Sussex source disputes notice concerns as row over UK protection intensifies
Prince Harry’s team has pushed back against RAVEC’s explanation for the latest dispute over his security arrangements in Britain.
The committee responsible for royal and public figure protection said it received “less than two weeks’ notice” ahead of his return, rather than the customary 28 days.
Harry’s representatives maintain that they gave notice as soon as was “practicably possible”. They said the timing reflected concerns about disclosing the children’s school places and the family’s home address, alongside a wish to inform King Charles first.
RAVEC, which includes Royal Household representatives, argued that the notice left insufficient time to prepare. It also said the original arrangements concerned Harry’s engagements, rather than a family relocation.
A source close to the Sussexes dismissed the timing argument as irrelevant, telling The Telegraph that the committee had been “kicking the can down the road for the last seven years”.
“We have always adhered to the rules they set, even as the goalposts have moved along the way,” the source said. “Playing by those rules has never made any difference.”
The source also questioned whether the process could lead to a different outcome.
“Despite the facade of a proper process, they have never shown any real intention of doing anything other than maintaining the status quo.”
Harry has also written to Shabana Mahmood at the Home Office to raise his security concerns, including an allegation that RAVEC failed to pass information about threats he received in 2023 to the relevant authorities.
The Sussex source argued that living outside Britain had been a central factor in the committee’s 2020 decision to withdraw enhanced protection.
“Geography was the backbone of Ravec’s argument for withdrawing enhanced protective security in 2020. The couple’s decision not to live in the UK was treated as a significant factor in that decision.”
Referring to what they described as the family’s decision to return, the source added: “That barrier has now been removed, and an obvious off-ramp exists for the committee to do the sensible thing: protect the King’s son and grandchildren.”
