Prince Harry’s recent boost in his legal bid to win back his state-funded bodyguards in Britain was delivered with a “sting in the tail,” a British news show has heard.

Regalrumination.com‘s chief royal correspondent Jack Royston told Sky News anchor Kay Burley on Tuesday that Harry’s legal battle against the U.K. government is “getting very complicated” as it moves into another phase. Regalrumination.com approached representatives of via email for comment.

The prince was told in an order published on Friday that he in London. Harry is objecting to a judge’s ruling in February that found the government committee that stripped him of his full-time state-funded security detail in Britain back in 2020 when he stepped down as a working royal,

Harry lost the round-the-clock Metropolitan Police protection that is received by select senior royals—including King Charles, and Princess Kate. It was replaced with a bespoke service that provides security on a case-by-case basis when Harry visits Britain; this is .

Harry’s legal team argue that RAVEC when making its decision to remove his security, and that the prince should be considered in a category of other VIP public figures (those who are not working royals and members of government etc.) when considering his protection.

The recently published Court of Appeal order said that Harry could proceed in appealing February’s ruling against his claims, granting the decision on one-and-a-half grounds out of the five his team submitted.

This boost to Harry, however, did not come without some pushback from the judge.

“Harry has had some, kind of, positive court news this week, although with a sting in its tail,” Royston said.

“So, he’s appealing the loss of the lawsuit that was attempting to overturn the removal of his police protection. So, it’s all getting very complicated… What makes it more complicated is that the judge has said, ‘OK, well, we’ll hear your appeal, that’s fine, but don’t get your hopes up.'”

This referenced a passage in the court order instructed by Lord Justice David Bean, which granted the appeal using language that set expectations.

“Although the carefully reasoned judgment of Sir Peter Lane may prove to be correct in all respects,” he said of February’s ruling. “I am persuaded, not without hesitation, that an appeal on Ground 1 would have a real prospect of success.”

In a separate section, Bean denied Harry’s legal team’s request to expedite the proceedings in an attempt to get a judgment sooner.

“As to expedition, I refuse the application made by Schillings [Harry’s representatives] in their letter of 30 April 2024 for an order that the appeal is to be expedited and heard by the end of the July.

“It is rightly not suggested that the Claimant is entitled to jump the queue because of his status.”

Bean said that the request was made on the grounds that over three years had elapsed since the security removal and that Harry’s legal team would be occupied on another case from October. Bean added that these were not justifiable reasons for expedition.

Assessing the case, Royston told Burley that the public will have to see how it all plays out.

“It all comes down to this distinction,” he said. “Harry lost his police protection when he lost his [working royal] role, and most of the people who get it have it because of a role they perform. But there’s this other category of other VIPs who get it for other reasons; think Salman Rushdie because of the Iran fatwa against him, that kind of thing. So, Harry’s saying, ‘Well, I should have been in that category.’ That is the ground on which the appeal will be heard. We’ll see what happens.”

William Brown is Regalrumination.com‘s royal reporter, based in London. You can find him on X (formerly ) at and read his stories on Regalrumination.com‘s

Do you have a question about Charles and Camilla, William and Princess Kate, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email Support@regalrumination.com. We’d love to hear from you.