Prince Harry doesn’t even know who decided he was ineligible for royal protection

On Friday, there was another hearing/court appearance in Prince Harry’s High Court Judicial Review. Harry is basically petitioning the court to receive high-level royal protection for himself, his wife and his children whenever he chooses to visit the UK. It’s also about his desire to reimburse the police for the cost of his security. Friday’s update was kind of confusing to me, a layperson and an American, because it seems to involve a secretive bureaucratic web within the government/Scotland Yard? The bureaucracy is called the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), and basically, Harry finds Ravec’s decisions confusing as well. He doesn’t know who – within Ravec – decided that he should be ineligible for royal protection during his visits. Ravec is made up of “representatives from the police, Home Office and Royal household.” Ah, I think we’ve figured it out, Harry. Figure out which members of the Royal household are part of Ravec and you’ve figured out who cancelled your security.

Anyway, according to the Telegraph’s coverage, Harry’s lawyers (Shaheed Fatima and Jenny Afia) want the court to identify who sits on Ravec, because it’s vital for this case, and even with Fatima and Afia’s connections, they could not ascertain the membership. The judge “rebuked” Harry’s lawyers because, in his view, the Judicial Review was not about whether Ravec made the wrong decision in pulling Harry’s royal protection, but whether Harry could reimburse the police for the protection. There’s no ruling yet.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail’s coverage of Harry’s Judicial Review continues to be appalling, and as we learned last week, Harry is suing the Mail yet again for their coverage on this issue. Sources close to the Daily Mail spoke to the Daily Beast about Harry and Meghan’s litigious vibes and these people are so pathetic! My God.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are so valuable to the business model and circulation of the British tabloids that the outlets won’t stop writing about and attacking them. Despite the couple’s increasing willingness to resort to lawsuits—which they have a habit of winning—in an attempt to silence their critics, industry insiders have told The Daily Beast the tabloids are more likely to react by doubling down on their aggressive coverage.

Harry’s new action is, prima facie, a complex case, and it is therefore unlikely the general public will give over much energy to trying to understand Harry’s latest beef with the Mail. As one former senior British tabloid newspaper editor told The Daily Beast: “This latest action is so obscure you have to read the story three times to figure out what he is complaining about.”

There is little doubt in the minds of reporters and editors, however, that the intention behind the repeated legal actions is to persuade news editors and proprietors that it is not worth the hassle of running negative stories about Harry and Meghan. The strategy —described to The Daily Beast by media lawyer Mark Stephens of international law firm Howard Kennedy as “reach for your lawyer at the slightest provocation”—stands in stark contrast to the once-hallowed royal tradition of simply brushing off and ignoring inaccurate newspaper stories.

Indeed, one Mail insider told The Daily Beast: “The Mail is on a crusade against Harry and Meghan, and these legal actions will only make ANL even more determined to keep it going. Harry and Meghan are the couple the readers love to hate, they are copy, and the lawsuits are just a business expense. Look at how much the Mail got out of the case [about the letter]. It really damaged Meghan’s reputation in the U.K. and although ANL lost the case, the editor of the Mail on Sunday who published that letter, Ted Verity, got promoted. That tells you everything you need to know.”

The former tabloid executive made a similar point, saying: “There are some people who try and operate this scorched earth policy to stop people writing about them, and for someone who is relatively low-profile it sometimes works. Reporters and desks just think why bother? But for Prince Harry to try and achieve a lower profile via suing people is just absurd. People are always going to want to read about him. It might make ANL more careful about the wording, and maybe this time they have made a mistake on the wording of whether it was secret or not secret, but ultimately if Harry wears a silly hat in a public place they are going to take the piss out of him. They are not going to slip up on something like that.”

[From The Daily Beast]

Once again, I have to ask: how stupid are British tabloid editors? They’ve really been out here ascribing false motives to Harry and Meghan the entire f–king time, almost like they have no idea what the f–k they’re talking about. The point of Harry and Meghan’s litigious actions has never been about “stop talking about us.” It’s been about “respect our privacy boundaries” AND “you can’t just lie about us whenever you want.” British editors think that the only way to “cover” Harry and Meghan is to go hyper-negative and libelous, then those same editors complain that H&M are just looking to be ignored? No. What a willfully stupid misread of Harry and Meghan’s motives. SUE ‘EM AGAIN.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.