Recently, Prince Harry's self-description of past drug use has attracted much attention in his memoir "Spare" and subsequent interviews, especially the recent remarks of the US ambassador, which have caused a political storm on both sides of the strait.
According to British media on April 16, U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley said that under the Biden administration, Harry's remarks that Harry would not be deported have sparked controversy, with critics questioning the political motives behind such remarks. The Heritage Foundation's efforts to track down the details of Harry's immigration documents have sparked further speculation, raising concerns about the discretion and potential political implications of immigration decisions.
Royal commentators and legal experts have spoken out to criticize Harry for opening up about his drug use and questioning the possible consequences of his actions. Lady Colin Campbell, author of "Meghan & Harry: The True Story: Victim or Persecutor," lashed out at Harry's "stupidity and arrogance" and suggested that he may have underestimated the consequences of his actions, especially in the volatile environment of the political sphere.
In addition, concerns have been expressed about the timing of Harry's self-report, especially in the context of a possible change in government leadership. In the shadow of President Trump's possible rise to power, some have said that Harry's self-statement could jeopardize his immigration status if the political winds change. The prospect of deportation, once dismissed by Ambassador Hartley, now looms over Harry's head, underscoring the precariousness of his residency status in the United States.
Duncan Larcombe, a former royal editor at The Sun, echoed those concerns, calling Harry's actions "extremely stupid" and highlighting the potential impact on his public image and legal standing. The veracity of Harry's statements, as well as the impact of past actions, such as wearing a Nazi uniform at a party, further complicate the debate surrounding his drug use.
"When you're a royal prince, it's very stupid to take Class A drugs," Larcomb said. It would be even more stupid to boast afterwards. He asked himself countless questions, such as: Would he still do it? Did he do drugs at Sandhurst? What about when he wore his Nazi uniform to a party? The Biden administration may have been prepared to turn a blind eye, but Trump apparently didn't. If that's good enough for Trump, it's good enough for Trump's supporters. ”
The Heritage Foundation's legal battle to obtain Harry's immigration records underscores the gravity of the situation, with implications that extend far beyond celebrity gossip. The conflict between the right to privacy and the transparency of government procedures, which has put Harry's personal struggles in the spotlight, has sparked a broader discussion about the responsibility of public figures and political interference in legal matters.
Parallels to Harry's plight can be seen in the case of Nigella Lawson, who was denied entry to the United States for admitting to drug use, highlighting the potential consequences of his actions.
Their lawyers said the ambassador's "extraordinary" remarks in an interview with Sky News last month supported their view that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should disclose Harry's records under the US Freedom of Information Act. The Department of Homeland Security says such forms are always a private matter and should not be made public. However, they suggested that Harry may have made up stories about drug use in his books and interviews, thus incurring ridicule.
As the legal battle continues and political tensions escalate, Harry's self-reported aftermath becomes a cautionary tale about personal choices, public image, and the intersection of relentless censorship in the political arena.