Give me back my bodyguards: Prince Harry threatens legal action against the UK Government and demands return of taxpayer-funded security two years after Megxit drama began
- Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, wrote ‘pre-action protocol’ letter to Home Office, indicating they’ll seek judicial review if continued security isn’t provided by UK
- If the case proceeds, it will lead to a battle in the High Court between Ministers and Prince Harry
- Queen is understood to have been made aware of her grandson’s action, which is thought to be first time a member of Royal Family has brought a case against Her Majesty’s Government
- Harry’s decision to instruct his lawyers, Schillings, to threaten legal action against Government could inflame tensions with his family
- It also a further headache for Queen only days after she stripped Prince Andrew of his military honours and charity patronages after US judge ruled that a claim of sex abuse made against him – and vehemently denied – would proceed
Prince Harry has threatened the Government with legal action over its decision to remove his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, have written a ‘pre-action protocol’ letter to the Home Office, indicating they will seek a judicial review if continued security is not provided by the UK.
If the case proceeds, it will lead to a battle in the High Court between Ministers and Prince Harry.
The Queen is understood to have been made aware of her grandson’s action, which is thought to be the first time a member of the Royal Family has brought a case against Her Majesty’s Government.
A source said: ‘Harry’s argument in a nutshell is: ‘You got the law wrong.’ He feels the decision to remove his security was wrong. Pre-action protocol was sent by Harry’s lawyers to the Home Office a couple of months ago. This is essentially a precursor to a judicial review.’
Suggesting why Harry may have chosen now – two years after ‘Megxit’ – to launch his legal bid, the source added: ‘When Harry came back last April for Prince Philip’s funeral, he was given security. But when he came back in the summer, he wasn’t.’
Prince Harry has threatened the Government with legal action over its decision to remove his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. (Above, Harry and Meghan with bodyguards in New Zealand in 2018)
Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, have written a ‘pre-action protocol’ letter to the Home Office, indicating they will seek a judicial review if continued security is not provided by the UK. (Pictured, the Sussexes with the Queen at Buckingham Palace in 2018)
Suggesting why Harry may have chosen now – two years after ‘Megxit’ – to launch his legal bid, the source added: ‘When Harry came back last April for Prince Philip’s funeral [above], he was given security. But when he came back in the summer, he wasn’t’
Ahead of the funeral, Harry travelled to Britain with his private security team, but was met on the tarmac at Heathrow by Scotland Yard protection officers.
It is understood that was not the case when he returned to the UK for the unveiling of a statue of Princess Diana at Kensington Palace with his brother William in July. Following a 20-minute reception after the unveiling, Harry left with bodyguards thought to have been provided at his own expense.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made no secret of their unhappiness at the removal of their taxpayer-funded security.
The couple were living in Canada – guarded by publicly funded British UK and Canadian security – when ‘Megxit’ was announced in January 2020.
At the same time, the security section of their new website – on which they detailed their notion of a ‘new working model’ – described them as ‘internationally protected people’. But the ‘working model’ had not been agreed by the Queen and the section was swiftly removed.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made no secret of their unhappiness at the removal of their taxpayer-funded security. The couple were living in Canada – guarded by publicly funded British UK and Canadian security – when ‘Megxit’ was announced in January 2020. (Above, Harry and Meghan in Manhattan in September 2021 after visiting the 9/11 memorial pools)
Following crisis talks at Sandringham, it was eventually agreed that the Sussexes would no longer use their ‘HRH’ titles and Harry was stripped of his military honours. (Pictured, Harry and Meghan in New York City last year)
Following crisis talks at Sandringham, it was eventually agreed that the Sussexes would no longer use their ‘HRH’ titles and Harry was stripped of his military honours.
Meanwhile, a ‘Royal and VIP Executive Committee’ comprising the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan Police’s royalty protection command chief and palace officials decided that the couple’s 24-hour protection could not continue given they were no longer working royals living in Britain.
That decision clearly rankled with Harry, who used the bombshell TV interview with US chatshow host Oprah Winfrey last March to express his anger at it.
He said: ‘The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed… Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’
‘And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but [it was] due to our change in status, [by] which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family.’ He added: ‘My family literally cut me off financially and I had to afford security for us.’
The Queen is understood to have been made aware of her grandson’s action, which is thought to be the first time a member of the Royal Family has brought a case against Her Majesty’s Government
Ahead of Prince Philip’s funeral, Harry travelled to Britain with his private security team, but was met on the tarmac at Heathrow by Scotland Yard protection officers. It is understood that was not the case when he returned to the UK for the unveiling of a statue of Princess Diana at Kensington Palace with his brother William in July (above)
Ms Winfrey said the couple were not paid for the interview, but Harry had, by then, received a reported £500,000 fee to give a keynote speech to J P Morgan bankers in Miami.
Before moving into their nine-bedroom, £10 million home in Montecito, California, they were given the use of a mansion owned by entertainment tycoon Tyler Perry, who also provided the couple with security.
Meghan told Ms Winfrey: ‘We needed a house and he offered security as well, so it gave us breathing room to try to figure out what we were going to do.’
Harry’s decision to instruct his lawyers, Schillings, to threaten legal action against the Government could inflame tensions with his family.
It also provides a further headache for the Queen only days after she stripped Prince Andrew of his military honours and charity patronages after a US judge ruled that a claim of sex abuse made against him – and vehemently denied – would proceed.
Like Harry, Andrew will no longer use his ‘HRH’ title. The Queen’s second son could also lose his security, estimated to cost £2 million annually. Princess Anne and Prince Edward receive protection only when they are conducting royal duties.
During a previous review of security spending in 2011, Andrew’s daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie – then fifth and sixth in line to the Throne – had their police protection removed on the grounds they were non-working Royals.
Before moving into their nine-bedroom, £10 million home in Montecito, California, the Sussexes were given the use of a mansion (above) owned by entertainment tycoon Tyler Perry, who also provided the couple with security
If Harry wins his case, any ‘remedy’ or solution would be at the discretion of the judge.
The legal battle could be expensive, with the loser likely to have to pay the costs of the winner as well as their own. The Sussexes, however, have secured a string of lucrative deals, including a reported £18 million agreement with streaming giant Spotify and a partnership with Netflix.
A Government spokesman said last night: ‘The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements. To do so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security. It would also not be appropriate to comment on the detail of any legal proceedings.’
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were contacted for comment.
It also provides a further headache for the Queen only days after she stripped Prince Andrew of his military honours and charity patronages after a US judge ruled that a claim of sex abuse made against him – and vehemently denied – would proceed
Are fears for the safety of Archie and Lilibet behind demands?
By KATE MANSEY for the Mail on Sunday
When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spoke to Oprah Winfrey last March, one of their sensational claims was that their son Archie would not be given police protection because he was not made a prince.
‘Behind closed doors we knew I was pregnant… And that was when [the family] were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or princess – and that he wasn’t going to receive security,’ Meghan claimed.
She added: ‘Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess – whatever it’s going to be – but if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protection, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder.
When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spoke to Oprah Winfrey last March, one of their sensational claims was that their son Archie would not be given police protection because he was not made a prince. (Pictured: Archie, Meghan and Harry in Cape Town in 2019)
Now, of course, the Sussexes have two children and Harry will be keen to ensure the protection of Archie, two, and Lilibet Diana, who turns one on the Queen’s Jubilee celebration weekend in June. But a royal title would not necessarily guarantee 24-hour police protection paid for by the British taxpayer. (Above, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle revealed the first photo of their daughter Lilibet Diana, six months after she was born, in their family Christmas card)
‘You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe. There was a lot of fear surrounding it,’ Meghan said.
‘I was very scared of having to offer up our baby, knowing that they weren’t going to be kept safe.’
Now, of course, the Sussexes have two children and Harry will be keen to ensure the protection of Archie, two, and Lilibet Diana, who turns one on the Queen’s Jubilee celebration weekend in June.
But a royal title would not necessarily guarantee 24-hour police protection paid for by the British taxpayer.
Princess Anne, who last year carried out 387 official engagements – the highest number of any Royal – has publicly funded police protection only while she is on official duties. The same applies to her brother Prince Edward.
The most senior members of the Royal Family and the Government do receive automatic protection from Scotland Yard, but a joint government committee authorises protection for other individuals such as former Prime Ministers and former Northern Ireland secretaries.
While Harry has stepped back from Royal duties, signed lucrative deals and moved to the United States, supporters would likely point out that his career in the Armed Forces, including two tours of duty in Afghanistan, as well as his status as a member of the Windsor family, make him and his family potential targets for terrorists.
SARAH VINE: Prince Harry, if you still want security for the family, get your mates at Netflix to shell out for it
By SARAH VINE for the Mail on Sunday
Prince Harry does pick his moments, doesn’t he? Just in case the Queen had temporarily forgotten about the nightmare that he and the Duchess of Sussex have visited upon her in recent months, here he is to remind her that, whatever other pressing issues she might have on her plate, it’s all about HIM.
What a whining, pathetic bore this man has become.
What an entitled, tedious little ingrate.
Not content with trashing his family, splashing his grievances all over the world’s front pages and kicking his 95-year-old granny when she’s down, he’s now demanding that she – and the British taxpayer – stump up for the privilege.
Prince Harry does pick his moments, doesn’t he? Just in case the Queen had temporarily forgotten about the nightmare that he and the Duchess of Sussex have visited upon her in recent months, here he is to remind her that, whatever other pressing issues she might have on her plate, it’s all about HIM, writes Sarah Vine
Let’s be in no doubt: it was Harry and Meghan’s own decision to leave behind their Royal trappings in search of a different life in America. Theirs and theirs alone.
And while they may delude themselves that they were forced into exile by an ungrateful nation insufficiently appreciative of their gracious presence, the truth is they really didn’t have to go.
They went because it suited their purpose, and because their ambitions exceeded what they saw as the parochial, limiting confines of dear old Blighty.
They went because they had convinced themselves that they were being poorly treated, when in fact they had every opportunity to make a success of things. They just couldn’t be bothered to try.
Let’s be in no doubt: it was Harry and Meghan’s own decision to leave behind their Royal trappings in search of a different life in America. Theirs and theirs alone
Which is fair enough – it’s their life after all, their choice. But own it. Instead, they’ve spent the past two years blaming everyone else.
When it was not other people’s approach towards them that caused all their problems in the first place, it was their appalling attitude and their determination to see the slightest criticism as an act of aggression.
Anyone who treated them with anything other than total sycophancy – even within the ranks of their own family and advisers – became an enemy.
Truth is, we all adored them both until they started acting like a pair of woke evangelists, lecturing the world about how people should behave while demonstrating spectacular levels of hypocrisy and arrogance.
Hopping on private jets when it suited them while going on about climate change; luxuriating in the generosity of the British taxpayer and the trappings of their Royal standing while refusing to play their part with anything other than resentment and rancour; abandoning their duties for the sake of a life without responsibility (but with a newfound opportunity to trade on their titles and status to secure lucrative deals abroad for spilling the Royal beans).
Not content with trashing his family, splashing his grievances all over the world’s front pages and kicking his 95-year-old granny when she’s down, he’s now demanding that she – and the British taxpayer – stump up for the privilege
They cast themselves as ‘victims’ at every turn, refusing to accept their own part in this tedious and never-ending drama.
Fact is, they lost their taxpayer-funded security protection because they chose to relinquish their Royal status and move halfway across the world to the sunny uplands of California.
Why should the British people continue to pay for two people who want nothing to do with Britain or our Royal Family?
If someone quits their job for more money and better perks, then badmouths their previous employer all over town, they can’t also demand they keep their old company credit card, can they?
And yet that’s essentially what Harry is asking for. If you want security, Harry, get your new mates at Netflix to pay for it. I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to stump up in exchange for another no holds barred moan-a-thon about the wicked folks back home.
The fact that he is choosing to embark on this course of action in such an aggressive way and through legal channels at a time of great difficulty for the Queen is just the last straw as far as I’m concerned.
Proof, if proof were needed, that Prince Harry really has become the kind of fellow who would sue his own grandmother for the sake of a quick buck.
Source: Read Full Article
