Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have remained in the spotlight, not only for their public appearances but also for the controversy surrounding their security measures. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex recently embarked on a four-day visit to Colombia, invited by the country’s Vice President, Francia Márquez, after she was reportedly moved by their story as depicted in their Netflix documentary. However, their arrival in Colombia, accompanied by what can only be described as an “army of soldiers,” has sparked a fresh wave of criticism, with former rugby star and royal family member Mike Tindall leading the charge.

Harry and Meghan’s visit to Colombia is their second major quasi-royal engagement since stepping back from their official duties in the British royal family. Their visit follows a similar trip to Nigeria earlier this year, marking a continuation of their efforts to maintain a global presence despite their departure from royal life. During their time in Colombia, the couple planned to visit several local initiatives, starting with the Colegio Cultura Popular, a local children’s school.

Their visit, however, was not marked by their charitable efforts or public appearances, but rather by the extraordinary security measures that accompanied them. According to reports, the Duke and Duchess were surrounded by a formidable security perimeter, including multiple police cars, vans, and heavily armed soldiers. The images of their arrival, guarded by an “army of soldiers,” have drawn widespread criticism, raising questions about the appropriateness and necessity of such a display.

Mike Tindall, husband of Zara Tindall, daughter of Princess Anne, and a prominent figure within the British royal family, has been an outspoken critic of Harry and Meghan’s decisions in the past. His latest critique, however, is particularly scathing. Tindall has publicly condemned the couple for what he perceives as a lack of thoughtfulness and sensitivity, especially given the ongoing struggles within the royal family and the unresolved legal disputes regarding their security.

“Using an army of guards for a visit to Colombia, in the midst of the royal family’s current challenges, is not just unnecessary; it’s incredibly thoughtless,” Tindall stated. He emphasized that such actions not only draw unwanted attention but also reflect poorly on the couple’s judgment. In his view, the security measures taken during the visit are excessive, particularly in light of the financial and legal challenges surrounding the couple’s security arrangements.

The issue of security has long been a contentious topic for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Since stepping down from their royal duties, the couple has been embroiled in various legal battles over the provision and funding of their security. The British government had previously withdrawn their official security detail, prompting Harry to seek legal action to ensure the safety of his family during their visits to the UK and other nations.

This ongoing dispute has been a significant point of tension, not only between Harry and the British government but also within the royal family itself. Tindall’s criticism appears to reflect a broader concern within royal circles about the couple’s approach to security and the potential implications for the monarchy.

Beyond the legal and financial aspects, the optics of such a heavily guarded visit are problematic. In an era where public perception is crucial, the image of Harry and Meghan being surrounded by armed soldiers in Colombia sends a message that may not align with their intended narrative. The couple has often spoken about their desire to connect with people on a personal level, to be seen as relatable and compassionate figures. Yet, the sight of them being protected by what amounts to a small army contradicts this image, creating a sense of distance rather than approachability.

Critics like Tindall argue that such displays are counterproductive and may undermine the couple’s efforts to rebrand themselves outside of the royal institution. The emphasis on security could overshadow their philanthropic endeavors, leading the public to focus more on the spectacle than on the substance of their visit.

Tindall’s remarks also hint at the broader implications of Harry and Meghan’s actions for the royal family. The couple’s ongoing public appearances, often marked by controversy, continue to keep them in the global spotlight, which, in turn, keeps the royal family in the news cycle for reasons that are not always positive. Tindall’s critique can be seen as an expression of frustration within the royal family, as they navigate the challenges posed by Harry and Meghan’s departure and their subsequent actions.

Furthermore, the security measures taken during their Colombia visit highlight the ongoing complexities of their post-royal life. The need for such extensive security raises questions about the sustainability of their current path, both in terms of public perception and financial viability. As Tindall’s comments suggest, the couple’s decisions continue to have ripple effects, not just for themselves but for the royal family as a whole.

Mike Tindall’s critique of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s security measures during their Colombia visit serves as a reminder of the delicate balance they must strike in their new roles. While security is undoubtedly a priority, the manner in which it is executed must be carefully considered to avoid unnecessary controversy and negative perceptions.

As the couple continues to navigate their post-royal life, the need for thoughtfulness and restraint becomes increasingly important. Tindall’s remarks highlight the potential consequences of their actions, not just for themselves but for the broader institution of the monarchy. In the end, the success of their endeavors may depend on their ability to align their public image with the values they espouse, ensuring that their actions speak as loudly as their words.