How furious Prince Harry demanded the name of official who refused him security

Prince Harry’s fury over the decision to remove his right to taxpayer-funded police protection could not have been more plain.

Having been repeatedly told that the Government would no longer fund a security team for him and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, he demanded to be given the names of those responsible.

The Duke of Sussex insisted that Sir Mark Sedwill, then the cabinet secretary, share the identity of the person who had opted to put him and his wife in a position of vulnerability and risk.

If the depth of the Duke’s anger was not made clear through his determined pursuit of legal action against the Government, his choice of language in newly released emails spells it out.

In a letter sent to Sir Mark on Feb 10 2020, he asked who would put him in “a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago”.

He added: “And yet today, with greater risk… with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen. I would like that person’s name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please.”

But for all his demands, the Duke’s fate had already been sealed when he announced a month earlier that he was stepping back from royal duties.

And despite the criticism and the stamping of feet in the intervening four years, nothing concerning the Sussexes’ security arrangements has changed.

Duke loses High Court challenge

After a lengthy High Court battle, the Duke faces a huge legal bill, having failed to win a judicial review taking the Government to task for denying him and his family the right to automatic police protection when in the UK.

Mr Justice Lane’s 52-page ruling, handed down on Wednesday, is scathing in its criticism of the Duke and the arguments he put forward in railing against a Home Office committee’s decision-making process.

The Duke’s claim that he had been singled out and treated “less favourably” than others was roundly dismissed.

But more than that, the judgment paints a fascinating picture of the myriad conversations that took place behind the scenes between senior Buckingham Palace aides, government ministers and members of the mysterious Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that would ultimately determine the outcome.

For the first time, the detailed ruling tells the story of who knew what, when – and what the Duke’s own advisers were told from the outset.

How Sussexes’ security battle played out

It all began on Jan 8 2020, when it was announced, with much fanfare, that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were stepping back from official public duties.

In the immediate aftermath, Sir Richard Mottram, then the chairman of Ravec, and his team began to receive enquiries from various government departments as well as the Metropolitan Police querying how he would approach the security dilemma that now presented itself.

Sir Richard and his team knew that Ravec would need to “take a view on the matters that were within its purview … and that they would need to do so within a relatively short space of time, given the unusual and very high-profile context”, the judge said.

The following day, Sir Richard received an email from an individual whose identity has been protected, “regarding last night’s news”.

It referred to various issues that now needed to be addressed concerning the Sussexes’ security provision.

Sir Richard duly replied, stating that he was happy for his correspondent to set up a meeting.

His initial thoughts were that “it was difficult to reach a clear view on future security arrangements unless there was more clarity about the future roles of [the Sussexes] and how they intended to divide their time”.

On Jan 10, Sir Richard wrote again, noting that the flash new Sussex Royal website suggested there would be no change in their security arrangements. He said that as chairman of Ravec, he would expect to review such arrangements in due course.

Later that day, it emerged that the Royal household was preparing advice for the couple on a range of issues, including security.

It was suggested, even then, that the Government might not be prepared to pay for their security in the long term.

On Jan 11, Sir Edward Young, Elizabeth II’s private secretary, who had long experienced “significant tensions” with the Duke, emailed him a draft paper.

That document, which the judge revealed was largely the work of Simon Case, then private secretary to the Duke’s brother, now the Prince of Wales, outlined the detailed arrangements concerning the announcement.

The judge said it was “highly relevant” that Harry had been sent this “draft options paper”, which also made clear that the “level of protection is a decision for the Home Secretary, delegated to the chair of [Ravec]”.

The paper explained the way the process worked and the various factors involved and was fully relayed to the Duke via his own private secretary, Fiona Mcilwham. As such, she was deemed to be fully aware of the security issues at stake.

On Jan 13 came the Sandringham Summit – a crunch meeting in which senior family members set out their stalls, face to face.

With the Duchess of Sussex already ensconced in Canada, it was left to the Duke to outline their desire to live an independent life while continuing to represent their various organisations.

Prince Harry insists that he offered to pay for his own security at the meeting but felt his concerns were “not given proper consideration”.

Among those at present were Sir Edward and Sir Michael Stevens, keeper of the privy purse, both of whom promised to get back to him, he claimed. In his memoir, Spare, the Duke claimed that his brother “screamed and shouted” at him during the talks.

The ruling also revealed that al Qaeda had called for the Duke to be killed after he wrote in his memoir, Spare, about killing Taliban fighters.

The claim was made in an email sent by the Duke’s director of European security ahead of his planned trip to the UK to attend a High Court hearing last March - two months about his book was published.

Following the meeting, the Duke claimed that “an agreement of sorts was reached” and what became known as the ‘Sandringham agreement’ was drawn up.

The judgment said that under the heading “on Security”, it was stated that given his public profile, as a result of being born into the Royal family, his military service, his wife’s own independent profile and the history of targeting of them by Right-wing extremists, the family would “continue to require effective security to protect them”.

The Royal family would support “the Sussexes in making the case for effective support from Her Majesty’s Government and Canadian and other host governments, whilst noting that these are independent processes and decisions for those governments”.

That day, Sir Richard spoke by phone with Sir Mark, who was planning to put in writing his position on the security arrangements.

In an email recounting the conversation, Sir Richard said he had suggested that there might be circumstances where some state support was justified. He said the Royal household had also asked whether there was an option to pay for police protection but that Sir Mark had ruled this out, a decision with which he agreed.

On Jan 15, Ms Mcilwham and Sir Mark spoke on the phone and the next day she emailed Sir Mark stating that she had “faithfully relayed the details you had provided on security and finance/ tax exemptions to the Duke”.

Ms Mcilwham said the Duke remained concerned about security arrangements for his family.

Sussexes should have ‘no expectation’ of security

Sir Mark later spoke to the Sussexes and made clear they should have “no expectation” that their current security arrangements in the UK would continue.

He said Ravec would review the situation but that if they had concerns “they could look to private sector provision”.

Unsurprisingly, the judge notes, there was “push-back” from the Duke.

On Jan 27, a key meeting was held at Buckingham Palace, led by Sir Edward and attended by an array of senior palace aides as well as Sir Richard.

The Government’s position concerning the Sussexes’ security was said to have been made “very clear”. Sir Richard set out Ravec’s standard processes, including risk assessment reviews and the threat level against the Duke.

Mr Justice Lane noted that having been at the meeting, Ms Mcilwham would have been “well aware” of Ravec and its chairman and could have taken the opportunity to ask any questions.

Sir Mark met with the Duke on Feb 3. Three days later, Sir Edward wrote to Sir Mark to describe what had been agreed between the late Queen and the Sussexes “about what will and will not change in the ways in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lead their lives”.

Crucially, the document said that “discussions to date, including with Sir Richard Mottram, have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the Ravec process are well understood”.

The Duke then wrote to Sir Mark himself expressing “disbelief” that such important conversations were taking place without anyone consulting him.

It was then that he asked who would be willing to put him and his family in a position of extreme vulnerability and risk – “a position that no one was willing to put my mother in 23 years ago – and yet today, with greater risk, as mentioned above, with the additional layers of racism and extremism, someone is comfortable taking accountability for what could happen”.

The Duke said the decision was being imposed upon him “as some form of punishment for protecting my family and putting them first”.

Various conversations followed, during which Sir Richard concluded that there was no point in conducting a risk analysis for the Duke in lieu of his changed role and his move abroad.

A “flexible and tailored approach” was deemed to better suit his circumstances.

Final decision made

On Feb 28, Sir Richard’s final decision was set out in a letter sent to Sir Edward Young.

It said the Sussexes’ plan to live abroad as private citizens did not “fit readily” into any category of  Ravec’s framework, that Metropolitan Police protection would no longer be appropriate and would be withdrawn by the end of March.

In response, Ms Mcilwham wrote to the cabinet secretary on behalf of the Duke asking for a revised threat assessment.

Sir Mark wrote to Sir Edward insisting that Ravec would continue to monitor the Sussexes’ security threat in the UK and that any changes would be flagged as per usual protocols.

Two days later, on March 14, the Sussexes relocated from Vancouver to California and 18 months later, in September 2021, the Duke launched his legal proceedings against the Government in an effort to overturn the decision to strip them of their right to automatic taxpayer-funded security.

In the years that have followed, the Duke has made various trips back to the UK, notably with the Duchess in September 2022, a visit that coincided with the death of the late Queen, for his father’s Coronation in May 2023 and to give evidence in his phone hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers at the High Court the following month.

In his witness statement to the court, he said: “The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US. That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil.”