Importance Score: 72 / 100 🔴
Prince Harry Claims Security Removal Was a ‘Trap’ by Royal Family
Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, believes the withdrawal of his police protection was a deliberate tactic to coerce him and Meghan Markle into remaining within the Royal Family. Court documents reportedly reveal that “secret evidence” has substantiated the Duke’s “worst fears,” according to The Telegraph. The Prince has voiced his dismay over the 2020 decision to revoke their security, suggesting it is a central issue in his strained relationship with King Charles. This legal challenge aims to reinstate his taxpayer-funded security when in the UK, a privilege removed after he and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, relocated to the US and stepped back from royal duties. Harry stated that the security concerns were “difficult to swallow” and hinted at the deep rift his treatment has caused with the Royal Family.
Legal Challenge Over Security Arrangements
Prince Harry attended a two-day appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, contesting the government’s decision to eliminate his automatic police protection while in the United Kingdom. Outside the courtroom, the Duke expressed a desire for reconciliation, stating, “We were trying to create this happy house.”
Hopes for Reconciliation and Security Concerns
The Duke and Duchess had hoped that establishing an independent life would improve their relationship with the Royal Family. However, they perceived the removal of their police security detail as an attempt to pressure them into returning to full-time royal duties in the UK. Without adequate security, they felt vulnerable when visiting Britain.
Legal Action and ‘Life’s Work’
Prince Harry initiated legal proceedings against the government to reinstate his official security. He emphasized the significance of this case, even comparing it to his ongoing legal battles against the tabloid press, which he previously described as his “life’s work.”
‘Shocking’ Evidence and Disappointment
Speaking to The Telegraph, Prince Harry indicated that the recent legal process had been particularly upsetting, alluding to undisclosed evidence heard in court. “People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” he stated, adding that his “worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that’s really sad.” He described feeling “exhausted” and “overwhelmed” as the legal proceedings concluded.
vCard.red is a free platform for creating a mobile-friendly digital business cards. You can easily create a vCard and generate a QR code for it, allowing others to scan and save your contact details instantly.
The platform allows you to display contact information, social media links, services, and products all in one shareable link. Optional features include appointment scheduling, WhatsApp-based storefronts, media galleries, and custom design options.
Potential Outcomes and Continued Fight
Even if Prince Harry succeeds in his appeal, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) is not obligated to restore the Sussexes’ security. However, the Duke affirmed his commitment to fighting for justice, stating he is “driven by exposing injustice” and will persist regardless of the appeal’s outcome.
Ukraine Visit and Hypocrisy Accusations
Prince Harry’s recent visit to Ukraine, where he met with wounded soldiers, has drawn criticism. He has been accused of hypocrisy, as he traveled to a war zone while claiming he cannot be safe in his home country without taxpayer-funded security. Critics argue the Ukraine trip contradicts his UK safety concerns and weakens his High Court case.
Security Detail in Ukraine vs. UK
However, sources close to Prince Harry refute these claims, asserting that the security arrangements in Ukraine were “more robust” than what he receives in the UK. One insider clarified to MailOnline that it is “simply incorrect” to suggest the Ukraine trip undermines his legal challenge. Another source close to Harry emphasized, “He can go to Ukraine – a country with an active warzone – because he has a robust security detail, one that he does not have in his home country.”
Missed Meeting with King Charles
Reports from MailOnline earlier in the week indicated that Prince Harry did not meet with his father, King Charles, during his recent UK visit for the legal hearing. Despite arriving from Los Angeles last Sunday, the Duke of Sussex’s father was at his Highgrove residence in Gloucestershire, resting before a State Visit to Italy.
Security Cut After Royal Exit
The High Court appeal hearing was informed that Prince Harry’s taxpayer-funded security was discontinued following his decision to step down from royal duties and “spend most of the time abroad.” The Duke of Sussex contended that he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” when Ravec removed his highest level of security in February 2020, after ‘Megxit’.
Home Office Justification for Security Decision
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, argued that Ravec had the authority to remove Prince Harry’s guaranteed full-time police protection without consulting the Risk Management Board (RMB). He acknowledged that RMB risk analysis is the “usual approach in usual cases,” but asserted that Prince Harry’s departure from royal duties was far from “usual.”
Duke’s Legal Team Argues Against ‘Inferior Treatment’
Prince Harry’s lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, insisted that Ravec had not adhered to its own guidelines and should have sought an assessment of the Duke’s security needs from the RMB. Ms. Fatima stated, “The appellant [the Duke of Sussex] does not accept that bespoke means better – in fact, in his position, it means he has been singled out for different, inferior treatment.” She further argued that the previous judge’s ruling in favor of Ravec was incorrect.
Home Office: Bespoke Decision Justified
Barrister Sir James, speaking for the Home Secretary, reiterated that Prince Harry’s unprecedented withdrawal from Royal duties fundamentally altered the situation. He asserted that the chair of Ravec was uniquely qualified to make a “bespoke decision” regarding the adjustments to the Duke’s security arrangements, given the “unique and unusual circumstances.” Sir James denied any unfair treatment, stating, “He was not being singled out – on the contrary, the process being adopted had positive advantages for him.”