Latest news with #DukeofSussex
The Independent
2 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Prince of Wales jokes about family tensions on visit to Army Air Corps
The Prince of Wales has joked about family tensions when he quizzed soldiers about the time they spent with loved ones. William made light of living with relatives during a visit to the Suffolk home of the Army Air Corps (AAC) in his role as its Colonel-in-Chief. He also pledged to raise the accommodation concerns of soldiers and handed out bacon and sausage rolls to their families. Wearing camouflage military uniform and the AAC's famous blue beret, William brought up the topic of accommodation when he chatted to servicemen taking a break from an outdoor physical exercise session. The future king lightened the mood when he joked, after asking one soldier if he spent enough time with his family, 'some of them might not want to see you that much – it's a mixed bag'. The monarchy has experienced family disruption over the decades from separation and divorces to the much-publicised falling out between royal brothers William and the Duke of Sussex. In a recent television interview Harry, who is also estranged from his father the King, said he 'would love a reconciliation' with the royal family. William arrived at Wattisham Flying Station in Suffolk in a Wildcat Helicopter, a reconnaissance aircraft in the AAC's fleet. The prince is a former RAF helicopter search and rescue pilot who later spent two years flying air ambulances, and he flew himself back home after the visit to the ACC's headquarters to meet military personnel and their families. As the servicemen rested from their physical activities, William told them 'I'm going to have a chat about accommodation, make sure they look at that,' and went on to say 'If they listen to me that's another matter,' and said the issue would be landing on a desk. When he asked another group about accommodation and only received smiles in response, the prince said: 'I'll take that away, a lot of smiles going on, that's all you need to say.' William later served bacon rolls and sausage baps in the 'Archer's Breakfast', a weekly social event held by 664 Squadron for its personnel and their families and said about the food 'very good smelling, making my mouth water'. A long line of servicemen and their families quickly formed, and the prince quipped 'nothing worse then the smell of bacon in the room and you cannot eat it'. Outside the cafe, William chatted to servicemen and their families including the children of Warrant Officer Class 2 Matthew Foster, Ida, aged eight and five-year-old Archie. Asked by William what they liked, Ida replied 'school' while her younger brother opted not for lessons but 'play'. The AAC is the combat aviation arm of the British Army, and is made up of several regiments and units including 664 Squadron, and uses Wildcat battlefield reconnaissance and Apache Attack helicopters to seek out and destroy enemy forces. When William first arrived he entered a camouflaged covered tent, a mock-up of a mobile planning headquarters used when on deployment, and got to grips with a laptop used to plan missions under the watchful eye of Lance Corporal Sulabh Ale. He ended his visit by presenting a King's Commendation for Valuable Service and award soldiers their promotion from Corporal to Sergeant.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Prince Harry's latest doomed court battle over security - which he 'wished someone had told me beforehand' there was 'no way to win' - costs British taxpayers £100,000, new figures reveal
Prince Harry's latest doomed battle with the Home Office over police bodyguards cost British taxpayers £100,000, new figures revealed today. The Duke of Sussex lost his case at the Court of Appeal last month, saying in a BBC interview straight afterwards that 'I wish someone had told me beforehand' there was 'no way to win'. Today the Mail can reveal the Home Office has put its legal costs in the case at £656,324, which includes £554,000 for the original case a year ago which the High Court ruled Harry had 'comprehensively lost'. Since then, during which time Harry appealed the decision, an additional £102,000 has been incurred by government lawyers. It is likely that, as the losing party, Harry will be ordered to reimburse taxpayers all or most of the costs, putting him on the hook for as much as £1.5million, when his own legal costs are added. Last year, after he lost the original case, a judge said Harry should repay 90 per cent of the public's costs. Last month's damning appeal ruling was a bitter blow to the duke who said that, of all his various court battles, this one 'mattered the most'. He had flown in from California to attend a two-day hearing in April and sat in court as his barrister argued that removing his automatic right to Met Police armed bodyguards when he was in the UK had put his life 'at stake'. His KC said the threats against him had not diminished just because he had stopped being a frontline royal, and his military service had placed him at particular risk. The Duke of Sussex at the Royal Courts of Justice on April 8 during his appeal against a High Court ruling preventing him getting automatic taxpayer-funded police protection in the UK, which was taken away following Megxit On May 2, England's second most senior judge, Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, sitting with two other judges, ruled that while 'these were powerful and moving arguments, and it was plain the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system…I could not say that the duke's sense of grievance translated into a legal argument'. Sir Geoffrey ruled the original security decision had been a 'predictable' and even 'sensible' reaction to Megxit - when Harry stepped back from being a senior royal and quit Britain. Hours after the Appeal Court's ruling, Harry went nuclear in a BBC interview filmed in California, launching a blistering attack on the King who 'won't speak to me' and claiming there had been 'an Establishment stitch-up'. He accused the royal household of 'interfering' in his long-running battle in His Majesty's courts to reinstate his police bodyguards. He said of his children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet: 'I think it's really quite sad that I won't be able to show my children my homeland', adding he does not even know 'how much longer my father has' to live. Bitter Harry, 40, raged that 'the other side' in the court case had 'won in keeping me unsafe'. He declared himself 'obviously pretty gutted about the decision', but he added: 'It's certainly proven that there is no way to win this through the courts – wish someone had told me that beforehand. But yeah, the decision has been a surprise as well as not a surprise.' Figures released today via a Freedom of Information request show that the Home Office has spent £656,324 of public money successfully fighting the case - so far. The Home Office said this figure could yet rise, because 'further costs may be included at a later date, for example costs relating to the period prior to 2 May that have not yet been captured'. The legal fees included more than £241,000 on barristers, £394,000 on solicitors at the Government Legal Department, and £3,800 in court fees. Harry's own legal costs have not been revealed, but could be similar. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, pictured as he rejected Harry's appeal saying the original security decision had been a 'predictable' and even 'sensible' reaction to Megxit Within hours of the Appeal Court judgment, Harry declared in his bombshell interview: 'This is a good old-fashioned Establishment stitch-up - and that is what it feels like'. He claimed there was a big injustice, and compared himself – born with security risks – to politicians such as prime ministers who seek public office and are then guaranteed Scotland Yard protection for life. He said: 'Other people have been protected, people who have made a choice for public office – why wouldn't you be comfortable with someone in my position, who has given 35 years' service to his country, including two tours of Afghanistan…I was born into this position. I was born into those risks, and they have only increased over time.' 'I love my country and always have done. I think it's really quite sad that I won't be able to show my children my homeland.' At the time, Buckingham Palace said: 'All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion', with a source adding: 'It would have been constitutionally improper for His Majesty to intervene while this matter was being considered by the Government and reviewed by the Courts.'
BBC News
24-05-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
As clock ticks down on Harry security appeal, why did his court pleas fail?
Three weeks after Prince Harry's dramatic court loss, any likelihood of him reviving the legal battle over his personal security arrangements is narrowing by the anger and hurt at how he feels his family's security was seemingly lessened, after he stepped back from working royal duties, has played out publicly - and earlier this month he lost his challenge at the Court of Appeal in a week's time, the deadline passes for Prince Harry - the Duke of Sussex - to try one last go, at the Supreme Court. But that seems unlikely after he told the BBC, in his exclusive interview after losing, he had no legal options even if he were to ask for a hearing, the chances of him getting one appear slim because of what the courts have said so the prince's complaint was about his treatment, ultimately the courts took no view on that. Instead, they ruled he had not understood how the body organising Royal Family protection worked - and how his decision to quit the UK, yet still have an "in-and-out" role in public life, was former senior judge, who was not involved and spoke on background, felt the prince's case had been "preposterous" and "hopeless" from the start and anyone else bringing such a flawed claim would have been on the receiving end of more critical language from the Prince Harry's argument was always wider - saying the state had to take into account the accident of his birth which made him a target."I was born into this position. I was born into those risks. And they've only increased over time," he said in the BBC his first court hearing, in 2023, the prince said the UK was a place where he wanted his children "to feel at home" - but argued that can't happen "if it's not possible to keep them safe".After losing his appeal, he said he "[couldn't] see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK".Harry's entire legal case centred on Ravec - which authorises security for senior royals on behalf of the Home Office, and which Harry believes unfairly treated to understand why he lost and seemingly has nowhere else to go, we first have to understand three key issues:- Why was Ravec created, and what is its specific role?- How did Ravec and the Home Office respond when Prince Harry quit as a front line royal?- Why did he think this was something the courts should solve? Tabloid stunt Ravec evolved out of a 2003 Daily Mirror stunt when one of its reporters blagged his way into a job as a Buckingham Palace footman. It led to panic in government - and a major review concluded royal security needed a Ravec was born - the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (its exact name has changed down the years).Ravec oversees security for key public figures by assessing risks from terrorism, extremism, stalkers and any other foreseeable threat such as a "fixated individual". Unsurprisingly, there is no public list of who gets is responsible for VIP security within England, Wales and committee is funded and overseen by the Home Office because its work is on behalf of the home secretary of the day. The Royal Household has two members on the committee, including the monarch's private secretary. They contribute what they think is needed to protect people and key locations, such as Buckingham Metropolitan Police feeds information into the intelligence assessment and, ultimately provides the officers and kit to protect each "principal" - protected crucially, it's the Home Office-appointed chair who must decide how to spend the money and justify it to government. Behind closed doors Part of Prince Harry's case was heard in private, behind closed court doors, to ensure Ravec's precise workings and its security plans remain learned Ravec's decisions typically draw on a report from the Risk Management Board (RMB), a Home Office panel pulling together all the facts about risks and actual in the example of the prince, it is well-known that al-Qaeda supporters and racist extremists are a concern for his family. We can therefore infer that the RMB has probably tried to work out what those threats really amount the background. Let's turn to how it all became such a public row, leading from the High Court to the Court of critical decisions were in spring 2020 when Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, "stepped back" from being working choice to move first to Canada, with their baby son, raised a question for Ravec: what kind of security should the prince's family now have, if they were no longer working royals and no longer living in the UK? What role should Ravec play in providing security, given its GB-only remit?Court documents, while heavily redacted in places, show emails and letters were flying backwards and forwards between the Home Office, the Palace, Scotland Yard - and ultimately Prince Harry's ruled out very early on allowing the Sussexes to pay the Met to deliver their security abroad. That, it said, was not what Ravec was for. Its task was to protect working royals in government quickly formed the view that the couple would "essentially become private citizens" living abroad - and relations began to break down on 28 February then-chair, Sir Richard Mottram, told the late Queen's private secretary Sir Edward Young that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would lose their existing Met Richard wrote: "The future arrangements for [the duke and duchess] do not fit readily within this framework."It was that simple: the Sussexes were moving overseas, outside of Ravec's duties. The consequence was Prince Harry felt he was also being stripped of security when returning home - and there had been no formal Ravec meeting to decide his future essence, he seemed to be arguing that the Royal Household's two members of the committee - which at the time included Sir Edward - may have influenced the Home Office's decision to reduce his his BBC interview, Harry asked "What is the Royal Household's role [on Ravec]… if it isn't to influence and decide what they want for the members of their household?"But suspecting something is afoot is a world away from proving in court it really fact, the government successfully argued in court that Ravec had thought carefully and fairly about what to the duke and duchess had quit the UK, the committee carried out some threat risk assessments and then committed to decide on the duke's security at home on a case-by-case basis. It meant he would, in principle, potentially get at least some Met Police protection if Ravec thought the circumstances of his visit home warranted it. While living abroad, however, the royal couple would have to fund their own security. Ravec asked Prince Harry and his private security advisers for 28 days' notice of planned returns so it could work out what the state should notice condition is one of the reasons why the prince says his security had been downgraded. Essentially, he feared he would get a fuller security detail if he were attending a grand royal occasion at home than if he were returning on his own private business. The first test was when he flew in for the funeral of his grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh, in April Harry was offered personal protective security - but outside of the Ravec system. The prince regarded this to be insufficient, in light of the risks he believed he opinion was strengthened two months later when he said he had been dangerously hounded by paparazzi in New York after a charity evidence, his security adviser noted the paparazzi's role in chasing Princess Diana to her death in a Paris prince was convinced he had been treated unfairly and launched his Judicial Review of whether Ravec had acted win his case, Prince Harry had to land one of three legal arguments:- Ravec had acted unlawfully, beyond the powers it had- The committee had treated him unfairly in the way it had acted- Its decision was so irrational that nobody else sensible could possibly have reached the same conclusionThe prince's team did so by arguing Ravec's policy had been overly rigid and inflexible. That failed - but there were other lines of attack:- The committee chairman had not followed Ravec's policies properly- The decision over the prince's future security had lacked transparency and consultation- No other decision-maker could have come up with the same bespoke plan he was offeredYet, all of these complaints were rejected by judges. Legal cul-de-sac In Judicial Reviews, it's not the role of judges to say what they would prefer to have happened. So, they never expressed a view whether Prince Harry deserved 20 or 250 more protection Justice Lane, who legally demolished the prince's case a year ago in the High Court, said Ravec's chair and the Home Office officials who came up with the bespoke plan, had done so from "positions of significant knowledge and expertise in the highly specialist area"."Courts should be wary of concluding that expert adjudicators have fundamentally misunderstood how to go about their allotted tasks," he prince's team, who argued his military service heightened the risks he faced, said that he had been treated unfairly compared with another Ravec-protected VIP whose life had don't know who that was but it's common knowledge that former prime ministers can be protected long after they have left office. That's partly to ensure that decisions they take while in government - such as declaring war - are not affected by them worrying about their own personal future prince appealed the judgement, going to the Court of Appeal. It ultimately ruled it was "superficial" to compare Prince Harry's circumstances with other was there something that the courts could not see - the whiff of an "establishment stitch-up" that meant the process was unfair?Prince Harry told the BBC: "My representative on the Ravec committee, still to this day, is the Royal Household. I am forced to go through the Royal Household and accept that they are putting my best interests forward."But that complaint was a legal cul-de-sac because the High Court said the prince had no evidence Ravec members had a "closed mind" or had been biased against about his complaints about reckless paparazzi following his vehicle? Did he not have a case there? In a word, no. Ravec's job was to protect VIPs from people with "hostile intent", not photographers breaching his High Court ultimately described some of his submissions as having a "distinct air of unreality". This is wording judges use when they have been really unimpressed with what they have heard - but don't want to sound Geoffrey Vos, the senior judge who oversaw the later review in the Court of Appeal, put it differently and could have been failed to be moved by Prince Harry's concerns, he said, but he needed to hear why the prince thought Ravec was breaking the law by giving him a bespoke security plan."I have tried to see how and whether the Claimant's sense of grievance translates into a legal argument," he explained. But he couldn't find that legal argument. And so, Prince Harry years of anguished legal battles came down to a difficult disagreement - but not one that the courts could find amounted to a "stitch-up".
The Independent
19-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Meghan gives wedding anniversary thanks to those who supported ‘our love story'
The Duchess of Sussex has thanked those 'who have loved and supported us throughout our love story', as she and the Duke of Sussex celebrated their seventh wedding anniversary. Meghan posted an image on Instagram of a notice board featuring a collection of snapshots of the couple from their private photo album, with the message: 'Seven years of marriage. A lifetime of stories. 'Thanks to all of you (whether by our side, or from afar) who have loved and supported us throughout our love story – we appreciate you.' She added: 'Happy anniversary!' followed by a red heart emoji. Among the images were numerous pictures of Meghan and Harry embracing, and one of the duke tenderly cradling the head of one of their children as a swaddled newborn. There was also a baby scan labelled Archie, a photo of Archie kissing Lili on the forehead, as well as a number of notes including a central one in Meghan's handwriting reading 'Our love story'. The accompanying music was The Proclaimers' hit track I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles). Harry wed former Suits actress Meghan at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on May 19 2018. But the pair stepped away from the working monarchy less than two years later for a new life in the US. Meghan did not name any of the people she was thanking. Harry has faced a lengthy rift with his brother the Prince of Wales and an estrangement from his father the King, telling a recent BBC interview how Charles will not speak to him.
Forbes
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Marrying A Foreigner And Navigating U.S. Immigration Rules
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex wave during their carriage procession ... More outside Windsor Castle, on May 19, 2018 after their wedding ceremony. (Photo by Aaron Chown -) Marrying a foreigner with the expectation that he or she will come to the U.S. seems like a natural next step in a loving relationship. However, if your plan involves bringing your fiancé(e) into the United States for the wedding—or remaining together afterwards—you may be surprised to discover that immigration law makes your plan far more complicated than you might have thought. Perhaps the most famous example of such a marriage and later immigration to the U.S. was Prince Harry's union with Meghan Markle and the subsequent steps they had to take to live together in America. In fact, without proper planning, such a wedding can quickly turn into a border nightmare. Couples have found themselves separated for months—or even years—simply because they misunderstood the rules. The path to permanent residence for a foreign fiancé(e) or spouse depends heavily on your own immigration status as the U.S.-based partner, the intent of your partner at the time they enter the country, and how and when you choose to marry. Fortunately, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle worked it all out properly. Let's begin with the issue that trips up couples the most: immigrant intent. Whether your partner is Canadian, European, or from anywhere else in the world, U.S. immigration law draws a sharp distinction between visitors and immigrants. When a foreign national enters the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program (as most Europeans do) or on a tourist visa (as Canadians may be waived in for), they declare to the U.S. government that they do not intend to immigrate—that they are coming only temporarily for tourism, business, or family visits. So when someone arrives at the U.S. border and tells a Customs and Border Protection officer (CBP) that they are coming to attend their own wedding—and especially if they suggest they plan to stay after—it raises an immediate red flag. CBP officers are trained to detect immigrant intent, and they may deny entry on the spot, cancel a visa or Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), or even ban the individual from returning for several years. This is not theoretical. Canadians trying to marry their American partners in the U.S. have been turned away at the border. Europeans arriving on ESTA have been placed on return flights the same day. In both cases, the issue is the same: they are attempting to engage in conduct that is inconsistent with the terms of their entry. Immigration rules are now vigilantly being enforced, especially under President Trump's rule. One of the most misunderstood aspects of immigration enforcement is the idea of preconceived intent. This legal doctrine applies when someone enters the U.S. on a temporary basis—such as a visitor—but has always intended to remain in the country permanently, possibly by marrying and applying for a green card. The U.S. government uses what's known as the '90-day rule' to help identify these cases. If someone marries a U.S. citizen or applies for a green card within 90 days of arriving in the U.S., the government may presume they lied about their original intentions. This misrepresentation can lead to a denial of permanent residency, and if found to be wilful, even a lifetime ban under U.S. immigration law. To overcome this presumption, couples must provide evidence that the decision to marry or stay was made after arrival, due to unforeseen circumstances—something that is often difficult to prove. That's why honesty at the border is essential, but it must be paired with proper planning. It is important to tell the truth about your relationship — but if your partner plans to stay after the wedding, they must have the correct visa in hand. Here's where your status as the American half of the couple becomes critically important. It is why Prince Harry was properly able to immigrate to the United States based on the sponsorship of Meghan Markle, his spouse and a U.S. citizen. If you are a U.S. citizen, like Meghan Markle is, you have the most options: But if you are only a lawful permanent resident (green card holder), your options are more limited: For this reason, some green card holders choose to naturalize first, gaining U.S. citizenship before initiating a family sponsorship process. It adds time, but can avoid years of delay and legal complexity. Some couples, out of desperation, choose to circumvent the system. A foreign partner enters as a visitor, marries, and remains—hoping to adjust their status later. While this may work in some limited circumstances (especially if the partner marries a U.S. citizen after 90 days and was otherwise admitted properly), it involves significant legal risks. If U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines that the foreign national lied about their intentions at the time of entry, they may be found inadmissible due to fraud. That finding is extremely difficult to overturn and will affect any future visa or green card applications. Even worse, if CBP officers detect suspected immigrant intent at the border—whether by reviewing messages on a phone, asking about wedding dates, or examining plane tickets—they can deny entry immediately, without any opportunity for appeal. To avoid heartbreak and legal trouble, here are key recommendations for couples planning to marry: 1. Do Not Enter the U.S. on a Tourist Visa or ESTA With Intent to Marry and Then Stay Immediately Thereafter If your fiancé(e) plans not only to marry but also to stay in the USA permanently immediately thereafter, they must use a proper immigrant or fiancé visa or enter in a different capacity, such as a student or, for example, an H1B work visa, to adjust status inside the country. At the very least, they should take careful note of the 90-day rule regarding future steps. This is where consultations with U.S. immigration attorneys can be helpful. Tourist entries are for temporary stays only. 2. If You Are a U.S. Citizen, Use the Fiancé(e) Visa or Spousal Visa These are the most straightforward and legally secure ways to bring your partner to the U.S. As already mentioned, this was the case with Prince Harry and Meghan, now Duchess of Sussex. 3. If You Are a Green Card Holder, Consider Marrying Abroad and Then Filing Expect longer wait times and fewer benefits, but this is the correct legal pathway. Choosing to marry abroad, such as in Canada, may be a wise move for you. 4. Do Not Attempt to 'Game the System' Misrepresentation—even if it seems harmless—can carry lifelong immigration consequences. 5. Get Legal Advice Early Even well-meaning couples can fall into legal traps. A qualified immigration attorney can save you years of delay and expense. In short, marrying a foreigner requires familiarity with U.S. immigration rules. For Americans hoping to marry foreign nationals and live together in the United States, the stakes are high and the process is complex. The difference between a joyful wedding, such as the one between Prince Harry and Meghan, and a border crisis can depend on whether you took the time to understand the rules—and followed them carefully.
