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.