Row over who will fund the Sussexes’ security drags on despite reports Home Office review already complete
The row over who should pay for the security of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex continued on 23 August 2026, despite claims that a Home Office-linked review into the matter had already concluded. Senior Labour figures gave conflicting views, with some, such as Dame Emily Thornberry, arguing Harry, Meghan and their children deserve protection given his royal status and public service, while others, including Lord Foulkes, insisted the wealthy couple should fund their own security privately. The issue matters because it touches on public spending, royal precedent and the strained relationship between Harry and the rest of the Royal Family, and comes just before the couple's reported return to the UK.
Reports suggested the risk management board of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) had already finished its assessment, with Harry said to have privately appealed to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for the outcome. A source close to the couple indicated their UK stay could last as little as six months, adding to the uncertainty. Estimates put the potential cost of security at around £5 million a year, while Number 10 has called the matter "private." Other non-working royals, such as Zara Tindall and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, do not receive police protection, a point critics have used to question any special arrangement for the Sussexes.
- Dispute continues over taxpayer funding for Sussexes' security detail
- Reports claim a Ravec/Home Office review is already complete
- Labour and Tory figures split; couple's UK stay may be temporary
New here? Start with this
The row over who pays for the security of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, has been running for several years, since they stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to the United States. Their automatic taxpayer-funded police protection was withdrawn, and Harry has separately been in a legal dispute over that decision. The current disagreement centres on whether they should receive UK police protection when visiting, and if so, who should pay for it.
Decisions on royal and VIP security are handled by a body linked to the Home Office, working with senior police and government figures, rather than being decided by the Royal Family itself. Politicians are divided: some argue Harry retains a claim to protection because of his birth and past royal role, while others say the couple, who are financially independent, should meet the cost themselves. The government has so far declined to discuss the details publicly.
The dispute matters because it sits at the intersection of public spending, security policy and the wider strained relationship between Harry and the rest of the Royal Family since his departure from official duties. It also feeds into broader questions about what obligations, if any, the state owes to former working royals and their families.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who believe the state should fund the Sussexes' protection argue that Harry remains the King's son and a former working royal whose status, bloodline and history of public service create a lasting, inherited threat profile that does not simply disappear when he steps back from official duties. They note that his wife and children share in this risk by association, that credible threats against the family have been documented in court proceedings, and that failing to protect them adequately could have tragic and irreversible consequences, echoing past criticisms of how the state safeguarded royal women. On this view, security is a matter of duty of care and national reputation rather than a reward for current service, and the roughly £5 million cost is modest against the risk of harm to internationally recognised figures.
The case against
Those who believe the Sussexes should fund their own security argue that public protection has traditionally been tied to active royal duties and constitutional roles, and that Harry and Meghan deliberately relinquished those responsibilities in favour of financial independence and commercial ventures. They point out that other non-working royals of comparable or closer lineage, such as Zara Tindall and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, receive no police protection despite living in the UK, so extending it to a couple who now reside abroad and visit only intermittently would set an inconsistent and costly precedent. On this view, taxpayers should not underwrite the security of wealthy private citizens who chose to step outside the institution, particularly at a time of pressure on public finances, and any such arrangement risks appearing to reward, rather than resolve, the couple's fraught relationship with the rest of the Royal Family.