Prince Harry faced fierce criticism from callers to the Jeremy Vine show who insisted he and his family should not be provided with state protection when he comes to the UK.
The callers argued that he does not pay the tax that would fund state security services – with another adding the Prince should effectively operate like any other celebrity would in the same situation. The Duke of Sussex yesterday lost his High Court challenge in which he contested a decision to downgrade his security status.
One caller, Dave from Norwich, said: “Harry is a good lad. He served in the forces like myself, he went to Afghanistan – but he doesn’t deserve protection. He decided to leave.”
Mr Vine responded: “Well, if he’s danger when he comes back David, that’s thing. However, Dave argued the Prince has “made his decision.”
He said: “Here’s the thing. We’re all big fans of Diana, we’ll never stop being that. I think Charles is…We need to heal that rift between him and his brother. It’s important. But he made his choice, he should stay there.
“He doesn’t deserve extra money from us. We pay taxes. He doesn’t.” Mr Vine highlighted that Harry does pay tax – but the caller pointed out this was to the US, adding: “We pay for these people.”
The TV host also referred to the Duke’s mother Princess Diana having her own protections removed “when the marriage broke up.”
Another caller, Jane, made the case that Harry should operate as a celebrity would when visiting the UK.
She told the show: “Initially I was with everybody else saying absolutely not, he’s made his own bed he’s got to lie in it. We have some of the best security protection in the world.
“If you have a film star, a pop star, something like that – they have to look after their children, and ensure their families are safe. They don’t get anything special.
“The Royal Family are a part of them now, really, nowadays. I don’t see why he should have extra protection.”
In his High Court case, Harry argued he had been treated unfairly in the changes to his police protection, when he still faced significant security threats. He is intending to appeal against the court’s ruling that there was nothing unlawful about the security decisions made.
After the court ruling Harry’s lawyers said the Duke “is not asking for preferential treatment”. They said there has been an unfairness in how decisions were made about his publicly-funded police protection.
When Harry left the UK, his security arrangement was shifted to be decided on a case-by-case basis, in the same way as other high-profile visitors to the UK.
The ruling found that the approach of having a “bespoke” arrangement for Prince Harry, rather than the same as working royals, was “legally sound”.
