Marie Claire is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn commission on some of the items you choose to buy.
Angela Levin asks what the couple are trying to prove
The royal biographer and long-time journalist, Angela Levin, has commented on Harry and Meghan’s on going request for police protection.
The couple have faced endless scrutiny since their break from the royal family in January 2020. From the fallout caused by their Oprah appearance to speculations about a deal with Spotify, over the last two years Meghan and Harry have taken the brunt of the tabloids.
One of the biggest hang-ups of recent months is the couple’s request for security and police protection in the UK. The couple received taxpayer-funded police protection when they were working royals but this has not been in place since March 2020.
Last month, a representative for the Duke of Sussex reported that he is challenging the Home Office on its decisions to not give him and his family protection when they cross the pond.
With Prince Phillip’s memorial service fast approaching, the legal row is reaching fever pitch. The first hearing in Prince Harry’s legal claim took place on Friday, with witnesses hearing that the prince does not “feel safe” without police protection because of the security risk that he inherited at birth. Something that has always been sensitive because of Princess Diana’s life and legacy.
In the hearing, Harry’s barrister Shaheed Fatima QC said that England “is, and always will be, his home”. However, it is thought that the Duke of Sussex has only been able to visit the UK twice since he moved to California.
Harry’s most recent visit was in July last year for the unveiling of a statue of his mother. The prince’s legal statement cites that he felt as though his “security had been compromised”. Not a surprise considering photographers were chasing his car throughout the trip.
Angela Levin is unsympathetic towards the couple’s struggle to come home again. She says the couple could have been a “dynamic duo helping the needy” but instead are “building up legal actions”. To top it off, she asks what the couple were trying to prove because it was surely “not their power”.