Prince Harry’s attempt to secure taxpayer-funded security for his family may face rejection due to concerns from the Home Office about potential public disapproval.

Harry has argued that he, along with Meghan and their children, should be granted official police protection during visits to the UK.

After stepping back from their royal roles, the couple lost the publicly funded security that is provided to senior members of the royal family.

The prince has expressed concerns about the safety of his family without such protections in place.

Consequently, his children, Archie, now six, and Lilibet, four, have not had the opportunity to see their grandfather, the King, since their visit to the UK for the late Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in February 2022.

Last year, Harry’s legal attempt to have his security reviewed was unsuccessful, and he has implied that he was a victim of what he described as an “establishment stitch-up.”

But despite the High Court loss, his direct appeal to then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper led to his request being assessed again anyway by the body which authorises security for senior royals, The Royal and VIP Executive Committee (commonly known as Ravec). 

He had called on Ms Cooper to review the case ‘very, very carefully’ and added: ‘I would ask the Prime Minister to step in.’ 

Prince Harry (left) could fail in his high profile bid for taxpayer-funded security because the Home Office apparently fears a public backlash if it is granted

As recently as last month, with police and security chiefs apparently agreeing that Harry must be protected, reinstatement of his protection looked assured with it expected to be rubber stamped within weeks. 

But it has been reported today that senior civil servants on Ravec from the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office are all against granting the protection, fearing the public’s adverse reaction to the taxpayer having to foot the bill for the Sussexes’ security. 

While a final decision has yet to be made, a Home Office source told today’s Telegraph that there had been a split on the board. 

With the cost of any protection likely to run into millions should it be granted and if and when the family visit the UK, the source said: ‘There is nervousness among certain members of the committee who fear a public backlash. 

‘The political side believe there is too much political risk while the police and security chiefs believe that he absolutely must have it due to the extant threat.’

Since Harry and Meghan’s departure from the UK in 2020, when the Metropolitan Police stopped providing security for the couple, they have been responsible for their own security which would include round the clock security at their estate in Montecito, California, and security for visits overseas. 

Harry dramatically claimed in the couple’s sensational tell all Oprah interview in 2021 that the Royal Family had cut them off financially when they quit the UK, meaning they would need to fund their own lifestyle in future. 

But it has been the failure of UK authorities to guarantee official protection for the couple and their family when they come to or choose to come to the UK that has rankled with Harry the most. 

Prince Harry and Meghan (pictured) were stripped of automatic taxpayer-funded police protection on their visits to Britain after they chose to quit royal duties

Security experts suggested at the time that their annual security bill for protection in and around their home alone which would be similar to that of a Hollywood star could easily top $3 million. Overseas visits could also cost them much more in security. 

On some overseas visits, including one to Colombia in 2024, their security costs have been met by the home country. 

But the UK government will be aware that even on that trip, authorities were criticised for spending an estimated $2 million to cover the pair’s security costs while many of the country’s residents struggled with poverty.

Harry has argued that his threat level, which was last assessed in April 2019 when a full risk assessment deemed him such a high profile target because of his status and military background that he was put in the highest risk category, is still severe. 

During his High Court action, which the Home Office successfully opposed, his lawyers argued that his ‘manifestly inferior’ security has put his life ‘at stake.’

Currently, Harry’s official UK security is decided on a case by case basis with Harry asked to inform the Met thirty days before arriving in the country in order to apply for a security review. 

He has also cited recent threats he endured while in London from a female ‘stalker’ who managed to get close to him on two occasions within days of each other as evidence of the constant threat he faces. 

She managed to enter a ‘secure zone’ at a children’s charity event at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London, last September when he had been granted police protection for one day. 

But when it was when he was without police protection days later at Imperial College, London, that the same woman got within a ‘stone’s throw’ of him and attempted to approach him. 

She was allegedly only prevented from doing so by a member of Harry’s private security team. 

A government spokesperson said today: ‘The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.’