But the publication of the book is believed to have left Harry’s brother William with a difficult dilemma. Commenting on the developments, royal expert Duncan Larcombe claimed to the Daily Beast: “Once the book comes out, William will have to make a decision about what to do about Harry. “But he’s not going to do anything until he knows what’s on every page of this book. “The reality is that if, as a senior member of the Royal Family, you’ve written a tell-all book, you’ve broken rule number one of the royal family.” The Duke used his keynote speech to launch a broadside against what he described as a “global assault on democracy and freedom”. He added that climate change was “wreaking havoc on our planet, with the most vulnerable suffering the most”. But while many supporters of the Sussexes praised the Duke’s speech, some were quick to criticize him and question his suitability for such an important platform. Speaking about the appearance, royal expert Jonathan Sacerdoti claimed: “He is literally completely incapable of having anything important to say to people, but instead uses his position as someone in the British royal family to spread what he thinks is an important message.” The commentator added that he “does not question whether it is an important message or not,” but rather “questions” the messenger. In his speech, the Duke also spoke of his late mother Princess Diana’s meeting with the former South African leader in March 1997 and how he “sought solace” in Africa after her death. Harry also criticized a recent decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn the controversial Roe v Wade decision, which, since 1973, had granted abortion rights to 50 states. But his words were mocked by Justice Samuel Alito in a public row this week. Speaking in Rome during a conference on religious freedom organized by the University of Notre Dame Law School, the conservative Catholic judge said in a sarcastic tone: “What really hurt me, what really hurt me, was when the Duke of Sussex spoke at the United Nations. and appeared to compare the decision, which may not be named, to Russia’s attack on Ukraine.”
