Omid Scobie, notable for his co-authored biography of Harry and Meghan in 2020 titled Finding Freedom, has written in a new column for Yahoo! News that the decision to reduce Harry’s police protection when he stepped away from his role as a full-time working member of the royal family comes across as “the Establishment punishing Harry, yet again, for breaking away from the Firm and sharing his experiences publicly.”
The comments come after Harry launched a second lawsuit against the U.K. government regarding his security, arguing against the decision to refuse his offer to pay for police protection when he visits his home country.
The lawsuit follows the first filed in January against the initial decision made by the Home Office’s Royal & VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), that found, owing to his new status as a non-working royal, his publicly funded security allocation should be reduced.
In July a judge ruled that Harry could proceed with his lawsuit to argue that he should have been allowed to make representations to the committee before they made a final decision and that he should have been allowed to comment on the information RAVEC considered in relation to his case.
Both lawsuits are ongoing.
Scobie highlights the recent charging of Jaswant Singh Chail, 20, from Southampton, England with treason as evidence of the unique and very real threats currently faced by members of the royal family. Singh Chail attempted to enter Windsor Castle carrying a crossbow while Queen Elizabeth II was in residence on Christmas Day, 2021.
“For members of the monarchy, including those who have chosen to step away like Prince Harry,” he said, a “high level of security is essential.”
“Alongside the prime minister,” he continued, “Royal family members are some of the most targeted individuals in the country.”
In the January lawsuit filing, Harry’s legal team disclosed that a dangerous incident had occurred in relation to the royal’s security during his visit to Britain in July 2021, his first since the newly reduced protection measures were enacted.
Harry had traveled to Britain to unveil the memorial statue of Princess Diana in the grounds of his childhood home Kensington Palace. During the visit it is alleged that his car was chased by photographers in an echo of the treatment Diana faced during her lifetime.
Harry’s legal team said in January: “The goal for Prince Harry has been simple—to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the U.K. so his children can know his home country.
“During his last visit to the U.K. in July 2021—to unveil a statue in honor of his late mother—his security was compromised due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event.”
They also stated that: “The U.K. 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 U.K.—will resolve this situation.”
Scobie voiced disbelief that Harry should be fighting in the courts to increase the safety measures around himself and his family while the queen’s disgraced son, Prince Andrew, still receives state-funded security.
“Though stripped of all royal patronages and military affiliations after the shame of his close friendship with a pedophile billionaire and paying out millions to rape accuser Virginia Giuffre,” the author said. “Andrew’s Scotland Yard protection remains an annual and unchallenged cost of around $500,000 to the British taxpayer.”
The prince has only made one official public appearance since settling the lawsuit with Giuffre despite maintaining his denial of any wrongdoing in relation to her claims.
On Friday, Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported that the decision to maintain Andrew’s security was taken by RAVEC earlier this year. The royal will be entitled to a taxpayer-funded bodyguard whenever he leaves his Windsor Great Park home.
“It seems cruel in the extreme to allow Prince Andrew round-the-clock police protection but not the future King’s son,” said Scobie.
“It comes across as the Establishment punishing Harry, yet again, for breaking away from the Firm and sharing his experiences publicly.”
He then said that given the threat level faced by senior members of the royal family that there was “one acceptable solution” to the lawsuits being fought by Harry. To reinstate his access to increased levels of security “at his own expense—before it’s too late.”
