Prince Harry is facing mounting criticism over his ongoing legal battle to regain automatic police protection in the UK, with royal commentators pointing out contradictions in his security concerns.
The Duke of Sussex has been challenging the Home Office’s decision to strip him of publicly funded police protection when he is in the UK, arguing that his safety — and that of his family — is at risk. However, critics have noted that Harry has often stayed in hotels without police presence during international trips, raising questions about the consistency of his argument.
During a recent hearing at the Court of Appeal, Prince Harry expressed his frustrations over what he perceives as unequal treatment compared to other high-profile individuals. He claimed his “worst fears” had been confirmed and suggested that “people would be shocked by what’s being held back.”
The comments have stirred debate in the media. On The Sun’s Royal Exclusive show, TalkTV’s royal editor Sarah Hewson stated, “He is not going to let this one go, regardless of what the outcome is.”
Royal correspondent Matt Wilkinson also chimed in, questioning the Duke’s persistence. “Is he just going a bit over the top here? Why is he so obsessed with the security?” he said.
Adding fuel to the controversy, Hewson raised concerns about Harry’s actions versus his statements. “How can you travel to a place like Ukraine and suggest you’re not safe enough to bring your family to the UK?” she asked.
Harry has reportedly received stronger security support during trips to countries such as Colombia and Nigeria than when visiting Britain. This has led to further scrutiny from critics who argue that the prince’s security concerns appear selective.
Despite the backlash, Prince Harry continues to argue that the current system — which evaluates protection requests on a case-by-case basis — is insufficient. He maintains that he and his family should receive automatic police protection during UK visits, as they remain prominent public figures at risk.
As the legal battle unfolds, the debate over royal security and public funding continues to divide both the public and royal commentators.
