Prince Harry would be given back his police bodyguards if King Charles III asked for it, a former U.K. counter-terror chief said, seemingly baking up Harry’s own argument.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were stripped of their round-the-clock Metropolitan Police team in February 2020 after they announced they were quitting the palace for a new life in America.

Harry has been campaigning to have the officers returned ever since and lost two High Court lawsuits followed by an appeal in his efforts to get them reinstated.

Now Neil Basu, the former head of the UK’s Counter Terrorism unit, said Harry should patch up his relationship with Charles in the hope his father would ask for the police team to be returned.

Why It Matters

In May, Harry accused the king of standing in the way of his efforts to get his police protection team reinstated, telling the BBC: “I never asked him to intervene—I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs.”

What to Know

“The fact is this,” Basu told The Daily Telegraph, “if the Metropolitan Police had been asked to protect the Duke of Sussex by either the head of state—whether it was the Queen at the time or the future King—we would protect that person. There is nothing whatsoever that would have led us to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, sir, or ma’am, we’re not doing that.’

“I’ve been asked many times, I think the reality is the Duke of Sussex and the head of state, his father, would probably need to come to some arrangement between them. I think that reconciliation would be the key to this problem.”

He also suggested staff working for Queen Elizabeth II and Charles may have been instrumental in the decision to strip Harry of his police team, mirroring the prince’s own argument.

“What I will say,” Basu continued, “is the head of state, both the queen, um when she was alive, and the king today constitutionally would not want to interfere in the decision-making of either the government or the police. And I’ve happened to have known them both and I know that they would abide by that. That doesn’t mean the people who act on behalf of the corporation that is the royal family would not have influence on their behalf.”

That appears to chime more with the palace’s traditional position, that the queen and Charles simply do not get involved, leaving it up to the Home Office and police to take decisions.

Basu suggested their staff could have lobbied on their behalf, though there was evidence presented at the High Court suggesting they did just that.

Basu argued Harry should be offered police protection, though, and added: “It’s quite brutal for principals [royals] when the decision, the discretion, is ‘well, that wouldn’t have any impact at all so we’ll just let you protect yourself.’

“And that’s where they’ve left him but I think they did it because they didn’t think he would leave. I think they thought if he wasn’t protected he wouldn’t leave the country.”

The U.K. Government’s Case

During Harry’s lawsuits, the Home Office argued that Harry’s police security arrangements had to be re-evaluated after he quit the palace because leaving Britain moved him out of the catchment area for armed police protection, which is provided to U.K. residents.

The letter which confirmed the changes in 2020 was quoted in the High Court judgment and said the government was “responsible for risks arising within Great Britain as they affect principals who are in almost every case resident within Great
Britain. The future arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not fit readily within this framework.”

Home Office lawyers said the prince’s team was not completely removed at the point the decision was taken in February 2020 but rather he was given police protection on an ad hoc basis depending on what events he was attending in the U.K.

Newsweek has previously been told that at points, including during the queen’s Platinum Jubilee, he was offered police protection only for events to which he had an official invitation from the Monarchy and not for the trip as a whole.

Decisions on police security are taken by RAVEC, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, and the February 2024 High Court judgment described a telephone call between its chair in 2020, Sir Richard Mottram, and Britain’s top civil servant, cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill.

The account, drawn from a heavily redacted email sent on January 13, 2020, appears to support the contention that it was the Government and police, not the palace, who took the decision.

“On 13 January [2020], Sir Richard Mottram emailed [redacted text] to say that he had had a discussion by telephone with the Cabinet Secretary, who was planning to put in writing with the Royal Household the line he was taking on the security arrangements:- ‘There might be circumstances where some state support was justified in the context say of [redacted text] but this was different to [redacted text]. He said the Royal Household had also asked whether it was open to them to ask to pay for security delivered by the MPS but he had ruled this out. I agreed.'”

According to the judge’s summary of a further email by Mottram: “Sir Mark Sedwill had told them [Harry and Meghan] that they should have no expectation that the present security arrangements in Great Britain would continue.

“RAVEC would wish to review what was appropriate. RAVEC would address any need to mitigate risks of [redacted text] “but not provision because they were celebrities and faced intrusive interest from the public or the press.”

“If they had concerns regarding the latter risks, they could look to private sector provision,” the judgment summary of the email read. The documentary evidence appeared to hint at conflict between the Royal Household and police over the decision to downgrade Harry’s police protection, including from figures the prince has longstanding tensions with.

Mottram wrote that it was “very helpful for those concerned including [the queen’s private secretary] Sir Edward Young to hear these messages from [Sedwill] because when they heard them from me their reaction was to go above me to try to block action of any kind.”

That would appear to indicate the Royal Household had in fact intervened on Harry’s behalf and Young is a figure Harry has accused of conspiring against him in the past. He was also the queen’s most senior aide, better placed than any other courtier to act on her behalf.

What Happens Next

If Prince Harry is to rebuild his relationship with his father that will likely happen during visits to Britain, however, Basu’s take on the situation also risks that very relationship.

Harry’s best chance of mending the rift lies in him putting past disagreements behind him and focusing purely on his bond with Charles.

If the king and the palace were to detect a possible ulterior motive by Harry to leverage the relationship as a means of restoring his police protection, it might well sour efforts to heal.

Do you have a question about King Charles III and Queen Camilla, Prince William and Princess 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.