A poll has suggested the vast majority of Brits would not support taxpayers to fund Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's security.
The question posed by Good Morning Britain on its Twitter account drew a huge response.
A whopping 90 per cent of people who responded to the ITV show's unofficial poll, which is not necessarily representative of the general population, did not think the British taxpayer should foot the protection bill for the couple.
It comes after the Mirror revealed the estimated price tag of £20 million a year for the couple's new life outside the royal family.
A row is emerging over who should pay to protect the Sussexes, who are beginning their new life with baby Archie dividing their time between the UK and Canada.
The 'Megxit' royal upset blindsided Buckingham Palace and has left lingering questions over how to manage security for the high-profile couple as they look set to launch their new, globe-trotting lifestyle.
The couple have said they want to continue their charity work, but they are also said to be pursuing millions in corporate deals as they transition into their bid for a 'financially independent' new life.
Canadian authorities have warned it will end its protection for the pair once their royal split is complete, leaving the task to Britain and the couple themselves.
There were 14,685 votes in GMB's poll, and 90.6% of respondents asked 'should UK taxpayers foot the bill for Harry, Meghan and Archie's protection,' voted 'no'.
Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid spoke to Princess Diana's former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe on GMB yesterday, as debate rages over the ongoing cost of the couple's security amid fears it could stretch Met Police resources.
Wharfe said the bill would include cover for the places they stay even when they are not in the UK, to keep the properties secure.
The Queen has allowed the family to continue using Frogmore Cottage in Windsor as part of their royal split deal.
Mr Wharfe continued: "From my point of view, Archie is probably the biggest threat to their family than [his] parents in that there's a real risk of a kidnap here given the publicity."
Journalist Ateh Jewel told GMB why she supported taxpayer funding to protect the Sussexes.
She said Britain had watched Prince Harry grow from a boy mourning the death of his mum, Princess Diana, to a serving soldier who had put his body and his life on the line for his country.
"Whether you like it or not, being a Prince of the Realm is not a normal job. He's got his P45 but he still is number six in line for the throne, baby Archie is number seven.
"I think it is our duty of care, as a British taxpayer, to take care of him."
Piers asked her if it made a difference that the pair had not purely been doing charitable work since stepping aside from royal life, as they look set to court deals worth millions in the corporate world.
In the couple's first outing in their bid for financial freedom, Prince Harry gave an exclusive talk to a wealthy crowd in Miami sponsored by big bank JP Morgan, for which Piers said the couple were rumoured to have been paid up to $1million (£780,000).
It has also since emerged he held talks focused on the potential to work with global banking giant Goldman Sachs.
Piers asked: "Now if they're going to be using their royal status to make that kind of money in the private sector from banks, the British taxpayer - who is struggling right now, times are tough, they are like 'why on earth should be be paying the security if they can afford it."
Jewel responded: "Because Prince Harry, whether you are on the side of the monarchy or not- and that's another discussion... I've got a rather soft spot for the monarchy - whether you like it or not he is a prince of the Realm."
On Twitter, many respondents to GMB's poll took issue with taxpayer funds being used to support the couple's new multimillionaire lifestyle.
Twitter user Ben Robinson wrote: "No. I'm a huge royalist but Harry is choosing to walk away and be independent so he needs to be so."
Matt Barson added: "Didn’t these two want to step away from Royal life and step away from the perils of the press? I’m all for them being independent, but to me, this is very 'have your cake and eat it'."
And Jane Bennett wrote: "Trouble is... Everyone would be devastated if they were harmed in any way due to lack of protection and I’d hate it! So yes -I wouldn’t mind contributing via tax at all: I like our Royals and I know Harry and Meghan made their decision to leave but he is still Prince Harry!"
