In the nearly four years since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle left their roles as senior royals, few issues have spawned as much controversy, debate, and legal argumentation as their security arrangements now that they no longer qualify for the same Metropolitan Police protection Harry had enjoyed since his birth. This week, there were developments in two separate court cases about the security issues, including a court hearing over his security status during visits to the UK. Then, on Friday, Harry was dealt a legal setback in a libel case with Associated Newspapers, the parent company of the Mail on Sunday, over a February 2022 article about his legal battle for security.

Though High Court Justice Matthew Nicklin denied the prince’s legal team summary judgment in the case against Associated Newspapers, the court’s 37-page decision shares new details about the behind-the-scenes struggle over security costs in the wake of his exit from royal duties. The decision quotes a January 2020 letter from Queen Elizabeth II’s private secretary Sir Edward Young to then Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, which claims the late queen took a special interest in ensuring that the couple had access to security after leaving their royal duties behind. The case is expected to go to trial next year.

“You will understand well that ensuring that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain safe is of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family,” Young wrote. “Given The Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal Family, his military service, The Duchess’s own independent profile and the well-documented history of targeting of the Sussex family by extremists, it is imperative that the family continues to be provided with effective security.” 

The letter went on to state that the palace had held conversations with the former head of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), the governmental body that decides who may receive access to publicly-funded advanced security in the UK. Though security was a main concern of Harry’s when he and Meghan announced their intention to leave their roles as working royals in January 2020, they were later stripped of publicly-funded protection officers after their provision became a controversy in Canada and the US. (Even then President Donald Trump weighed in at the time.) 

Though Meghan and Harry have been funding their own security since their move to the United States in March 2020, their access to security during visits to the UK has been a matter of concern and ongoing legal wrangling. Their private security guards are prohibited from carrying weapons in Harry’s home country, and earlier this year, the High Court denied Harry the opportunity to pay for the increased costs of Metropolitan Police officers who are licensed to carry weapons in the UK.

When that denial was issued, Harry was given the opportunity to challenge RAVEC’s original decision to strip Meghan and Harry of security in the UK, which was the subject of the London hearing that began on December 5. During the hearing, Harry’s lawyer Shaheed Fatima argued that the security decision was unfair, and disputed the Home Office’s characterization of his royal exit as a “choice.”

In a statement read into evidence on Thursday, the prince explained why the ongoing fight about security was so important to him and his family, including his son Archie and daughter Lilibet. “It was with great sadness for both of us that my wife and I felt forced to step back from this role and leave the country in 2020,” he said, per the BBC. “The UK is my home. 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. I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too.”