Former home secretary David Blunkett stated that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should be granted limited, temporary royal security as their relocation plans in the UK develop. Blunkett suggested that the level of security could be adjusted over time based on the perceived threat.
This proposed 'middle-ground' arrangement would involve one or two protection officers accompanying Harry and Markle, which Blunkett described as a 'perfectly reasonable' temporary offer. He outlined three tiers of security: a full 24-hour detail with vehicles, a middle tier with a few officers, and a basic level with a security-trained driver.
The discussion arises amid ongoing debate about whether UK taxpayers should fund the couple's security, an expense estimated to cost up to £5 million annually. Some politicians have voiced differing opinions on the matter. Labour's Dame Emily Thornberry argued that Harry, Markle, and their children, Archie and Lilibet, 'deserved to be safe' due to the risks associated with their public profile and Harry's royal status. Conversely, Labour peer Lord Foulkes asserted that security was a 'private matter' for the wealthy couple to fund themselves.
Confusion has also emerged regarding the duration of the couple's potential UK stay, with a source close to the couple indicating it could be as short as six months. A review by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), which manages security for prominent figures in Britain, is reportedly concluded, with Prince Harry having 'privately pleaded' with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for a favorable outcome.
Other non-working royals, including Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, Princesses Beatrice, and Eugenie, do not receive police protection. The Home Office has stated it does not comment on private security arrangements.