King Charles III Should 'Step up and Defend Harry' Over Police Security

King Charles III should intervene to help secure Prince Harry's police protection in the U.K., royal expert Kristen Meinzer has told Newsweek.

The Duke of Sussex suffered a legal defeat on Tuesday in his attempt to get police bodyguards reinstated during his family's trips to Britain.

Harry has launched two lawsuits against the Home Office over the dispute. This week a judge at the High Court in London rejected one of those cases, in which Harry was seeking the right to pay privately for the service. The other lawsuit is continuing.

The Metropolitan Police had argued in a court filing that, if Harry had won, other wealthy individuals would be able to buy the services of armed police. This would leave fewer of the specially trained officers available to guard other VIPs, including royal family members.

Meinzer told Newsweek podcast The Royal Report that King Charles III should step in to help his son.

In comments made hours before the judge's ruling, she said: "So far they've had a pretty good track record with the lawsuits—up until now they have.

"But I just really wish that Charles or some other member of the royal family would step up here. Maybe they could solve this if they were to step in and maybe this lawsuit then wouldn't even be necessary, but I don't think that they're going to. Let's be real —Charles is not going to step up and defend Harry."

She added: "You know what I'm curious about on this, where the other royals stand on this case. The other royals have had experiences where they have wanted protection for people who aren't royal."

Meinzer pointed to an account in Tina Brown's book The Palace Papers that Prince William had a panic button installed in Kate Middleton's flat before they were married so she could alert local police to would-be intruders.

"Other members of the royal family have been in fear of stalkers, of paparazzi, have asked for special favors from the police in the past for people who aren't technically royals.

"I imagine there must be people in the royal family who know what Harry is feeling now. I wish one of them would step up and say, 'You are still essentially a member of the family. You are still someone who is titled. You are still in a lot of ways—even though you are not working on behalf of the crown—you are a public figure who is perceived as part of this institution. On the rare occasions you are visiting the U.K. we will find a way to protect you.'"

Meinzer pointed out that Harry, Meghan and their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet are "not there very often."

"They're not asking for 24/7 protection, 365 days a year, and the reason Harry and Meghan want to pay for that protection is because they don't ever want to be accused of leaching off the public taxpayers' dollars. They don't want to say, 'Yeah, we don't live here anymore but we're using all of your resources to protect us.'"

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.