‘Outrageous cheek’: Fresh fury at Harry

Harry is taking legal action against the British government over the decision to remove his family’s around-the-clock police bodyguards.

While he and Meghan Markle fund their own private protection in the United States, Harry argues it is unsafe for his family to visit the UK without the government-run security.

The Sussexes lost that protection when they took a step back from their royal duties two years ago, and subsequently moved to California. They are now considered private citizens.

“Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life,” his legal team said in a recent statement explaining his stance.

“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 personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

Harry’s lawyers have said he is willing to personally “cover the cost of security” to avoid “imposing” on British taxpayers.

Writing in The Daily Mail, former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe – who protected Harry’s mother, Princess Diana – dismissed his offer to pay, declaring police protection “should not be for sale”.

“Prince Harry has an outrageous cheek,” said Mr Wharfe.

“For the Queen and her government to accede to his demand and set this precedent is unthinkable.

“Harry is now a private citizen, domiciled in a foreign country … if he is granted the services of the Metropolitan Police’s royal protection squad, for which he has magnanimously offered to pay, every visiting Hollywood star and wealthy celebrity may as well expect the same privileges.

“Britain would face the humiliating prospect of hiring out our highly trained and armed officers to any reality television narcissist or tin pot dictator’s children who can foot the bill.”

A little alarmist, perhaps, but Mr Wharfe continued, saying Harry’s threat of legal action against the British government “and by extension the Queen herself” was “completely unprecedented for any royal”.

Royal biographer Phil Dampier, whose various books include Royally Suited: Harry and Meghan in Their Own Words, told The Sun the situation created a “very good excuse” for Meghan to avoid going back to the UK.

“I don’t think Meghan will ever come back to this country, and I think this is a very good excuse for not coming back,” said Dampier.

“I don’t think, realistically, (Harry) expects to win this case.

“Getting his protection reinstated would set a precedent, and so it gives them the perfect opportunity to say they can’t come to (the Queen’s) platinum jubilee celebrations.

“Harry might come over, but it gives Meghan a good excuse not to come and also not to bring the children.”

The “sad” upshot of this, said Dampier, was that the Queen may “never” meet her granddaughter Lilibet.

Meanwhile, a former head of royal protection for the Metropolitan Police berated Harry for expecting protection.

“He chose to go to America, that’s his prerogative,” Dai Davies, who was once Operational Unit Commander for the royals, told Good Morning Britain.

“And it’s our prerogative to ensure when we look at any aspect of protection, any member of the royal family, that we actually look and assess it through various security agencies. That is the crux.

“And it’s been decided … they won’t supply him with protection because the risk at this stage is deemed low. However, should there be a risk when he comes, then clearly the Metropolitan Police would be duty bound.”

Mr Davies pointed out that Princess Anne, Harry’s aunt, does not receive full-time protection even though “in 1974 she was nearly kidnapped and/or murdered”.

“Her protection officer was shot,” he said.

Anne’s bodyguard Jim Beaton was shot during a botched kidnapping attempt.

“With regards to Harry, he can’t pick and choose when he wants to come,” he said.

“There has never been a precedent where someone pays for their security in this country. If it’s required, it will be provided.”

In a separate interview with The Mirror, Mr Davies claimed Harry was “creating scenarios that don’t exist” regarding threats to his family’s safety.

“A lot of these issues appear to be greatly inflamed by Harry and his advisers. It really doesn’t need to be so fraught,” he said.

“If ever there were a proper, credible threat to Prince Harry or his family, then the Met would take the appropriate action.

“I would argue robustly against his case that he is not safe in the UK.”

Harry has also been blasted by one of his frequent critics, broadcaster Piers Morgan.

“The timing of it is so appalling,” Morgan argued, referring to the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

“She’s lost her husband, she’s got this awful situation with Andrew, and now her grandson – who has been baiting the royal family and the monarchy all year – has now popped up from his mansion in California to say that when he comes back to the UK he wants to have the British police protect him.

“Sorry mate, that’s not how this works … I don’t give a damn if he’s paying for it or not.

“Why should the British police protect him? He’s now a private citizen. He doesn’t do any royal duties.”

Despite the fresh surge of acrimony, Prince Charles has reportedly invited Harry and Meghan to stay with him when they’re next in the UK. He is reportedly “desperate” to spend time with his grandchildren.

Royal sources told The Mirror Charles, Harry and Meghan had actually held several “good natured and enjoyable” video calls in recent months.

Originally published as ‘Outrageous cheek’: Fresh fury at Prince Harry for demanding police protection upon return to UK