Late Queen did want Harry to retain his official security

Queen Elizabeth II, the Duchess of Sussex and Duke of Sussex watch a Royal Air Force flypast right. Below Sir Edward Young

formally representing Her Majesty, they will be undertaking work that is closely associated with Her Majesty and which may appear to the public eye to be very similar to now.

“Of course, a number of these patronages have been granted to them by Her Majesty, which they will continue actively to fulfil. Her Majesty may from time to time invite the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to attend national royal occasions in their private capacity, and Her Majesty is likely to invite the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to participate in family events in keeping with other nonworking members of the family.”

On the matter of the Duke and Duchess’s ongoing security, he wrote: “You will understand well that ensuring that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain safe is of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family.

“Given the Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal family, his military service, the Duchess’s own independent profile and the well-documented history of targeting of the Sussex family by extremists, it is imperative that the family continues to be provided with effective security.

“And, of course, the family is mindful of tragic incidents of the past. The discussions to date, including with [the former chairman of Ravec], have been useful in making sure that the parameters of the Ravec process are well understood.

“Of course, Her Majesty and her family recognise that these are independent processes and decisions about the provision of publicly funded security are for the UK Government, the government of Canada and any other host government.”

The letter is in contrast to the picture Prince Harry painted of the Palace’s attitude to his security situation.

In interviews and autobiography, the Duke spoke of his distress and fear about life without his UK personal protection officers, describing it as the palace’s “obligation” and “implicit promise” to continue.

He was “desperate” to keep security after leaving the Royal family, he wrote in his autobiography, begging his late grandmother, father, brother and staff to continue armed police protection.

In a scene depicting the institution “wearing me down”, so hostile that Prince William “looked as if he planned to murder me”, he told them: “Meg and I don’t care about perks, we care about working,

his serving – and staying alive.”

The leading proposal under discussion called for “total abandonment”, he said. In the event, those present agreed – reluctantly, in his account – to continue a year-old trial period during which the Sussexes would retain their personal security.

The decision, of course, was not the Royal family’s to make. It falls to

Ravec, the independent committee at the centre of the Duke’s latest legal case.

After the summit, the Queen released one of her more moving statements, in which she said the Duke and Duchess would “always be much loved family members”.

The couple moved to Canada, where they received publicly funded security for a short time before learning it was to be pulled immediately, after which they sought out their new friend, Tyler Perry, who offered them refuge, including security, at his Californian home.

The Duke has historically not been fond of Sir Edward. In his he describes him as one of the three Palace “middle-aged white men who’d managed to consolidate power through a series of bold Machiavellian manoeuvres”.

Nicknaming him “The Bee”, he describes him as “oval-faced and fuzzy, and tended to glide around with great equanimity and poise, as if he was a boon to all living things”.

Blaming Sir Edward for preventing him from seeing his grandmother to argue the case over his exit in person, he writes: “To hell with The Bee. Who was he to try to block me?”

The Duke belatedly discovered that Sir Edward was involved in discussions about his security, taking a seat on the Ravec committee, at a court hearing last July last year when it emerged that he, along with the Earl of Rosslyn, the Master of Prince Charles’s household, had seats on the committee.

Harry has since argued that Sir Edward should not have been involved in the decision because of “significant tensions” between them.

Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office, replied that personal tensions between Prince Harry and Royal Household officials were “irrelevant” to his change in status when he stepped back from royal duties.

In the new royal biography, Omid Scobie, its author, writes: “Harry’s contention is that Young abused his gatekeeping power, gaslighting him when it came to passing along important messages about his lawsuits against the media, and then prohibiting access to his grandmother when Harry needed her the most, all under the guise of ‘protecting the sovereign’.”

The case is to go to trial next year.