Prince Harry's bombshell statement in FULL – 'all I want is safety'

Prince Harry today lost his appeal against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK.

After the decision on Friday, Harry told the he , and warned that the ’s power over security means it “can be used to control” family members. , and shockingly revealed his father had to live as he fights cancer.

READ MORE:

Here is the ’s statement following the loss of his Court of Appeal challenge against the Home Office. The statement said: “I want to start by thanking my legal team and the Court of Appeal judges for their time and expertise in unravelling this issue that stemmed from the previous government.

“This process has only ever been about ensuring my safety and that of my immediate family when we are in the , so that we may safely visit my home country with the same level of security that other governments deem necessary for our protection.

“My ask has been simple: that the standard protocols for security and risk assessments be applied to me in the same way they are to others – including people who have never carried out any public functions on behalf of the state.

READ MORE:

“The court’s ruling confirms that the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec and comprised of senior officials from the Royal Household, Home Office and Metropolitan Police, has failed to follow its own mandated processes for me, which are applied to all other high-risk and high-profile individuals.

“Given my profound concerns over this issue, I will be writing to the Home Secretary to ask her to urgently examine the matter and review the Ravec process.

“This legal action has been a last resort, but one that has uncovered shocking truths, starting with the fact that the Royal Household are key decision-makers on Ravec and my sole representation for matters regarding my safety. In this process, I’ve also learned the names of all those involved, many of whom retired immediately after playing their part.

READ MORE:

“In November 2017, before the Royal Household’s role on Ravec was known, this secretive committee concluded that when my wife would join the royal family, she should not receive protection. Only when I asked for the name of the person willing to carry that risk, did they reverse the decision.

“In 2020, Ravec refused for the first time to conduct the required annual risk, threat and impact assessment that their own policies demand. The intention of this assessment is to be objective, and free from bias and interference to confirm the security required. The result was stripping me of the protection I’ve had since birth, whilst signalling to all other governments to do the same. This reckless action knowingly put me and my family in harm’s way. Life is precious and I understand the fragility of it.

“Throughout 2020 and 2021, I attempted to resolve this issue privately, even offering to independently cover the costs of necessary and effective police protection in order to keep me and my family safe. No one responded directly to me about my offer when I made it and even though I challenged the refusal to let me pay, my legal claim failed.

READ MORE:

“To this present day, the Royal Household remain my sole representation on Ravec for every visit and could call for this assessment to be done at any point. The only possible conclusion that can be drawn is they choose not to, because they know the outcome would prove that my security should never have been removed in the first place.

“In recent years my family and I have been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats, including from al Qaida. There are individuals in prison on UK soil because of such threats. And yet, since 2019 a proper risk assessment has not been conducted. This is not only a deviation from standard practice, it’s a dereliction of duty.

“The stark difference is I was born into lifelong circumstances that create inherent security risks. My decade of military service, particularly two tours of duty in , as well as social and tabloid media frenzy, have only intensified those threats. Uncovering how my immediate family’s safety was knowingly put at risk, as well as who was behind it and who sanctioned it, has been truly devastating. No matter where we may agree or disagree, I would never wish harm on anyone. These legal proceedings have revealed to me that this basic duty of care was not and is not applied to me.

READ MORE:

“It’s true that I have been treated as an exception on this issue. The conditions of my security were not made based on threat, risk, and impact, they were made based on my role – one that my wife and I wanted to maintain, but that was ultimately refused. Ravec’s ability to make decisions outside of its own policies and the so-called political sensitivities of my case have prevailed over the need for fair and consistent decision-making. The court has decided to defer to this, revealing a sad truth: my hands are tied in seeking legal recourse against the establishment.

“This all comes from the same institutions that preyed upon my mother, that openly campaigned for the removal of our security, and that continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children, while at the same time protecting the very power that they should be holding accountable.

“The UK is my birthplace and will always be part of who I am. It is a place I love, and the country where my son was born. I’ve only ever wanted to continue my charitable work in supporting the causes and people that mean so much to me, and for my children to know the beauty of my homeland. I remain committed to a life of public service.

“This has been and will always be, my life’s work, and when you strip away the noise, you’ll be able to hear, all I’ve been asking for is safety.”