‘Privacy’ was the reason given for Harry and Meghan upping sticks and leaving Britain in early 2020. The dilettante duke and his Hollywood beau were supposedly fleeing this sceptred isle to find sanctuary in Canada, away from the beastly British press. So it’s such an awful shame that the right-on royals keep finding themselves embroiled in endless public spats of their own making in their new-found home in America.
A persistent theme in these spats appears to be Prince Harry’s barely-concealed contempt for the American system of government, which makes it all the more baffling as to why he chose to live there. Seemingly unaware of the monarchy’s role in the very creation of that country, Harry first criticised the First Amendment which guarantees free speech as ‘bonkers.’
He then last week launched an attack on the Supreme Court’s recent Roe v Wade decision, suggesting it amounted to a ‘rolling back of constitutional rights.’ There is of course no ‘right to abortion’ enumerated in the country’s constitution: the Supreme Court previously considered it a subset of the also-invented ‘right to privacy’. Nevertheless, that didn’t stop our Hazza making the claim in a speech to the UN to mark the memory of Nelson Mandela: a man who knew a thing or two about constitutional rights.
Now, one of those Supreme Court justices involved in the decision has hit back at Harry. Judge Samuel Alito, speaking in Rome at a conference on religious law, said sarcastically of the recent decision that:
What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision, whose name may not be spoken, with the Russian attack on Ukraine.
If only Harry dealt with such criticism with similar sangfroid.
Comments