Prince Harry has sparked considerable backlash over his recent assertion regarding the withdrawal of his police protection.
He argued that the decision was made to pressure him and his wife, Meghan, into remaining in the UK, which many have deemed a rather strange claim.
The Duke of Sussex voiced his frustration about the removal of taxpayer-funded security in 2020, describing it as “difficult to swallow.”
However, this statement has been met with skepticism from various high-ranking police and Home Office officials, with one former chief of Scotland Yard labeling Harry’s comments as “complete nonsense.”
A source familiar with Priti Patel’s tenure as Home Secretary in 2020 emphasized that the downgrading of Harry’s protection was a professional decision made by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) after the couple stepped back from their royal roles.
The source insisted that Queen Elizabeth would never interfere in such professional matters.
Last week, Harry took part in a two-day appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice, aiming to challenge Ravec’s decision, a significant point of contention in his ongoing disputes with King Charles.
Once outside the court, Harry mentioned, “We were trying to create this happy house,” hinting at their desire to forge a positive family atmosphere and improve relations with the Royal Family.
The couple perceived the halt in their police protection as a coercive tactic to force their return to the UK, arguing that without security, they would feel like easy targets upon their visits.
However, Dai Davies, who once led Scotland Yard’s Royal Protection, vehemently disagreed with this narrative, arguing that Prince Harry‘s claims were unfounded.
Davies clarified that security protocols for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in the UK are continually evaluated on an individual basis.
He stated that Harry is provided with a liaison officer who has access to the latest intelligence, ensuring that their security is adequately managed.
He dismissed the notion that around-the-clock armed protection was essential, calling it absurd.
Home Office insiders underscored the notion that Harry and his legal team did not assert at the time that his security was taken away as a ploy to confine him and Meghan within the Royal Family.
One high-ranking official reiterated that the discussions around reducing security levels were conducted openly, debunking any claims that such decisions were made for ulterior motives.
This new claim from Harry appeared unexpected to many, given that it contradicts previous statements.
Ravec undertook all necessary appraisals before deciding on security adjustments, and the final decision involved consultations with figures at the Royal Family level, specifically the Queen, who reportedly would not have interfered with Ravec’s professional judgment.
In a separate conversation with The Telegraph, Harry expressed disappointment regarding some of the treatment he received, indicating that what emerged during the legal proceedings had crossed a line.
He mentioned, “People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” and shared his concerns that his worst fears about the legal process had been validated.
As the legal proceedings drew to a close, Harry admitted feeling “exhausted” and “overwhelmed” by everything that had transpired.
However, some royal insiders suggested that the prince appears conflicted, noting a contradiction between his past claims about escaping Britain due to security concerns and his current assertion that Ravec’s actions were strategic maneuvers to keep him in the UK.
Should he succeed in his appeal, it’s uncertain whether Ravec would be obliged to restore the Sussexes’ security.
The discourse surrounding Harry has taken an ironic turn, particularly since he recently met with wounded soldiers in Ukraine, even after articulating that his family couldn’t feel secure in Britain without taxpayer-funded bodyguards.
The juxtaposition of these events has intensified scrutiny over the prince’s statements and motivations.
