Prince Harry and Meghan have criticized paparazzi for being “extraordinarily reckless” after two photographers were spotted looking into the grounds of Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet’s new school.
School staff and private security saw two men in backpacks walking the perimeter of the school and monitoring children, U.K. news agency PA reported. The men, later identified as photographers linked to a European press agency, then returned to a white van, which police determined to be a rental vehicle.
A spokesperson for the couple said, “The decision by photographers to conduct themselves in this way around a school is extraordinarily reckless. There is a world of difference between legitimate media activity and photographers walking the perimeter of a school, stopping to look into the grounds and monitoring children as they go about their day.
“It is concerning enough that certain European paparazzi appear unwilling to respect the privacy of children at school… Whatever photographs they may have been seeking, this was not only an unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of children; it was an irresponsible and ill-considered way to conduct themselves in the vicinity of a school.”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have kept their children out of the public eye in recent years, not taking them to public events or sharing photos of their faces on social media.
The couple moved their children to a new school earlier this month having pulled their kids out of a previous school after just two days, when their security team raised concerns over heavy traffic on the route from their home to the school.
Members of the British press have followed a request from Britain’s independent press regulator not to identify the school that Archie and Lilibet attend or where the family is living. But photographers working for companies in other countries aren’t bound by the same rules.
The family, who moved back to the U.K. in August, are waiting to hear if they will be given taxpayer-funded security. Taxpayer-funded protection is given to working royals, a role Harry and Meghan left in 2020 when they stepped back from their royal duties and moved to California.
The Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), is assessing the family’s eligibility after Harry lost his Court of Appeal challenge on security in May 2025. In the interim, they’re paying for private security and have put measures in place to increase the security of their new home, Britain’s ITV News reports.
Harry, who is fifth in line to the British throne and a veteran of the British Army, maintains there are multiple threats against him. According to a report seen by ITV News earlier this year, the risks include a threat to his life made by al-Qaeda in 2023 that was picked up by the FBI on a closed Telegram chat.
Harry vs the media
The incident is the latest in Harry’s fraught relationship with the press, which was intensified when he starting dating Meghan in 2016. In November that year, Kensington Palace, on Harry’s behalf, issued an unusually strong statement condemning a “wave of abuse and harassment” aimed at Meghan. “This is not a game — it is her life and his,” it said.
In 2021, a year after stepping back from their roles as working royals, Harry told James Corden the British press “was destroying my mental health.”
Harry has compared his and Meghan’s treatment by the press to what his mother experienced. In a 2019 statement, he said, “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.” Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris in 1997 while being chased by photographers.
Harry has taken the British tabloids to court several times. In 2023, he won a phone hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers and in 2025 he settled with Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers, which publishes The Sun, receiving an apology and substantial damages.
In July 2026, he and six other claimants, including Elton John, lost a privacy case against Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers. In August, they were ordered to make an initial payment of £9.5 million (about $13 million) toward the publisher’s legal costs.
