Twitter Slams Prince Harry After He Lost Legal Bid To Pay For Police Protection In UK: 'Grow Up'

Royal fans urged Prince Harry to move on after he lost a legal bid to pay for his own police protection while in the U.K., three years after he stepped back from royal duties.

Prince Harry wanted a judicial review of the U.K. government's rejection of his offer to pay for police protection for himself and his family during visits to his home country. But on Tuesday, a U.K. judge announced that he would not give the Duke of Sussex permission to seek a judicial review of the matter, People reported.

Following the decision, some Twitter users criticized Prince Harry, pointing out that he was likely informed he would lose police protection when he decided to resign from being a working royal and speculating that his legal challenge was about his "ego" rather than risks to his safety.

"It was explained to him repeatedly that this would happen if he chose to step down as a senior working royal. No one will have blood on their hands if something happens. He chose for it to be this way. This isn't about risk, it's about his ego," one person claimed.

Another added, "There are consequences. Harry is an entitled prince, thinking he can throw a tantrum and everyone [would] follow what he says. Grow up, Harry. Make your own life."

A third user suggested that Prince Harry "can hire ex- or retired [royal protection officers] just like his aunt does or the King did for Camilla" but "chooses not to."

"If anything happens to him, [it's] his fault. He has no argument," the user added.

A fourth person quoted lawyers for the British government as saying that "Prince Harry should not be allowed to pay for his own police protection while in Britain because wealthy individuals should not be able to buy specially trained officers as private bodyguards," adding: "We need this law in America. We could save tons of money on our politicians."

"The police belong to the British people. They are not for hire. Get your own security detail and be happy that your titles have not been removed [because] you seem to need them," another wrote.

But while many supported the U.K. court's decision, some also sided with Prince Harry.

"Other VIPs rent their services!" one Twitter user claimed, while another wrote, "This is ridiculous. He should receive protection. He is not a celebrity, he is the King's son."

"I think everyone forgets he is the King's son... No matter what he does or does not do, Charles will always be his dad. And if anything happens to him while in the U.K., I don't think Charles will be quiet. ... [A] father can't stop hurting for their kids," a third person suggested.

"I see nothing wrong with this. If he's willing to pay for his own police protection, then why not? He's not a 'working royal' anymore, so he should pay out of his own pocket," a fourth user said.

Another person called the judge's decision "shameful."

"He was born into this risk and situation. It is not of his choosing. Once again, the country he fought for has failed him," the user opined, referring to Prince Harry's 10 years of service in the British army.

One of the privileges Prince Harry and Markle lost after deciding to quit royal duties three years ago was their police protection.

Prince Harry offered to personally pay for protection while in the U.K., claiming that he doesn't feel safe bringing his young children, Archie, 4, and Lilibet, nearly 2, to his home country without a police security detail. A spokesperson for the royal said the Duke of Sussex's U.S. security team doesn't have jurisdiction abroad or access to intelligence in the U.K.

The U.K. Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) denied his request, resulting in Prince Harry's lawyers seeking a judicial review of the decision.

But the Home Office argued that the RAVEC "considered that it was not appropriate to support an outcome whereby wealthy individuals could 'buy' Protective Security from specialist police officers (potentially including armed officers), in circumstances where RAVEC has determined that the public interest does not warrant that individual receiving such Protective Security on a publicly-funded basis," according to CNN.

Prince Harry has a separate legal case challenging the decision to deny providing him security in the U.K.