Branch says:

    The gutter U.K. press has only itself to blame. The vile, vicious, racist, sexist coverage of this couple has rendered them spectators as this couple journeys through life. This is one of many reasons why they left Harry’s birth country, the hostility of the press along with their biased coverage. As private citizen’s they can choose who covers their efforts and the gutter U.K. press is no longer privy to their comings , goings or interactions with the public or each other. Welcome to the future of Sussex access.

  13. vs says:

    In how many languages H&M have to tell them, they don’t want to engage with them? Are those people thick? Why does the British public even care about them? Aren’t they irrelevant? There is a sickness among some on salty island.
    Meghan’s rejection is cutting them deep, really deep

  14. Jay says:

    It’s absolutely bonkers – you can almost hear the teeth grinding in the last paragraph, pointing out that yes, as “private individuals no longer reliant on public funds, they can do as they please”. That’s correct!

    And yet somehow I doubt that the telegraph or any of these rags would think it’s cool or normal to spend so many pages obsessively covering the travel of any other famous couple. And that even includes the ones that do still live off of public funds!

  15. Tennyson says:

    The BBC sent a journalist and she basically said the same!

    BTW for the Jamaican tour, Jamaican journalists and photographers had no access to William and Kate who had carefully chosen sycophantic media, for the result that we know

    • Christine says:

      Jamaica has NO problem calling these people out, I hope someone in the Jamaican media sees this and claps back. They continue to call things out, so I bet it’s just a matter of time.

  16. aquarius64 says:

    What the BM is really crying about is the loss of money for not having access to the Sussexes’ international visits. The “reporters” are definitely crying outside the club they couldn’t get in. The Fail was begging people on X for permission to use their cell phone footage and were told where to go. They think by trashing the Colombia visit it will force the Sussexes to let them have access. Social media full of positive images undercut the unhinged reporting; the BM knows it. That’s why they triple down to avoid admitting it. They also don’t want to admit the invisible contract is not getting them the bang for the buck (or pound). Someone in the BM is going to finally figure out to regain respect and profits is to really go hard on the Windsors, especially William and Kate.

    • Julia says:

      Also when most of the local media and worldwide Spanish speaking media is reporting mostly positively about the trip it makes the UK media look ridiculous.

  17. Noor says:

    Plenty of head scratching in the Telegraph , British media and royal experts over the Sussexes’ highly successful Colombia visit where they are welcomed as VVIP, international dignitaries and securely guarded.

    Innit beautiful. Onward march Sussexes!!

  18. Eurydice says:

    Lol, they answered their own question by the last paragraph – H&M are private citizens and they can do whatever they want. And I’m sure H&M would be happy to discuss the substance of their visit with journalists who are actually interested in Archewell initiatives – but the BM only want to talk about the RF, so what use are they?

  19. Proud Mary says:

    Zara and Mike Tindall, Peter Phillips, and the York sisters, are not working royals. So where’s all this energy for the right to cover their activities? Not only that, the Sussexes live an entire ocean away. The nerve to think you have the right to “objective” coverage of two people who are not on the public dole, but you right puff pieces about the welfare royals like that one where y’all call Kate a hero for showing up at trooping, while at the same time denigrating other cancer survivors.

    • Tessa says:

      Beatrice is a non working royal and no complaints by media of her not releasing photos of Siena. But there are complaints of no pictures of Sussex children.

      • Gtwiecz says:

        Exactly. You barely ever see Eugenie and Beatrice’ children and no one is calling them “dolls” or “invisible children”. It’s really a very low blow to say a woman did not have any children, when there are pictures of them shown on the Netflix series. They did the same to Michelle Obama. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to call Meghan a man yet.

  20. Loretta says:

    “The couple, now operating as private individuals no longer reliant on public funds, can do as they please”
    They’re so pressed LOL

    • s808 says:

      H&M successfully picked right up where they left off having successfully gone around the whole rota system with no hiccups or decline in quality of said work. The whole point of forcing H&M out was control and instead H&M gave them the finger and proceeded to do exactly what they wanted, and the output is even better. yeah, BM is PISSED.

  21. Debbie says:

    I don’t know, I’m still waiting for the “public scrutiny” of Charles’ suitcase full of cash. When is the BM going to look into that?

    • Nanea says:

      In the same vein:

      where’s the scrutiny of the whole *missing jewelry* affair — the Nizam of Hyderabad necklace being the most valuable piece of the collection, with an estimated worth of ~ $ 90 million to $ 120 million dollars.

      And that’s just one of the several missing pieces.

      Or how about scrutinising the many laws, e.g. environmental ones, that the RF exempted itself from.

      Or why 🥚 and 🦴 need so many palaces, despite declaring KP their forever home, or why they’re not working, despite receiving way too many millions from the British taxpayers.

      But no, Harry and Meghan it is.

  22. RMS says:

    In addition to all the above, I keep taking issue with the way they describe Colombia as ‘this troubled South American country’. Or repeating outdated homicide statistics. If H&M had gone to Venezuela, sure, I’d get it – that country is in the worst part of its history right now. But Colombia is one of the safest, loveliest countries I have ever visited. And the government gives organizational and monetary support to quite a few visiting business people they believe will give back in some way to the countries’ image or exports. My trip there, years ago, was partially organized and funded by them because I had an interest in exporting products. These are unquestionably some of the densest, laziest, most racist ‘journalists’ ever given that job description.

  23. Bad Janet says:

    Of course they weren’t invited. Why the hell would they be? So they can get easier access to rewrite the entire narrative to make the Sussexes look like a couple of limelight seekers? So they can try to insist that the royal backed tours actually have a point (other than looking terribly uncomfortable around BIPOC)?

    They are seething about being beaten at their own game and I am loving it. The Lady Whistledown British press is disgusting and has absolutely no place in modern society.

  24. The Duchess says:

    Last time I checked the BM weren’t invited. You can’t be hating from outside the club when you can’t even get in.

  25. samipup says:

    When C&C went to Africa last year, reports came out how they were treating local journalists differently, giving left over meals, no access.

  26. Moniquep says:

    Oh YEAH BABEEE, Harry and Meghan have it going on! Despite the BM, RF and Rota rats extensive efforts to tear them down. And it’s a sweetest thing to watch!! Love it, love it, love it!!
    Hey salty BM just keep on grinding away at the Sussexes, like the diamonds they are, the more you grind the brighter they shine.
    By the way, how’s the pub business doing in the UK? I would think the BM would be pumping it up with all that crying in their beer. Hahaha!

  27. Lavendel says:

    These people are abusive and violent towards people’s reputations and honor on a daily basis. And they complain that they are not invited to do so? This is perpetrator-victim-reversal at its worst. I hurt you, your reputation, your honor, your feelings and if you fight back I call you a perpetrator. “Examination”??? Hubris without end.

  28. MikeB says:

    Lack of access has not prevented the UK and Australian media to attack every aspect of the visit. They insist on calling it a quasi royal tour, it was a visit by two private individuals. The UK media cannot stand the fact that H&M’s visits outshine the others in the UK and they control access, no royal rota for them.

  29. Lady Digby says:

    Suppose Meg and Harry retrained to become dentists and had their own dental practice from 2020 would the BM have left them alone or would they still be banging on about them putting dentistry and crowned teeth before duty to the Crown?

    • Julia says:

      H&M existing outside the monarchy and being financially independent is embarrassing for the royals because it undermines the system where the monarch exerts control over family members through money. Whatever they did they would be attacked.

    • Jais says:

      They’d be stalking every patient that gets their teeth done by them. How dare Harry and Meghan not straiten my teeth enough!

  30. maisie says:

    “Independent media scrutiny”
    They are so angry that they weren’t granted access so that they could pick apart and attack, smear and disparage every moment, every outfit, every word from Meghan. They instead had to settle for coverage from others that was unfailingly positive without being fawning.

    they have NOTHING except their hatred. let then chew on it.

  31. QuiteContrary says:

    I’d like a whole pot of these salty British tears, please, so I can sip from it at my leisure.

  32. ML says:

    “With no access, there is no independent scrutiny.”

    Um, I don’t know if the Telegraph has forgotten about Kate not being seen for so long that William published a cobbled-together Frankenphoto for Mothering Sunday. It essentially led to international media outlets saying that the BRF had the same trustworthiness as North Korea. W&K are publicly funded, and instead of stopping their excessive use of filters, airbrushing, editing and AI, they’ve reacted by limiting access. Maybe the Telegraph should go after W&K first?

  33. Saucy&Sassy says:

    The bm is left with nothing to do other than whining? It never fails to interest me that they obviously don’t care how other nations view the media in Britain. This has gone on so long and is unhinged. It would be impossible not to see the bm for what they are. They should feel so proud of themselves . . .

  34. bisynaptic says:

    “The couple, now operating as private individuals no longer reliant on public funds, can do as they please. “
    — Imagine that! 😂

    • sunnyside up says:

      For just a moment the real journalist appeared. Pity about the rest of the article.

  35. Robert says:

    Why Colombia and why now? Because Columbia asked, that’s why.

  36. JudyB says:

    Just thinking while reading this and watching Dem convention—-wouldn’t it be fun if in a year or so a woman president appointed Meghan to be ambassador to someplace, like maybe even the UK??? After the Brit media picked themselves off the floor, wonder what their reporting of M&H would be like then??? And Harry and his family would no doubt get the high level of security in their U.S. government home in London that they need.

    Also, great fun to imagine the reaction of Charles and William and the rest of the leftovers!!! “Clutching their pearls” is no where strong enough an image, so fun imagining. Best part is that U.S. ambassadors do not bow or curtsy to royalty?? Could William survive photos of this in the media???

    • sunnyside up says:

      Lovely thoughts.

    • Gail Hirst says:

      Oh My Goodness, @JudyB, I can’t believe how much I LOVE this scenario. It would be a brilliant way for them to have the highest level of security! But the chance of them trying to annihilate Meghan kind of outweighs the potential reality. So I appreciate you acknowledging it’s such great fun to imagine. Cause I burst out laughing at your last sentence.