Prince Harry's battle for security protection in the U.K. continues, and some feel he is using his late mother in his argument to overturn the ruling.

In a recent episode of "Good Morning Britain," presenter Sussana Reid defended Prince Harry amid his legal move to challenge the Home Office over his protection status in the U.K. She insisted that even if the Duke of Sussex is no longer a working royal, his status as the son of the British King hasn't changed, so he's "still at risk."

"He's still part of the Royal Family!" she said in a clip from the episode obtained by Express.

Dickie Arbiter, journalist and radio commentator on the British royal family, who also served as Queen Elizabeth II's press spokesperson, reacted to the discussion about Prince Harry's security problem. He implied that Prince Harry was using his mom in his legal battle.

"Prince Harry constantly brings his mother into the security equation. Had she not got rid of her @metpoliceuk security in 1993 -- on the grounds of intrusion -- we wouldn't be going through this security circus today. PH really does need to get his facts right," he commented. 

In his argument, Prince Harry cited how his mother, Princess Diana, died in Paris in a car crash after her vehicle was chased by paparazzi. The Duke of Sussex claimed that he and his wife have been subjected to threats and hatred, so they need high-level police protection whenever they visit his home country.

However, what Arbiter wanted to point out was that it was Princess Diana who turned down the security due to "intrusion." It wasn't taken away from her.

Netizens quickly shared mixed opinions on Arbiter's take on the issue. Some agreed with him and accused the Sussexes of using the "Diana" card. Others sided with Prince Harry.

"People always forget this. Thank you @RoyalDickie, for reminding people. Harry uses his mother's name to make people feel sorry for him," one wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

"Thank you, Dickie! I've said this to people & they always tell me I'm wrong. I was an adult then -- I remember. I think she handed back HRH for more money, but that might be wrong. I knew the protection was given up -- hence her death at the hands of her idiot boyfriend's drunk driver," another user commented.

"I think that's the point he's making, his current narrative. In reality, having Met protection wouldn't have stopped paps, but they wouldn't have allowed a high-speed chase with a drunk driver and no seat belts ... something most people know not to do!" a third person wrote, defending Prince Harry.

"[S]ecurity pulled in 2020 to [the] extent of endangering a 5-month-old baby, Charles is behind Harry being denied to pay security in [the] U.K., in January took away their home where they had security parameters. Does King Charles III want his own son, daughter-in-law, and grandkids harmed?" a Sussex supporter asked.

Meanwhile, Prince Harry wasn't around for the opening remarks of the three-day High Court battle over his right to protection. The hearing will wrap up on Thursday.

Tags: Prince Harry Princess Diana Prince Harry's security