Poll finds 71% oppose public funding for Sussexes’ security
Developing story first seen 3 hours ago
A new poll shows that most Britons are opposed to taxpayers funding security for Prince Harry and Meghan as the couple prepare to move back to the UK, with additional details now emerging about the King's reaction to the news and the wider political response. King Charles is reported to have been taken aback when he learned of the Sussexes' homecoming plans only days before they were announced, despite meeting Harry during a UK visit last month. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's deputy, Andy Burnham, has declined to comment on the funding row, calling the couple's security arrangements a "private matter."
The YouGov survey of 2,128 British adults found that 71% believe the Government should not pay for the family's protection, 87% said the Sussexes' private funds should cover all or most of the cost, and 52% suggested King Charles's private wealth should contribute. Security costs have been estimated at up to £5 million a year, with a review by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) reported to have concluded last month. The couple, whose children Archie and Lilibet are due to start at British schools in September, are expected to live outside London, possibly in the Cotswolds, and other non-working royals such as Zara Tindall and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie do not currently receive police protection.
- 71% of Britons oppose taxpayer funding for Sussexes' security
- King reportedly surprised by return news before announcement
- PM's office calls security funding a "private matter"
New here? Start with this
King Charles was reportedly caught off guard by news of Harry and Meghan's UK homecoming, having been told only days before it became public despite seeing Harry during a recent visit. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and have lived mainly in the United States since, losing their taxpayer-funded police protection in the process. They are now said to be planning a return, with their children Archie and Lilibet due to start school in Britain, likely somewhere outside London such as the Cotswolds.
The central issue is who should pay for the family's security once they are back living in the UK, given the personal risks associated with high-profile royals. Estimates put the cost of round-the-clock protection at up to £5 million a year, and a body called the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, which assesses threats to public figures and decides on protection, is reported to have reviewed the matter. Other non-working royals, including Zara Tindall and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, do not currently receive police protection, which is part of why the question of public funding for the Sussexes has become contentious.
This matters because it touches on wider debates about the cost of the monarchy to taxpayers, the boundaries between public and private royal life, and the relationship between the Sussexes and the rest of the Royal Family since their departure from official duties. Political figures, including government ministers, have been drawn into the discussion, reflecting how sensitive the topic has become beyond royal circles alone.
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 help fund the Sussexes' protection argue that royal security is fundamentally a duty-of-care and national-security matter, not a popularity contest, and should be assessed on threat level alone, as Ravec is designed to do. Harry and Meghan's children are direct descendants of the King and carry an inherited risk profile regardless of their parents' working status, and skimping on protection to save money could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences if an attack occurred on British soil. Advocates also note that the Sussexes previously had police protection removed and that reinstating a proportionate, needs-based arrangement need not be a blank cheque, but simply consistent, professional risk management applied evenly to anyone bearing the royal surname and its associated dangers.
The case against
Those opposed to public funding argue that Harry and Meghan voluntarily relinquished their working royal roles and now earn substantial private income from books, documentaries and commercial deals, so it is reasonable to expect them to fund their own security just as other non-working royals such as Zara Tindall and the York princesses already do. They see it as a matter of fairness and fiscal responsibility, especially amid pressures on public services, arguing taxpayers should not underwrite the lifestyle choices of individuals who have stepped back from public duty and, at times, been openly critical of the institution that would still be funding them. This view holds that means-tested or wholly private funding would respect the couple's stated wish for independence while preserving public trust in how royal-linked spending is decided.
Full account
A new opinion poll suggests most of the British public is against the idea of taxpayers' money being used to protect Prince Harry and Meghan when they resettle in the UK. The survey follows last week's announcement that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex plan to return to Britain after six years living in the United States, timed around their children starting new schools. Of the 2,128 adults questioned, 71 per cent said they did not think the Government should cover the cost of security for Harry's family, reviving a row that has simmered since Harry's earlier legal fight with the Home Office over the same issue.
The poll further found that 87 per cent believed the couple's own private income should cover all or most of their protection costs, while just over half, 52 per cent, felt King Charles's personal funds should contribute in full, in part or to some degree. The question of who foots the bill has become more pressing amid reports that a review by the risk management board that oversees VIP protection arrangements was completed last month, though no formal announcement on funding has been made. Estimates cited in coverage put the potential annual cost of round-the-clock security at up to £5 million, a figure that has sharpened public debate over the issue.
The renewed scrutiny comes as the Sussexes prepare to enrol their children, seven-year-old Archie and five-year-old Lilibet, at British schools in time for the start of term in September. They are expected to settle into a private home outside London, with some reports pointing towards the Cotswolds, while retaining their base in Montecito, California, and a property in Portugal. The King is said to have learned of the couple's plans only shortly before they were made public, despite having met Harry during a visit to the UK the previous month. Downing Street has so far declined to be drawn on the funding question, with the Prime Minister describing the couple's security arrangements as a private matter, and the Sussexes' status as non-working royals is not expected to change, putting them in a different category from relatives such as Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, none of whom receive police protection.
Coverage of the couple's return has varied in focus. While reporting on the funding poll has concentrated on public opinion and the practicalities of the family's relocation, other outlets have instead emphasised the reaction within the wider Royal Family, citing unnamed royal commentators who claim Prince William was caught off guard by the move and is wary of further strain on his relationship with his brother. Those accounts, largely drawn from US-based commentary rather than polling data, describe a family atmosphere coloured by years of mistrust, in contrast with the more measured public statement issued by a spokesperson for the Sussexes, who framed the trip as a chance for their children to spend time in a country significant to their family's history. Notably, this second strand of coverage makes no reference to the security funding poll at all, reflecting a difference in emphasis between reports focused on public finances and those focused on family dynamics.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 (poll-focused UK coverage) centres on the survey findings themselves — the 71%, 87% and 52% figures, the Ravec review, and the £5 million cost estimate — treating public funding as the central controversy.
Source 2 (Fox News Digital) does not mention the poll at all; instead it focuses on alleged tension between Prince William and Harry, sourcing claims about William being 'blindsided' from unnamed royal commentators and TV personalities rather than official statements.
Source 1 notes the King was reportedly not told of the plans when he met Harry, while Source 2 says he learned of them three days before the announcement — a discrepancy in the timeline of when Buckingham Palace was informed.
Source 2 includes a direct quote from a Sussex spokesperson framing the trip positively, offering a contrast to the more sceptical or hostile framing attributed to palace-adjacent commentators in the same report.
More coverage
Americas Art Celebrity Culture Entertainment World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Should taxpayer cash fund any of the Sussexes’ security? Nearly three-quarters say NO ahead of Harry and Meghan’s shock return”.