Being a member of the royal household has been described as just like residing life in a ‘gilded cage’. Prince Harry has additionally spoken of feeling ‘trapped’ by the establishment. Francesca Jackson argues that senior members of the royal household haven’t any alternative however to serve the nation as a result of to refuse to take action would pose an existential risk to the establishment of monarchy that it may not have the ability to survive.
Again in Might, Prince Harry gave a high-profile interview to the BBC after he misplaced a Court docket of Attraction problem over his safety within the UK. Of the numerous claims he made, probably the most eye-catching was that:
‘(W)hat actually worries me greater than anything about right now’s choice (is that) it units a brand new precedent that safety can be utilized to regulate family members, and successfully, what it does is imprison different family members from with the ability to select a special life.’
It’s a daring declare to make, however is it an correct one?
It’s usually agreed that, given their distinguished position in public life, the monarch and their speedy household needs to be protected by publicly-funded safety. The Govt Committee for the Safety of Royalty and Public Figures (often known as ‘RAVEC’) is charged with overseeing safety preparations for key public figures in Nice Britain by assessing dangers from terrorism, extremism, stalkers and different foreseeable threats. Amongst different issues, it determines which members of the royal household obtain safety, though there is no such thing as a public listing of who receives safety. The Royal Family has two members on the Committee, together with the monarch’s personal secretary, who advise on what safety they consider is critical to guard key folks and places, comparable to Buckingham Palace.
Simply as there is no such thing as a official public listing of which members obtain safety, there is no such thing as a official public listing of the {qualifications} required for a royal to obtain publicly-funded safety. Nonetheless, in a 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex urged that two situations have to be met. Firstly, it seems that a royal title is required. Based on Meghan, senior family members wished to disclaim their son Archie the title of prince, which might have disqualified him from receiving safety. Secondly, plainly solely working members of the royal household – those that perform duties on behalf of the monarchy with out incomes an earnings of their very own – are entitled to publicly-funded safety. Based on Harry, the Palace justified eradicating the couple’s safety on the idea that their ‘change of standing [meant] we might not be official working members of the Royal Household.’
It was this choice to take away safety which was at difficulty in R (Duke of Sussex) v Residence Secretary [2025] EWCA Civ 548. Harry sought to problem how RAVEC reached its choice to withdraw his safety in January 2020 following his and Meghan’s choice to step again from royal duties. Of explicit concern was the affect exerted by the Royal Family’s two representatives. A part of his argument was that the Palace weaponised the second situation by threatening to take away safety if he and Meghan give up as working royals as a way of deterring them. When the couple finally determined to take action, he believed that the 2 representatives exerted undue affect to persuade the Committee to take away his safety – despite his ‘explicit’ safety dangers – to ‘punish’ him for leaving. As he later questioned within the BBC interview, ‘what’s the Royal Family’s position (on RAVEC)… if it isn’t to affect and resolve what they need for members of their family?’ However Harry didn’t show his suspicions to the court docket, which dominated that ‘it was unattainable to say that (RAVEC’s) reasoning was illogical or inappropriate’ (see paragraph 73 of the judgment). It agreed with the Residence Workplace that RAVEC’s choice to downgrade safety was as a result of Duke’s ‘change of standing’ and the truth that he was shifting exterior of RAVEC’s GB-only remit.
Within the subsequent BBC interview, Harry claimed that as a result of ‘safety was made conditional on having (an) official position’, the ruling now implies that ‘safety can be utilized to regulate family members, and… imprison (them) from with the ability to select a special life.’ He seems to be referring to these members who at present obtain publicly-funded safety. Primarily based on the 2 situations implied by the Sussexes within the Oprah interview, they embody King Charles and Queen Camilla, the Prince and Princess of Wales (and their kids Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis), Princess Anne, and the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh (though it seems in these latter two circumstances that safety is barely supplied when finishing up official public engagements). So what does the ruling imply for them: do, as Harry claims, the principles as to provision of safety actually now ‘imprison (them) from with the ability to select a special life?’
It’s controversial that it’s not the supply of safety which ‘imprisons’ these royals from selecting a special life. Slightly they’re (to make use of one other of Harry’s phrases) ‘trapped’ by the very system of constitutional monarchy. Through the Oprah interview, Harry claimed that his father and brother ‘don’t get to go away’. This declare is difficult to dispute, since for his or her very survival constitutional monarchies rely on the precept of hereditary succession; as Professor Vernon Bogdanor asserts in his e book, The Monarchy and the Structure, ‘hereditary monarchy has as its consequence that the future of the long run sovereign is inescapable’. Whereas there may be technically no constitutional requirement for a monarch to stay on the throne (or for an inheritor to accede to it) in opposition to his or her will, within the UK there is no such thing as a actual custom of abdication, since abdication finally poses an existential risk to monarchy. Edward VIII might have set a precedent for the abdication of a British Sovereign, however the constitutional disaster which it sparked makes it unlikely that historical past would ever repeat itself. There is no such thing as a precedent for the following in line to the throne in search of to take away himself from it, and it’s equally unlikely that any such precedent could be set. This isn’t least as a result of fears that doing so might open a can of worms and additional threaten the precept of hereditary succession; as Professor Rodney Brazier argues, ‘if one inheritor resigned, why ought to others not do the identical sooner or later in the event that they wished to?’. Harry loved barely extra freedom than his father and brother on this regard: whereas excessive up within the line of succession at beginning, he finally turned dispensable from the viewpoint of succession as soon as William began a household of his personal, opening the door to him to pursue one other life.
There are different extra urgent causes of practicality – relatively than safety – which additional ‘imprison’ royals and so forestall them selecting a special life. It’s well-known that the UK’s constitutional monarchy has been ‘slimmed down’ in recent times. Based on the royal household’s web site, it right now contains the King and Queen, Prince and Princess of Wales, Princess Anne, Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra. Seven of those 11 members are over the age of 75: as Professor Robert Hazell argues, they’ve accepted many years of public service and usually are not going to give up now. That leaves the Prince and Princess of Wales and Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. Even when they wished to go away (which, within the case of the Prince – and, by extension, Princess – could be inconceivable for the rationale outlined above), for causes of practicality they might not. The UK’s slimmed-down royal group is now the identical dimension as Norway’s, however whereas Norway’s working royals have a inhabitants of round 5 million to service, the UK’s has a inhabitants of practically 70 million. That is problematic since, because the monarchy has over the centuries been stripped of its political features, it has taken on a civic function to justify and legit its place within the structure, creating what is called the ‘welfare monarchy’, which sees it perform public engagements and champion worthy charitable causes. Senior royals, although maybe not destined to inherit the throne, are however anticipated to hold out this position. However it’s changing into more and more laborious to fulfil because the variety of royals of working age decreases. Consequently, royals just like the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh might by no means decide out. Certainly, the sensible must retain youthful royals was arguably one purpose why (if Harry’s claims are true) the Palace tried to forestall the Sussexes from leaving within the first place.
Satirically, when Prince Edward tried to carve out a life exterior of the establishment, he discovered it unattainable – not as a result of safety, however due to the inexorable profession expectations which constitutional monarchy locations on senior members. Regardless of initially serving within the Royal Marines, Edward later selected to not take up conventional royal duties, as a substitute organising his personal media firm, Ardent Productions. However he was repeatedly accused of exploiting his royal standing for revenue, and in keeping with studies the then-Prince Charles and Princess Anne believed that he ought to as a substitute dedicate his time to public and charity work. In 2002, Edward took their recommendation, stepped down from Ardent Productions and have become a full-time working member of the royal household. His expertise means that, whereas there are technically no authorized restrictions on the profession decisions of British royals, in observe the UK’s system of constitutional monarchy prevents these excessive up within the line of succession from selecting their very own careers, as Robert Hazell and Bob Morris have beforehand argued. Furthermore, they’d essentially want to achieve monetary independence in an effort to make a special life for themselves but can’t pursue an expert enterprise profession as a result of overwhelming expectation that they need to undertake charitable – relatively than industrial – actions.
Finally, subsequently, what Harry himself describes as his ‘escape’ was solely made potential by Meghan. Certainly, within the Oprah interview he acknowledged that it was solely by assembly Meghan that he might ‘see a method out’ and be ‘saved’ from what would in any other case be a lifetime ‘trapped’ within the establishment. With a profitable, established profession as a Hollywood actress, Meghan had a really totally different life to the one which he knew. She additional opened the door to an alternate life for Harry who – as somebody who since a younger boy has all the time appeared uncomfortable with the trimmings of royalty – took it.
Again in 2017, Prince Harry acknowledged ‘is there any one of many royal household who needs to be king or queen? I don’t suppose so. They do it for the larger good.’ And it’s this unescapable obligation – relatively than safety – which arguably ‘imprisons’ royals from selecting a special life. It’s unlikely that, on account of the Court docket of Attraction ruling, safety can be weaponised to imprison different family members from selecting a special life, since they (not like Harry) shouldn’t have the selection of leaving within the first place. However Harry is arguably proper to say that they’re ‘trapped’ within the system. Constitutional monarchy depends for its survival on hereditary succession to the Crown (which traps the monarch and speedy inheritor) and the execution of welfare and charitable work (which traps the opposite working members). These excessive up within the line of succession thus merely haven’t any alternative however to serve the nation as head of state or senior member of the royal household, particularly within the UK’s slimmed down constitutional monarchy – to do in any other case would finally pose an existential risk to the establishment itself.
In regards to the writer
Francesca Jackson is a PhD scholar at Lancaster College.
Featured picture: “Buckingham Palace, London, England” (CC BY-SA 2.0) by dconvertini.
![[CFP] The Legacy of the Big Bang EU Enlargement: Lessons Learned and Future Perspectives](https://i2.wp.com/assets.pubpub.org/dszqce38/favicon-61724872708457-01724931428186.png?w=350&resize=350,250&ssl=1)
