King Charles III removed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s personal security in the U.K. in an attempt to keep them under control, according to a new report.
The U.K. outlet Byline Times reports that when the Sussexes stepped back from being working royals in 2020, King Charles pulled their taxpayer-funded police protection.
“The Sussexes had either to be safely in the tent in Britain or cast away and castigated as comprehensively as possible in order to reduce the threat of them eclipsing the rest of the family,” a source told the outlet.
“The greater truth is that Harry and Meghan make better headlines than the King and Camilla or William and Kate,” the source continued. “The idea of them still being in public service but abroad and out of the control of the institution and dominating the media narrative just couldn’t happen.”
KING CHARLES’ RELATIONSHIP WITH QUEEN ELIZABETH WAS NEARLY DESTROYED BY CAMILLA AFFAIR: AUTHOR
King Charles pulled funding for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s security as a means to keep them under royal family control, according to a new report. (Getty Images)
Byline Times claims that the royal family “tried everything to make it fail, starting with the removal of security and then signing off on a 12-month assault by the U.K. press on Harry and Meghan and everyone in their orbit.”
A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace and Archewell didn’t 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 thinks the couple was considering leaving “The Firm” regardless.
The Sussexes stopped being working royals in 2020 and moved to California. (REUTERS/Mike Segar)
MEGHAN MARKLE PUT ROYAL FAMILY ‘IN THE REARVIEW’, REINVENTING HERSELF AS HOLLYWOOD POWER PLAYER: AUTHOR
“It is my belief that Harry and Meghan never intended to commit long-term to the royal family and the royals felt blindsided by their decision and distanced themselves to protect themselves from Harry and Meghan’s erratic behavior,” she alleged.
Regarding the denial of security funding, Schofield said, “At that point in time, the Queen could have and would have intervened if she felt like Harry and Meghan were being mistreated in any way.”
She also noted there was a “Sandringham Summit,” the agreement on the couple’s transition away from the royal family, which was jokingly dubbed “Megxit.”
“If it’s true, that this was an incident that happened after the Sandringham Summit, then Harry and Meghan had already published a website without the royal family’s permission, they’d already outlined what their new roles were going to be without consulting the royal family, and according to reports by [journalist] Camilla Tominey, they had already started taking meetings with streaming platform Quibi about commercial ventures,” Schofield said.
According to expert Kinsey Schofield, host of the “To Di For Daily” podcast, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle never intended to commit long-term to the royal family. (Chris Jackson)
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
“According to [British journalist] Andrew Morton, by this time they had already started conversations with Oprah Winfrey about a sit-down. Harry and Meghan were working against the royal family and refusing their requests and advice.”
She added, “I don’t see the scandal here. Who would continue to finance a pair that are actively working against you?”
The Byline Times source said, “A view was quickly taken within the royal households that everything needed to be brought under control. The removal of the transition funding, which [the former] Prince Charles knew was his son’s only lifeline to keeping safe, was considered a very effective way of trying to bring Harry and Meghan to heel in the UK. But it didn’t work.”
Prince Harry went to court this year over the security issue, arguing the protection was still necessary for his family and even offered to personally pay for it.
Prince Harry challenged the government’s denial of his request to pay for police protection in court. (AP Images)
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
A lawyer for the government argued in court it was not appropriate to allow hiring “police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy.”
Justice Martin Chamberlain said there was nothing “incoherent or illogical” in the government’s reasoning to deny the Duke of Sussex’s request to hire police bodyguards at his own expense. He said providing private protection for an individual was different from paying police as security at sporting and other events. Further, he said it could strain police resources, set a precedent and be seen as unfair.
British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital, “While the royals certainly are 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 one.”
She continued, explaining, “A clear majority of the public in U.K. polls have no problem with Harry and Meghan seeking a new life away from the monarchy, but that is with the understanding, from the overwhelming majority, ‘not at the expense of we the taxpayers.’”
British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital, “While the royals certainly are 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 one.” (Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
A source told Byline Times: “The primary objective is to protect the institution of the monarchy. Charles and Camilla are obviously at the top of the tree, and were even when the queen was alive; William and Kate next. Anything that threatens the hierarchy, or the public perception of it, is a problem to be dealt with.”
In Fordwich’s opinion, that included financially cutting the Duke and Duchess of Sussex loose.
“Therefore, the king has to take public sentiment into account. While there are those who may speculate that cutting their security was an ego issue, it is just as much an issue of survival,” she explained. “Like his mother [Queen Elizabeth II] before him, he is responsible for the longevity and indeed existence of the monarchy.
“Providing security for wayward non-working royals has zero appeal to the taxpaying public, his subjects, whom he ultimately serves, hence needing to cut such funding.”