Why Should We Pay? Brits Blast Prince Harry's Bid for State-Funded Protection

Prince Harry's contentious battle for armed police protection in Britain has returned to the spotlight after officials ordered a new security review that could determine whether he is once again granted full taxpayer-funded protection during visits to the UK.

However, the move has triggered a significant backlash among Britons, many of whom express outrage at the prospect of paying to protect a prince who has stepped down from royal duties but still demands state-funded security.

Sources confirmed to BBC News that the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures committee, known as Ravec, has instructed its Risk Management Board to carry out a full reassessment of the Duke of Sussex's threat level for the first time in nearly six years.

The review follows Harry's legal defeat in May when he failed in his High Court bid to restore the 24-hour armed police protection that was removed after he stepped down as a working royal in 2020 and relocated to the United States with wife Meghan and children Archie and Lilibet.

'I Can't Bring My Family Back to Britain'

In a BBC interview following the ruling, the duke said he felt unable to return to the UK with his family because he could not guarantee their safety.

'I can't see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point,' he said, describing the ruling as 'devastating'.

Harry's lawyers argued that Ravec failed to properly reassess the risks he faced when his security was downgraded, claiming he was singled out for unfair treatment. Judges rejected the claims, ruling that the decision-making process was lawful.

A senior judge said the duke's 'sense of grievance' did not amount to grounds for a successful appeal, confirming that his protection would remain case-by-case rather than automatically guaranteed, unlike the security given to senior working royals.

Emotional Stakes for the King

The renewed review is gathering evidence from police, government officials and Harry's representatives and is expected to conclude next month.

It carries major emotional implications for the Royal Family. King Charles has not seen his grandchildren since June 2022, when Archie and Lilibet visited Britain for Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

Harry, a former Apache helicopter pilot who served in Afghanistan, was previously considered among the most at-risk public figures in the country, alongside the late Queen Elizabeth II and the Prime Minister.

Britons Revolt Over 'Taxpayer Bill'

However, news of the fresh security assessment has unleashed a tidal wave of public anger online, with many Britons questioning why taxpayers should foot the cost to protect a prince who now lives a luxury lifestyle in California.

Social media reaction and public commentary have been dominated by complaints over value for money, with critics pointing to Harry's wealth and lucrative media earnings as evidence that he could easily fund his own security.

After releasing his bestselling memoir Spare and signing multimillion-pound deals in the US, many argue that the duke no longer represents the public or serves the nation and should therefore not benefit from taxpayer support.

Calls for Harry to Pay His Own Way

The issue has quickly become a flashpoint in the national debate over royal privilege and accountability.

LBC radio host Iain Dale posed the question directly to listeners: 'Should the British taxpayer pay for security for Prince Harry and his family if they visit the UK?'

A UK defence analyst and BBC contributor captured much of the public mood when he said: 'I'm not a fan of the taxpayer funding Prince Harry's security. What does he do for the UK? Zilch. He should fund it himself.'

What Happens Next?

The Home Office insists Britain's security arrangements are 'rigorous and proportionate' but refuses to comment on specific individuals for safety reasons.

Officials will now weigh the evidence before deciding whether Harry should once again qualify for full police protection, or whether the current ad-hoc arrangements should remain in place.

For the duke, the review offers hope that he may finally feel safe enough to return to Britain with his family.

For critics, it represents the latest example of a pampered royal asking the country to bankroll a lifestyle choice he made himself.

As the decision looms, the row has reopened the wounds of Megxit and reignited a bitter national debate over privilege, public money and where royal responsibility truly ends.