Royal biographer Angela Levin has criticized Prince Harry’s recent court appeal regarding his security arrangements while in the UK, labeling his actions as arrogant.
The Duke of Sussex has been granted an appeal by the courts after expressing concerns about the safety of bringing his wife Meghan and their two children to the country.
However, Lord Justice Beane emphasized that Prince Harry cannot expect special treatment based on his status and should not bypass security protocols.
Levin raised eyebrows by suggesting that Prince Harry should foot the bill for his security expenses rather than relying on taxpayer money.
She voiced her concerns about the potential use of public funds for the couple’s reported world tour, asserting that it would be perceived as an act of arrogance by the British public.
Speculating on the destinations of the rumored tour, Levin hinted at a possible extended stay in Africa, drawing parallels to the success of their previous visit to Nigeria.
In contrast to Levin’s stance, another commentator, Mark, defended Prince Harry’s need for heightened security, citing his royal lineage as justification.
Mark argued that the Duke’s security requirements are not a matter of choice but a fundamental aspect of his birthright.
Nevertheless, Levin countered by emphasizing the distinction between official royal duties and personal matters, suggesting that Prince Harry should bear the cost of security for private endeavors.
The ongoing debate over Prince Harry’s security arrangements has also shed light on his desire to establish a permanent base in the UK.
According to royal commentator Tom Quinn, the Duke is reportedly seeking a British residence following his departure from Frogmore Cottage in 2020.
Quinn noted that Prince Harry misses the familiarity of his former life in the UK, particularly his connections with old friends from Eton and the military, some of whom have distanced themselves from him due to conflicts with Meghan.
Despite his relocation to California with Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s yearning for a UK home persists, prompting legal actions to secure taxpayer-funded security while in the country.
In response to a previous decision by the Home Office to alter his security provisions, Prince Harry pursued legal recourse, culminating in a rejected case by retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane.
Nonetheless, the Duke has been granted the opportunity to challenge the dismissal at the Court of Appeal, underscoring his determination to safeguard his ties to the UK.
Reflecting on his past and the transient nature of his living arrangements, Prince Harry expressed sentiments of nostalgia in his memoir “Spare,” recounting his eviction from Frogmore Cottage.
The symbolic significance of the property, initially bestowed upon the couple as a wedding gift by the late Queen, underscores Prince Harry’s emotional attachment to the UK and his quest for a lasting sense of belonging.
As the legal battle over security funding unfolds, the Duke’s pursuit of stability and security in his homeland remains a focal point of public scrutiny and debate.