Ah, what a time it's been in the ever-unfolding saga of Megxit! The drama just doesn't seem to let up, does it? This past week has been filled with more shocking revelations, and both sides appear to be ratcheting up the tensions in their ongoing disputes.
Parliament has finally had their say on the ongoing royal crisis, and the tensions seem to be reaching new heights.
We'll start with Prince Harry's ongoing lawsuit against the Home Office. As a quick refresher, Harry is seeking a judicial review over 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 US doesn't have the adequate jurisdiction or access to UK intelligence necessary to keep his family safe.
However, this ongoing case has apparently really angered Chancellor Rishi Sunak. It was reported this week that, behind closed doors, Sunak has been fiercely criticizing Harry's legal attempts. Sources say Sunak believes Harry's lawsuit is absurd and disrespectful to UK taxpayers.
As Chancellor, Sunak is understandably concerned about spending public money on security for non-working royals no longer living in Britain full-time.
Sunak is said to have told colleagues that Meghan and Harry's attempts to simultaneously exploit their royal titles while leading entirely private lives abroad simply can't continue.
According to sources, Sunak has said that if Harry wants to live privately and keep his family financially independent, that's fine, but he can't expect taxpayers to foot the bill for trips back to the UK.
In response to Sunak's hardline stance, Harry's legal team fired back this week. They said the suggestion that Harry should somehow foot the bill for his own security is 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 is working or not, his familial links to the Queen mean he will always need close protection when traveling to Britain.
Several security experts have weighed in on Harry's case, and they acknowledge he does still face real, ongoing threats.
However, many argue that if he chooses to live mostly in another country, it's unreasonable to expect British taxpayers to assume the long-term costs.
There is no precedent for paying private security for non-working royals residing full-time elsewhere. It's definitely a complex issue with good arguments on both sides.
While the legal back-and-forth continues, another front in the Megxit wars opened up in Parliament this week. For the first time, British lawmakers directly debated the ongoing royal crisis sparked by Harry and Meghan's decisions to depart last year.
While discussions so far had focused on the business angles, this time MPs spoke more to the heart of the difficulties facing the monarchy.
Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke questioned whether it was fair for the couple to continue using their Duke and Duchess titles for commercial gain in America while no longer carrying out duties in the UK.
She argued it was difficult for working royals like the Wessexes, who undertake over 500 engagements a year, when titles were being used in this way abroad.
Other MPs warned the royal family faces a very real branding challenge. They said sustaining public support for continuing taxpayers' costs requires transparency around royal spending and clarity around who is working and who isn't.
With Harry and Meghan leading such an ambiguous international role, it risks damaging faith in the monarchy from both taxpayers and monarchists.
And for her part, Meghan Markle was facing more backlash this week over accusations of misleading claims in her court case against Associated Newspapers. The company is being sued by Meghan for breaching her privacy by publishing parts of a letter to her estranged father.
However, new evidence emerged that seems to contradict parts of Meghan's own witness statement submitted to court. In the documents, Meghan claims she didn't know the letter would be leaked in advance, as she was concerned that it would be manipulated.
But text messages unveiled in court this time appear to show Meghan telling an associate that the leak was "unfortunately inevitable."
This raises serious questions around whether Meghan was honest in her version of events and brings renewed scrutiny over the repeated privacy lawsuits.
