In England, Prince Harry has been granted private security, but he argues that it's insufficient to ensure his safety and that of his family. Alex Boberg, a former assistant at Kensington Palace, has come forward with a compelling argument supporting Harry's call for state-sponsored security during his UK visits.
The Duke of Sussex, who recently faced challenges securing accommodations during his UK trip, faced these setbacks due to his decision to step down as a senior royal in 2020. This move led to two lawsuits against the government. In the first case, Harry sued the British government after his police protection was removed, which he found deeply concerning. Unfortunately, the court did not rule in his favor in the first case, and the second case is currently awaiting trial.
Harry does have his private security teams in both the US and the UK, but they are not allowed to carry firearms on British soil. In response to the security concerns, Prince Harry even offered to cover the cost of police protection personally, but this proposal was rejected, resulting in the loss of police protection.
Alex Boberg emphasized the need for Prince Harry's safety, considering his unique circumstances and his past military service, including his deployments to Afghanistan. He pointed out that Harry had inherited a lifelong security risk simply by birth, and his position as sixth in line to the throne puts him at continued risk. Recent reports revealed that Prince Harry encountered difficulties when attempting to stay at Windsor Castle without prior notice, necessitating additional security measures for him and his family during the visit.
The ongoing debate surrounding Harry's security requirements reflects broader issues concerning royal protection and public safety. Supporters like Alex Boberg argue that given Harry's circumstances and his service to the country, state-sponsored security is essential to ensure his safety and that of his family.
