Piers Morgan has continued his attacks on Prince Harry after the Duke of Sussex lost his legal battle over retaining top UK security
Prince Harry gave a BBC interview(Image: BBC)
Piers Morgan has termed Prince Harry a “hypocritical little twerp” in the wake of the royal’s frank interview with the BBC.
The ex-Good Morning Britain presenter lambasted the Duke of Sussex after his defeat in the legal case over maintaining top-notch UK security. Piers blasted Harry as a “whiny hypocritical brat” via a fiery tweet shared on X/Twitter.
The dispute centred around the level of protection Prince Harry claimed he and his family deserves during their visits to the UK. He acknowledged that this had been a considerable “sticking point” in the ongoing issues with his relatives, yet he professed a desire for “reconciliation” within the Royal Family.
READ MORE: NatWest closing 25 branches in these areas as customers make ‘dramatic change’
“That moment when you realised you’re now a dead-eyed, drug-addled, *****-whipped, whiny, entitled, arrogant, hypocritical little twerp loathed by your own family,” Piers remarked, attaching a picture of Harry from the BBC interview.
This was one of multiple tweets that the Piers Morgan Uncensored host dispatched related to Harry following his judicial setback.
Last Friday, Piers issued another message: “Prince Harry’s issued a statement to follow-up his latest whiny interview bashing his kin.
Here’s my personal statement to him: ‘Be quiet, you pathetic little brat, nobody in Britain has anything but contempt for your odious treatment of your family.'”, reports the Mirror.
The TV host’s posts, viewed by hundreds of thousands, sparked a divisive response from online commentators. A Twitter user remarked: “Gee… Piers! Come on. No member of the Royal Family is deserving of this kind of vehement vitriol from you.
“Please refrain. H was a dutiful and loyal British soldier for 10 years, and from all reports very well liked by all and never asking for any special treatment.
“I do agree with you that he should follow our late great Queen Elizabeth II ‘s advice to ‘Never complain, never explain’ and pursue duty over drama. But I think you’re going too far here IMHO.”
Another commented: “How long will this rant go on? When it comes to Meghan you seem to get out of control.”
However, many supported Mr Morgan; one person said: “While he is all of those things, I doubt there’s much realization going on for him. He seems unable to self reflect or take any responsibility. Those two leeches will be perpetual victims.”
Prince Harry’s frank interview received mixed feedback following his argument that he and his family require additional security – an issue he states affects him “every single day.”
He expressed that security was such a serious concern it made him feel only safe in the UK when invited by the Royal Family.
Following the judgement, Harry has sharply criticised Ravec, the organisation delegated by the Home Office to oversee Royal security, claiming it failed to perform an adequate risk assessment for him and his family.
He asserted: “In recent years my family and I have been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats, including from al Qaida.
“There are individuals in prison on UK soil because of such threats. And yet, since 2019 a proper risk assessment has not been conducted. This is not only a deviation from standard practice, it’s a dereliction of duty.”
Addressing his unique situation, Harry mentioned: “My ask has been simple: that the standard protocols for security and risk assessments be applied to me in the same way they are to others – including people who have never carried out any public functions on behalf of the state.”
He further noted the distinction of his position stating: “The stark difference is I was born into lifelong circumstances that create inherent security risks.
My decade of military service, particularly two tours of duty in Afghanistan, as well as social and tabloid media frenzy, have only intensified those threats. Uncovering how my immediate family’s safety was knowingly put at risk, as well as who was behind it and who sanctioned it, has been truly devastating.
“No matter where we may agree or disagree, I would never wish harm on anyone. These legal proceedings have revealed to me that this basic duty of care was not and is not applied to me.”