If you love The Daily Beast’s royal coverage, then we hope you’ll enjoy The Royalist, a members-only series for Beast Inside. Become a member to get it in your inbox on Sunday.
Harry and Meghan “unable” to return home over security
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have faced much criticism for not bringing their children to visit their grandmother in the U.K. since they went west for a new life. Now their real reason has been revealed: security.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a statement released this weekend, Harry says he has sought a judicial review of the security procedures he and his family can expect on visits back to the U.K.
Harry says he and Meghan have been told their family won’t be offered police protection if they travel to the U.K., even if they pay for it themselves. The bombshell, Harry says, was dropped at the so-called “Sandringham Summit” in early 2020 when Harry met the queen to thrash out the logistics of his post-royal life.
Harry’s offer to fund security provided by U.K. police was summarily “dismissed” the statement says.
Harry says his own security was “compromised” when he returned home to unveil Princess Diana’s statue last summer.
The statement continues: “The Duke and Duchess personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
The statement added that they are now suing the British government via the mechanism of a judicial review. The case could see Harry and Meghan in the High Court yet again, but this time their opponent would be Her Majesty’s government.
Security was one of the issues mentioned by Harry in his interview with Oprah Winfrey.
He said: “The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed.”
Harry added, “Their justification is a change in status…I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’”
Meghan said that she was upset when she was told her then-unborn son Archie would not be made a prince because, she said, it would affect his security status.
In fact, many HRHs do not have full time security provided by the British state. In 2011, for example, Prince Andrew’s daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, had their police protection revoked after they were demoted from the ranks of “working royals.”
Harry and Meghan’s statement in full, issued late last night, said:
“Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.
“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K.
“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.
“The Duke first offered to pay personally for U.K. police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham.
“That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer.
“As is widely known, others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them.
“The goal for Prince Harry has been simple—to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the U.K. so his children can know his home country.
“During his last visit to the U.K. in July 2021—to unveil a statue in honor of his late mother—his security was compromised, due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event.
“After another attempt at negotiations was also rejected, he sought a judicial review in September 2021 to challenge the decision-making behind the security procedures, in the hopes that this could be re-evaluated for the obvious and necessary protection required.
“The U.K. will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in. With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk.
“Prince Harry hopes that his petition—after close to two years of pleas for security in the U.K.—will resolve this situation. It is due to a leak in a U.K. tabloid, with surreptitious timing, we feel it necessary to release a statement setting the facts straight.”
The government declined to comment about the specifics of the case, telling the Daily Mail that security systems are “rigorous and proportionate.”
“Holy cow, that’s horrible!”
So how is Prince Andrew doing—newly excommunicated from the royal family, and apparently determined to fight on against the accusation he raped Virginia Roberts Giuffre three times when she was 17, while she was being sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein?
Well, make your own conclusions about Andrew’s mental state, given that The Sun on Sunday reports that he hosted a shooting party at Windsor on Friday, but didn’t take part. He and Sarah Ferguson joined the shooting group for lunch. A source said: “It seems quite brazen of Andrew to host a party and let his family go shooting with all the controversy raging.” The shoot, it was reported, may have been a Christmas present from the queen to Andrew’s daughter Eugenie.
A source told the Sunday Times of the queen cutting him loose: “He is quite sanguine about it. He was mindful of the intense pressures building on the institution and recognized it was the right thing to do.”
However, sources close to Andrew speaking to the Sun claim he is “feeling like his insides have been ripped out.” A friend says: “He is in turmoil. Up until now, on advice of his lawyers, he didn’t think it would go this far. But he has now finally realized how bad the situation is and feels he has let the queen down. He desperately wants to make amends, although he accepts that it will take a long time. He is relying on the love and support of his family to get through this.”
Ex-wife Sarah Ferguson is “just trying to support him as she always has,” a friend tells the paper.
A senior defense source told the Mirror that Andrew was “tearful” when the queen told him on Thursday she was stripping him of his titles and patronages. “The Prince was tearful when told the news even though he had expected it,” the source said. “He feels that he has let so many people down, not least his mother, during her Platinum Jubilee year.” Senior military figures see Andrew as “a bloody embarrassment,” the source added.
Another Sunday Times story features a number of professionals working in the mental health field condemning Andrew and his lawyers for victim-blaming Giuffre, and trying to use her own mental health history—demanding to see her mental health records and records of confidential counseling—against her. Given the widespread disgust leveled at Andrew for this, it is surprising he continues to use it as a strategy. But his legal team is suggesting Giuffre has “false memories” of what happened to her.
“I think it’s one of the lowest forms of tactics that can be used,” Dr Charlotte Proudman, a barrister and Cambridge academic specializing in violence against women, told the Sunday Times.
The Sunday Times also details the Christmas conversations featuring Prince Charles and Prince William that sealed Andrew’s fate, even though the queen took the lead on wielding the axe itself.
“Conversations have been going on for a while,” a palace source told the Times. “The family were always clear that some of the duke’s advisers were too optimistic and these decisions were always going to have to happen.”
It wasn’t just Charles and William sticking their two cents in. “Anne and Edward had more than a passing interest,” the source said.
A royal source said of the queen herself: “She has had the opportunity to shut this down for the past two years—but she will do anything for a quiet life, and buries her head in the sand on family matters.”
Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction was pivotal. Andrew might have escaped his expulsion “if Maxwell had been freed or the case had fallen apart.”
This shows just how ruthless the royals are. The infamous BBC Newsnight interview, in which Andrew dripped with arrogance and self-delusion, didn’t lead to the queen taking action “because he still had enough clout with his mother to convince her he’d get it over the line,” a source said. “Nobody had the energy to really dispatch him.”
The queen feels “genuine sadness” over what she had to do. “Never assume she just rubber-stamps stuff,” said a courtier. Charles was the “acting chief exec” and “the driving force” on Andrew’s demise. As for William, “there is a frustration over Andrew’s awful judgement, but fundamentally William thinks his heart is in the right place.”
The next question: given Andrew is running so low on cash, will it be the queen who foots any settlement he reaches with Giuffre?
“What does it look like if the Queen’s money is used to settle sex abuse allegations?” a royal source told the Sunday Times. “Holy cow, that’s horrible. But it could be the only option.”
Receipts, please
Prince Andrew’s very bad week just got worse after renewed calls were made for an investigation into the deeply dubious sale of his former home, Sunninghill Park, to the son-in-law of the then-ruler of Kazakhstan—for $4 million over its asking price.
The six bedroom home was sold in 2007 for £15 million to Timur Kulibayev, son-in-law of former Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, whom Andrew went hunting with.
Speaking to the Sun, Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge said: “In the last few years, dirty money has infected our entire politics. Prince Andrew is one of too many people in the public sphere who kleptocrats try to woo for help in this country.”
Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda said: “Of course it should be investigated. I’ve been saying so ever since it came to light. Nobody is above the law.
“The insidious way dodgy foreign oligarchs have laundered their money and peddled influence in the U.K. is now a matter of national security.”
Norman Baker, a former government minister and author of a 2019 book on royal finances, said: “Why would someone buy that ghastly place, which looked like a Tesco supermarket, and especially pay £3m ($4 million) more than the asking price for it? And then, why try and hide that sale?”
This week in royal history
Happy birthday to Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Prince Edward’s wife. She turns 57 on Jan. 20, and in the last few years has emerged as a growingly powerful royal power player.
Unanswered questions
Will Prince Harry be in court again, this time as the first royal to take legal action against the British government? Does Andrew settle or fight on? His legal strategy of shaming Giuffre is already backfiring.
