Who will fund Harry and Meghan’s security when they’re living in the UK? Questions surface after Prince lost case over taxpayer-funded protection
Developed over time first seen 2 hours ago
Questions have emerged over who will pay for security for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after it was revealed they plan to live in the UK for an extended stay, six years after stepping back from royal duties. The uncertainty follows Harry's defeat earlier this year in a High Court and Court of Appeal challenge against the Home Office, in which he sought reinstatement of taxpayer-funded armed police protection during UK visits, arguing that threats against him had not diminished despite his change in status.
The couple's children, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, are reported to have already enrolled in a British school, and the family will reside at a non-royal property while retaining their status as private individuals. It remains unclear whether the Home Office has given any security assurances or whether additional costs might ultimately fall to the taxpayer. The move comes after the Sussexes' July visit to Highgrove, where Harry and Meghan and their children met King Charles and Queen Camilla, the King's first meeting with the children in four years, amid reports Harry hopes to repair ties with his father ahead of next year's Invictus Games in Birmingham.
- Harry and Meghan plan an extended UK stay after years in the US
- Unclear who will fund their security following Harry's failed legal challenge
- Move follows a secret family reunion with King Charles at Highgrove in July
New here? Start with this
Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to the United States, in part citing safety concerns. Since then, Harry has fought a lengthy legal battle over the level of police protection the family receives when they are in the UK, arguing that his private security arrangements are not equivalent to the government-funded protection given to working royals. He lost his latest court challenge over this issue.
The row centres on Ravec, the little-known Whitehall committee that decides who gets taxpayer-funded close protection in Britain, and on the broader question of who is responsible for guarding non-working members of the Royal Family. This matters because the couple are reported to be planning to spend more time in the UK, which revives the practical question of how their security would be organised and paid for, and by whom.
The story sits at the intersection of royal family relations, public spending and personal safety, and touches on long-running tensions between the Sussexes and the rest of the monarchy since their departure from official royal life.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for continued state-backed protection argue that royal-adjacent status carries enduring, unpredictable security risks that don't simply vanish when someone steps back from official duties. They point out that Harry and Meghan's global profile, their children's blood ties to the Crown, and documented threats make them a genuine target regardless of where they live or how they earn a living. On this view, safety is a matter of public duty and precedent, not personal privilege, and the tragic consequences of inadequate protection in the past show why erring on the side of caution matters, especially for a prince who may one day need to return to Britain freely and safely.
The case against
Those sceptical of taxpayer-funded protection argue that Harry and Meghan chose, of their own volition, to relinquish official royal duties and build independent, highly lucrative careers, and that public money should be reserved for those still actively serving the institution and the country. They note the courts have already examined this question and found no automatic entitlement to state security once someone steps outside the working royal fold. On this view, fairness to ordinary taxpayers, many of whom face their own financial strain, requires that private citizens who profit commercially from their royal connections should arrange and fund their own security, just as other wealthy public figures do.
More coverage