King Charles 'refusing to support Prince Harry' after late Queen's Prince Andrew decision

The committee deciding on security for royalty, VIPs and senior public figures, known as Ravec, changed Prince Harry's level of protection when his status changed.

The Ravec committee decided that Prince Harry should have a “bespoke” arrangement for his publicly-funded security when in the UK, as he was no longer eligible for the level of protection for working royals.

Harry then challenged this through the High Court, launching a lawsuit against the British home secretary.

A Buckingham Palace source told The Daily Beast that it would be “wholly inappropriate” for the king to attempt to influence the Government, instead stating that the decision would lie with the courts.

However, an insider close to the Sussexes lambasted Charles for failing to stick up for his son, and highlighted a similar dilemma the late monarch faced that should be an example for the King.

They said: “The fact that there is even any debate around (Harry’s) security is unbelievable when you look at the situation. The late queen made it really clear [at the Sandringham summit] that she wanted him and his family protected. She intervened to allow Andrew to keep his protection. Why is it impossible for his dad not to do the same for Harry? If the king wanted, he could do this for his son.”

ROYAL LATEST:

• Kate's return 'gives people hope of a bright future for the monarchy'
• Harry returning to UK regularly 'not possible' after pivotal royal decision
• Meghan and Harry 'creating difficulties' for the Royal Family with latest move

The royals met at the so-called Sandringham Summit five days after the Sussexes first announced their Megxit plans in 2020.

After the summit, Queen Elizabeth released a statement about Meghan and Harry's exit.

“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family," the Queen said at the time.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan's desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

Whilst many details from January 13, 2020 remain a secret, Sussex insiders such as Omid Scobie claim that Charles assured Meghan and Harry that they were still a part of the family, and Queen Elizabeth also allegedly said that the couple “would not be half in-half-out” with their roles.

However, in Harry and Meghan’s 2022 Netflix series, the duke recollects that he was given options, ranging from “all in, no change,” to “all out,” and they asked to choose something in between. He claimed that his eventual choice was rejected and sensed that the family did not seem willing to compromise.

Following Prince Andrew’s step-down from royal duties in 2019, the late Queen privately funded a Metropolitan Police team. Now, King Charles continues to fund Andrew’s £3million a year security bill.

Last month, Harry said that it would be “dangerous” to bring his wife and children back to the UK.

In a new documentary, Tabloids on Trial, the Duke said: “It's still dangerous. All it takes is one lone actor, one person who reads this stuff to act on what they have read. Whether it's a knife or acid, these are things that are of genuine concern for me.

“It's one of the reasons why I won’t bring my wife back to this country”, he said during the sit-down interview which aired on July 25.

King Charles royal biographer Robert Hardman however said the situations regarding Harry and Andrew are different.

He said that whilst Harry is seeking armed police to protect him, his wife, and their children personally, the cover paid for by the Queen is attached to the Royal Lodge - where the duke lives.

“Royal Lodge is a royal residence. If he ceased to be there, then you might get a tenant in, it might be another member of the family doing public duties and it would get Met Police coverage. If not it would have to have private security.

“The queen was picking up the tab. My understanding is that the queen was reimbursing the state, although, ultimately, all this is a matter for the British government, not the Palace.”