A letter published under the heading LETTERS argues that Prince Harry should pay for his own protection rather than seek taxpayer-funded security in the UK.
Claim over taxpayer-funded protection
In the letter, Alan Fitzpatrick of Dunlop says Prince Harry asked the Home Office for taxpayer-funded protection for himself and his family at the level provided only for senior working royals.
He writes that Harry asked for the security despite knowing that as non-working royals, he and his family are not automatically entitled to that level of extensive and expensive protection. Fitzpatrick also says Harry’s previous request was refused and that royal security isn’t for hire.
The letter says that during Harry’s time in the United States, American taxpayers were not expected to pay for his protection. It questions why UK taxpayers should now do so.
Wealth and legal cases
Fitzpatrick argues that Harry can afford private protection, pointing to his inheritance and celebrity lifestyle. He says Harry has luxury homes in California, Portugal and soon the Cotswolds, and adds that he has raised multiple lawsuits in the UK without regard to their huge costs and likely outcomes.
The letter also says that, assuming Harry outlives his father, he will be a senior beneficiary of King Charles’s vast estate.
Fitzpatrick concludes: “All in all, he can well afford to pay for his own private protection.”
Context from the letter
Before addressing Harry’s security, the letter opens by saying royalist support has been “sorely tested” in recent years, citing “the unseemly saga” involving Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, and his ex-wife Sarah, as well as “the continuing soapbox antics” of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
It says the Sussexes accused members of the royal family of being racist, while also attempting to cash in on the titles bestowed on them when they married. It also says they moved to California “with the intention of becoming self-supporting by commercialising their principal asset, their royal titles.”
The letter states that “the late Queen resisted” that approach.
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.