Prince Harry's Security Battle Is 'Nonsense' Since He's Protected: Royal Commentator

Prince Harry faced criticism amid his fight for security protection in Britain.

King Charles' second son has continued his legal battle, alleging that he was unfairly stripped off his publicly funded security after giving up his status as a working royal. But several commentators didn't think of it this way.

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, historian and broadcaster, and Candice Holdsworth, writer and broadcaster, joined TV presenter Mike Graham for a panel discussion on TalkTV. They discussed Prince Harry's claim he was singled out and treated "less favorably" when the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) changed the level of his security when visiting the U.K. RAVEC decided not to provide Prince Harry 24/7 protection but would protect him on a "case by case" basis depending on its assessment of the threat level.

Holdsworth agreed that the Duke of Sussex was probably a "high-risk person," but he was told that security would be one of the biggest costs when he left his royal post and covering the cost, himself, would be "ruinous."

"You just wonder, did he adequately consider that, or did he just take it for granted that that protection would be provided?" Holdsworth asked.

Graham replied, "I think the trouble with Harry is that he takes for granted that all sort of things are going to be provided for him whether he is part of the royal family or not. He clearly thinks he's entitled to an awful of stuff."

Heydel-Mankoo agreed with Graham that the Duke of Sussex wanted the "perks and the privileges." However, he emphasized that one has to do the work that comes with it to enjoy those benefits.

"This is all complete nonsense, actually, because he is getting protection," Heydel-Mankoo said. "If he comes to attend royal events, he will receive royal protection. They have bespoke protection plans for him, depending upon his needs. But he has such an inflated impression of what he needs and his importance."

To clarify his point, Heydel-Mankoo singled out how important figures like the president of France and the first lady from the United States visited the country. In contrast, Prince Harry claimed he couldn't bring his children along because his home country wasn't safe enough for them.

"If it's good enough for the president of France, I think it's good enough for Meghan and so forth," he added.

Prince Harry's representative, Attorney Shaheed Fatima, told the U.K. court on Tuesday that RAVEC allegedly failed to follow its own policies that should have required a risk analysis about his safety.

"RAVEC should have considered the 'impact' that a successful attack on the claimant would have, bearing in mind his status, background and profile within the royal family -- which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life," Fatima said, ABC News reported. 

"RAVEC should have considered, in particular, the impact on the U.K.'s reputation of a successful attack on the claimant," she added.

Prince Harry wasn't in court during the opening remarks for the three-day hearing. The judge is expected to rule at a later date.