Parts of the British press have long portrayed Prince Harry’s security battle as proof that he is paranoid, entitled or unwilling to accept the consequences of stepping back from royal duties.

But for many, that framing is not only hogwash; it has become increasingly difficult to sustain when people with direct experience of royal protection and national security are asking the same questions Harry has raised for years.

Chris Ship’s coverage, in particular, can feel hot and cold at the same time. When he is not twisting himself into knots over Prince Harry’s account of Afghanistan in Spare, he is reporting Harry and Meghan Sussex’s movements into and out of the UK while reminding audiences that they no longer receive the state-backed police protection Harry once had as a working royal.

But his latest report raises an awkward point that is much harder to brush aside.

The ITV Royal Editor has highlighted the obvious comparison with former prime ministers, who can continue receiving police protection long after leaving office. Former prime ministers may no longer hold office, yet officials and commentators repeatedly use Harry’s status as a “non-working royal” as though that alone should settle the security question.

Former royal protection officer Scott Hamer put it more simply: the question should be about threat, not title. If Harry faces credible risks, officials should assess his protection on that basis, just as they do for former prime ministers such as Tony Blair or David Cameron.

Harry’s Security Fight Is Increasingly About Risk, Not Royal Status

That distinction cuts to the heart of the controversy. Security is supposed to be based on risk. Yet Harry’s case has repeatedly become tangled up in arguments about whether he still performs official royal duties, as though stepping away from the institution somehow erased the threats attached to being one of the most recognisable members of the Royal Family.

A security assessment obtained by ITV News identified at least six terrorist plots targeting Harry, five originating in Britain, alongside threats from fixated individuals and extremists. His private security team can accompany him in the UK, but its officers cannot carry firearms.

Former Metropolitan Police counterterrorism chief Neil Basu has made that point even more difficult to ignore. Basu has said Harry should be on the protected list because his threat level is “very high.” He told The Telegraph that, in 2019, Harry ranked second only to the late Queen in terms of threat and warned that his risk has increased since then, requiring full armed protection.

And this is no longer simply Harry insisting that something is wrong. Former senior police officers and security specialists are now publicly questioning the logic behind his treatment. The more people with direct experience of threat assessment say Harry faces a serious risk, the harder it becomes to dismiss his concerns as paranoia or entitlement.

Final Thoughts

What makes this debate so frustrating is the inconsistency. Liz Truss spent just 49 days as prime minister, yet former prime ministers can continue receiving protection based on assessed risk. If the King’s own son faces credible threats, why should the conversation begin and end with whether he is a “working royal”?

The public is not entirely opposed either. A December 2025 YouGov poll found that 56% of Britons supported Harry receiving police protection in some form: 17% thought the state should fund it, while 39% supported protection if Harry paid for it himself. Only 28% said he should receive none, and 16% were undecided.

Then there is the Andrew comparison. Andrew lost his taxpayer-funded police protection in 2022, and King Charles reportedly funded private security for him for a period, though reports in 2024 suggested the King was ending that arrangement as well. Harry, meanwhile, wrote in Spare that officials told him they would withdraw financial support and security during the Sussexes’ transition out of royal duties. Canadian authorities then ended the couple’s RCMP protection when they stopped working as senior royals in March 2020.

That contrast is difficult to ignore. At some point, it is hard to believe this was ever about taxpayers; this looks like punitive retaliation against the Sussexes. If risk determines protection for former prime ministers, Harry deserves the same serious assessment. Not another round of excuses designed to keep the argument alive without resolving it.

Discover more from Feminegra

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.