Davies clarified that Prince Harry already receives protection whenever he's in the UK, especially when his visit is related to royal matters, given his status as a prince. What Prince Harry is specifically requesting is armed protection during his visits, a practice he's been accustomed to for several years. He brings along his own security teams, many of whom are former royal protection officers. They may not be armed but are well-trained to handle security matters, ensuring his safety in case of threats or issues.
Davies emphasized that the controversy around this issue is blown out of proportion and will come at a considerable cost to taxpayers, estimating it to be around a million pounds. He also pointed out that the decision to scale back his security was reasonable, considering Prince Harry's decision to step back from his royal duties nearly four years ago. Regardless of his working royal status, the security measures should be based on the actual threat and evidence, not entitlement.
On the other hand, Royal biographer Angela Levin criticized Prince Harry's stance in the legal battle, noting that he seems to expect top-level security services around the clock. She argued that he should only receive protection when engaged in royal family-related events, rather than demanding continuous security for personal matters. Levin pointed out that if he is not satisfied with the security provided, he has the option to arrange and pay for his own protection.
Historian and broadcaster Rafa Hal Del Manu expressed his disapproval of Prince Harry's position in the case. He characterized it as Harry wanting all the privileges of royalty without the corresponding responsibilities. Del Manu also highlighted the unprecedented nature of Prince Harry taking his father's government to court, emphasizing that such a move by a royal is without precedent.
In summary, the ongoing legal battle over Prince Harry's security arrangements has raised significant debate among experts, with differing opinions on his entitlement to continuous top-level protection and the associated costs to taxpayers.
