King Charles aides have given a new shock to Prince Harry as he awaits the security review report by Ravec.
The Duke of Sussex - who left the UK and moved to the US in 2020 with wife, Meghan Markle has been fighting tooth and nail to get tax-payers funded security, so he can bring his family to his home country in future.
After facing disappointment in April of 2025, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) agreed in December of last year to have a detailed assessment into potential threats against The Duke of Sussex and his family.
Now, as the estranged son of King Charles waits Ravec's verdict, which is due later this month, a royal source has claimed that Buckingham Palace will have no say in the possible outcome of Harry's security review.
The source has also debunked the rumours that Palace could intervene, adding that it is "both unjust and inaccurate".
They continued, "The palace has no such powers within Ravec. While they sit on the committee it is not their role to advise on threat analysis or appropriate mitigation."
"That is for the actual intelligence and security experts to advise on — as of course they do whenever the duke’s visits to the UK are being reviewed under the existing Ravec process," added the insider.
Another tipster - who is closely looking at the proceedings claimed that "I have no idea what the RMB (risk management board) recommendation to Ravec (the Royal and VIP executive committee) will be, but what I do know with certainty is that neither does anyone else, since they are still undertaking the review."
"On that basis, claims that a decision is already ‘nailed on’ seem more like an attempt to manipulate the media into manifesting an outcome from what will be a fair and rigorous review, but one that is very much still ongoing," the insider noted.
They further suggested that "Whoever is behind them must not realise how transparent and counter-productive to proper process that is."
This update came just days before Harry's UK visit for the hearing of his High Court case against Associated Newspapers Limited, the owner of the Daily Mail.
