Prince Harry may be using the Taylor Swift case to keep the UK safe

Prince Harry’s legal team could follow Taylor Swift’s lead in overturning a legal decision about the royal’s security.

When Swift performed her record-breaking sold-out shows at Wembley Stadium in August, she was escorted by police to the Eras Tour concerts. This came in the wake of a serious security issue: a terrorist attack that led to the cancellation of three of their Eras Tour dates in Austria.

Harry, 40, is embroiled in a dispute over a ruling handed down in February that would remove the automatic right to security for him and his family. The first decision was made in February 2020 when he and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back from their roles as working royals.

Harry has been bringing the matter to court for more than four years. He lost an initial decision in April but is appealing and the case is scheduled to be heard in spring 2025.

A source familiar with the situation tells PEOPLE that the prince wants to “ensure the safety of himself and his family during his stay in the United Kingdom, so that his children can experience his homeland” and work with his charities without fear.

“The government’s decision to provide Taylor Swift with armed police escorts during her performances at Wembley Stadium in August 2024 highlights significant inconsistencies in the way protection decisions are made by UK authorities and raises questions about transparency and consistency of the process,” says the source.

“Obviously Prince Harry is treated completely differently than everyone else,” the insider continues.

The source adds that the case “shows the need for a more systematic and transparent approach to protection decisions to ensure both public safety and the equitable use of security resources.”

The development was reported for the first time The Daily Telegraph on Friday, November 29th.

The Metropolitan Police previously said in a statement to PEOPLE: “The Met is operationally independent. Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of the threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each individual case.”

“It is our long-standing position that we do not comment on the specific details of security arrangements,” the Metropolitan Police continued.

The situation has exacerbated his estrangement from his father, King Charles. When Harry was in Britain in May, he wanted to discuss the issue with Charles, who he believes has the power to restore security to its previously high levels. (Buckingham Palace will not comment on security arrangements, but a palace source previously told PEOPLE that the suggestion that Harry’s safety was in Charles’ hands was “completely false.”)

Can’t get enough of PEOPLE’s royals coverage? Subscribe to our free Royals newsletter to get the latest updates on Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle and more!

People close to Harry point out that he served two tours in Afghanistan, making him the target of terrorist threats, and that his family faced domestic extremist threats. His team argues that his threat level has not changed regardless of his non-working role within the royal family.

Neil Basu, a former head of counter-terrorism at the Metropolitan Police, has spoken out about the fact that Meghan faced serious threats during her stay in the UK, pointing out that both Harry and Meghan are among the highest within the royal family Risk assessments mattered.

“Harry’s military service, his global recognition, and his marriage to a mixed-race woman all contribute to his high threat level,” Basu told PEOPLE in July.

The security downgrade for Harry and Meghan was ultimately implemented by a committee called RAVEC. Its members include the Home Office (the British version of Homeland Security), the Metropolitan Police and the Royal Household. Although the king has no direct connection to RAVEC, his employees sit on the committee. A government spokesman said earlier this year that they provide “strict and proportionate” security and do not reveal details “as this could compromise their integrity and affect the safety of individuals.”