The British government have been labeled "uncooperative" by a security boss at the firm that oversees Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's protection in the United States.
In a quote given to People magazine, which has run a profile on Harry's legal bid to have his full-time state-funded police protection reinstated in his home country, Joe Funk, the senior vice president of TorchStone Global, said that the royal and his wife face a number of threats.
"The U.K. government acknowledges numerous threats against them, but we are not privy to specific details due to lack of cooperation," Funk told the outlet.
When approached by Newsweek, a government spokesperson said: "The U.K. Government's protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals' security.
"It would not be appropriate to comment on ongoing legal proceedings," the government spokesperson added.
Newsweek approached representatives of Prince Harry via email for comment.
Funk's comment on Harry's security comes after the prince revealed in a recent British documentary on unlawful activity perpetrated by the tabloid press that he won't take Meghan to his birth-country over fears of acid and knife attacks.
"All it takes is one lone actor, one lone person who reads this stuff to act on what they have read, and whether it's a knife or acid or whatever it is, these are things that are a genuine concern for me," Harry told journalist Rebecca Barry in the Tabloids on Trial one-off special in July.
"It's one of the reasons why I won't bring my wife back to this country," the prince added.
Harry is pursuing litigation against the U.K. government over the decision taken by the Home Office in 2020 to remove his full-time police team when he stepped down as a working royal with Meghan and moved to North America.
The decision was made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (known as RAVEC). The committee replaced the prince's old security detail with a new bespoke service, which allocates Harry police protection on a case-by-case basis whenever he visits Britain. This takes into consideration the purpose of his visit, the types of events he attends and any intelligence of threats received by the police against him.
Following a security scare after a charity event in London in 2021, Harry said that this was not adequate and filed lawsuits seeking a judicial review of RAVEC's decision. The prince also sought to pay personally for additional police protection while in the country.
The requests were ultimately denied by the courts, with a judge saying it is not possible for a private individual to pay for police protection that would create a two-tier system. The court also ruled that RAVEC acted legally and within its own due process when the committee reconfigured the prince's protection plan.
This second ruling, Harry has taken to Britain's Court of Appeal where it is currently in process.
The prince has repeatedly said that the security of his wife and family are of paramount importance to him, often referencing the death of his mother, Princess Diana, in 1997 when he was just 12 as a motivation for this. She had been chased by paparazzi before her fatal car crash in Paris, France.
The issue is reported to be the main factor keeping Harry from spending more time in Britain. Since 2020, the prince has visited on a number of occasions but only for short periods with specific events to attend. Meghan has not accompanied her husband for these visits since 2022.
James Crawford-Smith is Newsweek's royal reporter, based in London. You can find him on X (formerly Twitter) at @jrcrawfordsmith and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.
Do you have a question about King Charles III and Queen Camilla, William and Kate, Meghan Markle and Prince 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.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
