In a legal battle taking place at London’s High Court, Prince Harry has alleged that he was treated unfairly and unlawfully when his taxpayer-funded security was revoked after he decided to step down from his royal duties.
The courtroom is once again abuzz with a case brought by the Duke of Sussex, as his lawyer challenges the UK government’s decision to strip him of his security detail upon relinquishing his status as a working royal and moving to the United States.
Prince Harry claims that his safety has been compromised due to the hostility he and his family face on social media and in the press.
His attorney, Shahid Fatima, argues that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), responsible for evaluating Prince Harry’s security needs, treated him unjustly and failed to adhere to its own policies, which required a thorough risk analysis considering his status, background, and profile within the royal family, to which he was born and will be associated with for life.
Fatima emphasizes that RAVEC should have taken into account the potential impact of a successful attack on Prince Harry, both in terms of his personal safety and the reputation of the UK.
Notably, Prince Harry himself was not present in court as lawyers presented their opening statements during the three-day hearing.
A ruling on the matter is expected at a later date.
Prince Harry’s legal team has criticized the decision regarding his security arrangements for King Charles III’s coronation.
However, the UK’s Home Office has remained firm in its stance, as revealed in a court filing obtained by Newsweek.
The Duke of Sussex had flown to Britain for his father’s momentous occasion but left before the day’s events concluded, citing concerns for his safety amidst the presence of other VIPs and foreign dignitaries.
Government attorney James Eadie contends that Prince Harry is no longer under regular review for security as he is no longer a member of the cohort requiring such evaluation.
Eadie further highlights the financial aspect, noting that security funds are not limitless.
Nonetheless, Prince Harry was provided protection for specific events, including his visit in June 2021, during which he claimed to have been chased by photographers after attending a charity event at Kew Gardens in West London.
However, Prince Harry’s lawyers now find themselves facing scrutiny behind closed doors regarding the incident at Wellchild, where he alleged being pursued by paparazzi while leaving the event.
Contrary to his claims, leaked footage has emerged showing that nothing untoward occurred as Prince Harry’s vehicle departed from Kew Gardens.
This revelation raises questions about the veracity of his statements and motives for seeking free security.
The source of the leaked video implicates Sussex’s assistant, who timed the release perfectly to undermine Prince Harry’s claims.
The footage clearly demonstrates that Prince Harry was not being chased, debunking his narrative.
Critics argue that this incident exposes his willingness to deceive in order to secure additional security measures.
Some even question what he may stoop to next.
It is emphasized that as a non-working royal, Prince Harry is no longer entitled to security.
Despite these revelations, there are individuals who persist in asserting that photographers relentlessly pursue Meghan, insinuating her involvement in tipping them off.
The frequency of such incidents raises doubts about their coincidental nature.
Detractors argue that these actions tarnish her public image, portraying her as tacky and lacking class.
They further criticize her for what they perceive as fake activism, false philanthropy, disparaging the royal family, and engaging in questionable activities in parking lots.