Prince Harry’s security fight has ‘cost the British taxpayers’ over £500K, lol

Prince Harry has been fighting and suing the British government for several years, all because the government refused to guarantee his security and security for his family if and when they visit the UK. Harry has clearly and repeatedly offered to “pay back” the costs of high-level police protection for his visits, only the British media always reports the issue as “Harry demands taxpayer-funded royal protection!” Over the years, Harry’s fight has taken on an added dimension – he’s attempting to clarify who gave what order to remove his protection. He’s also clearly trying to reveal that the monarchy and Ravec (the secretive committee which determines royal protection) yanked the Sussex family’s security suddenly in 2020 in a high-level political effort to ensure that harm came to the family. It’s also clear that the government and the monarchy have much to hide, and they’re willing to spend a lot of taxpayer money in an attempt to cover their asses. Speaking of, the Telegraph has an exclusive about how much money the government has spent fighting Harry’s lawsuits:

Prince Harry’s failed legal bid to overturn a Home Office decision to deny him the right to automatic police protection cost the taxpayer more than £500,000, the Telegraph can reveal. The cost to the public purse will likely raise questions about the merits of a member of the Royal family taking legal action against the Government.

Figures released via a Freedom of Information request reveal that the total cost of fighting two separate judicial review claims lodged by the Duke of Sussex over his security reached £514,128. That included more than £180,000 for counsel, £320,000 for the Government Legal Department, £2,300 in court fees and almost £10,000 in e-disclosure.

Mr Justice Lane dismissed the Duke’s case in a scathing 52-page ruling handed down in February after two-and-a-half years of legal wrangling. He ruled that the decision made by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) to withdraw state-funded security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when they stepped back as working royals and instead review it on a case-by-case basis whenever they return to the UK had not been irrational or procedurally unfair. He also rejected the Duke’s “inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the process and said that taxpayer-funded security should not be used to protect the Duke and Duchess from paparazzi.

The ruling left the Duke facing an estimated legal bill of more than £1 million. Undeterred, he has announced that he plans to appeal the ruling, meaning that the costs are likely to rise further.

Prince Harry continues to insist that the withdrawal of guaranteed police protection renders him vulnerable when visiting the UK. He is required to give 30-days notice of any travel plans so each visit can be assessed on its merits. Sources close to him say he is unwilling to return with Meghan or their children without the level of security he feels he needs.

[From The Telegraph]

Yeah, the British taxpayers have spent over £514,128 to watch the government insist, for years, that Harry, Meghan and their children are not worthy of police protection because of their “loss of rank.” At the same time, the government, monarchy and the British media have waged a hate campaign against the Sussexes, ensuring that they are in significant danger wherever they go in the UK (and in the US as well, as the mess in New York showed us). Harry has revealed something truly frightening: that the entire British security/protection apparatus believes that security should follow rank and favoritism rather than threat or need. Harry has also revealed that a lot of people with a lot of power were fine with harm coming to Harry and his family.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

40 Responses to “Prince Harry’s security fight has ‘cost the British taxpayers’ over £500K, lol”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dee(2) says:

    “The cost to the public purse will likely raise questions about the merits of a member of the Royal family taking legal action against the Government.” I’m sorry what?!!! They’re arguing that simply being born in a family means that you shouldn’t be able to fight for equality under the law? They REALLY don’t want anyone looking closer to these agreements this family has with the government and the media. We hear on here all the time how most citizens don’t pay attention to the monarchy but that should send chills down your spine. A newspaper is arguing that a damn prince shouldn’t be able to fight in court, what will they do to you?

    • bisynaptic says:

      I had a similar take.

    • Eurydice says:

      They’re also acting as if court costs and legal fees aren’t incurred every single day in cases brought by ordinary citizens. This is the cost of having a legal system.

  2. Anna says:

    And how that compares to heli rides? Kate’s millions of identical coat dresses? Contex would be wild here.

  3. sevenblue says:

    Here fixed it for them: “British government spends 500k not to give security to a senior member of the royal family who received numerous death threats due to the cooperation between royal family and british media.”

  4. equality says:

    So they are willing to go into detail about every cost and what it was for here? How willing are they to do that kind of detail about every other member of the family and what they consistently cost?

  5. Alexandria says:

    It is really disgusting that the King and heir have allowed this national level of character assassination and danger to fester and remain. Sad and disgusting. All the money spent on buying likes, buying “reporters”, embiggening whatever it is these 4 do, money spent on useless studies and polls, fancy award shows. Money that could be used by their citizens. All because of what? Jealousy. Just jealousy. What a wretched “family”.

    • Alexandria says:

      You don’t have to love or like your family members but to abuse them is different. This is abuse, encouraging harm, encouraging death.

      • StarWonderful says:

        And look what happened to Princess Diana. Harry has said that he doesn’t want history to repeat itself.

    • B says:

      But it’s more than that, isn’t it?
      Yes there is merit to condemning treating family (frankly anyone) like that, however, this is also -ongoing- within the concept of the slimmed down monarchy and then two of the main ones left standing have cancer.
      There’s been plenty of time to reflect and develop insight and change.

    • one of the marys says:

      “have allowed this national level of character assassination and danger to fester and remain”
      Someone on here made the point years ago how awful a precedent the king was setting in the treatment of Meghan, a duchess. The Wales got a little taste this winter. The Sussex are smart to stay far, far away

  6. TN Democrat says:

    Any rota rat following the Tory party line (Baldimont is bigly mad at Harry and will never forgive him) needs reminded that Harry’s father/brother abused their power by planting dishonest articles that inflamed the extremists against Harry/Meghan, then removed their security months before the agreed upon date in an effort to either cause them immediate harm or force them back to the UK. Harry will never forgive Will-not for this, specially after what happened to their mother. Professional security would have saved her life and both brothers know this because they both looked into her accident. The future king is a sorry excuse for human being. I absolutely detest Keen, but if his behavior is an unhinged in private towards his wife and kids as it has been towards his brother, his family need an intervention and the rota needs to stop covering for him with planted bigly mad at Harry stories.

  7. It’s amazing what the British press can dig up on financial info on this but not about where all the taxpayers money goes on all the leftovers. Priorities.

    • kirk says:

      £500K / £86M SG = 0.58%
      £500K / £52M Core SG (less BP restorations) = 0.96%
      Sovereign Grant funds used to “protect” Sophie while she was traveling for something not listed on Court Circular resulted in death of 86-yr old pedestrian female due to “protection” running into her.

    • bisynaptic says:

      🎯

    • Lauren says:

      Part of that is because the Royal Family has a wholesale exemption from the Freedom of Information Act

  8. Just Jade says:

    May be their plan always was to incite violence and danger against Harry and his family until they were back into the fold or if they wanted out to make it was impossible to survive. Sadly, that mess have too many high profile people involve Harry will never be able to expose them. 20-30 years from now history will show the evil they did to the Sussexes.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      Every penny is worth it if Harry’s out here showing that the goverment, of which his father is the head of state, used the same playbook on Harry & his family that they did with his mother… and both times the govt appears to have had the same end goal in mind.

  9. Amy Bee says:

    And? All this could have been avoided if they had just given him the security he asked for as well as allowed him to pay for it.

  10. Jais says:

    Oh well. And?

  11. Shawna says:

    They could bill it to the Crown and take funds that M&H created by paying rent for Frogmore and adding to its value through renovation whose costs they reimbursed. Just reminding everyone we still don’t know if there’s been financial restoration for their eviction.

  12. s808 says:

    The BRF rather the taxpayers pick up the tab than let Harry pay and have the autonomy. oh well.

  13. Alex Can says:

    People tend to think of monarchy as the king/queen and royal family. And consequently they think of the system in personal terms. But it’s not personal or about one family. It’s an institution that includes every aspect of the state — laws, the government, armed forces, the church and the judiciary. All of it set up to protect that monarchical structure. It will protect itself (and the royal family) at any cost. Rightly or wrongly, Harry is perceived as a threat and I don’t believe they will welcome him back in.

  14. Bad Janet says:

    Color me unimpressed. Far more than that is surely wasted on the royal family – and spent in security at their pomp and circumstance events – every year.

    It is frightening how obstinate the RF, the press, and so many people in the UK are about paying for security. They insisted Harry live a public life they could exploit, and now refuse to acknowledge thiat lifelong security is a consequence of that. It’s stubbornness in the face of logic, even when the consequences could be deadly. It is infuriating.

  15. Cessily says:

    Racism will bankrupt the nation at this rate.. (they have far to many failed schemes all with racism being the common denominator .. google the Rwanda scheme, or the floating death trap)

  16. bisynaptic says:

    “The cost to the public purse will likely raise questions about the merits of a member of the Royal family taking legal action against the Government.“
    —LOL

    This article is low-level stochastic terrorism.

  17. Renae says:

    Considering the lack of security, Harry (and family) should never set foot in the UK again (aside from court appearances).
    Charles can whine about not seeing his ‘beloved grandkids’ all he wants, William can scream ‘I hate Harry’ into the winds all day and Kate? well she can moon over Harry all she likes in the divorce cottage.
    No Invictis games there….for as long as security is not assured.
    Harry may want his children to see/feel their heritage but its not worth the cost.

    • Cali says:

      Any country that wants to hold the Invictus games should guarantee security for the games founder and his family for Invictus related visits.
      Of course that hasn’t needed to be formalized in any agreement because the other countries are willing to do that. England on the other hand….

      • Renae says:

        In the UK there is much more than ordinary (what other countries must provide) security. They must put the tabloid press in a HOLD.
        That’s not as much of a problem in any other bidding country. Perhaps it also means keeping Willy at bay.

  18. yupyup says:

    Those “people with a lot of power” are the BRF and he also revealed that KC3 could undo it but he doesn’t want to undo it.

  19. Darkwing Duck says:

    But if he loses he is liable for all these costs, as the final observation about the million in legal fees seems to concede.

    The government is the client, GLD are its solicitors and my understanding is that it calculates its costs and bills the government department it is representing like any solicitors firm would. Its costs aren’t absorbed by the state AFAIK – they recover every penny and the court also recovers its costs to some extent. They will have requested their costs from the Duke when he lost. The bigger waste of money are the Freedom of Information requests the press keep making? They are free to make but cost the organisations, especially public bodies, complying with them time in collecting, collating and reviewing the relevant data.

    Its funny to see the British Media revert to the old he’s costing us that much which lead to the half-out proposal and then totally out result even as Royal supporters on social media have now pivoted to arguing, as twitter user HenryVII rightly pointed out, that Royals cost the British taxpayer nothing and make us money, in order to now justify William and Kate having all the privacy they want. This is the media scraping the barrel for Royal stories in a sadly familiar way.

    Why is the UK even in the running for Invictus? I don’t like the sound of the US much better to be honest but the UK should absolutely be out of the question. Meghan said she wanted peace, the reporting would be unbearable, “he’s on the plane, he’s in the car, is he going to see Kate? Kate and William have asked him round. He’s going to see Kate and William. He’s there now, William has slammed the door in his face. Friends of William have told us he wasn’t invited. He’s not to be trusted, William HATES him. Charles has refused to see them, apparently Harry was begging on his knees. Here’s a photo of him looking miserable with Meghan. He’s going to leave her. Where are their children” etc etc. You can bet that the knowledge that he and Meghan have young children, and the possibility that either of them might have cancer, won’t make a blind bit of difference to this coverage from the newly enlightened press pack…

    And it will be topped off, when the well has run absolutely dry, with a barrage of freedom of information requests about how much it all cost us. The fact that the government are essentialy BIDDING for him and Meghan to come to the country right now will be forgotten. Does anyone remember how the Mail sicced the Charities Commission on OneWorld after Meghan attended a sucesssful summit here? Invictus must rule the UK out, it will be a toxic environment for their founder and all the participants. The risk of reputational damage, from parties who will themselves profit from the opportunity, will be incalculable. They only want to have it close to destroy it.

    The merits of Harry’s case against the UK government are irrelevant. In civil cases the loser pays the winner’s costs and the Government could have avoided any costs by reconsidering their security protocols. Or by letting rhe Royals fund their own protection. We currently fund Charles and Camilla to live in separate households even though he is a billionaire and arguably she is in no danger at all…

    Why do the Sussexes ever appear to cooperate with the Telegraph? It’s actually more tabloidesque and right wing swivel eyed than the Times?

    • Nic919 says:

      Full indemnity costs are rarely provided and only in circumstances where there was malicious conduct by the losing party, which is not the situation here. They will recover a substantial portion of the costs but likely closer to around 60%.

  20. HuffnPuff says:

    What would be more interesting to know is what level of protection the other non-working royals have. If they get more than what is offered to Harry, then it’s definitely a punishment.

    The RF really needs to decide if they are a family or an institution. They seem to want to come across as a family but then they do this and it’s more like a business. I guess think of it this way, if you move away but come back to visit your parents, they would most likely let you borrow their car. However, if you left your job, you don’t get to keep the company car. And interesting how this business applies the rules. You can be mixed up with sex trafficking but keep your perks. However, if you would like to earn some of your own money and work for the family business, well how dare you. Most people I know have a side hustle and you would definitely need one with Huevo in charge of the purse strings.