Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, has had a historic return to the Royal Courts of Justice. He is currently appealing the final dismissal of his legal case against the Home Office. Members of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) have taken an important step. This decision lies at the heart of providing taxpayer-funded security protection for the Duke and his family. After testimony on Tuesday and Wednesday, we hope the hearing will conclude. It’s gotten overwhelming, worldwide attention, and rightly so — because it threatens to change the entire royal security protocol and the treatment of royal family members.
Back in 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle took a radical step. What Prince Harry and Meghan Markle did was take a step back as senior, working royals. They expressed concerns for their security inside the royal establishment. Consequently, they made the decision to take a different course, while still providing support for royal duties. As part of this transition, Ravec created what it termed a “bespoke process” for assessing security needs for the Duke. So instead, this process is about evaluating the purpose of his attendance at events. It forces them to put unique justifications ahead of granting the traditional protections extended to other royals.
Legal Arguments Presented
In hearings last month, lawyers for Prince Harry insisted Ravec’s position was not legally sound. Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Duke, went a long way to stress that he rejects the notion that “bespoke” means “better.” He claimed that this horrible experience is proof he’s been wronged. This kind of treatment is a departure from how most members of the royal family receive similar treatment.
“The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.” – Shaheed Fatima KC
Fatima underscored the feeling of insecurity the Duke and his wife experienced in their protection from the institution. As a consequence, they were left with little option but to resign from their formal positions. She stated, “On 8 January 2020, (the Duke) and his wife felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they considered they were not being protected by the institution.”
Sir James Eadie KC acted for the Home Office in this case. He defended the arguments by claiming that Ravec operated under a “one of a kind situation” when determining which projects to fund. He pointed out the futility in trying to compare apple to oranges cases and stressed that assessments have to be situated in the context of the real world case.
“What mattered was the question of substance of how they were going to deal with this unique set of circumstances.” – Sir James Eadie KC
The Context of Prince Harry’s Arrival
Prince Harry arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice this morning in a navy suit and striped tie. This is day two of his security challenge. His arrival comes just days after a momentous weekend for the royal family. In April, King Charles III travelled from Wales to London for his routine cancer treatment appointment. Unfortunately, King’s treatment schedule has kept this much anticipated reunion between the two Dukes from happening on this trip.
The King arrived at Kensington Palace at 10:30 am on Sunday, while Prince Harry touched down in London around 3 pm on the same day. This specific timing brings emotional and political depths, especially given the unique circumstances of their familial relations still playing out during legal disputes and personal struggles.
Awaiting a Decision
With the hearing itself now concluded, both sides now look forward to a written decision on Prince Harry’s appeal of Ravec’s ruling. The outcome may set significant precedent for the Duke. It will set the precedent for the larger debate over security allowances for royals.
Legal experts have noted that this case highlights the challenges in defining and implementing protective measures for members of the royal family while balancing public accountability and individual rights.
