Skip to Content Subscribe My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Modern Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Modern Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNewsWorldPrince Harry's U.K. return renews debate over taxpayer-funded securityThe royal waged a years-long, ultimately unsuccessful, legal battle to retain U.K. taxpayer-funded security while living in CaliforniaAuthor of the article:The Duke of Sussex arrived in Britain with his wife Meghan and two young children last week. Photo by Pool /Getty ImagesPrince Harry’s return to Britain has reignited debate about whether taxpayers should foot the bill to protect him and his family, with experts warning genuine threats likely exist.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorThe Duke of Sussex, who arrived in Britain last week with his wife Meghan and their two young children, had previously ruled out returning to his home country, citing security concerns.The couple left Britain and quit royal duties in 2020 amid a royal family feud and Harry subsequently waged a years-long, ultimately unsuccessful, legal battle to retain U.K. taxpayer-funded security while living in California.Get a dash of perspective along with the trending news of the day in a very readable format.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againNow back with their seven-year-old son, Prince Archie, and five-year-old daughter, Princess Lilibet, he has reportedly been pushing for reinstated police protection.However, when the family landed August 26 at Birmingham Airport, they had private security in place rather than police officers, according to British media.“It’s very surprising,” Scott Hamer, an ex-protection officer for Harry’s father King Charles III when he was Prince of Wales, told AFP.“There’s probably people who are being protected now who are at less threat and risk than he is. So the question would be, why does he not receive that protection as well?”‘Vulnerability’Harry and Meghan, who are reportedly living in central England’s Cotswolds region, are said to have enrolled their children at private schools there for the coming academic year.They are thought to have heightened concerns about security around the kids’ daily drop-off and collection, given that these follow predictable patterns.“The vulnerability aspect needs to be assessed,” said Hamer.“The fact that he’ll have to take his kids to school at the same time each day, and pick them up at the same time each day, now makes him quite vulnerable.” Harry battled the ministry in the courts after Ravec downgraded his security. (HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP/File) Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS /AFP/FileBritain’s Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) — an independent body overseen by the interior ministry — decides which politicians, royals and others get police protection.Harry battled the ministry in the courts after Ravec downgraded his security following his 2020 North America move.The prince lost his bid to reverse the decision, branding the 2025 dismissal of his appeal a “good old-fashioned Establishment stitch-up”.With his return, Ravec’s risk management board will likely be re-evaluating the threat level he faces.“It’s very real,” explained Hamer, noting it could range from international terrorism to extreme right-wing actors opposed to his marriage to mixed-race Meghan.‘Threat’The Sunday Times reported last week that Harry’s lawyers wrote to interior minister Shabana Mahmood in August requesting she intervene.The paper said he had lost faith in Ravec’s ability to rule fairly on his security needs, citing sources close to him.A government spokesperson said the protection system was “rigorous and proportionate” while noting its long-standing policy not to provide details of arrangements.“Doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security,” the spokesperson added.Harry is thought to be pushing for police protection in part because private security in the U.K. cannot be armed.“That’s what his argument is: that the threat against him is so great that it can only be dealt with (through) an official police protection team,” another former royal protection officer, Simon Morgan, told AFP. “He feels that he should get it.” A car drives through a country lane in Burford, in a region known as the Cotswolds, north west of London, where Prince Harry, his wife Meghan and their two children are reportedly living. Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS /AFP via Getty ImagesHowever, the British public appears to think otherwise.Just six percent say the prince’s security should be fully taxpayer-funded while 63 percent believe the couple should pay for it, according to a poll last week for The i Paper.“He’s paid for security in the States. I can’t see why he can’t pay for security here — it’s a lot less dangerous,” royal expert Andrew Lownie told AFP.‘Lot of money’Hamer said whether Harry was a working royal or not “shouldn’t be part of it,” noting ex-PMs get protected despite leaving office.Lownie predicted Harry would succeed in getting some taxpayer-funded protection reinstated for the same reason.But he noted the bill for such services has ballooned over the last decade, which has seen six prime ministers leave office — compared to just two in the prior 10 years.“If we’re doing it for all these prime ministers, then I think we’re going to have to do it for Harry and his family. But that is going to cost a lot of money.”Harry has consistently argued he and his family are at increased risk given he is the king’s son and due to his U.K. military service.The prince completed two tours of Afghanistan and claimed in his explosive 2023 memoir “Spare” to have killed 25 Taliban fighters.Choosing to make the high-profile admission prompted criticism at the time from some British veterans, who noted it could increase his personal security risk.Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.