It didn't sit right that UK citizens working hard to make ends meet would have their money taken to protect a royal couple worth over $100 million who don't carry out duties here anymore. The topic dominated news cycles and online commentary for days, with the mood firmly against approving Harry's request.
This is where things took an unexpected turn. Fed up with having no other way to be heard on this issue directly impacting them, dozens of British taxpayers organized a protest and marched on the streets toward the Royal Courts of Justice in London this past Friday. Chanting slogans like "Not another penny for Harry" and "We pay your bills, will you face the public?" they demanded an urgent audience with judges to argue against funding the prince's security demands.
It was a highly unusual move for average citizens to take such bold action over a royal matter, but the crowd of over 200 strong made it clear they had reached a breaking point over their taxpayer money potentially going towards protecting a non-working Royal. Police followed alongside to ensure the protest remained peaceful as the marchers stormed through the city toward the historic court building.
Upon arrival, the demonstrators refused to disperse until granted a hearing. Judges, not used to such disruption, had no choice but to allow a small delegation inside to present their case on behalf of taxpayers. Spokespersons Peter Johnson and Amanda Brooke took to the floor passionately arguing that taxpayers deserved representation when royals openly request public funds. They spoke of biting inflation, rising bills, and more people relying on benefits to get by, all while a prince worth millions wanted taxpayers to subsidize his lifestyle choices.
In a rare move, the court decided to consider their arguments and review documentation linking Harry's security demands directly to taxpayer money being spent without public consent or oversight. Judges stated they would deliberate on the issue privately and deliver a judgment within two weeks. While not a traditional court case, it marked the first time average citizens had ever been granted a voice in royal financial matters directly impacting them.
The taxpayers departed feeling they had been heard at last on an issue close to their wallets and purses.
