I’m hardly in a position to argue with the legal basis of the judgment by Mr Justice Chamberlain in the High Court. The beak has refused Prince Harry permission to challenge the decision of the home secretary and the Metropolitan Police to refuse him the opportunity to “buy” the protective security he had when he was a working member of the royal family.
Mr Justice Chamberlain remarked that Prince Harry’s claims were “not arguable”, which I think is a technical phrase that has the opposite meaning to what you might think. So Harry’s had it, as far as paying for police protection is concerned. (Another case awaiting trial will hear whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are entitled to the same security that they were as working royals at a later date.)
As I say, all no doubt legally sound – but hardly common sense. It seems obvious that the police are supposed to protect certain people, events and locations because of the risk of trouble. Armed officers patrol airports; you sometimes see mounted police at football matches and protests; and diplomats, politicians and members of the royal family often have a 24-hour watch.
Sometimes there are arrangements for football clubs, for example, to make a contribution to the cost. It seems illogical not to allow Harry the same option, and even less sensible to leave him wide open to attack and, as we saw in New York, harassment.
The memory of what happened to his mother haunts him, and Diana’s fate should haunt us all. She voluntarily gave up her bodyguards because she thought she was being spied on, and, as we found, the private security she was given by Mohammed al Fayed wasn’t adequate for the task. Do we really want that to be repeated with Harry and Meghan when they visit Britain?
So it seems a very foolish decision by the government and the police to single Harry and Meghan out, and leave them open to violent attack and intrusion. It would potentially mean that they and their family will come to the UK even less often, which would obviously please some spiteful people who, despite having never met either of them, have worked themselves up into a state of visceral loathing.
To my mind this is doubly retrograde, because it naturally means even less chance of the historic rapprochement that is so urgently needed to heal the House of Windsor. The royal family needs Harry and Meghan for the very same reasons it did when the Sussexes got married on that warm summer day in Windsor in 2018.
Was it really only a few years ago? They were fabulously popular. So much has happened since then – and none of it particularly good for any of those concerned. The rift continues to gnaw away at the institution, and Harry’s habit of spilling the beans is beginning to make him look obsessive. It’s harming his own standing and that of his wife, which used to be so high.
Yet despite everything, the obvious solution to the problems of both factions of the family is for Harry and Meghan to return to “working royal” status in some capacity. There is plenty for them to do, and they’ve shown they can be good at it, during the brief period before the media monstered them out of the country.
With the right set of duties, and with the automatic police and military protection they’d be entitled to, the Sussexes could once again be a valuable asset for an institution that, as we found at the time of the coronation, is not popular enough with the young.
In other words, rather like Brexit, we need to reverse Megxit in the national interest.
It feels like a forlorn hope, but it really is the only way that they can all secure a better future for the institution they all have a vested interest in. The House of Windsor need not be divided against itself.
