In case you’re still curious about what exactly Prince Harry’s “loss” in court yesterday means, the Telegraph had a somewhat helpful article which included straight reporting on what Harry’s side argued versus what the judge ruled. Basically, this was part of Harry’s larger case about Ravec (the secretive group which decides who gets royal protection) and whether his offer to pay for his own police security while in the UK was even properly presented to Ravec or the Met police. Harry’s argument was that he should have been able to personally make his case to Ravec or make an offer in writing, an offer which should have been properly considered. The judge said no, Harry doesn’t have a right to make a “formal representation” on the issue. Basically, it’s about the bureaucracy of Ravec and the royal protection services and the judge ruled in favor of the bureaucracy. There are still other parts of Harry’s protection case left to be adjudicated. Meanwhile, would you like to read some biased analysis on the case? From the Daily Beast’s Royalist:

A British judge’s ruling Tuesday that Prince Harry cannot legally challenge the British government’s decision not to allow him to pay for police protection while he is in the U.K. augurs badly for his overall argument that, when in the U.K., he should be entitled to automatic, high-level police protection of the kind he had when a working royal, a legal expert said today.

The ruling will come as a fresh blow to Harry and Meghan Markle just days after they were accused of exaggerating security concerns by claiming they were the subject of a “near catastrophic” chase with paparazzi through the streets of Manhattan.

Although the ruling Tuesday does not technically end Harry’s case seeking automatic police protection for him and his family while on British soil, which Harry believes he should retain due to the “inherited risk” of his position, it is being seen by some as a signal that Harry’s entire action is going down the tubes.

“The writing is on the wall for this case now,” Mark Stephens, a media lawyer at Howard Kennedy, told The Daily Beast, saying that he had always believed Harry was unlikely to prevail, and that he now felt more confident in that view.

Stephens said that the state’s essential argument—that it can decide who it wants to protect and to what extent, and that the police force cannot be obliged to hire itself out—had been sustained. The British Home Office argued that were wealthy individuals, such as Harry, to be allowed to buy police protection, it would undermine public confidence in the police and detract from their core duties.

A different hearing previously found, however, that Harry could bring a case arguing his core claim that he should simply be entitled to automatic protection in Britain. That was not ruled on Tuesday, and that case is proceeding.

[From The Daily Beast]

Personally, I think Harry’s case serves as a larger reminder that British institutions are poorly run and operate without intelligence or integrity. It’s perfectly reasonable for Harry to want and expect high-level police protection whenever he’s in the UK. He is an extremely well-known person and he’s a high-level target for domestic terrorists. The state is arguing that Harry’s security should be determined by his lack of “working royal” status, not the actual threats against him and his family. Harry feels that his police protection (again, solely when he visits the UK) should be automatic, and that he should have the right to simply reimburse the taxpayers for that automatic protection. The fact that Ravec and the police are fighting him about these issues is flat-out bonkers.

The Sun reports that the state has already spent £300,000 in legal fees to fight Harry’s legal actions. The Mail estimated that Harry will spend about £500,000 in legal fees. Again, the point is that Harry is drawing attention to how dysfunctional and backwards these institutions are. He also wants to show the British public that he would love to visit his homeland more often but the “powers that be” refuse to guarantee his safety, and are in fact fighting in the courts to leave him without police protection.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.