Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s planned return to Britain has triggered fury over the prospect of taxpayers facing a security bill critics fear could reach millions of pounds annually if the Sussex family receives extensive protection, Radaronline.com can reveal.
Harry, 41, and his wife Markle, 45, are reportedly preparing to return to the UK with their children Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, within weeks, and six years after the couple’s move to the United States.
The family is expected to relocate later this month to a private, non-royal residence believed to be outside London – immediately renewing scrutiny over who will provide their security and ultimately pay for it.
Concern is now focusing on the potential cost to taxpayers if Harry and his family are granted extensive police protection.
Critics of such an arrangement argue that providing round-the-clock protection could potentially cost around $7million annually and would be difficult to justify for members of the Royal Family who voluntarily stepped down as working royals.
The controversy intensified after the Home Office responded to reports about the Sussexes’ impending return by emphasizing the strength of Britain’s system for protecting prominent individuals.
The UK’s Home Office said: “The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.”
It added: “It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”
The statement does not confirm Harry, Markle or their children will receive taxpayer-funded police protection, nor does it disclose what arrangements could be implemented following their reported relocation.
But a well-placed UK government source claimed to Radar: “There will be genuine fury if Harry and Meghan return to Britain as private individuals and the public suddenly discovers it is expected to pick up a security bill potentially running into millions of pounds every year.
“People will understandably ask why taxpayers should be responsible for financing protection on that scale when the couple voluntarily walked away from their roles as working royals.
“The figure being discussed is potentially as high as $7million annually once you consider the extraordinary resources that could be involved in protecting Harry, Meghan and their children.
“That is not a confirmed cost, but even the possibility of taxpayers facing that kind of bill is inevitably going to provoke an enormous backlash.”
A security source added: “The argument from critics will be extremely straightforward – Harry and Meghan wanted financial independence, moved to America and built lucrative commercial lives outside the monarchy. If they now choose to establish a private home in Britain, there will be people who feel equally strongly that the financial responsibility for their security should remain private.
“Nobody disputes that Harry and his family require appropriate protection if professional assessments establish that they face a serious threat. The controversy is over who pays. There is a huge difference between acknowledging a security risk and automatically accepting that British taxpayers should be handed a multimillion-pound annual bill, and there is real rage in the UK about that prospect.”
The insider continued: “This is particularly sensitive because Harry fought for years over his security arrangements after leaving royal duties. A decision that resulted in taxpayers effectively funding extensive protection following his return would inevitably be portrayed by critics as him achieving through relocation something he was unable to secure through the courts.
“There is a huge potential political headache here. The moment taxpayers hear figures such as millions being discussed, the debate stops being simply about Harry’s personal safety and becomes a question about public money. At a time when families are under financial pressure, any suggestion of millions being spent protecting two extremely wealthy private individuals is bound to generate anger.
“Ultimately, this cannot be decided according to whether Harry and Meghan are popular or unpopular. The authorities have to assess the genuine threat and determine what protection is proportionate. But if the eventual arrangement involves significant public expenditure, officials should expect intense scrutiny over why that money is necessary and precisely what the taxpayer is being asked to fund,” the source added.
Decisions about protection for royals and other prominent public figures are not made personally by the UK Home Secretary.
Responsibility instead rests with the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec.
The committee brings together representatives from the Home Office, Metropolitan Police and royal household, who provide advice to its independent chair.
Decisions are informed by specialist assessments of the risks facing individual public figures and made according to government policy.
Harry’s security arrangements have been one of the most contentious issues surrounding his departure from royal life.
The Duke has previously fought through the British courts over changes to his police protection after he and Markle stopped being working royals and moved abroad.
Opponents of taxpayer-funded protection are expected to argue Harry and Markle chose financial independence and private lives when they left frontline royal duties and therefore should shoulder the cost of protecting themselves.
However, any decision by Ravec would be based on professional assessments of threat and risk rather than public opinion about the couple or their royal status.
A UK government source said: “The Home Office’s insistence that the system is both ‘rigorous and proportionate’ consequently leaves unanswered the politically sensitive question accompanying Harry’s planned comeback – exactly what protection the Sussex family will receive once living in Britain and how much of the cost could ultimately fall on taxpayers.”