Prince Harry's entitlement compared to Kim Kardashian

Following Kim Kardashian case in a Parisian court for her robbery incident, the Duke of Sussex has just been compared to the reality TV star.

The author in question penning this comparasion is Clemmie Moodie, the assistant editor at The Sun.

Her piece for the outlet compared the two who suffered major security woes, one of which posed the threat of rape for Kim.

“His humiliating court case loss earlier this month, in which the judge ruled Harry’s ‘sense of grievance’ over security did not amount to the basis for a successful appeal, comes in stark contrast to Ms Kardashian’s court case, which ended last week,” she began by saying.

Because when it comes to Kim at the Paris trial she “bravely gave evidence” and relived the heist telling the court her “wrists were bound with cable ties and she was thrown to the bed, and firmly believed she was going to die.”

Not to mention “after five hours on the stand, she calmly told the gang leader she forgave him and reiterated her desire to study law to help others in her position. Not once during her trial did she bemoan her bad luck or slag off her security team, who had reportedly buggered off to a nightclub with her sisters.”

Not to mention “she didn’t go running to the BBC or Oprah after, cashing in on her trauma porn,” Ms Moodie said. “Instead, she somehow learnt from it, and wanted good to emerge from a truly awful situation.”

At this point she brought up Prince Harry and his Appeal with the Home Office for better security and asked “where’s that energy from our very entitled, multi-millionaire Duke of Sussex?”

Because when comparing the two the readers are told, “Kim didn’t sue Emmanuel Macron for not issuing her with state security, despite, like Harry, being one of the most recognisable non-royal faces in the world. Because, quite simply, Kim Kardashian knows that with fame, fortune and privilege comes a hefty security bill.”

“It is the mega-rich’s super-tax, if you will” she added before saying that while “Harry, of course, is a security risk and must be protected.” What he no longer is, is a full time royal.

“And as such he should be treated like any other uber-famouser. And that means footing his own protection bill,” she rebuffed in conclusion as well.