A spokesman for Harry said it was “disappointing” the offer from the King had been “withdrawn at the last moment”, with the looming judgment in the duke’s case against Associated Newspaper on Tuesday given as the reason.
As exasperation appeared to grow on both sides, it is understood the duke initially turned down the offer for himself and his family, who are no longer accompanying him to London, on Saturday, before making a U-turn later in the day and asking to stay himself.
The appropriate hospitality and staffing provision was said to be no longer available, with Buckingham Palace also believing the longstanding legal case had complicated the matter, and could compromise the King’s constitutional position.
It is said that while every effort was made to facilitate Harry’s stay, as a courtesy to staff and others involved, the Household requires a minimum level of notice to ensure he could be hosted appropriately at a royal residence.
Harry and a group of other household names are set to find out on Tuesday whether they have won their High Court cases against the Daily Mail’s publisher, in an expected written ruling by Mr Justice Nicklin.
A spokesman for the duke said: “I am aware of multiple briefings from Buckingham Palace last week suggesting that the Duke had not accepted the offer of accommodation at a Royal Residence.
“Following RAVEC’s decision not to provide security for his family, the duke spent last week making alternative security arrangements.
“Once those arrangements were in place, he was able to formally accept the offer of accommodation for himself over the weekend.
“It is therefore disappointing that the offer has now been withdrawn, with Tuesday’s judgment in the Associated Newspapers Limited case cited as the reason.
“Buckingham Palace has, however, been aware of that judgment since last Thursday. It is therefore unclear why, having formally accepted the accommodation offer, it has now been withdrawn at the last moment.”
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.oxfordmail.co.uk ’
