Prince Harry and Meghan told ‘go and s** yourself’ as security ‘stitch-up’ exposed . hyn
Harry and Meghan have been told to “s** off” over a security “stitch up”. The Express’ Associate Editor, James Walker, laid into the couple in our daily podcast The Daily Expresso. He talked with host JJ Anisiobi about the Sussexes moving their children to a different school two days into term time, with reports suggesting that this was because their security team was experiencing difficulties. James said: “It just feels a bit nicely timed though, doesn’t it? He’s just lost his case to get publicly funded security. This gives the perfect case for it.
“And, to be honest, maybe there is a case of publicly funded security now they’re back in the UK. But I think a lot of people in Britain, quite rightly, are going to be like: ‘These two made an absolute fortune swanning off and going to be private individuals in America, to then slate the Royal Family, slate the British media, frankly slate Britain as a whole, slate our past, our history, our culture, and then they want to come back, send their kids to really nice schools, probably, with all their millions behind them and then have the cheek to ask us for money to pay for their security.’
Harry and Meghan want Government security (Image: Getty)
He added: “‘Go and s** yourself’ is I think what a lot of people would say.”
JJ said: “They are saying, at least we know Harry’s saying, he would like to pay for the security himself.
“He’s not asking us to pay. He’d like to pay himself.
“However, as it stands, we can’t have our police being paid for by private private citizens. He’s a private citizen, as it stands.”
James said: “Quite right.”
A spokesman for the Sussexes told Hello! magazine: “The decision for the children to move school was taken following a discussion with the family’s security team about the practicalities of their current arrangements.
“The parents remain extremely grateful to all the teachers and staff for the love, care and effort they have shown their family.
“This decision should in no way be interpreted as a reflection on the school or the exceptional care the children have received there.”
Prince Harry and Meghan Told ‘Go and S** Yourself’ as Security ‘Stitch-Up’ Debate Intensifies
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have once again found themselves at the centre of a fierce debate over security after their return to Britain, with a prominent commentator launching a blunt attack on the couple as questions continue over whether they should receive publicly funded protection.
The controversy intensified after reports that the Sussexes moved their children to another school only two days after the start of term because of concerns raised by their security arrangements.
The decision has reignited an argument that has followed Prince Harry for several years: whether his family should receive a greater level of police protection while in the United Kingdom.
During a discussion on the issue, Express associate editor James Walker criticised the Sussexes in unusually strong terms, effectively telling them to “go and s** off” while questioning the timing of the latest security concerns.
His comments reflected one side of an increasingly polarised debate.
Harry, meanwhile, has previously described the loss of his automatic police protection as a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up”, arguing that the current arrangements do not adequately protect his wife and children when they visit Britain.
The dispute has now taken on renewed significance because Harry and Meghan have returned to live in the UK and their children have started attending school there.
Why Security Has Become Such a Major Issue
Prince Harry’s security dispute dates back to his decision, alongside Meghan, to step back from full-time royal duties in 2020.
After the couple moved to the United States, Harry no longer automatically received the same level of taxpayer-funded police protection when visiting Britain.
A specialist committee, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, determines security arrangements for senior royals and other protected individuals.
Harry challenged the decision through the courts.
In 2025, the Court of Appeal rejected his legal challenge against the Home Office over his security arrangements.
The ruling followed an earlier decision that his protection should be assessed differently after he ceased to be a working member of the Royal Family.
Harry has argued that his private security arrangements in the United States cannot replicate the capabilities of Britain’s police protection.
One of his central concerns is access to intelligence.
His private security personnel do not have the same access to classified information available to British police and security agencies.
Harry has argued that this makes it difficult for his family to travel around Britain safely.
Harry’s “Stitch-Up” Claim
The phrase “security stitch-up” originated with Harry himself rather than with the latest commentators.
Following his legal defeat, the Duke of Sussex described the situation as a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up”.
He argued that the process had left him without the level of protection he believed was necessary for his family.
That description has subsequently been repeated in coverage of the dispute.
However, it is important to distinguish between Harry’s characterisation and an established finding.
There has been no judicial finding that the security process was a “stitch-up”.
The courts considered whether the decision-making process concerning Harry’s protection was lawful.
Harry’s disagreement with the arrangements therefore remains a dispute over security assessments and the appropriate level of protection, rather than proof that officials deliberately conspired against him.
The Return to Britain Changes the Situation
The latest developments are significant because Harry and Meghan have returned to Britain more frequently and are now understood to be spending substantially more time in the country.
Their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, have also begun attending school in Britain.
That creates different practical security considerations from those involved when the couple simply visited the UK for short periods.
A school routine means regular journeys, predictable locations and repeated movements.
Security teams therefore need to consider not only individual events but also everyday patterns.
Reports that the children were moved schools after only two days illustrate how seriously the family is considering those risks.
The couple’s spokesperson said the decision was made following discussions with their security team about the practicalities of their existing arrangements.
The spokesperson also stressed that the move should not be interpreted as criticism of the original school or its staff.
Why the Commentator’s Attack Matters
Against this background came the unusually aggressive criticism from James Walker.
Discussing the school move and Harry’s continuing security dispute, Walker questioned whether the latest developments were being presented in a way that could strengthen the Sussexes’ argument for public protection.
He suggested that the timing was convenient because Harry had already lost his legal challenge.
The remarks culminated in a crude dismissal of the couple.
Such language illustrates how emotionally charged the royal security debate has become.
For critics, the Sussexes are private citizens who chose to leave royal duties and pursue financial independence outside the United Kingdom.
From that perspective, taxpayers should not necessarily be expected to fund the same level of protection provided to working members of the Royal Family.
Supporters of Harry’s position take a different view.
They argue that his status as a prominent member of the Royal Family means he remains a potential security target even when carrying out private or charitable activities.
The Question of Publicly Funded Security
At the heart of the dispute is a relatively simple but difficult question: who should pay for Harry’s security when he is in Britain?
The British government has a responsibility to assess threats to senior members of the Royal Family and other high-profile individuals.
But not every member of the Royal Family automatically receives the same protection.
Security decisions are based on assessments of risk and operational requirements.
Harry has argued that his circumstances justify a stronger level of protection.
The government and the relevant security authorities have maintained a different position.
The courts have upheld the existing decision-making framework.
That does not necessarily mean Harry can never receive additional protection.
Security arrangements can change when circumstances change.
A New Risk Assessment
The latest development is that Harry is expected to have his security situation reassessed.
A risk management board is due to consider the circumstances surrounding the Sussexes’ return to Britain.
Ravec is also involved in the wider process of determining protection arrangements.
The Home Office generally does not comment publicly on individual security assessments because revealing details could itself create security risks.
That makes the process difficult for the public to evaluate.
Officials cannot simply publish every threat assessment or explain exactly why a particular protection decision has been made.
Harry, meanwhile, has argued publicly that the system does not adequately reflect the risks he believes his family faces.
The result is a dispute in which one side cannot disclose all of the information supporting its position.
The School Move Adds a New Dimension
The children’s school decision has made the argument more immediate.
The Sussexes are no longer discussing security only in relation to public appearances or occasional visits.
Their children’s daily lives are now part of the practical calculation.
According to reports, the family originally selected a school in Britain before concerns emerged about traffic and security around their home and the journey to school.
The children were moved after just two days.
A spokesperson said the decision followed discussions with the family’s security team and emphasised that the school itself was not at fault.
That clarification is significant.
It suggests that the issue was not necessarily an incident at the school itself.
Instead, the concern was reportedly related to the practical security implications of the family’s daily travel arrangements.
Critics Question the Timing
Critics have nevertheless questioned why the security issue has become so prominent at this particular moment.
The timing coincides with Harry’s return to Britain, the reassessment of his security situation and his children’s arrival in the UK education system.
Some commentators believe the developments demonstrate that the Sussexes have genuine practical security concerns.
Others see them as strengthening Harry’s argument for publicly funded protection.
Neither interpretation should automatically be treated as established fact.
The precise security assessments involved are not publicly available.
That makes it difficult for outsiders to determine exactly how significant each individual risk is.
The Royal Family Complication
The dispute is also complicated by Harry’s relationship with the wider Royal Family.
The couple are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
Buckingham Palace recently reiterated their current status as non-working royals.
A letter from Lord Chamberlain Richard Benyon stated that Harry and Meghan’s position was effectively that of private citizens with commercial and charitable interests.
Their HRH styles remain in abeyance and are not used.
The clarification was reportedly issued shortly before a meeting involving royal security arrangements.
That timing attracted attention because questions about the Sussexes’ protection were already under consideration.
Harry and Meghan were reportedly surprised by the palace’s communication and believed they had received little notice before details were made public.
The “Private Citizens” Argument
The palace’s description of Harry and Meghan as being akin to private citizens has become particularly relevant to the security debate.
The couple retain their titles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but they no longer perform official duties on behalf of the Sovereign.
They have established commercial and charitable activities independently.
Critics argue that this distinction should matter when determining who receives taxpayer-funded protection.
Supporters of Harry’s position counter that security threats do not disappear simply because a person ceases to be a working royal.
Both points reflect different principles.
One concerns the public cost and official status of protection.
The other concerns the level of risk associated with an internationally recognised member of the Royal Family.
Security Versus Privacy
The Sussexes’ situation also highlights a difficult tension between security and privacy.
Greater police protection can involve more officers, intelligence coordination and restrictions on movements.
At the same time, the family wants to maintain control over its private life.
Harry has previously argued that security is particularly important because he and Meghan no longer have the institutional support enjoyed by working royals.
But greater public protection inevitably raises questions about the use of public resources.
That tension is unlikely to disappear regardless of the eventual outcome of the current review.
The Role of the Courts
The courts have already considered Harry’s arguments.
His Court of Appeal defeat did not mean that security risks do not exist.
Instead, the legal proceedings examined whether the decision-making process that resulted in his security arrangements was lawful.
The judgment did not provide Harry with the outcome he wanted.
He has nevertheless continued to seek a reassessment.
That demonstrates the difference between a legal dispute and an ongoing security assessment.
A court decision does not prevent authorities from reviewing security arrangements if circumstances change.
Why the Debate Remains So Divisive
The language surrounding Harry and Meghan demonstrates how deeply divided public opinion about the couple remains.
Supporters frequently portray the Sussexes as a family attempting to protect themselves while living outside the traditional royal system.
Critics view their decision to step away from royal duties as creating corresponding responsibilities, including accepting different arrangements for security.
The latest dispute has therefore become another chapter in the much larger argument about the Sussexes’ relationship with Britain and the Royal Family.
The use of phrases such as “stitch-up” and the personal attacks from commentators have made the debate more dramatic.
But behind the rhetoric lies a technical process involving risk assessments, policing, intelligence and public funding.
What Happens Next?
The most important development will be the outcome of the latest security review.
Authorities will have to assess the circumstances surrounding Harry and Meghan’s current presence in Britain and determine what level of protection is appropriate.
The decision is expected to take account of security risks rather than the intensity of the public debate.
For Harry, the outcome could determine whether he receives additional protection during future visits and activities in Britain.
For the government, the issue involves balancing the security of a high-profile individual against the principles governing publicly funded protection.
For Meghan and the children, the practical question is more immediate: whether they can live and travel in Britain with arrangements that their security team considers adequate.
A Continuing Royal Dispute
The latest controversy shows that Harry’s security battle is far from over.
His description of the process as a “stitch-up” remains his personal characterisation, while commentators continue to debate whether the Sussexes’ circumstances justify greater state-funded protection.
The recent school move has given the argument a new dimension, demonstrating that security considerations can affect everyday family decisions as well as public appearances.
At the same time, the strong language directed at the couple illustrates how difficult it has become to separate the technical security question from the wider dispute surrounding Harry and Meghan.
Ultimately, the decision about their protection will rest with the relevant authorities and their assessment of risk.
The public debate, however, is likely to continue.
For Harry, the issue is about protecting his family.
For officials, it is about applying established security procedures.
And for critics, it is about the responsibilities that accompany the decision to leave royal duties.
Until the latest assessment is completed, the central question remains unresolved: what level of protection is appropriate for a former working royal who has returned to Britain with his family but now lives as a private citizen?
:::
