Prince Harry has been accused of hypocrisy after attacking the Royal Family for not providing him and his family security in the UK, despi...
Prince Harry has been accused of hypocrisy after attacking the Royal Family for not providing him and his family security in the UK, despite travelling to multiple crime-ridden and war-struck areas.
After losing his battle for taxpayer-funded armed police bodyguards when in the UK - putting him on the hook for £1.5million in costs - he has called on the Home Secretary to step in and review the body which authorises protection for senior royals.
The Duke of Sussex was told that his 'grievance' over downgraded security had not 'translated into a legal argument' to successfully challenge the decision.
Despite this, as revealed exclusively by MailOnline, Meghan and Harry took their son Archie to the Cuixmala estate in Jalisco, an area where there are high levels of crime and kidnapping.
This was reported after Meghan posted a photo of Archie on Instagram for his sixth birthday.
The US State Department has a travel advisory in place to Americans to 'reconsider' travel to Jalisco due to violent crime, gang activity and kidnapping in the state.
In April the prince met with dozens of wounded soldiers in Lviv, Ukraine, a city which has been pummeled by Russian jets, missiles and kamikaze drones at least 30 times since the war began.
At least 33 people are believed to have lost their lives in bombings in the city since 2022.
In one attack last year seven people were killed and 50 were injured when Russia attacked with drones and hypersonic missiles. The last attack was in November.
Back in the UK Harry's barrister claimed the prince, who is believed to have earned $120million from Netflix and Spotify and lives in a $15million Montecito mansion, must have his full taxpayer-funded bodyguards restored when in the UK because his 'life is at stake'.
His lawyers said 'Al Qaeda called for the duke to be murdered' saying 'his assassination would please the Muslim community'.
Harry is the most senior royal to visit Ukraine but is not believed to have informed Buckingham Palace in advance of his trip. It is also been branded 'highly political' in view of Donald Trump's policy on Ukraine.
Veteran royal correspondent and commentator Richard Palmer said: 'The reaction has been uniform. People are saying "hang on he's come over because he needs police protection because he's not safe in the UK. But then he's gone to a warzone in Ukraine".'
'While the city is not on the frontline - it is getting regular bombardments so it is quite a dangerous place to go.'
The visit to the area in western Ukraine was not announced until after Harry was out of the country.
Fury at 'hypocrite' Prince Harry's trip to Ukraine, a day after complaining the UK is 'unsafe'
In October Harry visited the small mountain kingdom of Lesotho, South Africa, on a solo tour of the region.
Harry's connection with Lesotho, a nation of 2.3million surrounded by South Africa, began when he visited after leaving school and worked with orphaned children.
The area has a high crime rate where foreigners are frequently targeted, robbed and have been car-jacked and killed, according to the US Travel Advisory.
US citizens have reported incidents – including sexual assault, armed and unarmed confrontation, and home invasion – occurring in broad daylight.
One British former royal protection officer, who served Harry's family for several years, told MailOnline: 'They have chosen to visit one, if not the most, dangerous countries in the world. But nothing amazes me [with Harry and Meghan] these days.'
They were there on the invitation of the country’s vice-president, Francia Márquez.
The UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office 'advises against all but essential travel to parts of Colombia'.
The US Department of State issued a travel advisory for Colombia stating: 'Reconsider travel due to crime and terrorism. Exercise increased caution due to civil unrest and kidnapping. Some areas have increased risk.'
The trip was about promoting their charity work and trying to make the internet safer for children, according to the Sussexes.
They spent the first two days talking to activists, experts and school children about the impact of social media on young people and took part in a summit on internet safety.
But their trip was not entirely received with open arms, as local media accused their quasi-royal tour of costing Colombia upwards of $1.5 million through security expenses.
The £375,000 a day cost involved 3,000 police and soldiers, plus helicopters, sniffer dogs, bomb disposal units and an ever-present guard armed with a ballistic briefcase or bulletproof shield just in case of a sniper attack.
The security cost to a country facing huge socio-economic problems - a third live below the poverty line - enraged many, including the security chief of the city of Cali council.
Writing on X under a report on the security cost by CW Noticias, Andres Escobar, said: 'Billions that could have been used to expand coverage of children's canteens, pay salaries of community mothers, seed capital for Afro communities or adapt sports venues practically in ruins.'
After the accusations were made, Harry and Meghan said they financed their own travel expenses, alongside some funding from international agencies.
Ex- Royal protection officer questions presidential security arrangements for the Sussex as Nigeria rolls out the red carpet for Sussexes
El Pais, a Spanish outlet, reported that the Colombian Ministry of Equality and Equity said: 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex financed their trip and that of their team with their own resources.'
In 2023 the homicide rate for Colombia was around 25.7 per 100,000, placing Colombia among the highest in South America.
It was their second overseas visit in just a few months, having travelled to Nigeria earlier the same year.
In May 2023 the Sussexes went on a 72-hour whistlestop tour of Nigeria, the ninth most dangerous country in Africa.
Former royal protection officer Dai Davies said: ‘Seeing all his presidential style security really does stick in the throat.
‘For a couple who say all they want is privacy to visit one of the most dangerous places in the world and that’s not me saying that, it’s the Foreign office as well, is crazy and you have to wonder why.
‘It would have been much safer and easier if wounded Nigerian soldiers were flown to London instead of having all this security and a vast expense to a country where many are living on less than £1.50 a day.
‘You have to ask yourself is it really all about the charities or is it the Harry and Meghan show.’
The exclusive 30,000-acre Mexican retreat where Prince Archie's sixth birthday picture was taken
For their 72-hour ‘private trip’ Harry and Meghan have their own four-man security team which they have paid for themselves, and Nigeria is providing its own protection at a massive expense.
After the visit to General Musa which lasted an hour, the couple met the wives of military personnel who had been waiting outside and at one point they were almost overwhelmed by the crowd.
Harry travelled alone when he visited a military hospital in Kaduna, a region dubbed a no-go zone by the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office.
He flew to the hospital around 120 miles northwest of Abuja and apologised on his arrival that he had left Meghan back in the capital of the West African country.
After being welcomed by dancers on a red carpet, Harry told the audience: 'I'm sorry that I didn't bring my wife.
'The focus here in Kaduna is the wounded, injured and sick men and women who serve in Nigerian forces and keep people safe.'
Kaduna is one of the country's most dangerous states, with nearly 2,000 abductions recorded in 2020, as well as reports of sexual violence including rape.
The UK Foreign Office advises against all travel to the area, which is partly ruled by armed bandits.
And it's not just foreign visits that raise eyebrows when it comes to Harry risking his own security.
Prince Harry reportedly took an 'unimaginable security risk' by ordering a Deliveroo takeaway during a boys' evening - despite moaning his safety is at stake in the UK.
It has been alleged that a Deliveroo driver arrived at his friend Lord Charles Vivian's £8million London townhouse with food during a get-together last May.
This is despite high-profile figures usually avoiding such deliveries for safety reasons, The Sun on Sunday has reported.
Princess Diana's former protection officer Ken Wharfe described the move as an 'unthinkable security risk'.
He said: 'It's unbelievable that such a high-profile person, who considers themselves to be such a high-security risk, would allow themselves to have a Deliveroo driver arrive at a house with no idea of who they are and what they might be carrying in their bag. It's just unthinkable.'
Mr Wharfe also questioned why Harry would have the 'audacity' to moan about his lack of security if he is seemingly willing to take such risks.
Despite Harry claiming 'the other side has won in keeping me unsafe', his travel itinerary of the last year seems to suggest he feels safer in war zones and places of political unrest than his own birth country.
No comments