Why Queen Elizabeth Letter on Prince Harry's Police Security Matters

Queen Elizabeth II felt Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's safety was of "paramount importance" during the early days of their royal exit, a newly published letter reveals.

The monarch, who died in September 2022, put in writing via an aide that "it is imperative that the [Sussex] family continues to be provided with effective security," in February 2020 as a decision to strip them of their police team was being made by the Home Office.

It came one month after the couple first announced their decision to quit and a month before their final royal engagements.

While the words are an affirmation of Harry's position that he should be entitled to police protection, they have also been interpreted in Britain as a denial of his account that the Royal Household played a role in the removal of his police bodyguards.

The letter emerged in court filings for a separate lawsuit Prince Harry brought against The Mail on Sunday over its coverage of his case against the Home Office.

A judge ruled on Friday, December 8, that the case would require a trial in a blow to the Duke of Sussex and on Monday, December 11, it was revealed that Harry will have to pay £48,000 (around $60,000) of the newspaper's costs.

Prince Harry is suing the British government over the decision that stripped him of the right to round-the-clock armed protection anywhere in the world, which followed his decision to step down as a working royal in 2020.

The Metropolitan Police has continued to supply him with specially trained armed officers for specific royal events that he is invited to, such as the queen's Platinum Jubilee.

However, Harry argues that while the police team is not in place it is unsafe for him, Meghan and their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet to visit Britain.

Meanwhile, his lawyers have said he should have been told senior royal aides who he had previously clashed with sat on Ravec, the Home Office committee that made the decision.

Among them is Sir Edward Young who wrote the letter on Elizabeth's behalf, in which she expressed her support, and who Harry nicknamed "the bee" in his memoir, Spare.

The letter, published by The Daily Telegraph, reads: "You will understand well that ensuring that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain safe is of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family.

"Given the Duke's public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal family, his military service, the Duchess's own independent profile and the well-documented history of targeting of the Sussex family by extremists, it is imperative that the family continues to be provided with effective security.

"And, of course, the family is mindful of tragic incidents of the past. The discussions to date, including with [the former chairman of Ravec], have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the Ravec process are well understood.

"Of course, Her Majesty and her family recognise that these are independent processes and decisions about the provision of publicly funded security are for the UK Government, the government of Canada and any other host government."

The reference to extremists in particular echoes Harry and Meghan's own narrative about the threat level they face.

It is open to interpretation what constitutes "effective security" and whether that would require full round-the-clock protection while Harry and Meghan were living abroad in North America.

However, suggesting security "continues" does appear to imply that Elizabeth envisaged their existing arrangements would remain in place.

Young is a controversial figure in Harry's story after his lawyer previously told the High Court "there were significant tensions between [Prince Harry] and certain people," including the senior aide.

Harry's book Spare also made disparaging references to a courtier nicknamed "the bee" who is widely thought to be Young: "The Bee was oval-faced and fuzzy and tended to glide around with great equanimity and poise, as if he was a boon to all living things. He was so poised that people didn't fear him. Big mistake. Sometimes their last mistake."

Harry and Meghan were living in Canada at the time the decision to remove their police team was taken, but relocated to California towards the end of March as coronavirus restrictions were imminent.

Since then, relations with the royal family have deteriorated significantly and Harry is no longer thought to be on speaking terms with his brother Prince William.

Newsweek has reached out to Prince Harry and Buckingham Palace for comment via email.

Young wrote: "During their time in the UK, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex expect to attend public-facing engagements representing the charities and causes which remain dear to them.

"These engagements would no longer be formally undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty but, given the profile of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, we would expect they would still attract public attention...

"In regard to their Commonwealth patronages, although the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will not be formally representing Her Majesty, they will be undertaking work that is closely associated with Her Majesty and which may appear to the public eye to be very similar to now.

"Of course, a number of these patronages have been granted to them by Her Majesty, which they will continue actively to fulfil.

"Her Majesty may from time to time invite the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to attend national royal occasions in their private capacity, and Her Majesty is likely to invite the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to participate in family events in keeping with other non-working members of the family."

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, 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 royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.

Update 12/11/23, 11:16 a.m. ET: This article was updated with the latest ruling regarding Harry's lawsuit against the Home Office.