Prince Harry’s U.K. return renews debate over taxpayer-funded security

LONDON: Prince Harry's unexpected return to the United Kingdom has reignited a debate over whether taxpayers should cover the costs of protecting him and his family, as experts suggest genuine threats may exist. The Duke of Sussex, accompanied by his wife Meghan and their two young children, arrived in Britain last week with apprehensions about security.

Following their departure from Britain in 2020 amidst a royal family conflict, Prince Harry had pursued a series of legal battles against the UK government to secure taxpayer-funded security while residing in California. Now residing with seven-year-old son Archie and five-year-old daughter Lilibet, Harry has reportedly advocated for the reinstatement of police protection.

Upon their arrival at Birmingham Airport on August 26, private security personnel greeted the family instead of police officers, according to British media. Ex-protection officer Scott Hamer expressed surprise at the situation, questioning why Harry should not receive the same protection as others deemed less of a threat. The couple is reportedly enrolling their children in private schools in the Cotswolds region of central England for the upcoming academic year, citing heightened security concerns due to predictable drop-off and pick-up routines.

The vulnerability of Harry's children needs to be assessed, Hamer emphasized. The UK's Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), an independent body overseen by the interior ministry, determines which high-profile individuals receive police protection. Prince Harry had previously challenged Ravec's downgrade of his security following his move to North America in 2020, but lost his appeal.

Ravec's risk management board will likely reassess the threat level faced by Prince Harry upon his return. Potential threats range from international terrorism to extreme right-wing actors opposed to his marriage to Meghan, a mixed-race woman. Sources close to Harry claim he lost faith in Ravec's ability to fairly evaluate his security needs.

A government spokesperson affirmed that the protection system is "rigorous and proportionate," while asserting that they do not disclose specific arrangements due to the risk of compromising security. Despite his previous success in paying for security services in the United States, Harry is pushing for police protection in the UK, as private security cannot be armed.

A recent poll revealed that only six percent of the British public believe Harry's security should be fully funded by taxpayers, with 63 percent favoring the family paying for it themselves. Royal expert Andrew Lownie argued that Harry should pay for his security, as conditions in the UK are less dangerous compared to the United States.