Prince Harry lost part of his case about reimbursing the UK police for his security

One of Prince Harry’s more complicated legal wranglings is his fight for police security when he visits the UK. The Sussexes’ police protection was stripped in March 2020, and the Sussexes now have private security in California. Harry asked Ravec – the committee which determines who gets security – if he could have police security whenever he returns to the UK, and if he could simply reimburse the Met Police for the cost of that security. That request set off a multi-year legal fight in which Harry’s offer and position have been consistently misrepresented. The fight is not “should Harry get security paid for by the British taxpayer,” although I would say that he should get that. No, the fight is over A) whether Ravec misrepresented Harry’s offer, B) whether Harry could reimburse the police and C) whether he “deserves” security whatsoever. Well, one part of Harry’s legal action has been decided. It did not go in Harry’s favor.

Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection. His lawyers wanted a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK, after his security arrangements changed when the prince stopped being a “working royal”. But a judge has ruled not to give the go ahead for such a hearing.

Home Office lawyers had opposed the idea of allowing wealthy people to “buy” security from the police. This ruling followed a one-day court hearing in London last week. At the High Court last week, lawyers for Prince Harry had challenged the decision to reject his private funding for police protection for himself and his family when visiting the UK. Prince Harry challenged how this decision was reached by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures – known as Ravec – which covers security for high-profile figures, including senior royals.

“Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power, because it doesn’t have the power to make this decision in the first place,” Prince Harry’s lawyers had told the court. They argued that there were provisions in legislation allowing for payment for “special police services” and as such “payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest or public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service”.

The Home Office said there was no requirement for the Ravec committee to allow Prince Harry to make representations to them and there was little prospect of the decision being changed.

“Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant, the court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event,” the Home Office’s lawyers told the court.

[From BBC]

From what I can understand of the legal arguments, this part of the case was Harry wanting to know more about Ravec and wanting to hold Ravec accountable for misrepresenting his offer to pay for his police security. “His lawyers wanted a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK… But a judge has ruled not to give the go ahead for such a hearing.” Harry was going after Ravec and the powers-that-be said “no mas.” Probably because it’s abundantly clear that Ravec is made up of royal courtiers who were clearly trying to facilitate a lot of danger and harm coming towards Harry and Meghan. I would argue that those same people are still trying to facilitate harm towards the Sussexes. I wonder if Harry will change his mind about testifying in person in London next month. Because these people are truly trying to hurt him. Or worse.

Per Omid Scobie, “Mr Justice Chamberlain refused permission for the Duke of Sussex to apply for a judicial review to challenge the decision that he should not be allowed to pay privately for his own police security when in the country.” Scobie also says the security battle isn’t over because “Harry has already won the right to a full judicial review against the Home Office over the main decision to deny him protective security. His lawyers can also appeal today’s ruling.”

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

113 Responses to “Prince Harry lost part of his case about reimbursing the UK police for his security”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    It’s the weirdest battle. Unless there is a shortage of security and Harry having access to it—which he’d reimburse—would cause significant public harm and jeopardize the wellbeing of others, why tf is this such a big deal? Charles? Your thoughts?

    • A says:

      Rich people buying protection from the police is absolutely a big deal.

      Harry and his family should have police protection when in the UK. Without a doubt. And I think they’ll try to deny him that through whatever means possible. But I do see a problem with this specific aspect of his case if it were to be allowed by law.

      • Gina says:

        Well, he isn’t just a “rich person”. He is the son of the King and the only brother of the future King. These facts haven’t changed.
        I recall in Spare he wrote he had to announce his arrival in foreign country to some officials in this country – not because he was “working Royal” but because he was grandson of the Queen and the son of the future King. At last, he is still 5th in line of succession.
        What is happening with Britain?

      • slippers4life says:

        What they are not explicitly explaining is that it’s about guns. UK gun laws are very different from US gun laws. Harry’s private security is not allowed to be armed in the UK. He is seeking security that can be armed more than he is seeking actual police. Secondly, he is seeking to have access to the Intel that the police ALWAYS have about legit threats to his and his family’s safety while in the UK. Currently, the UK police, if they have a known threat towards H and his family, is not legally obligated to share that intel with he or his private security. Due to the family he was born into, threats against his life continue. He is now not allowed access to that information, even though the threats are still there. The whole “it’ll set a precedent of rich people being able to have better protection than poor people” is media gaslighting. The bottom line is, the BRF courtiers believe Harry has committed heresy and treason. They are aware it is 2023 so they can’t just yell “off with his head”. They have to be sneaky and make it look like an accident like they did with Diana. This is a 1200 year old evil institution. Harry knows they are after him. They are just trying to stay one step ahead, but he’s catching up. Home office: we know Harry and Meghans lives are in legitimate danger, but we can’t justify protection because tax payers dollars. Harry: oh so it’s about tax payers dollars? Then I’ll pay for it and problem solved. Home office: problem not solved because you’re not allowed to pay for it and tax payers shouldn’t have to pay. Harry: ok well then we’re leaving. Home office: you can’t leave because then you’re disrespecting the Queen. Harry: OK then let us keep our patronage. Home office: no because….these people keep shifting the goal posts. What they want is pure evil. Harry knows this. Thank goodness they are still here. Tyler perry very well saved their lives.

      • A says:

        Again, I’m not saying Harry shouldn’t have access to these things. I’m saying allowing any one person to pay for access to these things is something to seriously be wary of. Harry is not allowed police security because the system is broken. Allowing people to buy into that system will not make it better.

      • Anita says:

        @slippers4life your explanation gave me chills

      • Nicky says:

        Agree. It also implies uk police corruption if they can be bought.

        That also implies they can be bought for information by enemy states.

        The British media have also just sent a huge message to Putinv/Russia that Britain is short on security for its own citizens.

        This sounds to me that they’ve just put the present British royals at risk now with these revelations. It would’ve been sensible to just let Harry have the protection. Instead it had highlighted to the world how little security actually exists.

    • Eurydice says:

      Maybe one of the UK members here can give some guidance. To me, here in the US, it seems an issue of hiring off-duty police. There are a bunch of considerations there, like who is liable for what during the off-duty assignment and who has jurisdiction if there’s an arrest, etc. But, from what I’ve read (which might not be true) it seems Harry wants more than that. It seems he wants all the access of on-duty policing.

      • Concern Fae says:

        My understanding is that he wants to pay for on-duty police, so they can coordinate with his security. Which would be a problem. I haven’t read a really clear delineation of the lawsuit, but honestly I haven’t looked, and I’m usually reading here before my coffee.

        Part of this is the ridiculous attacks on everything the royal family does as “costing taxpayers money.” Of course the things the royal family does costs money! It’s using the framing the right wing uses to attack the concept of having any government services at all. Instead of attacking what you are opposed to, the pretense is made that the problem is that it costs money to do.

        Harry is trying to cut off a line of attacks against him, but that line of attacks in lazy right wing framing.

        As to being able to challenge Ravec, I wish he could, or that at least the judge had given room to revisit after the Home Office case is resolved.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Brit here – I think that there are strict rules around service police officers taking on 2nd jobs. I think you can hire off duty police officers to say provide additional security for a Taylor Swift gig but they won’t be armed. In the UK only serving police officers are allowed to carry a gun or taser (outside of serving armed forces personnel).

      • Mary Pester says:

        @Eurodice, this (lack of judgement) by the courts leads straight back to BP AND KP. There is someone sitting on the Ravec panel who has no rights being there as he works for Charlie. As a Brit I want to know WHY THE YOUNGEST SON OF THE KING AND HIS FAMILY, are being denied security when THE LAW states that the R. P. O ‘s, Royal Protection Officers are there to supply protection to visiting heads of state, visiting Royals, and MEMBERS OF OUR ROYAL FAMILY, which Prince harry clearly is! What they are trying to do is stir up more hatred against Harry, who only wants NOT to be a burden on the tax payer and refund the met for any expenses they incur as a result of protecting them. Couple of questions that need answering here, how did Tom Cruise (not a member of the Royal family) get to pay for armed protection while filming in London, and HOW is Charlie able to pay for his Paedophile brothers security, because he lives in a royal residence and does NOT do any Royal duties.

      • Cathy says:

        I think the fact that the protection officers who are police are allowed to be armed makes the point of difference. Private security are not allowed to carry a firearm. Plus the police would have the latest intell.

      • MsDoe says:

        Mary Pester — EXACTLY THIS.
        Prince Harry needs security because of who he is, because his father is king, because he was born into the family in which he was born.
        Britain, as a monarchy, is required to ensure his life is protected. If the courtiers and the king are failing to protect Harry, it falls to the government.
        It will reflect very badly on all of Britain if anything happens to Harry or a member of his family.
        Of course, this is the royal family’s way of keeping him out of Britain, a form of exiling him (feels like Billy has his prints all over this).

      • Eurydice says:

        Thanks everyone – there seem to be a lot of moving parts to this. In the US, a federal law was passed about 20 years ago (bi-partisan, so lets not get into left/right) that allows law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons whether or not they’re on duty and regardless of state laws. So, that’s one part. Then there’s the access to all the UK police resources, and then there’s the question of Harry’s specific status within the RF and whether the current law affords him security by the RPOs.

        It feels like all the arguments will be whittled down until what will be left is his status as a member of the RF and son of the King. Then will come the question of why everyone else and not Harry.

    • Megan says:

      I’m an attorney, albeit in the US, but I don’t read this as the loss people are making it out to be. The judge basically said RAVEC was going to deny this regardless, so the ability to reimburse isn’t separate grounds for review.

      • Fifty-50 says:

        Actual text of the judge’s decision if you’re interested:

      • Kit1 says:

        UK police provide security to concerts, sporting events, gatherings of VIPs, etc.. Some are reimbursed by the event promoters and organizations. Others are picked up by taxpayers.

        So Ravec is shifty and self-righteous by using the excuse that rich, important people can’t pay police for personal protection. Police have been doing just that and will continue to do so. Just not for Harry and his family. It’s the English legal system after all. Double standards and class system are alive and well per the authoritarian bent of UK public safety and legal system. You can thank the predominantly right wing press and the Tories/monarchy for this.

        Add on the continual inability by the Met to self-police or make substantial (or even minute) reform to its personnel and policies. It’s why the Met and the judicial system are in so much trouble with citizens, watchdog groups, and governmental ombudsman. Don’t even get me started on backlogged rape and other criminal cases, or the overwhelmed and broken legal aid.

        Justice isn’t even in the lexicon for the poor and disenfranchised. It’s a forgotten word.

  2. Snuffles says:

    While I get why Harry is doing this, I’m of the opinion that even if Harry won, these people aren’t remotely trustworthy and will always defer to do the royal family’s bidding. Which, for me, means that at bare minimum they would leak his every move to the press. Or, at the most, create a dangerous situation that would cause him and his family harm.

    As for his court case, I wouldn’t come to London. We now know what these people will do if they know when and where the Sussex’s will be. It’s not like last time when he shocked everyone by showing up. And they took Frogmore Cottage from him and he has no more safe space to stay while he is in town. Even if he stays with friends, the tabloids will stop at nothing to track him down.

    I say he should testify via video link this time around.

    • Chloe says:

      Yeah i don’t trust the metropolitan police either. How many times have they been caught with hateful whatsapp group chats where they racially abuse meghan?

      • Nicky says:

        Yes also there was a Guardian story a bit back that the house RMurdoch gave Jerry hall as part of the divorce was found to have hidden surveillance cameras in the house that led to F0x News. Mick Jagger had his security team remove them.
        Were where the uk police?

    • L4Frimaire says:

      Currently nothing has changed with Harry’s security status when he was last in London for one of his trials before the coronation. There is no reason he needs to stay away. So many want to wrap the Sussexes in bubble wrap and hide them away anytime they have a setback.

    • Jude says:

      Harry and family do have a safe place to stay with security each time they come. The King provided a suite in Buckingham Palace but for some reason Harry preferred to stay elsewhere. Additionally, any time he stays on the grounds within Royal property, he is automatically protected by the Kings security, previously HMTQ security because all properties have that security in place around the clock so Harry and family would be safe. However, if he goes out of the property eg on his own business they cannot be used but Harry’s own security could pick that up. It does make you wonder why this is not acceptable; this is the same security. But he won’t stay there nor did they when HMTQ had asked at her residences for them to visit like last September. RAVEC is actually made up of OFFICIALS from the government, London’s Metropolitan Police Service and the royal household. It is not formed from the Royal Household alone as people incorrectly quote

  3. Chloe says:

    All this so that they can abuse him further for spending taxpayer money and control when he comes to the UK; only for royal events when his family thinks having him present will make them look good

    • L4Frimaire says:

      There’s no royal events he’ll be attending anytime soon, unless there’s a funeral.

  4. Digital Unicorn says:

    He’s lost the right to pay for a tax payer funded service but he could still win the bigger battle that whenever he or his family is in the UK they get police protection paid for by the UK taxpayer (which the RF has). He already won the right to challenge that decision and the case on how RAVC came to that decision is pending.

    I don’t have an issue with him and his family getting police protection when in the UK but I do agree with not allowing private individuals to pay for that kind of security and the intelligence that comes with it (thats not what a public funded security service is for). He is after all a blood prince and his mother did still have police protection after her divorce so there is precedence for it. I know that Harry has said in the past that its the intelligence that the police have access to thats an important part of the type of security they need. They need to know what the threats are – and there are threats to them.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah Harry is in a unique position here. He’s not a movie star coming to the UK asking for police protection or something. He’s a highly visible member of the royal family and he and his wife and children have been the targets of an active hate campaign for years now.

      This is why I don’t get what Charles is doing, or RAVEC, or the government in general. If something happened to Harry or Meghan in the UK, knowing Harry fought for better security and police protection….I can’t even imagine the ramifications. Does charles really want that?? He barely survived Diana’s death, does he want Harry’s blood on his hands as well???

      • Gina says:

        It seems they don’t afraid of consequences. RF counts on the Press to make it over quickly if, God forbid, something would happen. It worked with Diana. Charles “survived”, married his mistress and even the King now, as we know.
        Sorry for being so cynical, it just pains me to see the the evil is stronger than the good.

      • Leslie says:

        According to the article below, three “senior” members of the Royal household sit on the RAVEC committee, so it’s no surprise (to me) that they will oppose any and all requests by Prince Harry. Charles and William despise Harry for exposing their chicanery and maneuvers with the royal rota. Given the events of last week, it now appears that the BRF and RR are desperate to either intimidate Harry even further or to silence him permanently. Their corruption is despicable.

      • Jude says:

        I’m puzzled by why people presume the King and/or Prince William have any hand in what happened last week in another country which clearly was not a car chase according to NYPD, various other locals. Also it’s puzzling why people believe that the RF are members of RAVEC. RAVEC is made up of officials from the government, London’s Metropolitan Police Service and the royal household which are NOT Royal Family but household staff in charge of security!

    • Meredith says:

      Diana only had police protection when she went to public events. I feel like Harry should have the same deal, have police for him and his fam when they’re in the UK if they’re going to public events and pay for private non-police security when they’re a private citizen.

    • The Hench says:

      Or even – and I don’t know if this is possible – that he wins the right for pertinent security information to be shared by the Police with his private security team?

      The above wouldn’t be as good as full police protection because his private team wouldn’t be allowed to carry guns in the UK but better than nothing?

      Really though, this is a nonsense. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense can see that, although not ‘working’ royals, H&M still need protection – even if that protection is viewed as protecting the UK public from the kind of pap chase danger that can follow the Sussexes.

      • kirk says:

        I listened to one security expert explain the benefits of police protection including carrying firearms and access to privileged info. He was also saying police could set up perimeter for exclusion zone, which I thought was helpful — until I read the story about ‘routine’ police actions where Sophie Weddinburgh’s escort put an old woman into a coma. Ppl were saying that police used to clear the area before traveling through it, but now it was routine for royal motorcades to just keep on truckin’.

      • Jude says:

        There were never any pap chases at any time in the UK. According to the NY Mayor, the NYPD, taxi driver and locals ALL have a different take on what happened. They claimed it wasn’t anything like the message the Sussexes PR put out plus there’s no video footage of a car chase which there would be if it had happened. The photos clearly showed Meghan relaxed, happy and smiling in the photos in the cab etc.
        Additionally to remember and what Harry doesn’t mention is that he has the option of staying in a suite in Buckingham Palace or, with his father in which both are heavily guarded by the security he wants. He has actually had this security the whole time. The RF residencies are all protected by security but Harry chose not to stay there. This will factor in the case. So he’s already got the security but what he’s after is the additional security so that he’s covered for outside of Royal properties say if he was on business and with MI6 information which he wants to share with his US security which well, wouldn’t be right, The King is already supplying security if he and his family stays within Royal residence’s. HMTQ also offered this whilst she was alive, she asked them to Balmoral last September but they declined. HMTQ provided them with her own security detail, sn armoured vehicle with bullet proof windows when over for the Jubilee and the King did the same with Harry for HMTQ funeral & his Coronation. If he wanted harm, he wouldn’t have supplied anything

      • Kit1 says:

        Ok, not a chase. How about pursue as in when you pursue someone who doesn’t want to be followed? Is that better?

        UK press is presenting a narrative that in order for a chase to be legit, it has to be a high speed James Bondnesque car chase or a gruesome car crash a la Diana. The bigger question is why did the tabloids pulled the fake “chase” photo spread off the front pages so quickly if it was so innocuous? The same press that shelled out billlions in settlements over phone hacking, bribing police and government officials for private info, etc. Credibility issue here.

        The more these right wing trolls gaslight, the more you know they are scared sh*tless. Let’s face it the right wing press is devolving as their Brexit baby has completely F the country over. The populace is rightly livid cause royal clapping doesn’t put food on the table. The monarchy can’t function, get even richer, and is nothing without the UK press. That’s the dirty truth.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Didn’t I jut see that Harry filed a second case? It specifically cited a law that says a private party can pay for protection. It was very recently.

  5. Cassie says:

    They don’t want him protected .
    They don’t him to come back for the court case .

    I am actually feeling really sick after this ruling and am worried for their safety .

    It’s like he is fighting their battles on his own for having the audacity to leave the royal family .
    It’s very cruel and I hate the way he and his family are being treated .

    • Whyforthelovel says:

      I agree Cassie it is disgusting.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Yes, fully agree!! They are all hell bent of creating an environment of unwillingness as well as an ability for any nut job that has it out for Harry, as well as Meghan and their beautiful children, to be an open target for harm and/or deaths.

        It’s simply revolting and utterly disgusting that his OWN family are willing to put Harry, Meghan and the children into harms way simply to punish him further for having the courage to escape from Island of Petty….

    • Jude says:

      Chrissie, please do not worry. EVERY time that Harry has been over for a RF event, HMTQ own security detail including armoured car, bullet proof windows was provided and the King provided the same for each visit since. The King offered a suite in Buckingham Palace for any time they stay which is protected by the King’s own security as security guards all the RF properties. However Harry and Meghan didn’t want to stay there. That’s their choice but it is safer than some Hotel or friends place! Buckingham Palace and the security offer is still there but Harry seems to want to fight the case so that he can use it eg if on business I presume, as this would be the only reason they’d need to leave the property. No pap chase has ever been undertaken in the UK. Liz Garbus put other people’s footage on their Docu series, this never happened to them. The person they thought was following was actually a food delivery guy. If his family truly wanted harm they wouldn’t keep offering a suite, armoured cars and free security on the grounds which is after all the Met police security he wants!

      • Kit1 says:

        I’m having a grand time reading your repeated denial that pap chase never occurs in the UK.

        This piece must have hit a nerve.

  6. Becks1 says:

    So he can still appeal this ruling, so its not over. But also… seems that it could end up with Harry getting security in the UK and not having to pay for it.

    This is such a messy move by the royals (and come on, we know Charles’ hands are all over this.) This is both about punishing Harry and about trying to control him, since charles has put it out there that Harry is welcome to stay with him and have his protection that way. I think those reasons were why he took Frogmore away too – punishment and control. Charles does not want Harry to be able to move about freely in England without his knowledge.

    What a loving father.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      The courtier who is behind this mess is leaving Chuck’s employ – there was an article about it last week that Edward Young has resigned from the Household. I think it came out the day before the hearing on this case. I think they know Harry will win his case to get police security and Chuck is cleaning house.

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t think I knew Edward Young was leaving. Huh. Interesting. Wasn’t he Charles’ man to begin with? Didn’t charles basically force out Geidt to put Young in?

      • Amy Bee says:

        Edward Young was always going to be replaced. He was the Queen’s private secretary and was kept on to help with the transition and the coronation. Plus Charles has given him a ceremonial role. His leaving has nothing to do with Harry.

      • Jais says:

        Yes! I believe it was announced literally the day before this went to court. Which didn’t seem suspicious at all…

      • Snuffles says:

        Oooh! Edward Young got canned!? He’ll probably end up getting a job with the Tory government and an OBE. It seems like the standard pay off package for former royal henchmen.

      • Jais says:

        Okay, I can see it not having to do with the court case possibly @ Amy Bee, but does it mean he is no longer a member of RAVEC then?

      • Nic919 says:

        Edward Young left but was also made a Lord so he didn’t get fired. This is another Jason Knauf situation.

      • Jaded says:

        Edward Young didn’t get “canned”, in fact he’s been given the titles of Knight Grand Cross and appointed a Lord in Waiting, which allows him to have royal duties such as meeting with visiting heads of state. I wonder if he’s still on the RAVEC board? He’s an evil, EVIL man and was/is very involved in the denial of police protection for Harry and his family. He loaths the Sussexes and will do whatever it takes to stymie their requests for RPO security.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    I see this as a win-win. He has on record that he wanted to pay for security and the Palace can’t lie that he refused security.

    • Snuffles says:

      All excellent points. He’s got everything on record. They can’t lie on him like they did Diana.

    • Jais says:

      Yes, and if it’s decided that he can at times get protection, the papers should not be able to slam him for the costs. Bc he did offer to pay for it himself.

    • WiththeAmericann says:

      Yep, I mean we know the Fail will never report this even remotely close to accurately but he got refused his offer to pay for security is hysterical given their talking points that I keep seeing everywhere in unrelated British venues that Harry wants taxpayer funded security.

      A win for him to have this headline anywhere it might have a chance of sinking in.

    • Princessk says:

      I would be interested to know what protection and security he was given when he came to the Coronation.

      I believe that he went straight from the Abbey to Buckingham Palace, changed cars and then went to the VIP suite at Heathrow.

  8. Jais says:

    It could still potentially be decided that the threat is enough that he gets security which would then be paid by tax-payers. I’m just not sure how it would then get decided of when he would be allowed to have security and when not.

    • Tara says:

      What is somewhat overlooked is that public interest in Harry was built throughout his life given his role as the spare – without his input or free choice. So much so, that the whole country now believes they have a right to demand informations about his personal life, and life choices – such as his work, his wife and family – and think can dictate what is expected of him. This is a situation that has been fueled by the British state, royal family and media since Harrys birth. A situation he was unable to resign from when he retired as working royal – so therefor the needed protection should be not held into question.

  9. JMmoney says:

    I feel for Harry. I know there are things he misses from home and not being able to safely bring his kids to show them must be heartbreaking.

    I truly wish H luck bc he is being punished and ostracized by the establishment. I do wonder how his lawsuit against The Sun will go, yes it’s a separate case but it’s also against the establishment whom have many judges in their pocket and have no qualms about leaching ppl dry. I think that’s Murdoch’s plan to smear Harry and drag this out to the point H can no longer fund the lawsuit bc while H is rich he is no billionaire. I do want H to win and for media reform to happen but I dunno the system is so corrupt I’m beginning to wonder if that’s even possible.

  10. Zapp Brannigan says:

    “Home Office lawyers had opposed the idea of allowing wealthy people to “buy” security from the police”

    Mhm it was reported that 35 officers to blockade a village for Kate Moss’s wedding – comprising one inspector, five sergeants and 29 PCs. Gloucester Police said they devoted 350 man hours to helping the model enforce a 2.7-mile exclusion zone around the church where she married – a freedom of ­information request from the Mirror revealed yesterday. The total cost of the police operation in the village of Southrop, Glos, is estimated at around £10,000. A spokesman said the force would not be footing the bill: “The event organisers are to pay the policing costs in full with relation to this event.” (

    So there is clearly precedent that rich types pay for police protection, what a mystery that Harry cannot have that too and pay for it when needed.

    • WiththeAmericann says:

      That is a great catch.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Absolutely a fabulous bit of evidence that ANY non-royal can request personal protection for their own personal safety as well as establishing a strong security presence for personal activities?? Do the British courts not realize that they have set a precedence with access for MET police protection??

        How could they possibly restrict or prevent Harry, a member of the Royal family and the son of their king, to pay for proper security, in addition to intel when he and his wife and children are present in Britain???? The MET has publicly stated that there are actual threats against Harry’s life and the lives of his wife and children???

        KFC is hell bent on NOT allowing Harry and his family ANY form of security unless it’s strictly on HIS terms!! What a disgusting and disgraceful “father”.

    • Blithe says:

      Didn’t Charles pay for security for Camilla before they married? That’s at least one near parallel that should be publicly addressed. Since Harry’s security needs stem in large part from his birth into the BRF, I’m hoping that the resolution is simply that Harry’s position in the BRF warrants tax payer funded security. His status as a “working Royal” doesn’t impact his unique risks. It would be nice, too, if the impact of the media in those unique risks could also be explicitly addressed.

    • Jais says:

      @zapp, this issue was brought up during the case. I remember reading about it last week. I think the judge said that yes police can be hired for specific events but not for just one individual. That was the distinction the judge made last week in court so when I read that, I had a feeling of how the verdict would turn out.

  11. Roo says:

    Oh, I’m sure they’re shuffling Edward Young out of the limelight for now, but he’ll get his job back and he’ll get some shiny tin medal at some point, too.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Oh please, EY will probably be knighted and given a proper royal residence fully paid for with “extra” perks as well.

    • Doppelgangers R'Us says:

      @ROO I read that he already received a peerage.

      Here is from the crown’s page:
      HM The King has been graciously pleased to signify His intention of conferring the following Peerage of the United Kingdom for Life.

      “The Rt Hon. Sir Edward Young GCVO – Joint Principal Private Secretary to HM The King and Private Secretary to HM The late Queen Elizabeth II.

      Additionally, The King has been graciously pleased to bestow the honour of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB) upon Sir Edward, conferred on 15 May 2023.”

      I find it appalling he will now be “The Right Honorable” anything. Except maybe the right honorable scum. Well the Bathtub scum would fit too.

    • Jaded says:

      @Roo — As per Doppelgangers R’Us says, he hasn’t been shuffled anywhere, in fact he’s now a member of the peerage and has royal adjacent duties such as meeting with visiting heads of state. If anything, his new position has him even more entrenched within the BRF. He and Jason Knauf have been well rewarded for their allegiance to Charles and William.

  12. Rapunzel says:

    Wait, so Harry lost the appeal to pay for security himself but might win taxpayer funded security?

    I get the pitfalls behind letting private citizens pay for public funded security and intelligence, but if I was a UK taxpayer, I’d be pissed if I got stuck paying the bill Harry offered (and fought in court) to pay.

    • Jaded says:

      Would you rather he and/or his family get killed?

      • Rapunzel says:

        Jaded- absolutely not! I fully support Harry winning here; tax paid for or personally paid for, he deserves security, as does Meg, Doria and the kids.

        I’m just pointing out that the government is playing itself if it ends up paying for what Harry offered to pay. Another example of the BRF getting owned by their pettiness.

  13. Nanea says:

    Has anyone out there on Salt Island asked yet why Harry can’t pay for his family’s security, while Sophie gets a taxpayer-funded motorcade for a shopping trip, or whatever secret event it was that she urgently needed to attend in London?

    Harry is a veteran, a son of the king, has racists threatening his family… and Sophie is *the wife* of # 13.

    • Polo says:

      They’ll just say it’s because she’s a working royal.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        And yet, I see no one on Salty Island screaming about having the taxpayers foot the bill for the Pedophile Prince having full royal security and protection.

  14. Beana says:

    This case shows most clearly how Charles attempts to control and dominate using property and security.

    Harry tries to partially live abroad – Charles yanks away security on short notice and withholds funds, in full awareness that Harry could be harmed by stalkers.

    Harry publishes a book to continue his financial independence – Charles takes his rental home in a secure area (and tries to bestow it on another non-working royal who hasn’t spoken out publicly against Charles).

    Harry lives as a private citizen and attempts to travel freely – Charles manipulates the protection rules in the UK to limit Harry to safe lodging on properties in which Charles is in full control.

    If you replaced “Harry” in the above account with a woman trying to leave her marriage, and “Charles” with her ex, everyone would clearly see this as a case of coercive control and (rightly) fear for the woman’s safety.

    I used to think that Charles was narcissistic but misguided, but now I realize that he’s truly malevolent.

    • Harper says:

      It just shows how trapped CRex and Burger King feel in their roles and lives. If they were happy, they’d support Harry. But they are miserable, angry and resentful, and Harry cannot get out without them sticking it to him every which way they can. It’s spite, jealousy and revenge that they don’t protect their son and brother. This whole episode should be scaring the Middletons because it’s Kate’s future too if Wills decides to let her go.

    • Princessk says:

      Well put @Beana

  15. Lili says:

    i think right now the Royal family and its entourage, need to take a step back and think things through. Harry had 66% of the popularity vote during to coronation. if even 1 hair on his head is hurt, i reckon the nation will rise up against the family.

    • Jay says:

      I wish the RF were that perceptive, but I really feel like they live in their own bubble. We’re talking about the same firm which took days to even make a proper statement about Diana’s death and hold a public funeral, kicking and screaming the whole way. They also had the chance to keep the Sussexes representing them on a part-time basis and rejected it. This is a brand that still keeps Susan Hussey in the fold and consorts with Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan and were surprised and astonished that their invitation to pledge allegiance to the crown in a huge, unecessary and expensive ceremony was met with derision and protest.

      I wish they had the self knowledge to consider the long-term popularity of their brand and act accordingly, but I just don’t think they do.

    • Princessk says:

      Absolutely true! @Lili…..’ just one hair on his head’…and there will be an almighty backlash against the RF.

  16. Jay says:

    It seems to me that what Ravec takes issue with the most is the audacity of Harry for daring to question their decisions when they are used to working in the dark. They are clearly not used to having their decisions and processes out in the open.

    I don’t know if Harry really thought he would win this case, but the fact that we even know what Ravec is now should be considered a small win for transparency.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Exactly. I bet most of us didn’t know about this secret organization.

    • Jaded says:

      Edward Young hates the Sussexes. Harry blamed him for the Queen’s refusal to allow him and Meghan to work as part-time royals, and as a board member of RAVEC he was clearly behind the Government’s refusal to give them taxpayer-funded police protection while in the UK.

  17. IRONE says:

    I can’t stand the UK or the British people after what they did to Meghan, but Harry has the right to go and return with his family to that dirty island whenever he wants. Unfortunately, May was a bad month for the Sussexes.

    • Mary Pester says:

      irone, sorry matey, but I take exception to that comment, I’m a Brit and have stood for Harry and Megan from day 1, and many, many other brits would rather have Harry than any other member of his dog sht family. The problems is, our voices are drowned out by the British rags who have a working agreement with the Palace

      • IRONE says:

        You are the minority lol. The majority of British people are obsessed with Meghan and they would harm her and the kids if they could. The UK is a dangerous place to live in for Meghan and her kids. As for Harry, they will surely always welcome him “ALONE.”

      • Princessk says:

        Well said @Mary Pester…..there is more support in the UK for H&M than is realised. The powerful media is to blame but I must admit the black community were very slow to come out and make their voices heard when Meghan was being bullied to pieces.

        I wrote five letter of complaint to the Daily Fail and I have confronted a number of
        ‘royal reporters’ face to face and given them a piece of my mind on a number of occasions. At an event once The Fail wanted to interview me, the young rooky reporter was very nice but I told him why I would never cooperate with the Fail.

      • The Hench says:

        @Irone – yeah, no. Statistically speaking the majority of the British people are, at best, indifferent to the Royal Family. They’re kind of like the furniture – just there. There is a rabid minority who hate Meghan (and probably worship Kate) but they are very small in number.

        And even of those who don’t like Meghan, most would not wish active harm on her, never mind actually perpetrate harm. So please, let’s not become hysterical like the British Media and say totally unsubstantiated things like “the majority of British people are obsessed with Meghan and would harm her and the kids if they could”. We have many faults but all being homicidal maniacs is not one of them.

      • ExpatInTheUK says:

        @Irone, I’ve been in the UK for a few years and I have yet to meet these rabid royalists – they’re certainly not in the circles I’m in. Most people I talk to are apathetic or even if they echo some talking points from the media, there is no real feelings involved. There are more pressing concerns and the royals really don’t have an impact on day-to-day life.

  18. Noor says:

    it is very clear from the start Harry is going to lose his legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection.

    I wonder why his lawyer mount the challenge in the first place. What was the strategy ?. Cooler heads should prevail.

    • Truth says:

      To have it on record. Others can pay for this security. They are deciding he cannot.

    • ChillinginDC says:

      What does this even mean?

      He wants to reimburse for private security. He literally has no where to stay that is secure for him in the UK. His own family leaks his movements so there’s no way for him and his family to return and be secure.

    • WiththeAmericann says:

      What does that mean? Seems you’re suggesting Harry wanting to live and protect his family suggests he doesn’t have a cool head?

      I read this “cooler heads” comment about H and M in British publications a lot but I don’t understand the connection.

    • Jaded says:

      Harry’s only lost part of the legal challenge. This was the second of two judicial review lawsuits against the British government and the first remains ongoing. He may very well be awarded taxpayer-funded protection while he and his family are in England. He has one of the best lawyers (Shaheed Fatima) fighting this case, cooler heads are prevailing.

  19. LTanya Spearman says:

    The Gov/RF and all the british ppl who celebrating this decision are sanction harm/death to the D&D of Sussex…
    That incl. what happen here in NYC led by Rf/Br. Media mafia.. Which explain the silent of the Rf and Br. media (DM & DExp deleted those photos taken by paparazzi (within minutes of posted them)…

  20. TIFFANY says:

    I can’t believe that judge didn’t see what was in front of him and concluded, still, that the 5th in line to the throne does not have legitimate threats against him, his wife and children and wants to his security to have proper information about said threats. The judge to decided to shut down part of a legitimate concern of someone with those credentials.

    • Blithe says:

      Without reading the actual judgement— so fully admitting my ignorance— the judge might fully see all of these things and more. One possible next step that’s still open is to agree that Harry — certainly, and possibly Meghan and the kids — are entitled to tax funded security. This actually would probably be the best solution for everyone except Charles and whoever is trying to yank the chains, since Harry will get protection, but there won’t be a general precedent set for purchasing what should be a public service, implemented according to internal guidelines. If anything, a win for Harry at this point is giving up government power and oversight to some extent, while setting a highly problematic precedent.

  21. Angelica+Schuyler says:

    Why aren’t we taking more about Andrew with this case? If Andrew, a non-working royal, is allowed to have security, paid for privately (by his brother), then why shouldn’t Harry be able to have the same? (Paid for by whomever) Bottom line. Cut all the BS and call a spade a spade.

    If the premise for discontinuing police protection is predicated on being a working royal, then Andrew’s security should be pulled immediately. If not, then give Harry what he’s asking for and cut the nonsense.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I have enough common sense to see that they are applying different rules for different royals. As a matter of fact, any non-working royal that has police protection should have theirs pulled immediately if Harry is disallowed based on his status as a ‘non-working royal’ . The rest is bullsh-t. Very obvious, plain as day BS.

    The holes in their arguments should be shouted from the rooftops. Also the fact that there is precedent for non-royal, yet royal-adjacent, people such as Kate and Camilla, pre-marriage, receiving royal protection because of their proximity to the royal family and the level of vulnerability, should stop all this nonsense.

    Harry was born a blood royal and as such is vulnerable. Plain and simple. The people are not stupid. We see right through RAVEC’s evil BS.

    If any harm were to come to Harry, his wife, and/or his (royal) children, the public would loathe Charles even more than they did when he was mistreating Diana. They will turn against him completely. The monarchy is already on shaky ground as it is. Leave it to Charles to destroy the thing he values most…

    • Blithe says:

      Please correct me if I’m wrong about this, but: I think part of the issue is that there’s no legal definition of “working Royal”. Security needs in the past were probably based on proximity to the throne and actual threat assessments. This new undefined category has bars that keep shifting, so I’d imagine that anyone charged with establishing or ruling on laws and policies would want to avoid pretending that “working Royal” is an actual well-defined status. If it becomes defined, it can then be extended to people like Andrew, but also to other members of the family — who might then be held to whatever standards get set for “working” — something I’m sure many of them would like to avoid.

  22. QuiteContrary says:

    Charles needs to be a little more subtle in the ways he’s endangering Harry. He’s losing the plausible deniability that shielded him when Diana died.

    • Princessk says:

      Charles also needs to see the real long term implications of his intransigence.

      • The Hench says:

        In their petulance and utter determination to have their own way both Wills and Charles are the very definition of turkeys voting for Christmas.

  23. HeyKay says:

    The fix is in.
    A large amount of pay off cash to the Judge.
    The Firm strikes again.

  24. Tara says:

    @thehench If that’s a regular saying I have never heard it before. Thanks for the laugh 😂

  25. L4Frimaire says:

    Harry has a lot of legal cases going on and they’re churning through the system now. Will win some, will lose some. At least it’s on record he tried to pay for police protection. There is still another part to this security case which is still going through the courts. Can’t wait until all these cases are resolved and Harry can put it behind him. It’s probably very busy in the Sussex household right now. He’ll still probably go to UK if necessary since he’s operating without police protection now when there.

  26. Saschafrom76 says:

    He’s literally in the line of succession this should be a matter of national security for the firm it’s sending a mountain of red flags that it’s not . Don’t ever go back Harry they’re gunning for you please stay safe.

    • Tara says:

      One wouldn’t think that they dare. But I get the impression they will. Obviously they have enough to loose.

  27. Well Wisher says:

    “Harry has already won the right to a full judicial review against the Home Office over the main decision to deny him protective security. His lawyers can also appeal today’s ruling.”

    What does this mean? Why are they refusing to have him pay while acknowledging that the threat to his safety remains whether he is a non-working royal?

    The general idea is that the threat is deemed level 1, not unlike his father and the current Prime Minister. Harry was placed at level 2.

    This is about control – they want to leak his visits to the amoral tabloid press so they can sic the economic parasites/paps? To what avail?

    He can go to Scotland when it gains independence, until then go to European cities where common sense is in abundance.

    It beggars the question – “Did Princess Diana voluntarily gave up police protection?” If so, why??

    • Unblinkered says:

      What strikes me as outrageous is that for years Parker-Bowles had police protection and she wasn’t even married to Charles, and now P.Andrew is still receiving police protection we’re told paid for privately by Charles ????
      Presumably there will be other instances too of which the public are unaware

  28. blunt talker says:

    Harry and his family do need security at all times=the old woman hit by the motorcade with Duchess Sophie in the car has died-she fought for two weeks but massive head injuries she could not overcome-This is what Harry and Meghan are saying this was a scary incident with the shitstain paps-what if they had hit one of the people on those motorcycles or ran into one of those dark suvs or hit a pedestrian on the street because of this pursuit-it is more than one way this could have catasphoric for any person being injured-this was just a motorcade not a high speed chase and still someone is dead-I wonder how they will explain this to the public-you don’t have to be in a speedy chase for an accident to happen and cause harm-a speedy chase could definitely cause a major accident -but Iam relieved nobody got hurt. God bless the Sussex family and keep them safe in his hands.

    • Kim says:

      Sophie wasn’t chased by the paps. Her motorcade just didn’t care about anyone elses safety.

      Now if she needs a motorcade prince Harry most certainly does.

  29. AC says:

    This is upsetting . I know the BP and the vile tabloids read this blog and comments on here. So if Harry and Meghan do read this, just wanted to say there’s a lot of people here in the US and around the world who still support you both and you’ve inspired so many. Sometimes there’s days you feel defeated, but in this sometimes toxic world, things happen for a reason. Sometimes it lays the foundation and steps of what’s better to come. And just stay positive and as long as you continue to do the Right Things, in my Opinion, good Karma will come through.