The Duke of Sussex, who is living in California with Meghan Markle and their two children, has said he is unable to bring his family back to the UK because it is too dangerous without police protection. He has filed a claim for a judicial review against the Home Office decision not to allow him to personally pay for the security while in Britain.
Royal author Angela Levin, who penned a biography on Harry, said she thinks the Duke will speak out about the row in an interview.
Ms Levin told the Sun: “I think he will mention [the security row] if he’s doing an interview.
“I think whatever he is doing he will fit it in publicly.
“It’s all been hush hush.
“It might be too late [to get it into the memoir] but it will certainly come out somewhere in public, he won’t keep that quiet.
“It’s another reason for him to show he wasn’t respected.”
The Sussexes personally fund a private protection team in the US for their family.
The couple lost their taxpayer-funded police protection in the UK after quitting as working royals.
READ MORE: He is owed! Fury as Harry told to ‘keep quiet’
However, Harry argues that the US team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep the Sussex family safe.
Over the weekend, it emerged he filed a claim for a judicial review in September 2021 against the Home Office decision not to allow him to personally pay for police protection while in the UK.
A legal representative for the Duke said: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.
“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.
Prince Harry told to hire ‘ex-royal guards’ for security [INSIGHT]
Harry sent ‘biggest sign’ yet he intends to return to UK with family [ANALYSIS]
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are ‘royal couple in all but name’ [VIDEO]
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.
“The Duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham. That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer.
“As is widely known, others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them. The goal for Prince Harry has been simple – to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK so his children can know his home country.”
The representative said that during Harry’s trip to the UK last summer his security was compromised “due to the absence of police protection”.
It is understood his car was chased by photographers as he left a WellChild charity event in Kew Gardens, west London.
The representative added: “After another attempt at negotiations was also rejected, he sought a judicial review in September 2021 to challenge the decision-making behind the security procedures, in the hopes that this could be re-evaluated for the obvious and necessary protection required.
“The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in. With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk.
“Prince Harry hopes that his petition – after close to two years of pleas for security in the UK – will resolve this situation. It is due to a leak in a UK tabloid, with surreptitious timing, we feel it necessary to release a statement setting the facts straight.”
A Government spokesperson said: “The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements. To do so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.
“It would also not be appropriate to comment on the detail of any legal proceedings.”