4<\/p>\n Prince Harry with burly bodyguard Christopher Sanchez on visit to London last MayCredit: Alamy 4<\/p>\n Lord Charles Vivian, second from left, pictured with Prince Harry and palsCredit: Netflix 4<\/p>\n Lord Vivian is one of Harry\u2019s oldest matesCredit: Tavistock<\/p>\n But The Sun on Sunday<\/a> can reveal he took an \u201cunthinkable\u201d security risk on a lads\u2019 evening with posh pal Lord Charles Vivian last May.<\/p>\n A Deliveroo<\/a> driver arrived at his friend\u2019s \u00a38million townhouse in London\u2019s Chelsea with food, despite royals and high-profile figures usually avoiding such deliveries for safety reasons.<\/p>\n It comes after Harry\u2019s incendiary attack on his family after the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision<\/a> to throw out his claim for 24\/7 gun cop security when he visits the UK.<\/p>\n Harry, who quit for the US in 2020, said: \u201cThe other side have won in keeping me unsafe.\u201d<\/p>\n READ MORE ON PRINCE HARRY’Unthinkable’<\/p>\n Princess Diana\u2019s former protection officer Ken Wharfe told The Sun on Sunday last night: \u201cIt\u2019s unbelievable that such a high-profile person, who considers themself to be such a high-security risk, would allow themselves to have a Deliveroo<\/a> driver arrive at a house with no idea of who they are and what they might be carrying in their bag.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s just unthinkable.\u201d<\/p>\n He added: \u201cIf he is still able to go to friends\u2019 houses and allow Deliveroo to turn up at the door and then have the audacity to moan about his lack of security that is a very unintelligent thing to do.\u201d<\/p>\n It is believed Harry wanted his International Protected Persons status reinstated after it was removed when he and Meghan quit as working royals in 2020.<\/a><\/p>\n That would have meant foreign governments coughing up for his security whenever he visited.<\/p>\n After the court decision, he moaned of his family: \u201cNot only did they decide to remove my security in the UK, but they also signalled to every government around the world not to protect us.\u201d<\/p>\n Obsessive Harry is stubborn & always thinks he’s right… security row shows Charles can’t trust him, royal expert says<\/p>\n Harry, 40, visited Britain at least three times last year, including a dash to his dad after his cancer diagnosis<\/a> in February and a trip to his uncle\u2019s funeral in Norfolk in August with brother William.<\/p>\n On May 8, he attended a 10-year anniversary event for his Invictus Games<\/a> at St Paul\u2019s Cathedral. Two of his US security guards sat inside. He then visited Lord Vivian\u2019s home that evening.<\/p>\n The 58-year-old is one of Harry\u2019s oldest mates, seen among a \u201cBand of Brothers\u201d in a photo during his six-part Netflix<\/a> show.<\/p>\n Harry and his team were offered the chance to stay at Buckingham Palace<\/a>, where he would have had full royal cops\u2019 protection.<\/p>\n You can\u2019t say you can\u2019t come to the UK because it\u2019s so dangerous and then have anyone turning up at the door with a takeaway.<\/p>\n Dai Davies<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But instead – along with a private US bodyguard – he opted for the luxury<\/a> of the five-star Coworth Park resort, near Windsor.<\/p>\n Harry told the BBC that he \u201ccan\u2019t see a world\u201d where he could bring Meghan and their children Archie and Lilibet to the UK.<\/p>\n It is not believed the Court of Appeal<\/a> was aware of the takeaway delivery amid his pleas that he was unsafe in the UK.<\/p>\n Dai Davies, former head of Scotland<\/a> Yard\u2019s Royal Protection Command, said: \u201cYou can\u2019t say you can\u2019t come to the UK because it\u2019s so dangerous and then have anyone turning up at the door with a takeaway.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s indicative of this nonsense that he doesn\u2019t feel safe. <\/p>\n \u201cIf he was that concerned about his safety he would stay in one of the Royal Palaces while he\u2019s here.\u201d<\/p>\n MY VIEW: MATT WILKINSON<\/p>\n ANGRY Harry is back and he has set doused the olive branch tree in petrol and set it on fire.<\/p>\n There were a few brief hours yesterday when mood music from the palace was towards potential reconciliation.<\/p>\n The King was genuinely privately frustrated and upset that Harry and his supporters had spread the myth that he didn\u2019t care about the safety of his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren.<\/p>\n It would have been constitutionally improper for the King to intervene in the case, despite what Harry and his clueless legal team believed.<\/p>\n But with a four-year court struggle done and dusted the palace had hoped the verdict whichever want it went meant the Court of Montecito could move forwards in a constructive manner.<\/p>\n While the door had been shut, as the King did not want to talk to his son during the court case for obvious prejudicial reasons, it had not been locked and the key not thrown away.<\/p>\n But in a few short hours the angry Prince clearly given terrible advice by a team that won\u2019t say \u2018no\u2019, failed to read the room.<\/p>\n You cannot even blame the impetuous of youth. This man is 40-year-old who behaves like a toddler when he doesn\u2019t get his own way.<\/p>\n One source told me half-jokingly that they would have paid for Harry\u2019s security just to stop him doing that BBC interview.<\/p>\n The Royal Family succeeds when there is no drama or when the drama is at least controllable. But when Harry is angry he is out of control.<\/p>\n It is yet again Harry who brings that unneeded drama to the doors of Buckingham Palace.<\/p>\n We were told outbursts like this were a thing of the past.<\/p>\n This has Oprah Winfrey-vibes. A loose cannon errant son making unfabricated claims with a weak interviewer who fails to challenge a wild speaking prince. And a stunned palace impotent to respond to every single accusation.<\/p>\n The Royals have tried everything with immature Harry since 2016. They started by giving him what he wants, then sending him to his room, even kicking him out the house, and finally for the last few years giving the silent treatment in the hope by ignoring him he cries himself out and grows up.\u00a0<\/p>\n Just when there was an opportunity for Harry to behave like an adult Prince of the Realm and show some class he regresses to spoilt young brat he may truly be at heart.<\/p>\n There has been a saying going the rounds that there are very few olive branches left on the olive branch tree.<\/p>\n After summoning the BBC to vent his fury the olive tree is on fire and burning out of control. It will take a long time to see if anything can be rescued from the embers.<\/p>\n It is not the only occasion where Harry has appeared relaxed about his safety. <\/p>\n He flagged down a taxi to attend a court case against the Daily Mail in 2023. <\/p>\n He was not compelled by the court to attend.<\/p>\n In a two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal last month, Harry\u2019s barristers said his \u201clife was at stake\u201d as they demanded full-time royal protection.<\/a><\/p>\n He spends millions of pounds on bodyguards in the US and when he flies back to the UK.<\/p>\n Many of his security team come from TorchStone Global which boasts on its website of its expertise in protecting the wealthy.<\/p>\n Both Harry and Meghan have been shielded on Invictus Games trips to Germany<\/a> and Netherlands<\/a> by burly security guard Christopher Sanchez, who used to protect former President Barack Obama<\/a>.<\/p>\n Ex-royal protection officer David Langdown is also regularly by Harry\u2019s side. <\/p>\n He was seen wielding a Glock gun box as he left a New York<\/a> hotel with Harry before a TV appearance in January 2023 to plug his book Spare.<\/p>\n He has made a terrible mistake and was ill-advised to pursue it.<\/p>\n Ken Wharfe<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Locals in Harry and Meghan\u2019s home town of Montecito, California<\/a>, have also complained about heavily-armed security driving around in blacked-out vehicles.<\/p>\n Meghan has not set foot in the UK after attending the late Queen\u2019s funeral in September 2022.<\/p>\n Harry claimed in his BBC interview<\/a>: \u201cThe only time I\u2019ve come back to the UK is sadly for funerals or court cases, with the odd charitable function where I can in between that.<\/p>\n \u201cI put myself at risk for that but I will continue on with a life of public service so I will always support the charities and the people that mean so much to me.<\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point, and the things that they\u2019re going to miss is well, everything.\u201d<\/p>\n He also complained that his father was not speaking to him.<\/p>\n ‘Protection they deserve’<\/p>\n But sources close to Charles suggest him intervening in the four-year court case would have been \u201cconstitutionally improper\u201d.<\/p>\n![\"Prince](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/2024-prince-harry-duke-sussex-991736942.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Black](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/16afaacf-b447-4519-be70-d993b59c6867.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Headshot](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/charles-vivian-partner-past-30-991736061.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
![\"Deliveroo](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/JBET33jpg-JS573801142.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n