The Duke of Sussex has successfully secured his long-contested right to automatic armed police protection funded by British taxpayers during his visits to the UK, according to sources close to the Sussexes. This information was shared with my knowledgeable colleague, Charlotte Griffiths, Editor at Large of The Mail on Sunday, last weekend.
These sources indicated that the decision followed a comprehensive risk assessment conducted by the Government’s Royal and VIP Executive Committee. They remarked that the reinstatement of such security measures is now a mere formality, with Home Office insiders confirming that Prince Harry’s protection is effectively guaranteed.
This development has garnered some supportive media attention. For instance, Daily Telegraph columnist Celia Walden opined that restoring Prince Harry’s security is justified, noting that being the King’s son is beyond his control.
A favorable ruling for the duke, anticipated in the coming weeks, might pave the way for a reunion between King Charles and his grandchildren, Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, four, who reside in California.
However, the initial removal of his automatic police protection was based on sound reasoning, and its reinstatement is viewed by some as a potential misstep. This sentiment is echoed by several Palace insiders who believe it could pose significant challenges for the monarchy’s future.
Harry and Meghan lost their automatic armed police protection after stepping back from royal duties to pursue opportunities in North America. Their relocation meant that British security protocols no longer applied to them, regardless of the level of threat they faced.
As the King said in his first address to the nation as monarch: ‘I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.’
Automatic armed police protection is available only to those who live here. That is why Harry’s offer to pay for the protection was immediately dismissed: he wasn’t entitled to it regardless of who was paying. And it’s why he lost his legal appeal against the Home Office decision.
As I have reported in the past, Harry plans to spend more time back in his homeland and, in the longer term, would like his children to be educated here.
Prince Harry has won his battle to secure round-the-clock armed police protection in Britain
But that does not change the fact that he and Meghan would still be based in the US.
The couple are already entitled to armed police protection when they make return visits to Britain, but it is not automatic. They need to give 30 days’ notice of their visit so potential threats can be assessed.
Forcing hard-pressed British taxpayers to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds paying for security for the Sussexes would cause outrage. This is a couple so rich that Harry was able to make a personal donation of £1.1million to Children in Need on his last visit to Britain in September.
Crucially, if their automatic protection is restored here, it might mean they are entitled to the status of ‘internationally protected persons’ under international law (the implications of which would be for the Government or the courts to determine). This could see American taxpayers having to pay for their security in the US, which is hardly likely to enhance their popularity across the Atlantic.
It would, however, mean they are under less pressure financially. Viewers of their explosive 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey might recall Harry moaning that they had been forced to seek lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify because the funding for their security had been cut.
Not only would taxpayers be alarmed by a ruling in Harry’s favour, but it would open a can of worms for the Royal Family.
He complained in his Oprah Winfrey interview with Meghan that they had been forced to seek lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify because the funding for their security had been cut
At the moment, ‘working royals’ – such as the King’s siblings, Princess Anne and Prince Edward – are entitled to protection only when carrying out public engagements. It would be bizarre for Harry and Meghan, who carry out no public duties, to have round-the-clock protection but not the working royals.
A victory for Harry would mean he had partly achieved what he and Meghan always wanted: to be ‘half-in, half-out’ royals. They would have the major perk of automatic taxpayer-funded protection but none of the obligations of public service.
They could carry on trying to make their fortune, promoting the former actress’s lifestyle business, As Ever, and making further controversial television shows.
They would also be free to establish a rival ‘royal court’ in Britain, diverting attention from the real royals such as Prince William and Catherine, who are dutifully trying to continue their family’s dedication to public service, not profit.
‘A win for Harry and Meghan would change everything,’ warns a friend of the royals.
It’s not too late to think twice before the flagging Sussexes are given an unwelcome boost by the British Establishment.
Sign up for the Palace Confidential newsletter here.
