According to a new report, King Charles III. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s personal security in the UK has been lifted to keep them under control.
British newspaper Byline Times reports that when the Sussexes quit their jobs as royals in 2020, King Charles withdrew their taxpayer-funded police protection.
“The Sussexes either needed to be safely in the tent in the UK or be ostracized and castigated as comprehensively as possible to reduce the risk of them overshadowing the rest of the family,” a source told the medium.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
“The bigger truth is that Harry and Meghan make better headlines than the King and Camilla or William and Kate,” the source continued. “The idea that they are still in public service but overseas and outside the control of the institution and dominating the media narrative simply could not be implemented.”
KING CHARLES’ RELATIONSHIP WITH QUEEN ELIZABETH WAS NEARLY DESTROYED BY THE CAMILLA AFFAIR: AUTHOR
According to a new report, King Charles has cut funding for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s security to keep them under the control of the royal family. (Getty Images)
Byline Times claims that the royal family “tried everything to derail it, from abolishing security to acquiescing to a 12-month attack by the British press on Harry and Meghan and everyone around them.”
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace and Archewell did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Kinsey Schofield, host of the “To Di For Daily” podcast, told Fox News Digital she believes the couple still considered leaving “The Firm.”
The Sussexes stopped working as royals in 2020 and moved to California. (Portal/Mike Segar)
MEGHAN MARKLE PUT THE ROYAL FAMILY ‘IN REVIEW’ AND REINVENTED HERSELF AS A HOLLYWOOD POWER PLAYER: AUTHOR
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
“I believe that Harry and Meghan never intended to commit to the royal family long-term and the royals felt blindsided by their decision and distanced themselves to protect themselves from Harry and Meghan’s erratic behavior,” she claimed.
On the denial of security funding, Schofield said: “At this point the Queen could and would have intervened if she felt that Harry and Meghan were being mistreated in any way.”
She also pointed out that there was a “Sandringham summit”, the agreement on the couple’s transition from the royal family, which was jokingly called “Megxit”.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
“If it is true that this was an incident that occurred after the Sandringham summit, then Harry and Meghan had already published a website without the permission of the royal family and had already set out what their new roles would be, without to consult the royal family.”, and according to reports from [journalist] “Camilla Tominey, they had already started having meetings with the streaming platform Quibi about commercial ventures,” Schofield said.
According to expert Kinsey Schofield, host of the podcast “To Di For Daily,” Prince Harry and Meghan Markle never intended to commit to the royal family long-term. (Chris Jackson)
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
“Accordingly [British journalist] Andrew Morton, at this point they had already begun discussions with Oprah Winfrey about meeting. Harry and Meghan worked against the royal family and rejected their requests and advice.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
She added: “I don’t see any scandal here. Who would continue to fund a couple that is actively working against you?”
The Byline Times source said: “There was a quick feeling within the royal household that everything needed to be brought under control. The cancellation of the transition funding.” [the former] Prince Charles knew this was his son’s only lifeline to stay safe. This was considered a very effective way to bring Harry and Meghan under control in Britain. But it did not work.
Prince Harry went to court over the security issue this year, arguing that the protection was still necessary for his family and even offering to pay for it personally.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
Prince Harry has challenged the government’s rejection of his request to pay for police protection in court. (AP images)
Do you like what you’re reading? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
A government lawyer argued in court that it was not appropriate to allow the hiring of “police officers as private bodyguards for the rich.”
Judge Martin Chamberlain said the government’s reasoning for rejecting the Duke of Sussex’s request to hire police bodyguards at his own expense was neither “incoherent nor illogical”. He said providing private protection to a person is different than paying police to provide security at sporting events and other events. Additionally, it could strain police resources, set a precedent and be viewed as unfair, he said.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital: “While the royals are certainly a family, they are also a very public institution. The issue of security and the misery it is now causing is certainly partly a financial issue.”
She continued, stating: “A clear majority of the public in British polls have no problem with Harry and Meghan seeking a new life away from the monarchy, but this is with the understanding of the overwhelming majority, not at the expense of us.” Taxpayer.'”
British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital: “While the royals are certainly a family, they are also a very public institution. The issue of security and the misery it is now causing is certainly partly a financial issue.” (Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
A source told Byline Times: “The main aim is to protect the institution of the monarchy. Charles and Camilla are obviously at the top, even while the Queen was still alive; next William and Kate. Anything that threatens the hierarchy or the public perception of it is a problem that needs to be addressed.”
In Fordwich’s opinion, this included the financial dismissal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
“Therefore, the king must take public opinion into account. “While there are people who speculate that limiting their safety was a matter of ego, it is just as much a matter of survival,” she explained. “Like his mother [Queen Elizabeth II] Before him, he is responsible for the longevity and existence of the monarchy.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
“Providing security for wayward, non-working members of the royal family is not at all attractive to the tax-paying public, his subjects who he ultimately serves, which is why this funding must be cut.”