The controversy over Prince Harry’s security continues to divide opinion in the UK.

Since his royal protection was revoked following his departure from royal duties, questions about his safety have persisted—especially after a recent incident involving a woman reportedly “obsessed” with him.

Despite this scare, public sentiment remains largely unchanged: without being an active member of the royal family, Harry and Meghan are not automatically entitled to taxpayer-funded security.

“Just Celebrities Now,” Says Commentator Jane Moore

Columnist and Loose Women panelist Jane Moore weighed in on the debate, suggesting that while the Sussexes still attract immense public fascination, they are effectively “celebrities” rather than royals. Writing for The Sun, she stated, “I sympathize. But the right (or not) to state-backed police protection is decided by the executive committee Ravec, which decided that, as he is no longer a working royal, he’s not entitled to it. Indeed, thanks to their various commercial deals, it could be argued that Harry and Meghan are now classed as mere ‘celebrities.’”

Moore’s remarks cut through much of the emotion surrounding the issue. After stepping down from royal life, Harry and Meghan were offered what Ravec described as a “custom” arrangement—one requiring them to give 30 days’ notice before traveling to the UK so officials could assess any potential threats. For many, it was seen as a reasonable middle ground.

Comparing Harry’s Risks to Other Celebrities

Moore questioned whether Harry should receive different treatment than other high-profile figures facing similar dangers. “With alarming frequency, the newspapers are full of stories about other celebrities (particularly women) whose lives are blighted by stalkers that they don’t get state-backed police protection from,” she wrote. “So if Harry was to get it, then why not them?”

She cited examples such as Strictly Come Dancing judge Shirley Ballas, who was forced to move her mother after enduring harassment from a 37-year-old stalker, and singer Myleene Klass, who described her home as being like “Fort Knox” after her stalker sent her disturbing letters and even an air pistol. Both women, Moore noted, live with the same kind of fear Harry has described.

The distinction, she argued, lies not in the level of threat but in status. “What separates the Duke from Ballas or Klass in the eyes of the law,” she wrote, “is lineage and Ravec’s definition of ‘working royal’ status.” While Harry claims he’s being treated unfairly, critics argue that granting him taxpayer-funded protection would be the real injustice, as it’s a privilege denied to others facing similar threats.

Security Experts Warn “Luck Is Not a Long-Term Fix”

However, those familiar with royal security believe the situation is more complex. A source close to the matter told reporters, “These incidents are not uncommon for members of the royal family.

It differs, however, because there was no police presence or close protection; it was left to two staffers from his private office to intervene. This time, they got lucky, recognizing the fixated individual. Relying on luck is not a long-term fix.”

The insider added that “there is an inevitable foreboding looming over this whole issue,” hinting that the current arrangements may not be sustainable in the long run.

For now, the question of whether Prince Harry should receive state-backed protection remains a bitterly contested issue—balancing royal precedent, public safety, and the price of stepping away from the Crown.