Prince Harry's Swipe at Queen's Top Aide Has a Major Flaw

Prince Harry's lawyers took a swipe at Queen Elizabeth II's top aide during a high-stakes lawsuit but the judge's ruling appears to suggest his accusation was wide of the mark.

Major tensions between the Duke of Sussex and senior palace staff were laid bare during a lawsuit aimed at getting his police bodyguards re-instated.

In July 2022, his legal team accused Sir Edward Young, Elizabeth's private secretary, of failing to pass on a key offer he made to pay privately to keep the armed officers.

However, Judge Peter Lane threw out the case on Wednesday in a 51-page judgment that showed the offer had been discussed with top government aides in 2020, the very same day Harry made it.

The only problem was, it was roundly rejected by the then Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, the head of Britain's civil service and a top adviser to the prime minister. The chair of RAVEC, the Home Office committee that takes decisions on who gets police protection, said he agreed with the decision.

The revelation came in a judgment that also revealed an angry broadside Harry sent in writing demanding to know the name of the person who stripped him of the police team.

What Prince Harry's Lawyers Said About Edward Young

The duke's team went to the High Court in London in July 2022 to argue he should have permission to sue the British government in an effort to overturn the decision to remove his police bodyguards.

A court filing, seen by Newsweek, argued Harry should have been told "certain people" in the Royal Household were involved in RAVEC, "primarily Sir Edward Young," due to "significant tensions" between them and Harry.

And they appeared to accuse Young and other senior palace aides of failing to tell the British government that Prince Harry was willing to pay privately to keep his police team.

The filing read: "[Prince Harry's] offer was made at a meeting on 13 January 2020 at which members of TRH [The Royal Household] were present and is also referred to in an email to Sir Edward Young of 16 April 2020. There has been no explanation of why the offer was not conveyed."

What the Judgment Says

However, the judgment quotes an email sent by Sir Richard Mottram, chair of RAVEC, summarizing a meeting he had with Sedwill on January 13—the same day Harry first made his offer.

The email read: "He [Sedwill] said the Royal Household had also asked whether it was open to them to ask to pay for security delivered by the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] but he had ruled this out. I agreed."

In other words, the very courtiers Harry raged against for not fighting his corner had explored his proposal with one of the most senior figures in Britain's government.

And there are other hints they were advocating for Harry's cause as Mottram described a difference of opinion between RAVEC and the Royal Household, though it is hard to be sure as the ruling is redacted for security reasons.

The email read: "I commented that the Royal Household tended to see matters in [redacted text]—whereas we considered [redacted text]. There might be circumstances where some state support was justified in the context say of [redacted text] but this was different to [redacted text]."

Harry's Anger Over Protection Decision

A month later Harry vented his anger over losing his police protection in a letter to Sedwill sent on February 10, even as Britain recorded its first COVID cases. As early as January, Sedwill was a key figure in determining the U.K. government's response to the crisis, but was also seemingly taking time out to deal with Harry's frustration at the decision.

According to the judgment, the prince's letter voiced his "disbelief that such important conversations were being had without any attempt by anyone to consult [Prince Harry].

"[Prince Harry] could not see how he could have his security removed, unless the current risk to him and his family had decreased, [redacted text].

"[Prince Harry] 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. I would like that person's name who is willing to take accountability for this choice please ...'."

Harry's letter also suggested the decision had been taken "without a sensible amount of consultation as some form of punishment for protecting my family and putting them first."

Jack Royston is Newsweek's chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email [email protected]. We'd love to hear from you.