Prince Harry's appeal over the removal of his publicly funded UK security was denied by the Court of Appeal.
According to Fox News, the decision upheld a previous High Court ruling that deemed the UK government's approach both lawful and justified.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that it was valid for a committee to periodically assess Harry's protection needs whenever he visits the UK. The judgment unanimously acknowledged the government's method of managing his security as appropriate and fair.
Harry has to bear not only his own legal expenses but also the UK government's, a consequence of the appeal's outcome. This might exacerbate the financial burden on Prince Harry, who now resides in California with his wife Meghan Markle and their children.
Harry and Meghan moved to California in 2020 after stepping back from their duties as senior royals, attributing their decision to excessive media intrusion and a lack of support from the royal institution.
Prince Harry's concerns over his safety were evident during a rare appearance in court last month. His attorney, Shaheed Fatima, emphasized the depth of Harry’s feelings about the issue. "This case involves not merely contractual rights but my client's and his family’s safety," she stated. She described Harry's participation as a clear sign of how vital this matter is to him and his family.
The ongoing legal battle has evidently taken a toll on Harry, who reportedly feels "exhausted and overwhelmed" by the proceedings. His insistence on reinstating his UK security is driven by a desire to safely visit his homeland with his family.
The legal dispute has also reportedly strained the relationship between Prince Harry and his father, King Charles III, diagnosed with cancer in February 2024. Despite Harry's hopes that his father might intervene to reinstate his security, legal challenges such as "sovereign immunity" make this complex.
Attorney James Eadie criticized Harry's legal strategy as blurry, focusing on minute elements rather than the broader, rational grounds of the committee’s decisions.
The disagreement extends beyond just legal battles; an insider noted that there appears to be no imminent reconciliation between Harry and his father, indicating persisting familial tensions.
Harry's legal team argued that the security committee failed to adequately evaluate the specific risks to him and his family. This claim highlights a significant area of contention between Prince Harry and the U.K. government entities involved. Harry expressed through his legal team that his family was left vulnerable by the decisions of "the institution," a claim that reinforces his and Meghan’s earlier statements about their treatment by the royal family.
Moreover, throughout the legal challenges, Harry communicated his desire to continue supporting the queen in a privately funded capacity. This indicates his ongoing commitment to royal family duties despite the complex personal and legal issues he faces. Sources close to the situation suggest that the relationship between Harry and King Charles remains strained with no signs of mending soon.
As this legal chapter closes, Prince Harry remains committed to his roles both within and beyond the royal sphere, albeit under changed circumstances. He and his family’s security continue to be a pivotal concern as they navigate their roles on the public and global stage.
