Related Articles
The Duke of Sussex has won his lengthy battle for automatic armed police protection – paid for by British taxpayers – when he makes return visits to this country, ‘sources close to the Sussexes’ told my well-informed colleague Charlotte Griffiths, Editor at Large of The Mail on Sunday, last weekend.
They suggested the reinstatement of such security had been assured after a fresh risk assessment was carried out for the Government’s Royal and VIP Executive Committee. ‘It’s now a formality,’ they said. ‘Sources at the Home Office have indicated that security is now nailed on for Harry.’
This claim has prompted some sympathetic coverage, with columnists such as the Daily Telegraph’s Celia Walden saying the restoration of Prince Harry’s protection is ‘the right thing to do’ because ‘being the King’s son isn’t his fault’.
A ruling in the duke’s favour, expected to be announced within weeks, could allow for a reunion between King Charles and his grandchildren – Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, four, who live in California.
The stripping of automatic police protection was, however, done for a very good reason and its restoration would be a serious mistake. That’s not just my view but the opinion of several Palace insiders. In fact, it could create a huge problem for the monarchy’s future.
Harry and his wife, Meghan, had their automatic armed police protection removed because they quit public duties to seek their fortune in North America. It wasn’t a question of how seriously their security was threatened; it was because the British rules no longer applied to them as they had moved abroad.
As the King said in his first address to the nation as monarch: ‘I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.’
Automatic armed police protection is available only to those who live here. That is why Harry’s offer to pay for the protection was immediately dismissed: he wasn’t entitled to it regardless of who was paying. And it’s why he lost his legal appeal against the Home Office decision.
As I have reported in the past, Harry plans to spend more time back in his homeland and, in the longer term, would like his children to be educated here.
Prince Harry has won his battle to secure round-the-clock armed police protection in Britain
But that does not change the fact that he and Meghan would still be based in the US.
The couple are already entitled to armed police protection when they make return visits to Britain, but it is not automatic. They need to give 30 days’ notice of their visit so potential threats can be assessed.
Forcing hard-pressed British taxpayers to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds paying for security for the Sussexes would cause outrage. This is a couple so rich that Harry was able to make a personal donation of £1.1million to Children in Need on his last visit to Britain in September.
Crucially, if their automatic protection is restored here, it might mean they are entitled to the status of ‘internationally protected persons’ under international law (the implications of which would be for the Government or the courts to determine). This could see American taxpayers having to pay for their security in the US, which is hardly likely to enhance their popularity across the Atlantic.
It would, however, mean they are under less pressure financially. Viewers of their explosive 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey might recall Harry moaning that they had been forced to seek lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify because the funding for their security had been cut.
Not only would taxpayers be alarmed by a ruling in Harry’s favour, but it would open a can of worms for the Royal Family.
He complained in his Oprah Winfrey interview with Meghan that they had been forced to seek lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify because the funding for their security had been cut
At the moment, ‘working royals’ – such as the King’s siblings, Princess Anne and Prince Edward – are entitled to protection only when carrying out public engagements. It would be bizarre for Harry and Meghan, who carry out no public duties, to have round-the-clock protection but not the working royals.
A victory for Harry would mean he had partly achieved what he and Meghan always wanted: to be ‘half-in, half-out’ royals. They would have the major perk of automatic taxpayer-funded protection but none of the obligations of public service.
They could carry on trying to make their fortune, promoting the former actress’s lifestyle business, As Ever, and making further controversial television shows.
They would also be free to establish a rival ‘royal court’ in Britain, diverting attention from the real royals such as Prince William and Catherine, who are dutifully trying to continue their family’s dedication to public service, not profit.
‘A win for Harry and Meghan would change everything,’ warns a friend of the royals.
It’s not too late to think twice before the flagging Sussexes are given an unwelcome boost by the British Establishment.
Sign up for the Palace Confidential newsletter here.
Source link
