After Prince Harry was publically ridiculed by a US Supreme Court justice for criticizing the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a royal biographer today advised the prince to “mind his own business.”
In a hardly disguised jab at the US Supreme Court, the Duke of Sussex last week used a “virtue-signaling” address at the UN to denounce the “global attack on democracy and freedom.”
Justice Samuel Alito singled out Prince Harry, along with Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau, and Emmanuel Macron, during his own speech in Rome for criticizing the ruling.
To laughter, the justice exclaimed, “What truly hurt me, what really hurt me, was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to link the ruling, whose name may not be uttered, with the Russian invasion on Ukraine.”
Angela Levin, a royal authority, said the embarrassing incident “served Harry right.”
She told MailOnline, “He’s acting in such a foolish way; he shouldn’t be instructing the United States what to do.”
Sincerely, this is none of his business.
He is still an English prince, therefore if he wants to enter politics with Meghan, which would be absurd, he should renounce his throne.
He’s starting to get mocked.
His popularity has already declined here, which suggests that it might happen to him in America.
Harry doesn’t comprehend the American constitution or the Roe v. Wade decision, according to Tom Bower, the author of Revenge, a new biography of Meghan.
Harry spoke before a mostly empty UN General Assembly on Tuesday as part of a honoring of Nelson Mandela, bringing up both the war in Ukraine and Roe v. Wade, which returns decisions regarding abortion rights to US states.
“We are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom, the pillars of Mandela’s life,” he declared.
“From the awful war in Ukraine to the rolling down of fundamental rights in the US.”
Following the Supreme Court’s shocking decision to reverse the 1973 rule, the Duke’s wife Meghan, who traveled with him to the UN and is rumored to harbor political ambitions, reported how the Duke had a “gutteral” reaction.
The Sussexes have made a number of high-profile interventions in recent years, from Meghan’s personal lobbying campaign in favor of paid maternity leave to the Sussexes’ call for voters to “resist hate speech” before the 2020 US presidential election, which was obviously directed at Donald Trump.
In his address, Alito, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, also made fun of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Macron while saving a special jab for Prime Minister Johnson.
This term, he stated, “I had the privilege of writing the only Supreme Court decision in the institution’s history that has been criticized by a whole string of foreign governments who felt entirely good commenting on American law.”
In a lighthearted allusion to the PM’s intentions to leave following a Tory party mutiny, Alito continued, “One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price.”
On July 21, Alito addressed a conference on religious freedom held in Rome by the University of Notre Dame Law School.
The video was published online by Notre Dame Friday night.
Harry and the Duchess of Sussex have engaged in American politics before, including in previous speeches.
They urged American voters to “resist hate speech, misinformation, and online negativity” in “the most crucial election of our lives” during a Time 100 video in September 2020.
Ms. Markle urged people to vote in the November midterm elections and informed activist Gloria Steinem in June that she is eager to travel to Washington, DC, to take part in rallies against the abortion verdict.
In a Vogue interview, Meghan also urged males to express their outrage about the overturning of Roe v. Wade by becoming “more loud.”
Members of the royal family are expected to be politically apolitical, and the Sussexes made a promise to respect Her Majesty’s ideals in whatever they do when they stood down from their positions.
However, Miranda Barbot, a senior advisor to former President Barack Obama who was crucial to his successful reelection campaign in 2012, was just hired by Meghan and Harry.
Since she and Harry relocated from Britain, there has been much speculation about Meghan’s political aspirations, including assertions that she would “seriously consider” running for president if her husband gave up his regal title.
One of the reasons the Duchess kept her American citizenship when she married into the Royal Family, according to a friend who spoke to Vanity Fair two years ago, was to offer her the chance to pursue a career in politics.
The duchess was recently urged to join the Democratic Party by President Biden’s sister Valerie, 76, who also remarked that she would “of course” be a strong candidate for the presidency.
In an interview with Daily Mail Royals, Tom Bower, the author of a new book about Meghan and Harry, said: “I think that she does envision her future as maybe a congresswoman for California.”
She has a dual problem, he continued.
The first is that it pays extremely poorly, and Meghan needs a lot of money to live, and the second is that political battles require a lot of grit.
There are many rivals you must contend with.
Additionally, he disclosed that Hillary Clinton, a former presidential contender, had made Meghan a close mentor.
She is said to have set up the couple’s charitable endeavors.
It was revealed yesterday that Harry has been fighting the Home Office in his native country for police protection while his family is in the country.
The battle is thought to have so far cost the government £100,000.
After being informed that he would no longer receive the “same degree” of personal protective security when travelling from the US, The Duke has been suing the department.
His supporters have previously stated that he wants to fly Meghan from the US and bring their kids Archie and Lilibet to visit, but they are ‘unable to return to his house’ due to the level of risk there.
The Home Office is said to have spent £90,094.79 on the case between September 2021 and May of this year.
According to The Sun, this amount is said to include £55,254 for the government’s legal department, £34,824 for attorneys, and £16.55 for couriers.
Since May, there have been two sessions before the High Court in London, and it is anticipated that the final fee will be more than £10,000.
And after a judge permitted Harry’s legal team to pursue a portion of his claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision, that amount will increase even higher.
The Home Office, a Whitehall organization led by Priti Patel, has already stated that if Harry’s High Court case is unsuccessful, the Home Office will be required to pay its legal fees back, which would lower the cost to the taxpayer.
Schillings, the Duke of Sussex’s UK attorneys, and the Home Office have all been contacted by MailOnline for comment.
In the meantime, Samantha, Meghan’s estranged half-sister, and the Sussexes are engaged in a second court dispute in America.
Samantha is suing Meghan for allegedly telling a “rags to riches” story on Oprah and for remarks she made in Omid Scobie’s book Finding Freedom, which was written by Meghan’s close friend.
She has claimed that despite Meghan technically having two half-siblings, it is dishonest for Meghan to claim she grew up as an only child because that is how she feels.
The Duchess’s attorneys responded that she was raised as an only child, but that is just a “feeling” and not a “fact.”
It is difficult to think of a more private and individual experience than how one perceives their own childhood.
The context of the statement, where Ms. Winfrey questioned Meghan about her “connection” with Plaintiff—whom Ms. Winfrey referred to as her “half-sister on her father’s side”—is wholly ignored by Plaintiff’s objection.
It is clear that Meghan wasn’t intending for her comment that she “grew up as an only child” to be taken as proof positive that she had no biological siblings or half-siblings.
She also ignores Samantha’s complaints about information in Omid Scobie’s book Finding Freedom, arguing that Meghan cannot be held accountable for it since she did not author it.
“Meghan did not make the statements; therefore, she is exempt from liability.” That much is clear,’ assert her attorneys.