Prince Harry has expressed disappointment after an offer for him to stay at Buckingham Palace during his visit to Britain was reportedly withdrawn.
According to the BBC, the Duke of Sussex will no longer stay at the Palace this week, despite his spokesperson previously saying on Monday that he had accepted an invitation to do so.
The report claimed that Harry had not formally responded to the offer of royal accommodation at a royal residence by the given deadline. He was reportedly informed over the weekend that he could no longer stay at Buckingham Palace in central London.
Royal expert Emily Ferguson also commented on the matter on X, formerly Twitter, writing: “Prince Harry will NOT be staying at Buckingham Palace while he is in London this week, despite reports from his team that he would be.”
NEW: Prince Harry will NOT be staying at Buckingham Palace while he is in London this week, despite reports from his team that he would be.
— Emily Ferguson (@emilyinpalace) July 6, 2026
It is understood that he had declined the offer, even at the last minute decided he would like to stay at the royal residence.
However…
She also shared a statement from Prince Harry’s team following the Palace’s confirmation that he would not be staying there.
In the statement, the Duke’s team expressed “disappointment” over the decision to withdraw the offer, saying: “It is unclear why, having formally accepted the accommodation offer, it has now been withdrawn at the last moment.”
Prince Harry’s team added: “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.”
The statement continued: “It is therefore disappointing that the offer has now been withdrawn, with Tuesday’s judgment in the Associated Newspapers Limited case cited as the reason.”
