Ah, what a time it was in the ever-renewing saga of Megxit! The drama doesn’t seem to stop, does it? The past week has been filled with even more shocking revelations, and both sides appear to be increasing tensions in their ongoing disputes. Parliament has finally had its say on the ongoing royal crisis, and tensions appear to be reaching new heights.
We’ll start with Prince Harry’s ongoing lawsuit against the Home Office. As a reminder, Harry is seeking a judicial review into a decision not to allow him to pay for police protection while in the UK. His argument is that his private security team in the United States does not have adequate jurisdiction or access to British intelligence necessary to keep his family safe.
However, this ongoing affair has apparently really irritated Chancellor Rishi Sunak. It was reported this week that, behind closed doors, Sunak had sharply criticized Harry’s legal attempts. Sources say Sunak believes Harry’s trial is absurd and disrespectful to British taxpayers. As chancellor, Sunak is understandably concerned about spending public money to ensure the safety of royals who no longer work and live full-time in Britain. Sunak reportedly told colleagues that Meghan and Harry’s attempts to simultaneously exploit their royal titles while leading entirely private lives abroad simply could not continue. According to sources, Sunak said if Harry wanted to live privately and keep his family financially independent that was fine, but he could not expect taxpayers to foot the bill for his trips back to the UK. United.
Sunak is not the only one frustrated either. Other British ministers have echoed similar sentiments in recent weeks. This appears to mean tensions between the monarchy and Boris Johnson’s government are reaching new heights.
In response to Sunak’s tough stance, Harry’s legal team hit back this week. They said the suggestion that Harry should foot the bill for his own safety was unworkable and inappropriate. Harry’s lawyer argued that as a senior member of the royal family who occasionally visits the UK, Harry still possesses a target for kidnapping or attack. They argue that whether he works or not, his family ties to the Queen mean he will still need close protection when he visits Britain.
Several security experts have spoken out on Harry’s case and acknowledge that he still faces real and ongoing threats. However, many argue that if he chooses to live primarily in another country, it is unreasonable to expect UK taxpayers to bear the long-term costs. There is no precedent for paying for private security for non-working royals who reside elsewhere full-time. This is undoubtedly a complex issue with good arguments on both sides.
As the legal exchanges continue, another front in the Megxit wars opened in Parliament this week. For the first time, British lawmakers have directly debated the ongoing royal crisis sparked by Harry and Meghan’s departure decisions last year. While the discussions had so far focused on economic aspects, this time the deputies addressed more the heart of the difficulties facing the monarchy.
Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke questioned whether it was right for the couple to continue to use their titles as Duke and Duchess for commercial purposes in America while no longer carrying out their duties in the UK. She argued that it was difficult for working royals like the Wessex, who undertake more than 500 engagements a year, when the titles were used in this way abroad.
Other MPs have warned that the royal family faces a real branding challenge. They said maintaining public support for ongoing taxpayer costs requires transparency around royal spending and clarity over who is and is not working. With Harry and Meghan playing such an ambiguous international role, it risks harming taxpayers’ and monarchists’ trust in the monarchy.
And for her part, Meghan Markle faced more backlash this week following accusations of misleading statements in her lawsuit against Associated Newspapers. The company is being sued by Meghan for violating her privacy by publishing parts of a letter to her estranged father. However, new evidence has emerged that appears to contradict parts of Meghan’s witness statement submitted to the court. In the documents, Meghan claims she did not know the letter would be leaked in advance because she feared it would be manipulated. But text messages revealed in court this time appear to show Meghan telling an associate that the leak was “unfortunately inevitable”. It raises serious questions about whether Meghan was honest in her version of events and sparks new scrutiny of repeated privacy lawsuits.
