Sad news for Prince Harry as his ‘worst fears have been comfired’ – The details
7 mins
Prince Harry has made a dramatic claim in his latest legal battle, alleging that the UK government’s 2020 decision to revoke his police protection was a strategic move to “trap” him and Meghan Markle into staying in Britain.
According to The Telegraph, the Duke of Sussex believes that confidential evidence shared during court proceedings has confirmed his “worst fears.”
The allegations surfaced during a two-day appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Harry is challenging the decision by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) to strip him of taxpayer-funded security following the couple’s departure from royal duties and their subsequent move to the United States.
Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, Harry reflected on the emotional impact of the decision. “We were trying to create this happy house,” he said, suggesting that he and Meghan had hoped that starting a new life abroad would eventually help mend their strained ties with the Royal Family.
Instead, the removal of their police protection has become a source of significant tension. Harry implied that the move felt like coercion—an effort to make life so difficult without state security that they’d be forced to return to the UK.
He also described the case as more important to him than his ongoing lawsuits against the British tabloid press. “People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” he said.
“My worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case, and that’s really sad.” Harry added that the process has left him “exhausted” and “overwhelmed.”
Outcome Uncertain, But Harry Vows to Keep Fighting
Even if the court rules in his favor, RAVEC is not legally required to reinstate the Sussexes’ full police protection. Still, Prince Harry insists that he is committed to the cause. “I’m driven by exposing injustice,” he said, reaffirming that the case is about far more than personal comfort—it’s about the safety of his family.
The Duke has consistently argued that being a prominent public figure places him, Meghan, and their children at significant risk, particularly when they return to the UK.
Despite those claims, Harry’s concerns about UK safety came under public scrutiny following his surprise trip to Ukraine. During the visit, he met with wounded soldiers in the midst of an active war zone—raising eyebrows among critics who questioned how he could feel secure in Ukraine but not in Britain.
However, a source close to the Duke strongly defended the visit. “It is simply incorrect to suggest the Ukraine trip undermines his position,” the insider told MailOnline, explaining that Harry’s security detail in Ukraine was “more robust” than what he receives when visiting the UK.
“He can go to Ukraine because he has a comprehensive security setup there—something he doesn’t have at home,” the source added.
Prince Harry’s visit to London for the court hearing did not include a meeting with his father, King Charles III. According to reports, King Charles remained at his Gloucestershire estate, Highgrove, resting ahead of an upcoming state visit to Italy.
The continued distance between father and son only adds to growing speculation that their relationship remains fractured—likely worsened by the ongoing security dispute.
A Deepening Royal Rift
During the hearing, Harry’s legal team argued that he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” when his protection was removed in early 2020. The downgrade occurred shortly after he and Meghan announced they would step back from royal responsibilities and base themselves primarily in the United States—a move widely referred to as “Megxit.”
The Duke maintains that his profile and visibility as a member of the Royal Family still make him and his loved ones vulnerable targets. Without adequate security, he argues, returning to the UK for family events or public duties becomes not only difficult—but dangerous.
As legal proceedings continue, Prince Harry says this is not just about personal protection but a broader fight for justice, accountability, and the ability to live safely—no matter where he and his family choose to call home.
