Prince Harry’s Security Appeal Sparks Controversy

Royal biographer Angela Levin has criticized Prince Harry for his recent court appeal regarding security arrangements during his stay in the UK.

Levin suggested that the Duke should cover the costs of his own security, rather than relying on public funds.

The court granted Prince Harry an appeal after he expressed concerns about the safety of his wife, Meghan, and their two children.

However, Lord Justice Bean emphasized that Prince Harry should not receive special treatment based on his royal status.

Levin raised objections to reports indicating that the urgency of the appeal was linked to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's upcoming global tour.

She argued that it would be inappropriate for the Prince to expect preferential treatment at the expense of taxpayers.

Expressing her views on the matter, Levin stated, “I think this country would go absolutely crazy if they used our taxpayer money to go around the world.”

Regarding the speculated destinations of Prince Harry and Meghan's tour, Levin suggested that Africa might feature prominently, given the couple's previous visit to Nigeria.

However, she cautioned that British citizens would be displeased if Prince Harry insisted on the same high level of security abroad as he receives in the UK.

Levin remarked on the Prince's determination to maintain extensive security measures, despite potential public disapproval.

In response to Levin's criticism, Mark defended Prince Harry's need for heightened security, citing his royal lineage as justification.

Mark questioned whether the public would accept anything less for a member of the royal family, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding Prince Harry at all times.

Levin, however, maintained that once a royal relinquishes official duties, they must accept a reduced level of protection and public attention.

Levin emphasized the distinction between Prince Harry's entitlement to security as a royal and the practicality of expecting the same privileges post-abdication.

She underscored the necessity for Prince Harry to acknowledge the implications of stepping back from royal responsibilities, including adjusting to a lower security profile.

Levin concluded that while Prince Harry could afford his security expenses, it was unreasonable to expect continuous financial support from taxpayers.

The ongoing debate surrounding Prince Harry's security arrangements highlights the complexities of balancing royal entitlement with public expectations.

As discussions persist, the Prince's choices regarding security funding remain under scrutiny.

The controversy serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by royals navigating personal freedoms against traditional obligations.

Stay tuned for further updates on this evolving story.