Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s decision to step back from their roles as working royals and relocate to California has brought about significant changes in their lives.
One of the key repercussions of this move was the alteration in the security provisions for Prince Harry and his family.
The Royal Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) made a crucial decision to withhold the round-the-clock police protection typically afforded to active members of the royal family.
The decision to downgrade Prince Harry’s personal security detail during his visits to the UK was based on concerns for safety and the belief that UK taxpayers should not bear the cost of his security arrangements.
Consequently, Prince Harry took legal action in an attempt to reinstate the security measures he had previously enjoyed.
However, the High Court ruling delivered by retired judge Sir Peter Lane dismissed his case, affirming the validity of RAVEC’s decision-making process.
According to reports from the Telegraph, the court ruled against Prince Harry, highlighting the adequacy of the decision made by RAVEC in 2020.
As a consequence of losing the legal battle, Prince Harry now faces a staggering estimated legal bill of £1 million.
This financial burden includes covering his legal expenses and the costs incurred by the Home Office, which had already accumulated legal fees amounting to £407,000 by October last year, preceding a three-day trial held in December.
In his defense, Prince Harry enlisted the services of Shillings International and four barristers to represent him, indicating that his personal legal fees are expected to surpass the current figures.
This substantial legal bill adds to the financial challenges Prince Harry is confronting, as he also potentially faces another hefty bill of £750,000 after dropping his libel claim against the mail on Sunday publisher earlier this year.
Despite the setback in court, Prince Harry has expressed his intention to appeal the ruling.
However, his decision has drawn criticism from outspoken media personality Piers Morgan, who lambasted Prince Harry for his perceived entitlement to taxpayer-funded security despite his diminished role within the royal family.
In a scathing monologue on his YouTube show, Piers Morgan Uncensored, he derided Prince Harry’s legal pursuits and emphasized the disparity between his actions and the expectations of a non-working royal.
Piers Morgan’s criticism extended to questioning Prince Harry’s relevance and status, labeling him as a fading celebrity residing in California and engaging in ventures that criticize the monarchy.
The public clash between Piers Morgan and Prince Harry underscores the ongoing scrutiny and debate surrounding the former royal’s choices and public image.
As Prince Harry navigates the aftermath of his legal defeat and grapples with mounting legal expenses, the repercussions of his decisions continue to reverberate within the public sphere.