Prince Harry and his family may be planning a return to the United Kingdom, a prospect that has reignited a contentious debate over who should bear the cost of their security. For years, Prince Harry has insisted on police protection for his family when visiting Britain. However, the British government and courts have consistently refused to provide this, citing the substantial cost, estimated at up to £5 million annually, and the fact that the couple no longer hold official royal duties.
Despite this official stance, rumors suggest the couple may be seeking a residence in the Cotswolds, leading to speculation that their security concerns might have been resolved. This has prompted questions about whether private assurances have been given or if the couple is confident the matter will be settled to their satisfaction.
Several recent developments have fueled these suspicions. Andy Burnham, speaking last week, described the couple's security arrangements as a "private matter" but did not rule out the possibility of taxpayer funding upon their return. Around the same time, a group of Labour MPs, including Dame Emily Thornberry, publicly suggested that the Duke and Duchess should receive police protection paid for by the public. Additionally, a new risk assessment for the Sussexes' security was reportedly completed just a month ago by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee.
These developments have led some observers to believe that the long-denied police protection might ultimately be granted, potentially influencing the couple's decision to return. If publicly funded security is provided, it is anticipated that there would be a significant public outcry. Polls indicate that a strong majority of the public believes the Sussexes should finance their own security. Many express dissatisfaction with the couple's departure from royal duties and their public comments about the UK and the Royal Family.
Prince Harry's past statements have also been scrutinized. In an interview in January 2023, he reportedly called for the Royal Family to apologize to Meghan, stating, "Because you know what you did, and I now know why you did it. And you’ve been caught out, so just come clean and we could then all move on." He added, "That’s the saddest part about it – it was all so avoidable. But they just couldn’t help themselves."
While the potential risks to Prince Harry are acknowledged, stemming from his military service and past statements about his time in Afghanistan, as well as specific threats in 2014 and 2019, the question remains whether private security is insufficient. The Sussexes reportedly pay approximately £2 million annually for private protection in the United States. Critics argue that if private security was deemed adequate there, a country with a higher incidence of gun violence, it should be sufficient in the UK.
Unlike in the U.S., private bodyguards in the UK are not permitted to carry firearms, though they can offer a degree of protection, similar to that used by figures like Nigel Farage. The cost of such private security is substantial, with Mr. Farage reportedly accepting a £5 million gift for his own protection.
Even if the Sussexes' financial resources have diminished due to legal liabilities, the ability to afford private security in the U.S. suggests it could be a viable option in the UK. Alternatively, King Charles could provide financial support from his private wealth, an act seen by some as a generous gesture given past criticisms directed at him by the couple.
However, the prevailing fear among some is that a decision has already been made in principle for taxpayers to fund their security. Such a move is expected to generate considerable public anger, particularly if the couple continues to decline royal duties while benefiting from public funds. This situation could further damage the popularity of the monarchy and lead to increased discord, potentially proving as controversial as their previous public actions.