SECURITY STORM
Prince Harry’s security row is ‘all about the money’ – he wants to ‘cut his own costs & try to win back status’
Insiders claimed the Prince spends "millions" on bodyguards
SOURCES claim Prince Harry's long-running battle over security is "all about the money" as he wants to cut down on bodyguard costs.
The 40-year-old yesterday lost a three-year, multimillion-pound fight after his round-the-clock royal protection was axed in the wake of Megxit.
9
9
9
The Duke of Sussex had declared "my life is at stake", bizarrely claiming to be the victim of an establishment stitch-up and said he “can’t see a world” in which he would bring his wife and kids here.
However The Sun understands that Harry wished he could win the case to cut his security costs and try and get back his status as an International Protected Person.
He spends millions on bodyguards and a source said: “It’s all about the money”.
Harry claimed stripping him of his security was a plot to force him and his wife Meghan back to Britain.
Earlier this month, the prince returned to the UK for his two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in London.
But Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis yesterday ruled against him in a humiliating blow.
The loss - his second unsuccessful appeal against the decision - could be the final nail in the coffin for his security row, although Harry could still take his fight to the Supreme Court.
It also means he faces paying the legal costs for both sides, which is estimated to amount to more than £1.5million.
Most read in Royals
Prince Harry's biggest bombshells:
- Prince Harry lost his publicly-funded security appeal in a humiliating blow today
- Harry claimed the King WON'T speak to him 'because of this security stuff'
- He said he 'can't see a world' where he would bring his wife and children to the UK
- Harry revealed he has 'forgiven' his family and was up for reconciliation - but claimed it was ALL down to Charles
- The royal described his court loss as a 'good old fashioned establishment stitch up'
- He also said he feels 'let down' by his country and reached out to the PM for help.
- Buckingham Palace breaks its silence with a scathing statement after the bombshell interview
- Prince Harry says he 'doesn't know how long King Charles has left'
Harry and Meghan were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.
He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends in a bespoke arrangement.
Harry wanted to fund his own Met Police armed bodyguards but officials refused - with insiders insisting cops are not "guns for hire".
The Met said in its 2023 statement: “To allow an individual to pay for protective security would create a precedent in which other wealthy individuals could argue that they too should be permitted to pay for such services.”
Page Six reported in 2023 that Meghan and Harry pay two million dollars a year on security.
Since Megxit, Meghan and Harry have unfurled a number of podcasts and TV deals.
These include the recent productions With Love, Meghan and Polo - part of a $100m Netflix deal.
Meghan also recently launched a new podcast called Female Founders after her Archetypes series on Spotify.
But their $20m podcast partnership with the music giant ended in 2023.
A Palace spokesman said of the long-running security battle: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”
Harry later released a statement, saying that the legal action was a last resort but it uncovered "shocking truths".
He claimed that the "Royal Household are key decision-makers on RAVEC".
The prince went on to say he remains committed to a life of public service and said: "All I've been asking for is safety."
It comes after Harry lashed out in a TV interview last night, despite claiming to want “reconciliation” with his family.
The father-of-two also revealed that King Charles refuses to speak to him "because of this security stuff".
He said of yesterday’s court decision: “The other side have won in keeping me unsafe.
9
9
9
9
“I can’t see a world in which I will be bringing my wife and children back at this point.”
He told the BBC that verdict was “a good old-fashioned establishment stitch up”, and blamed the Royal Household for influencing the decision to reduce his security.
Harry also chillingly suggested it would be the Firm's fault if anything happened to him or wife Meghan Markle.
The Duke was asked why the taxpayer pay for police security.
He answered: "First off, private security can only do so much, I can’t go into details but most will be able to work that out.
"One of the major things is that they don’t have jurisdiction in a foreign country, they don’t have any jurisdiction.
"Police protection is effective protection, which is what my grandmother made very clear that we needed.
"If you know that other people that are being protected, people that have made a choice for public office, then why would you be comfortable or happy with someone in my position that has given 30 to 35 years service to his country, two tours of Afghanistan and the threats and risks to my life… I was born into this position. I was born into those risks and they’ve only increased over time along with my marriage to Meghan."
Read More on The Sun
Referring to his incendiary memoir Spare published more than two years ago, he added: “Of course some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book. They will never forgive me for lots of things.
“There’s no point in continuing to fight any more. Life is precious. I don’t know how much longer my father has. He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. But it would be nice to reconcile.”
9
9
How the security row has dragged on
- 2020
February
Ravec ruled that the duke will not receive the same level of taxpayer-funded personal protective security when visiting from the US, after he and the Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals.They were later forced to disclose they had put in place "privately funded security arrangements" for their move to the US, after President Donald Trump said his country would not pay for their protection.
- 2021
June 30
Harry met seriously ill children and young people at a WellChild garden party and afternoon tea in Kew Gardens, west London, after returning to the UK from the US. It is understood that photographers chased the duke's car as he left.
September 20
The duke began legal action against the Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec's decisions.
- 2022
February 18
At a preliminary hearing, Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the duke, told the High Court that Harry wanted to bring his children to visit from the US, but that he "does not feel safe" when visiting under the new security arrangements, citing the visit in June 2021. The court also heard that Harry previously said he wanted to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill. He argued that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information, which is needed to keep his family safe. But Robert Palmer KC, for the Home Office, said the offer of private funding was "irrelevant". In written submissions, he said: "Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it." Mr Palmer later said in the written submissions that the duke had "failed to afford the necessary measure of respect" to the Home Secretary and Ravec.
March 24
Mr Justice Swift ruled that some documents in the case, including Harry's witness statement, can be kept confidential.
July 7
At the first stage of the duke's legal challenge, the High Court was told that Ravec's decision in February 2020 was invalid due to "procedural unfairness" because Harry was not given an opportunity to make "informed representations beforehand". Ms Fatima said Harry was not given a "clear and full explanation" of the composition of Ravec and those involved in its decision-making, for example, that it included the royal household. Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written arguments that any tensions between Harry and royal household officials were "irrelevant" to his change in status. Lawyers for the department also said that Ravec's decisions were taken on a "case-by-case" basis.
July 23
Mr Justice Swift allowed Harry's legal challenge to continue "in part", including the argument that Ravec's decisions were legally unreasonable.
- 2023
May 16
Harry attempted to bring a second legal challenge concerning his security arrangements, asking for a judicial review over the decision not to allow him to pay privately for his protection .Ms Fatima told the High Court that Ravec had "exceeded its authority" as "it doesn't have the power to make this decision in the first place". The Home Office, which opposed Harry's second claim, said Ravec.
considered it was "not appropriate" for wealthy people to "buy" protective security.
May 23
Mr Justice Chamberlain threw out Harry's second claim, stating he could "detect nothing that is arguably irrational" in Ravec's reasoning.
December 5
The full hearing of Harry's claim began in London, with the court told that he was "singled out" and treated "less favourably" by Ravec's decision, which was "unlawful and unfair".
The hearing lasted three days, with the duke telling the court in a statement: "It was with great sadness for both of us that my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020.
"The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US. That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil.
"I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm's way too."
Sir James told the court that Ravec decided that Harry would not be provided protective security "on the same basis as before" due to him no longer being a working member of the royal family and living abroad most of the time.
- 2024
February 28
Retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane dismissed Harry's claim, concluding Ravec's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair.
April 15
Sir Peter refused to give Harry the go-ahead to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.
June 6
The Court of Appeal gave Harry the green light to challenge the ruling.
- 2025
April 2
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis ordered that some parts of the appeal, concerning "confidential facts", be held in private.
April 8-9
Harry attended both days of the appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
His barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, told the Court of Appeal that he was "singled out" for "inferior treatment" and that his safety, security and life are "at stake".
She said: "The appellant does not accept that 'bespoke' means 'better'. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment."
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said Ravec's decision was taken in a "unique set of circumstances" and that there was "no proper basis" for challenging it.
He continued that Ravec treats the duke in a "bespoke manner", which was "better suited" to his circumstances.
Sir James said: "He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.
"Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context."
May 2
The Court of Appeal dismissed Harry's challenge, with Sir Geoffrey describing Ravec's decision as "understandable and perhaps predictable".
Reading a summary of the decision, he said: "The duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.
"Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate."
In the judgment, he said: "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate. Indeed, it seems sensible."
Topics
