Duke’s Netflix series ‘put royals in danger’

Former head of protection to late Queen raises fears that documentary could inflame ‘fixated individuals’

THE Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Netflix documentary is putting the Royal family at risk from extremists, the former head of royalty protection has warned.

Dai Davies, a former divisional commander in the Metropolitan Police who guarded Queen Elizabeth II and other members of the Royal family, said the couple had raised a “credible threat” by criticising their relatives on race grounds. There’s a small minority that think Meghan walks on water,” he said. “I’ve always said there’s a greater risk from fixated individuals than from terrorists.

“Because their narrative has been attached to race to the extent it has, you could have those at the extreme end of the ‘taking the knee’ variety having a go at members of the Royal family.

“I really think it could create a small minority who might. I think it’s a credible threat.”

Mr Davies added: “Twice now [the King] has had eggs thrown at him. I was surprised the first time at the slowness of the reaction. I think it’s a real possibility they do face these sorts of incidents especially as the King and Queen Consort and the Prince and Princess of Wales are in such close contact with the public.”

He made the comments as George R Franks, associate professor at Stephen F Austin University in Texas and a former policeman, raised concerns that “the destructive and damaging comments and allegations” made by the Sussexes are putting the Royal family at risk.

He said: “I have been studying their increasingly tenacious attack on the character of the royals and the institution of the monarchy for the past several months with a growing concern for the safety of the members of the ‘working royals’, but also for the children of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

“I have experience with cases where individuals have committed or attempted to commit violent crimes in support of the cause of another towards whom they have become enamoured and protective,” he said.

“All we need is one individual becoming obsessed with creating a situation that would place Harry as the heir apparent, and we could have a disastrous outcome.”

Prof Franks cited the example of the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan by John Hinkley, motivated by his belief that his act would impress actress Jodie Foster, with whom he was obsessed.

In the first volume of the six-part Netflix series, the Sussexes complain they weren’t “protected” enough, despite being guarded around the clock by taxpayer-funded officers from the Metropolitan police’s SO14 division during their time in the Royal family.

The Duke also said members of his family questioned why the Duchess needed more protection from the media than their wives had, having failed to grasp the “race element”.

He also spoke of his family’s “huge level of unconscious bias”, which he said was “no one’s fault” but essential to “make right”. “In this family, sometimes you are part of the problem rather than

‘I’ve always said there is a greater risk from fixated individuals than terrorists. It is a credible threat’

part of the solution,” he added.

Afua Hirsch, a long-standing critic of the monarchy, referred to the Commonwealth in the programme as “Empire 2.0”, accusing Britain of having “extracted wealth” from countries that remain poor. Royal sources condemned the comments as “deeply offensive” to Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy.

Over the years, royal protection officers have been involved in several incidents. In January 1994, when Prince Charles was giving a speech in Sydney, a protester rushed the stage and fired two blank rounds from a starter’s pistol.

A poll for The Mail on Sunday, by findoutnow, found that 44 per cent of people think that the couple should lose their titles, while only 19 per cent disagreed.