Prince Harry loses his security appeal and lashes out

'Shocking truths' and 'a good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up'

Screengrab of Prince Harry’s interview on the BBC

The court schedule in the United Kingdom means I’m again writing about Prince Harry’s legal case against the Home Office over his security rather than the upcoming Second World War commemorations. At this rate of breaking royal news, I’ll get to the upcoming visit to Ottawa by the King and Queen of Canada on Monday.

Now back to Prince Harry’s legal issues.

On Friday, May 2, the Court of Appeal issued its verdict in the prince’s appeal of a 2024 verdict that the government did nothing wrong in how it determined the protective security arrangements after he ceased to be a working member of the royal family and left the United Kingdom for California.

Harry lost.

The panel of three judges upheld the original ruling that the way current “bespoke” security system was put in place in 2020 may not be exactly the process that Prince Harry believes is necessary, but it is legal and was no way decided in a manner that was unfair or irrational. As it stands, he gets protection as needed when he visits the United Kingdom, but the level and type of protection is decided on a case-by-case basis.

Harry lashed out in what can only be described as a bitter, angry diatribe in an interview with a BBC journalist in California, calling the ruling by three judges on the Court of Appeals “a good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up.”

The appeals court talked about Prince Harry’s complaints in its decision:

Plainly, the Claimant feels that he has been badly treated by the system. I completely understand the Claimant’s point of view.

From the Duke of Sussex’s point of view, something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from Royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK. But that does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint.

That “unintended consequence” is the defining issue of this saga. When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decided to step back from their roles as working royals, they assumed that their level of police protection would be maintained though their roles were significantly altered to that of private citizens living outside the United Kingdom. That assumption proved proved very wrong.

Indeed, the appeals judgment mentions that Prince Harry’s “dissatisfaction with the security that has been provided on visits since June 2021” before noting, “Those decisions were taken as an understandable, and perhaps predictable, reaction to the Claimant having stepped back from Royal duties and having left the UK to live principally overseas.”

Harry feels the switch to a trip-by-trip security analysis isn’t enough to keep him safe: “This reckless action knowingly put me and my family in harm's way. Life is precious and I understand the fragility of it,” he said a statement issued on Sussex.com. “This legal action has been a last resort, but one that has uncovered shocking truths.” He says he will ask the Home Secretary to “urgently examine the matter” and review the process.

PAPA IS THE PROBLEM

Throughout the BBC interview, Harry blames his father in language that is incendiary and even bullying.

“Do you not want to ensure our safety?” he asks of his father, King Charles III, whom Harry believes has the ability to order the elected government to provide what Harry wants — automatic police protection any time the prince and his family are in the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they are there for royal family events or private business event. “There is a lot of power and control in my father’s hands,” he says, adding, “Ultimately, this whole thing could be resolved through him, not necessarily by intervening, but by stepping aside, allowing the experts to do what is necessary.”

He believes his family is responsible for his security being downgraded. “I thought that with all the disagreements and with all the chaos that is happening, the one thing I could rely on my family keeping me safe. But not only did they decide to remove my security in the U.K., but they also signalled to every single government around the world not to protect us,” Prince Harry claims in the BBC interview.

EXAMINING THE LEGAL RECORD

A look through the extensive legal filings of cases involving Harry shows that the royal family was very concerned about the Sussexes’ security.

On January 31, 2020, the late Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, wrote to cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill, on what had been agreed at the Sandringham summit meeting. In part, it states: “You will understand well that ensuring that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain safe is of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family. Given The Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal Family, his military service, The Duchess’s own independent profile and the well-documented history of targeting of the Sussex family by extremists, it is imperative that the family continues to be provided with effective security.” (More in my post on the long, winding timeline of Prince Harry’ legal actions.)

At the same time, Young made it clear that the security decision lay with the government. On February 28, 2020, RAVEC [the Royal and VIP Executive Committee] “decided that, because of the Claimant’s changed role, the provision of State security would no longer be appropriate, on the same basis as before, and would cease no later than 31 March 2020, save in particular and specific circumstances.”¹

In that decision letter, the RAVEC chair, Sir Richard Mottram, wrote to Sir Edward Young, in part:

RAVEC is responsible for risks arising within Great Britain as they affect principals who are in almost every case resident within Great Britain. The future arrangements for the [Sussexes] do not fit readily within this framework.

As further context we have commissioned up-to-date threat assessments. [see Confidential Annex]. RAVEC will continue to monitor the security of the Sussex family, including through periodic threat assessments. Should anything change in terms of specific threat this will be communicated to the Home Office through established channels with the police and [see Confidential Annex] and actioned as necessary.

[Confidential] the existing provision of [Confidential ] by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) will no longer be appropriate and will be withdrawn by no later than 31 March 2020.

Against the background set out above there is no basis for publicly-funded security support for [the Sussexes] within Great Britain in relation to [Confidential ].

It is difficult to judge what might be appropriate without knowing the Duke of Sussex’s forward programme or what private arrangements if any are being made for his security in Great Britain to link with and complement those which are being put in place in Canada.

A THEORY ABOUT WHY HE’S FIGHTING SO HARD

This sentence from Harry’s interview with the BBC caught my attention: “But not only did they decide to remove my security in the U.K., but they also signalled to every single government around the world not to protect us.”

I remembered the April 4 episode of “A Right Royal Podcast,” in which Matt Wilkinson, royal editor of the Sun, offered his theory about Harry’s motivation for his zealous legal action.

At around the 39-minute mark in the podcast, Wilkinson expounds on his theory that Harry wants the status of “protected person” in the U.K. so he gets guaranteed security paid by the government. That “protected person” status could allow him to get that same level of security when he’s abroad, paid by individual governments.

Now that he’s lost the appeal in the United Kingdom, that other door has surely closed as well.

OTHER NEFARIOUS VILLAINS

Prince Harry continues making vague allegations against unnamed institutions and people. During the BBC interview he claims to have discovered “that some people want history to repeat itself, which is pretty dark,” in an apparent reference to the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, then says he won’t reveal the names. “I’m not going to share at this point. I know all the names of the people that were involved in this process.”

In his statement on Sussex.com, he adds to today’s pile of allegations by talking of institutions that “preyed upon my mother” and “continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children”:

RAVEC's ability to make decisions outside of its own policies and the so-called political sensitivities of my case have prevailed over the need for fair and consistent decision-making. The court has decided to defer to this, revealing a sad truth: my hands are tied in seeking legal recourse against the establishment. This all comes from the same institutions that preyed upon my mother, that openly campaigned for the removal of our security, and that continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children, while at the same time protecting the very power that they should be holding accountable.

CAN’T WE ALL GET ALONG?

After all that vitriol, Prince Harry maintains he now wants to reconcile with his family because he’s not sure how long his father will live. “I don’t know how much longer my father has,” he tells the BBC. “He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. But it would be nice to reconcile.”

(“His son suing the King’s government in the King’s court over a decision taken by a committee that decides on the King’s security makes it incredibly tricky for Charles,” is how a source close to the monarch explained to the Times why having a heart-to-heart with his son was difficult during the court case.)

Now, all is forgiven, at least from the Sussex point of view. Prince Harry is willing to forgive “my father, my brother, and my stepmother,” saying “there’s no point in continuing to fight any more” but acknowledges that some family members won’t forgive him for “lots of things.”

Buckingham Palace didn’t address any of his latest claims and accusations, instead issuing a rather biting statement of its own: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

---

LEGAL CASES AND TIMELINE