The TRUTH behind Prince Harry's legal battle, according to royal experts on PALACE CONFIDENTIAL

Daily Mail​

14-05-2025

A defiant Prince Harry made a rare appearance on British soil as he attended both days of his hearing in April at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
The Duke of Sussex, 40, and his legal team were fighting against the Home Office 's decision in 2020 to roll back his publicly funded police protection in the UK because his 'life is at stake'.
But just what went on behind court doors?
On the latest episode of Palace Confidential, Rebecca English, the Daily Mail's Royal Editor, and Richard Eden, the newspaper's Diary Editor, sat down with host Jo Elvin to separate fact from fiction.
Rebecca, who has covered the royal beat since 2004, started by explaining that for Harry, Police Protection Officers, or PPOs, are as familiar to him as 'breathing'.
'He would have grown up with royal protection officers as casually as he would have grown up with a nanny or any other member of staff,' she said.
Throughout his time studying at Eton and serving in Afghanistan, Harry was accompanied by a team of PPOs from the Metropolitan Police.
'He was protected at all times of his life,' Rebecca added.
'Bringing us up to the point where Harry decided to leave the Royal Family,' Jo said. 'That's when his status changed in the eyes of those deciding police protection.'
Although Rebecca acknowledged she was 'obviously not at the heart of these discussions', she said it was not a 'spontaneous decision' made by Ravec - the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures.
'It wasn't necessarily based on Prince Harry's decision to leave the Royal Family,' she said,' but a big part of it was his decision to move to North America - first to Canada and then to the US.
'That would have been a huge burden on British taxpayers to fund two, including his wife, and obviously his growing family out there because it's not just having a bodyguard with you.
'You have a couple of bodyguards, you have what we call backup officers who are making sure the roads are cleared and the venue you are going to is safe.
'Those people work on rotation and you are having to constantly have people travelling out from the UK to America on a shift pattern.
'I mean, the cost to taxpayers would have been extraordinary and it wouldn't have been something they would have been able to bear.'
Citing a source that was 'very well plummed with the negotiations', Rebecca said: 'By the time they got to the Sandringham Summit as we like to call it in January 2020, Harry had already accepted, I've been told, the fact he would lose his Metropolitan Police security.
'He understood if his life was going to be North America - at that point they still thought it was still going to be Canada - that he wouldn't get it.
'The negotiations then were already over what private security he was going to get and who would be paying for that.
'The person who paid for it, my understanding is, for at least the first year after him leaving the Royal Family, was actually his father King Charles.
'Far from being an uncaring father,' Rebecca added.
'He was saying: "Look, I understand you need time to get on your feet financially and this is a significant cost to bear."'
Palace insiders told Rebecca that Harry has now 'turned round and cried wolf' because 'he had already acknowledged privately' that he would no longer get police protection.
When asked by Jo why the Duke 'embarked on this court case' in the first place, Richard said: 'Harry now says it's because he wanted to expose the workings of this committee [Ravec] and he wants to put daylight on it and make it public.
'But he was obviously wanting to win his case, otherwise why would you embark on it? But now he says it was an "establishment stitch-up" so it is a confused pattern really.'
While Harry maintains that he tried to have conversations about his security protection privately, Rebecca said that meant 'putting pressure on his father to intervene'.
But Charles could not get involved due to his role as Head of State.
'So Harry decided to basically sue the Home Office in court,' Rebecca said.
'There is a reason why members of the Royal Family don't often go down the legal route because it's uncomfortable, it's complex.
'It was pretty unprecedented,' she added.
'We should make it clear that Harry has offered to pay for the police to protect him while he is in the country,' Jo interjected. 'But is that even possible?'
'No,' Richard replied. 'That's a complete side issue.
'This is not some sort of service that you can buy. It's for the people that the government decide need protecting. Otherwise, it would be a ridiculous situation - you would have a taxpayer funded security that rich people can call up and hire.'
Playing Devil's Advocate, Jo said: 'I guess he sees himself as apart from being a rich person and somebody who was born into this royal life.'
'That's his central point,' Richard agreed, 'that he was born into it and so by virtue of that deserves it but so were the rest of the members of the Royal Family and the same rules apply to them.'
Senior members of the Royal Family such as Princess Anne are entitled to full protection when carrying out royal engagements but not when on private business such as visiting friends.
'I don't hear Prince Edward or even Prince Andrew taking legal action against the Home Office over it,' Richard said.
'I wouldn't swap my humdrum life for being a member of the Royal Family but I think you have to deal with the cards life deals you with,' Rebecca added.
'There are a lot of people in our country and indeed around the world who are living in abject poverty and have massive health issues so I think sometimes you have got to count your blessings.'
After his two-day hearing, Judge Geoffrey Vos concluded that Harry's arguments were 'powerful' but there was not enough legal basis for a challenge.