Prince Harry's legal representative, who recently said the Duke and his family would be unable to visit the UK in the absence of police protection, has sparked a debate in the UK.
When Omid Scobie, a friend and author of the couple's biography, shared 2002 Guardian report that said Prince Charles privately paid for two full-time police protection officers for his then longterm mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles.
Reacting to the report, royal biographer Angela Levin said, "Prince Charles used retired police protection officers that can be used for protection."
She said "It is just as open to Harry. Met Police not available for anyone to hire."
The royal expert further said,"It is insisting on knowing what is going on in UK intelligence that Harry can't have."
The debate started it was reported that Prince Harry has applied for a judicial review of UK Home Department's decision not to allow him to personally pay for his security during his UK visits.
Harry was reported to have said that it's too dangerous for his family to visit the UK due to security threats.
Royal correspondent Richard Parlmer said, "All the signs are that UK government officials, courtiers, and police believe Prince Harry has little chance of creating a legal precedent to turn Met Police personal protection officers into guns for hire available to any showbiz celebrities wanting to tap into intelligence."
Rihanna returns to her go-to restaurant after it survives the LA fires
Keanu Reeves gets candid about relationship with Alexandra Grant
Little Mix singer Jesy Nelson faces health scare and undergoes urgent surgery
Elton John reveals how he became Chappell Roan’s friend
Amber Rose spills the tea on Diddy’s famous white parties
Addison Rae gets accused of copying THIS pop icon
