OPINION:
In 2004, Prince Harry, Mayfair nightclub stalwart extraordinaire, ended up in a scuffle with a photographer while making his, then bog standard, bleary early-hours exit to the waiting car. Clarence House said that Harry had been hit in the face while pushing a camera away, at which point the snapper's lip ended up cut. The photographer in question had a different version of events, saying that the royal had "lunged towards me as I was still taking pictures. He lashed out."
All in all, it was a highly unbecoming scene which suggested that too much testosterone, overproof rum and a festering dislike for the press can have messy consequences.
The moral of the story here is, Harry has never seemed the sort to back away from a bit of biff, be it an overly pushy paparazzo or the UK government.
This week it was revealed that the Duke of Sussex, Californian ratepayer and Hollywood aspirant, is squaring off against the Metropolitan Police Force back in the UK after they denied his request to privately hire the specialist, gun-carrying protection officers who look after the Prime Minister and the royal family.
The situation is this: In January 2020, the Sussexes abruptly announced they were quitting as senior working members of the royal family, simultaneously publishing a shiny new website outlining their new situation.
Only problem was, none of the details regarding their official roles representing the Queen, funding or security arrangements had been signed off by Her Majesty.
What followed was the Sandringham Summit where Harry chose to walk away from royal life holus-bolus.
And yet, it still seemed to come as a very rude shock to Harry that British taxpayers and the police force wouldn't continue to happily fund his around-the-clock security even after he and Meghan became private citizens and moved to a whole new continent.
At the time, we now know, Harry asked to retain the same security team but offered to pay for it, a request which was turned down by authorities.
Now it has emerged that lawyers acting for Harry have written to the Home Office saying they want a judicial review of that decision, with the Prince arguing that he is unable to return back to the UK because it is too dangerous.
(If this case goes ahead, it would be a historic and cruddy first: Never before has a member of the royal family and UK government ministers faced off in court.)
A spokesman for the Duke and Duchess, according to The Times, labelled the Home Office's decision-making as "unreasonable, opaque and inconsistent" and argued that they had taken "insufficient account of the Duke's position, undiminished threats and the impact on the UK's reputation of a senior member of the royal family being harmed on UK soil".
Now, it would be tempting to write this all off as a new week and therefore a new episode of the Sussexes petulantly airing their grievances.
But the last seven days have not been an ordinary week for the house of Windsor but a monumentally horrible one which saw Prince Andrew set to stand trial in a civil sex abuse case and his mother then consequently forced to essentially sack him.
And yet it was less than 48 hours after news broke that the Queen had stripped Prince Andrew of his military titles and patronages in the royal equivalent of a kneecapping that Harry doubled down on this latest outrage du jour.
To be clear, the Duke of Sussex first lodged the pre-action protocol for the possible judicial review back in September last year.
He has said that while he was provided with official protection when he returned to the UK for his grandfather Prince Philip's funeral in April 2021, when he also flew back in late June for the unveiling of a statue of his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, he was not.
During that second trip, he says, he was chased by photographers. It was in the wake of that incident that three months later in the northern autumn that he applied for a judicial review.
However, when the Mail on Sunday broke the news of all of this on the weekend did Harry, cognisant of the traumatic week his grandmother had, respond with some sort of simple confirmation?
Nope.
The Mail's assistant editor Kate Mansey has revealed that she initially approached the Sussexes' team about the piece but they did not comment. Then, several hours later, came a bullish statement from Harry's lawyer.
"The UK will always be Prince Harry's home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in," the legal representative said. "With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.
"Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.
"While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family."
For the Queen, a new Harry melodrama would surely be the last thing she wants or needs right now given the emotional toll of recent events.
According to the Times, while she "consulted" Prince Charles and Prince William over the move, ultimately it was her choice, one which caused her "genuine sadness". (In all of this too, and for the first time since his death last year, the Queen has been left to weigh up the situation without the counsel and support of Philip.)
"Never assume she just rubberstamps stuff," a courtier has said.
Writing in The Telegraph, royal biographer Anna Pasternak argued, "It must have been unbearable for the Queen … to have had to choose between being a monarch or a mother."
Even now, having finally pulled the pin, she is still reportedly distressed.
"[Andrew] is a continuing thorn in [the Queen's] side, which casts a massive shadow over the Platinum Jubilee – it's probably more than she can bear," a source has told the Times.
Don't forget that it was only a scant three months ago that the Queen experienced a mysterious health crisis which saw her briefly hospitalised and which forced her to cancel a number of red letter events, only for her to then, in November, sprain her back.
While since then there have been no more reports suggesting she is unwell, nor have there been any 'royal sources' popping up in the UK press trying to get the message out that she is hale and hearty.
The true state of her health might be unknown but what is clear is that very few 95-year-olds are still hard at it and working. At a time when most of her contemporaries are enjoying endless cups of tea and Corrie on repeat, she is still at it and trying to do her bit to keep the monarchy ticking along.
And yet, it is against this backdrop of family turmoil and strife that Harry decided to put out this bolshie statement which was always going to fan the media flames, dominate front pages and stoke controversy.
Unlike the rest of the world, the Queen is still enjoying her Christmas and New Year break and it will only be on February 6, the 70th anniversary of her ascension to the throne, that she is likely to return to public view.
Enjoy the break Ma'am, while you can. While Harry's pavement melees and Andrew's US jaunts with a convicted sex offender might be a thing of the past, given the former's impending tell-all memoir and the latter's trial, it is going to be a doozy of a year.
• Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles.
If you need a break from the slopes or don’t fancy a ski, there’s still a lot to do this.