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.
If we grant police protection to 9 ‘non working prime ministers” (think Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Starmer), why is it any different for a ‘non-working Royal’ asks this former Met Police Royal Protection Officer?
— Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) August 28, 2026
If there is a threat to Prince… pic.twitter.com/ORJsN3MTYU
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.
Former UK counterterror chief Neil Basu says Prince Harry should be on the protected list, calling his threat level “very high.” He told The Telegraph Harry ranked second only to the late Queen in 2019 and warned his risk has since increased, requiring full armed protection. pic.twitter.com/dAsM1KM8kA
— Feminegra (@feminegra) October 7, 2025
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.
Related Stories
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.
A simple common sense solution: those who require royal dispensation in order to get married, plus their spouses and minor children, should get automatic protection because of their place in the line of succession After all the law considers them critical to the survival of the institution (hence the need for that royal dispensation), and requiring a child to meet a work requirement makes zero sense. This would cover everyone down to Archie, and Lilibet would be covered as the minor child of one of those top six (and she would be bumped up to the top six anyway if William were to become king)
Enjoy the brilliance and warmth of a song posted on YouTube by Majesty Sussex Report channel. Content title “I WANT YOU TO KNOW”
dedicated to:
#PrinceHarry, #MeghanSussex, #PrinceArchie, #PrincessLilibet, #DukeOfSussex, #DuchessOfSussex, #SussexFamily
“As they begin a new chapter in the United Kingdom”
“The song celebrates belonging without asking children to choose between worlds”.
Key message:
“You don’t have to choose one sky”
“You don’t have to choose one shore”
https://youtube.com/shorts/WgJgqda8FDk?si=NOTgb-gcwqy7AW-hhttps://youtube.com/shorts/WgJgqda8FDk?si=Q37I9-3P6omXWVGx
If Britain keeps its monarchy then they must be prepared to meet the security costs of its members even if they fall out or quit the royal life. Children are not given a choice over the families into which they are born.
The comparison to prime ministers is a false comparison. Even if for just 49 days, prime ministers are exposed to state secrets, they’re “read in” to top secrets, classified information, counter-terrorism operations etc. They get security on the basis of the knowledge they have gained and the risk of that knowledge getting out. The same reason American presidents get security for life. It’s what they know that is the risk. Harry does not have that knowledge.
Princess Beatrice lost her tax payer funded security when she was 5th in line to the throne; Harry lost his when he was even further away at 6th in line to the throne. He is now 5th in line, same as Beatrice when she lost it. He just doesn’t like that he does not get special treatment he thinks he deserves
How can you be sure that, as a member of the Privy Council, he will not receive important information? And this is about the vulnerability that stems from his position. He is the King’s son; his family is constitutionally closely linked to both the current and the future King, as son and brother. He expects the security that comes with his position, and the vulnerability inherent in his status within the monarchy.
If you abolish the monarchy, you will no longer have to take responsibility.
Almost every plank of this is wrong. The Privy Council is a ceremonial body with hundreds of members and confers no security briefings; if membership created risk, several hundred ex-ministers would have police details. “The King’s son” isn’t a constitutional position, and the state has already answered whether blood alone buys protection: the King’s brother, British-resident his whole life, has none, and neither do his nieces. Protection tracks role, and the Court of Appeal called the category “based obviously on a person’s current role.” Harry’s current role is private citizen, and he has the security that comes with that position: his own team, $2M a year by his own account, which has intercepted every reported incident. What he wants is armed police, which even his money can’t buy, because the courts upheld that officers are allocated by public interest, not surname. And “abolish the monarchy” concedes the point: the entitlement flows from the institution, whose duties he left while keeping its expectations. Four assessments since 2020, including one after the move. Same answer every time. No role, no officers.
I’d also add: even if he returned to working royal life tomorrow, it wouldn’t restore what he’s asking for. The arrangement he had in 2019 attached to the heir’s household, because he was the working son of the heir to the throne. That person no longer exists. The Queen died, the ladder moved, and the heir’s household is now William’s: the Prince and Princess of Wales and their three children. Harry today is the monarch’s second son, which is the exact slot Andrew occupied through decades of full-time duty without ever holding it. The 2019 package isn’t being withheld from him. It belongs to a household he isn’t in, and no move, no role, and no campaign changes whose household that is.
You have gone to great lengths to show that you have no intention of taking the other side’s arguments into account. He is an official adviser to the King; he is the son of the King of England and – like the Prime Ministers – has stepped down from his role as ‘working King’, a role that does not even exist. He is hounded by a hate-fuelled, money-grubbing press; because of his position, he and his family are exposed to a significant security risk.
But of course, you have the entire right-wing tabloid press worldwide on your side. These are not good times for justice. Yet times will change. No hard feelings.