Prince Harry has reignited debate around royal responsibilities, public protection, and justice by arguing in the High Court that he was “singled out for inferior treatment” when his UK taxpayer-funded security was stripped after stepping down as a senior working royal. The Duke of Sussex made the claim during a major legal appeal in London, challenging the decision made by the UK’s Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures—also known as RAVEC.
At the heart of the case is the question of fairness: should a royal who continues to face global security threats, despite stepping back from public duties, be entitled to the same protections as those still inside “The Firm”? As the court case unfolds, the outcome could reshape how Britain treats former working royals, and set a precedent for high-profile public figures.
Background: The Royal Exit and Security Dispute
In early 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced they would step down from their roles as senior working members of the British royal family. This decision, widely referred to as “Megxit,” came with seismic consequences—not least of which was the removal of automatic police protection for the couple while in the United Kingdom.
At the time, many assumed that stepping back meant stepping away from royal benefits, including security funded by UK taxpayers. But for Harry, the risks remained. His legal team argues that even as a non-working royal, he remains a high-profile target and should not be penalized for choosing a different path for his family.
Now, more than four years after that decision, the battle has made its way into the courts, with Prince Harry seeking a legal remedy to what he views as an unjust and discriminatory ruling.
RAVEC’s Role in Removing Protection
The committee at the center of this controversy is RAVEC—the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures. This body oversees security arrangements for royals, top politicians, and other public figures. In February 2020, RAVEC ruled that Prince Harry would no longer receive automatic police protection during his visits to the UK.
RAVEC reportedly created a “bespoke” process for evaluating Prince Harry’s protection needs, deviating from its standard operating procedures. His legal team contends that this deviation amounted to discrimination and procedural unfairness. According to them, the committee failed to consult the Risk Management Board (RMB), which is normally involved in such decisions.
This, they say, was not just an oversight—it was evidence that Harry was treated differently from others in similar positions, and without proper justification.
Prince Harry’s Legal Arguments
Prince Harry’s lawyers, led by barrister Shaheed Fatima KC, argue that RAVEC’s approach lacked transparency, consistency, and fairness. They claim the committee treated him differently because of his decision to step back from royal duties and relocate to the United States.
In court documents, Harry’s legal team stated that the couple “felt forced to step back” from their public roles because they were “not being protected” by the institution. The appeal contends that Harry never ceased to support the royal family—particularly the late Queen Elizabeth II—and wished to do so as a privately funded individual. However, the lack of assurance over their safety left them with no choice.
The team also pointed out that other high-profile individuals receive state protection without active roles in government or the monarchy, and questioned why Harry should be treated differently despite being a permanent fixture in global headlines.
The Emotional and Personal Impact
While the legal arguments are technical, the case also touches on deeply personal experiences. Prince Harry has repeatedly cited threats to his life and family, particularly due to his military service, global visibility, and outspoken views.
The loss of protection during UK visits has limited his ability to bring his wife and children—Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet—back to his home country. In previous interviews, Harry admitted that his security concerns have created a deep emotional rift between him and the royal institution.
By pursuing this appeal, Harry isn’t just fighting a legal battle—he’s defending what he sees as his right to safety as a public figure, father, and member of one of the most scrutinized families in the world.
