A royal commentator told Prince Harry he can “rot outside” after the Duke of Sussex appealed his security arrangements against the Home Office.
A royal commentator told Prince Harry he can “rot outside” after the Duke of Sussex appealed his security arrangements against the Home Office. Harry attended his two-day appeal hearing at the High Court after travelling 5,000 miles to the UK. At the same time, his father, King Charles, made history in Italy as he addressed the Italian Parliament in their native language.
Prince Harry’s Legal Battle for Security: A Royal Rift with Public Consequences
Prince Harry’s ongoing legal fight for personal security protection in the United Kingdom has ignited a nationwide debate over royal responsibility, taxpayer funding, and the fallout from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s controversial split from the monarchy. In a courtroom statement that captured headlines, Harry’s barrister claimed that the prince’s “life is at stake,” emphasizing the dangers he faces without full taxpayer-funded protection while in the UK.
The comments were made during a high-profile court hearing where Harry challenged the UK government’s decision to downgrade his security status after he stepped down from royal duties in 2020. The prince, who now resides in California with his wife Meghan Markle and their two children, has argued that he is still at risk due to his royal background and high-profile status.
However, his request has faced fierce opposition both in the media and among public figures, with critics arguing that stepping back from official duties means forfeiting the privileges that come with them—especially when it comes to publicly funded security.
Royal Commentators Slam Harry’s Demands
Royal commentator Adam Brooks, speaking to GB News, did not hold back in his condemnation of Harry’s appeal. “I still believe that Harry and Meghan should have nothing to do with the Royal Family,” Brooks said. “They ripped it apart, they tarnished the reputation of the Royal Family around the world, and he can rot outside it. He doesn’t deserve any security, in my opinion.”
Brooks went further, suggesting that Harry and Meghan’s public criticisms of the monarchy have left lasting scars on the institution’s global image. “They tarnished the reputation of the Royal Family around the world,” he said, expressing the belief that the couple’s actions, including their interview with Oprah Winfrey and subsequent projects, have damaged the monarchy’s standing.
Security Should Reflect Royal Duties, Say Critics
Mark Littlewood, director of the Popular Conservatives, echoed these sentiments, stating that the prince’s request for security is inconsistent with his chosen path. “He should not be getting it. He has made his decision to absent himself from royal duties,” Littlewood told GB News. “The security, at least around the clock, should be attached to doing those duties on a case-by-case basis.”
According to Littlewood, the taxpayer’s burden should be limited to supporting working royals who actively serve the nation, not those who have opted for a more private, international lifestyle. “We could provide him with security, just as we do with any other person on a case-by-case basis,” he said, “but not round the clock, not on the basis of his royal status.”
This argument highlights the central issue at the heart of the legal case: whether Harry, having relinquished his role as a senior working royal, should still be entitled to protection funded by the British public.
Harry’s Offer to Pay Rejected
Supporters of the Duke of Sussex argue that the situation is more complex. Commentator Nina Myskow offered a more sympathetic view during her appearance on GB News, expressing disappointment over the deterioration of Prince Harry’s role in public life.
“It really pains me to see just what a waste of a great royal Harry was,” Myskow said. She claimed that public perception of Harry has been shaped largely by narratives “pushed by the palace and perpetrated by the media.”
Myskow also shed light on Harry’s initial efforts to compromise with the UK government regarding security arrangements. “He’s not asking for round-the-clock security,” she explained. “What he actually was originally asking for was, when he wasn’t getting his own security, if he could bring his own armed security and pay for it himself.”
According to Myskow, Harry was not seeking to burden British taxpayers. Instead, he proposed hiring private protection that could carry arms—a request reportedly denied due to UK regulations regarding foreign security operatives.
“He didn’t want the taxpayers to pay for it, so he said he’d pay for it himself, but he’s not allowed to do that,” she added, underlining the legal and logistical barriers Harry now faces when visiting his home country.
Awaiting a Court of Appeal Ruling
As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes are now on the Court of Appeal, which will determine whether the government’s decision to remove Harry’s full police protection was lawful. At the conclusion of the latest hearing, the judge, Sir Geoffrey Vos, indicated that the written ruling would not be delivered before Easter.
“Plainly we will take our time to consider our judgments,” Sir Geoffrey said, suggesting that the matter’s complexity requires thorough deliberation.
The decision will likely set a precedent for how former royals—or other high-profile individuals—are treated when it comes to state-funded protection. Harry has emphasized that his concerns are rooted in real threats, referencing both past security breaches and the tragic fate of his mother, Princess Diana.
A Broader Debate
This legal battle is more than a personal issue for Prince Harry—it is emblematic of the wider conversation about what the British monarchy represents in the modern world. It forces the public to reckon with the cost of royal security, the responsibilities that come with status, and what happens when a royal voluntarily steps back from their traditional role.
Supporters argue that Harry remains a symbolic figure who faces unique risks regardless of his formal duties. Critics say that independence should mean forfeiting privileges—especially those that cost taxpayers money.
In the court of public opinion, the lines are sharply drawn. For some, Harry is a man trying to protect his family in a hostile environment. For others, he is reaping the consequences of choices he freely made.
As the UK awaits the court’s decision, one thing is certain: the story of Prince Harry, once a beloved member of “The Firm,” continues to provoke emotion, debate, and division—both within the palace walls and far beyond them.
