The ongoing discord between Prince Harry and King Charles III may intensify as Harry’s bid to finance his own police protection in the UK has been rejected by the court again.
Shannon Felton Spence, a royal commentator, suggests that based on Prince Harry’s past statements about feeling unsafe in the UK, his move to California, the latest court ruling, and their relocation from Frogmore Cottage, it seems unlikely that the Sussex family will be returning to the UK for an extended stay.
This sentiment is echoed by “The King” author Christopher Andersen, who posits that a major event like a royal funeral or court summons would be needed to bring Harry and Meghan back to the UK in the near future.
Following the decision by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to step down from their senior royal duties in 2020, the UK government stopped providing them police protection. This prompted Prince Harry to engage in a legal fight, arguing for his family’s continued protection and offering to personally bear the expenses. However, the government’s legal team argued against the proposal, suggesting it’s inappropriate to use police officers as private security for the wealthy.
Justice Martin Chamberlain concurred with the government’s argument, maintaining that there was no inconsistency or irrationality in rejecting Prince Harry’s proposal to personally finance his police protection.
Ian Pelham Turner, a royal expert, believes that the court’s decision to refuse Prince Harry and Markle the ability to self-fund their police protection is a significant setback for the couple.
It should be noted that King Charles III lacks the authority to reverse the court’s decision due to the strict separation between the monarchy and the government.
Despite the court’s rejection of Prince Harry’s attempt to personally fund his police protection in the UK, he may still have an opportunity to challenge the decision to deny him state-funded security in another lawsuit. If successful, the costs of the police protection would be borne by British taxpayers. However, Andersen suggests that King Charles III might not prioritize such issues and would likely adhere to the decisions of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures.