Prince Harry battles UK government and Al-Qaeda for security, tribunal reveals

Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, has once again captured global attention as he wages a legal battle to restore police protection in the United Kingdom, a privilege he lost in 2020 after stepping back from his role as a senior royal. The urgency of his request intensified following credible threats from the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, which, according to Harry’s security team, publicly incited his assassination. During hearings at the Court of Appeal in London in April 2025, Harry and his legal team argued that the absence of official security endangers his life and that of his family, including his wife, Meghan Markle, and their children, Archie, aged 5, and Lilibet, aged 3. The dispute, pitting the duke against the UK Home Office, has also exposed tensions with the royal family, including King Charles III, while reigniting debates over the cost and legitimacy of publicly funded protection for former royals.

Harry’s decision to pursue police protection is not new, but the Al-Qaeda threats have added significant weight to his case. At hearings held on April 8 and 9, his barrister, Shaheed Fatima, revealed that the extremist group had issued a public statement claiming that Harry’s death would “please the Muslim community.” This threat, identified after the withdrawal of his official security detail in 2020, heightened the duke’s sense of vulnerability, particularly as he now resides in the United States. The situation is compounded by Harry’s military background, having served two tours in Afghanistan with the British Army between 2007 and 2012. In his 2023 memoir, Spare, he disclosed killing 25 Taliban fighters, a revelation that sparked controversy and drew the ire of extremist groups, including Al-Qaeda, which branded him “Al Zanim.”

Beyond terrorist threats, Harry faces additional security challenges. In May 2023, he and Meghan were pursued by paparazzi in New York in a high-speed chase that nearly resulted in a catastrophic accident, evoking memories of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 Paris car crash. This incident underscored the couple’s belief that their private security team in the US is insufficient for their safety in the UK, where they lack access to intelligence or police jurisdiction. Harry’s fight to reinstate taxpayer-funded police protection during UK visits has met with judicial setbacks, but the duke remains resolute in safeguarding his family.

Background of the legal battle

Harry’s clash with the UK Home Office began in 2021, when he filed a lawsuit challenging the decision to downgrade his security status. Prior to stepping back from royal duties, the duke received full protection, funded by the government, as did other senior royals, including King Charles III, Queen Consort Camilla, and the Prince of Wales’s family. After relocating to California, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) ruled that Harry would no longer receive automatic protection, with his security assessed on a case-by-case basis. This decision was upheld in prior court rulings, including a loss in February 2024, when London’s High Court found no illegality in the measure.

In April 2025, Harry attended the Court of Appeal in person, underscoring the gravity of the issue. The hearings, held partially behind closed doors due to sensitive security details, saw the duke taking notes and closely following proceedings. His barrister, Shaheed Fatima, emphasized the “human dimension” of the case, arguing that a person’s safety and life were at stake. She contended that the process applied by Ravec was “manifestly inferior” to that afforded other royals, despite Harry facing specific threats, including those from Al-Qaeda and paparazzi pursuits.

The Home Office’s refusal to allow Harry to privately fund police protection is another focal point of the dispute. In 2022, the duke offered to cover the costs himself, but the request was denied, with the government arguing that allowing wealthy individuals to “buy” armed police protection would be against the public interest. This stance was reinforced in May 2023, when the High Court rejected a judicial review of the case, and again in 2024, when Harry was ordered to pay nearly all of the Home Office’s legal fees.

Factors contributing to Harry’s vulnerability

Harry’s unique background places him at heightened risk, beyond his status as a royal. His military service, detailed in Spare, is a significant factor. During his Afghanistan tours, he served as an Apache helicopter pilot and engaged in combat operations, making him a potential target for extremist groups. His admission of killing 25 Taliban fighters, though framed as a professional duty, provoked backlash and was exploited by organizations like Al-Qaeda to justify threats against him.

Moreover, Harry and Meghan’s high-profile media presence increases their exposure. Since leaving the royal family, the couple has produced documentaries, given interviews, and published Harry’s memoir, which revealed tensions with the royal family, including King Charles III and Prince William. While these projects bolstered their public image in the US, they fueled criticism in the UK, where they face scrutiny from tabloids and conservative commentators. The paparazzi chase in New York serves as a stark reminder of the dangers they face without adequate protection.

• Military service: Harry’s two Afghanistan tours (2007-2008 and 2012-2013) made him a target for extremist groups.
• Media exposure: Spare and media appearances have drawn both support and hostility.
• Lack of jurisdiction: The couple’s US-based private security team lacks access to UK intelligence.
• Family precedent: Diana’s 1997 death in a paparazzi chase remains a constant concern for Harry.

Strains on royal family relations

Harry’s security battle has also highlighted tensions with the royal family. The duke believes his father, King Charles III, could intervene on his behalf, but Buckingham Palace has maintained that the matter falls under the Home Office’s jurisdiction, not the monarchy’s. This response has frustrated Harry, who, according to close sources, feels the withdrawal of protection was a tactic to pressure him and Meghan to reconsider their exit from royal life. In an April 2025 interview with People magazine, Harry called the decision “hard to swallow” and suggested the monarchy had confirmed his “worst fears” by failing to ensure his safety.

Tensions with Charles III and Prince William, the heir apparent, are well-documented. In Spare, Harry recounted disputes with his brother and criticized the monarchy’s handling of Meghan, who faced racist attacks in the British press. The last known meeting between Harry and Charles occurred in February 2024, following the king’s cancer diagnosis, with no recent encounters reported. As Charles and Camilla celebrated their twentieth wedding anniversary in Italy in April 2025, Harry faced the London hearings alone, underscoring the growing rift with his family.

The monarchy’s lack of overt support on the security issue has fueled speculation about Harry’s future in the UK. The duke has repeatedly expressed a desire for his children, Archie and Lilibet, to maintain a connection with the country, but insists this is impossible without security guarantees. In a 2023 statement, he said: “The UK is my home. It’s a vital part of my children’s heritage, but I can’t put them at risk.” This stance reflects both personal concerns and the emotional toll of his departure from royal life, which he described as a decision driven by necessity.

Timeline of the security struggle

Harry’s quest for police protection is marked by key milestones, illustrating the complexity and significance of the case for both the monarchy and the British public.

• January 2020: Harry and Meghan announce their withdrawal from royal duties and relocate to the US, losing automatic police protection.
• February 2020: Ravec determines that Harry’s security will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• September 2021: Harry files a lawsuit against the Home Office to challenge the decision.
• May 2023: The High Court rejects Harry’s bid to privately fund police protection.
• February 2024: Harry loses another legal challenge but vows to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• April 2025: Court of Appeal hearings reveal Al-Qaeda threats, escalating the dispute.

Public and political reactions

Harry’s fight for police protection has sparked debate in the UK over the funding of royal security and the role of former royals. Critics argue that by stepping back from royal duties, Harry forfeited the privileges tied to his role, including taxpayer-funded protection. A 2023 YouGov poll found that 52% of Britons believe Harry and Meghan should cover their own security costs, with only 32% supporting public funding. This sentiment is amplified by British tabloids, which often portray the couple as out of touch with the nation’s realities.

Conversely, Harry’s supporters argue that the specific threats he faces, particularly from groups like Al-Qaeda, warrant exceptional measures. Barrister Shaheed Fatima stressed that the duke’s security cannot be treated like that of an ordinary citizen, given his public profile and military history. Comparisons with other royals, such as Prince Andrew, who retains police protection despite controversies, raise questions about the consistency of Ravec’s decisions.

The case also touches on broader issues about the modern monarchy. Harry and Meghan’s exit exposed divisions within the royal family and challenged the narrative of unity promoted by Buckingham Palace. As Charles III navigates his reign amid health challenges, Harry’s dispute serves as a reminder of unresolved tensions from the couple’s departure. For the public, the question of Harry’s security fuels discussions about privilege, responsibility, and the cost of maintaining a monarchy in an increasingly polarized world.

Logistical challenges of security

Providing security for Harry in the UK poses significant logistical and financial hurdles. Royal protection involves highly trained, often armed teams with access to intelligence and coordination with agencies like MI5 and the Metropolitan Police. When Harry lost this benefit, he hired a private security team in the US, but this team faces limitations in the UK, where it lacks authority or access to intelligence.

The Home Office maintains that case-by-case protection is adequate for Harry, given his status as a former senior royal. However, the duke’s legal team argues that this approach is insufficient, particularly in light of specific threats like those from Al-Qaeda. During hearings, Shaheed Fatima noted that Ravec failed to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment before downgrading Harry’s protection, violating standard procedures for high-profile figures.

• High costs: Royal police protection can cost millions of pounds annually, funded by taxpayers.
• Limited access: Harry’s US-based security team lacks jurisdiction or intelligence access in the UK.
• Specific risks: Al-Qaeda threats and paparazzi pursuits heighten the need for specialized protection.
• Legal precedent: Denying Harry’s offer to pay for security sets a precedent for other former royals.

Future prospects

The Court of Appeal’s forthcoming written ruling, with no set release date, will have far-reaching implications for Harry, his family, and the British monarchy. A favorable decision could restore automatic police protection, facilitating Harry’s UK visits and his children’s connection to the country. However, another legal defeat may force the duke to curtail his trips or rely on costly private security alternatives.

Meanwhile, the Al-Qaeda threats continue to loom, underscoring the seriousness of Harry’s situation. The group’s message, which portrays Harry as an “enemy” due to his Afghanistan service, highlights the challenges faced by public figures with military backgrounds. For Harry, the security battle is also a fight for freedom of movement and the preservation of his British identity, despite living abroad.

Relations with the royal family remain strained. While Harry expressed hope that Charles III’s cancer diagnosis might bring the family closer, the palace’s lack of explicit support suggests reconciliation is distant. For Meghan, who has visited the UK only once since 2020, for Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral, the security issue is particularly sensitive, given the racist attacks she faced in the British press.

Impact on Harry’s public image

Harry’s legal battle also shapes his public persona, both in the UK and globally. In the US, where the couple has built a media and philanthropy career, Harry is viewed by many as a champion of progressive causes, including mental health and racial equality. His memoir and Netflix documentaries have reinforced this image but made him a target of criticism in the UK, where he is often accused of betraying the monarchy.

The Al-Qaeda threats may garner sympathy from some UK audiences, but they also fuel perceptions that Harry brought scrutiny upon himself by disclosing military and family details. The polarization surrounding the duke reflects broader societal divides in the UK, between those who view the monarchy as untouchable and those advocating for its modernization.

For Harry, the security fight is a matter of principle and a reflection of his commitment to protecting his family. In his words, he is unwilling to “needlessly risk” Meghan or his children’s safety, a stance shaped by the trauma of losing his mother. Until the Court of Appeal issues its ruling, Harry remains in limbo, torn between his desire to maintain ties with the UK and the barriers posed by his royal exit.