Prince Harry's legal battle to reinstate taxpayer-funded police protection in the United Kingdom ended in defeat on Thursday, with the Court of Appeal ruling against the Duke of Sussex. The decision leaves him potentially liable for £1.5 million in legal costs and prompted an immediate public response from both Harry and Buckingham Palace.
The case, centered on the 2020 decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), had challenged the downgraded security arrangements for Harry and his family following their relocation to the U.S. The Duke argued that his family's safety while in the UK required continued access to the same armed protection as senior working royals.
In a BBC interview following the ruling, Harry described the outcome as "devastating" and criticized the structure governing his security access. "I can't see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point, and the things that they're going to miss is, well, everything you know," he said. "I love my country, I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done."
Harry denied requesting his father, King Charles III, to intervene in the matter but implied the monarch held significant sway. "I never asked him to intervene - I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs," the Duke stated. "There is a lot of control and ability in my father's hand. Ultimately this whole thing could be resolved through him."
He added that, "Every single visit that I do back to the UK has to go through the royal household. My representative on the Ravec committee still to this day is the royal household. That's not a decision that I choose. I am forced to go through the royal household and accept that they are putting my best interests forward during these conversations and deliberations."
Buckingham Palace issued a rare statement in response, saying, "All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion."
The final judgment came from Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, who dismissed the appeal after reviewing the case in detail. "These were powerful and moving arguments and it was plain the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system," Vos wrote. "Having studied the detail, I could not say that the Duke's sense of grievance translated into a legal argument to challenge Ravec's decision." He concluded: "My conclusion was that the Duke of Sussex's appeal would be dismissed."
The ruling means that armed police protection funded by British taxpayers will not automatically be restored for Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, or their children during visits to the UK. Royal sources noted that it would have been constitutionally inappropriate for the King to intervene while the matter was under legal review.
