Critics question Duke’s legal battle as past trips reveal contradictions in safety concerns
Prince Harry is under fire for what many see as contradictions in his ongoing legal fight to restore automatic police protection during his visits to the UK.
Despite arguing that current security measures are insufficient for him and his family, the Duke of Sussex has stayed in hotels without police protection and travelled to high-risk regions, including Ukraine, Colombia, and Nigeria—where his team reported receiving more robust security than in Britain.
During a recent Court of Appeal hearing, Harry voiced frustration over perceived preferential treatment of other VIPs by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), stating his “worst fears” had been confirmed and suggesting that “people would be shocked by what’s being held back.”
However, royal experts have called his position into question. On The Sun’s Royal Exclusive show, TalkTV’s royal editor Sarah Hewson remarked, “He is not going to let this one go, regardless of what the outcome of this is.”
Royal correspondent Matt Wilkinson added, “Is he just going a bit over the top here? I mean, why is he obsessed with the security?”
Hewson further challenged the logic behind his claims: “How can you go to Ukraine and suggest that you are not safe to bring your family back to Britain?”
As Harry continues his legal challenge, critics argue that his past travel choices raise doubts about the consistency of his arguments, placing additional pressure on his campaign for reinstated royal-level protection.
