has been embroiled in a legal battle with the Home Office for some time now, as he tries to get police security for himself and his family reinstated when they visit the UK. Harry's official taxpayer-funded security was removed in 2020 when he and stepped back as working royals.

At the time borders were closing across the globe due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Meghan and Harry were in Canada when they got the news that the government had decided to remove their police security, and with their location publicised in the press they were concerned about their safety.

Currently, Harry receives a "bespoke" security arrangement, which means the government decides on a case-by-case basis whether or not they will provide him with security - whereas before when he was a working royal, it used to be automatic.

Harry has lost the initial rounds of the legal battle, which found that the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) - who decide who gets police protection - had been lawful in removing his automatic security. However, he has won the right to appeal, which will take place in April - and this reportedly remains a sticking point in his relationship with his father, King Charles.

A new report by royal expert Richard Palmer for the claims that Charles finds his youngest son's decision to sue the government "embarrassing" and that Charles has no "sway" over the decision that RAVEC came to, despite members of the royal household sitting on the committee.

"The King is said to find it embarrassing that his son is taking legal action against His Majesty's Government. He is also said to find it infuriating that Harry claims his father is in a position to overturn the decision to refuse him guaranteed police protection. 'He's the King, he could sort that out any time he wants," one source in Harry's camp claimed.

"But although several senior courtiers sit on the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), they do not hold sway on the committee, which falls under the remit of the Home Office."

This echoes claims made by another royal expert, Kate Mansey, for The Times, who reported that the case against the Home Office , "It places the King in a tricky position because Harry has been granted leave to appeal. Until the case is concluded, there is little Charles feels he can say to his son."

Harry's legal team has argued that the "does not feel safe" bringing his wife, Meghan, and two children, Prince Archie, five, and Princess Lilibet, three to the UK without police security.

In a statement heard by the court, Harry said, "The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US.

"That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil." Whilst Harry does pay for private security for his family, he and his legal team have previously argued that they do not have the proper jurisdiction or adequate access to intelligence to keep the Sussex family safe in the UK.

Harry - the sixth in line to the throne - also previously offered to pay for the police protection himself when he visits the UK, however, the Home Office's legal team argued it was inappropriate for wealthy people to "buy" police protection.

Do you have a story to tell? Email: emma.mackenzie@reachplc.com

READ MORE: