‘I would like that person’s name’

Prince Harry demanded to know the person responsible for downgrading his UK police protection when he and his wife, Meghan Markle, were stripped of their security in Feb. 2020.

On Wednesday, the Duke of Sussex, 39, lost his bid for taxpayer-funded UK security protection for his family and will now have to pay out of pocket for his family’s security when visiting the UK.

Court documents have revealed that Harry even asked for the identity of who demoted the level of his personal protection on home soil.

“I would like that person’s name,” Harry said, according to the 52-page ruling published Wednesday.

Sir Peter Lane, the judge of the High Court in London, ruled that there was no unlawfulness in the initial decision to strip the Sussexes of their security.

Harry could now potentially be made to foot a large bill to reimburse taxpayers’ legal costs after he was unable to prove that he had been treated “unfairly.”

The exiled royal argued that he was not given the “same degree” of protection after quitting royal life, and even compared his situation to the dangers his late mother, Princess Diana, faced before her tragic death in 1997.

Harry told a hearing that security concerns were preventing him from visiting his home turf.

However, Judge Lane said that “there is no merit in this contention.”

“The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children,” Harry last year told the court in a written statement read out by his lawyers. “That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe.”

“I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too,” he added.

The court found that any departure from the policy was justified and that the decision was not influenced by unfairness.

At the ruling, the High Court judge slammed Harry’s claim that he was entitled to a full risk analysis by the Risk Management Board (RMB).

“The claimant had no right to require RAVEC to initiate a fresh RMB process in the light of his changed situation,” Judge Lane said.

“In determining what fairness demands in this context, it is important to understand that undergoing an RMB assessment is not a right or even a benefit. It is, as Sir James Eadie KC (for the Home Office) submits, an analytical tool.”

“I do not consider that there was any procedural unfairness, such as might vitiate the decision,” he added.

The case was held in private over privacy concerns.