The surprising return of the Sussexes to the United Kingdom continues to raise numerous questions. We already know that Harry, Meghan and their children Archie and Lilibet will live in a residence with no link to the Crown and will not be active members of the royal family. However, with their imminent move, speculation has intensified about who will foot the bill for the cost of their security arrangements.
Prince Harry had appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the Home Office over a decision that he should receive a different level of protection while in the United Kingdom. His attorney argued that the threats against him and his family had not diminished simply because he had ceased to be a member of the royal family and that his past in the British armed forces had exposed him to special risk.
However, England’s most senior judge, Sir Geoffrey Vos, ruled that, although his arguments were “convincing and moving,” his grievance did not constitute a legal argument. Therefore, armed, taxpayer-funded bodyguards would not be reinstated for Harry, Meghan, Archie and Lilibet. This gave rise to speculation that the family might never return to the United Kingdom.
At the time, Harry said in an interview with the BBC: “It’s really very sad that I can’t show them my homeland to my children.” But just a few months later, the Sussexes’ return is imminent, although it remains unclear whether they have received any security guarantees from the Home Office. It is also not clear whether any potential extra security costs could ultimately fall on the taxpayer.
The words of Prime Minister Andy Burnham
The Times has reported that there are no plans to provide the couple and their children with armed protection funded by taxpayers. Security measures for the Sussexes while residing in the United Kingdom are “a private matter,” Prime Minister Andy Burnham said, following the news of their return home from the United States next month. The politician refused to provide further details and added: “This is a matter that concerns Harry and Meghan, and we wish them the best in the steps they are taking.”
Andy Burnham and his wife, Marie-France van Heel.
During his legal challenge against the Home Office, Harry testified: “The United Kingdom is my home and it is fundamental to my children’s legacy. That cannot happen if their security cannot be guaranteed when they are on British soil. I cannot put my wife in danger like that, and given my life experiences, I am not willing to unnecessarily expose myself to any danger.”
After moving to the United States, Prince Harry was granted a bespoke security arrangement. And although he no longer meets the criteria for the protection level he enjoyed previously as an active royal, he remains a high-profile figure and a former serviceman who served in Afghanistan, which could be taken into account in any assessment.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK Government’s security and protection system is rigorous and proportionate. It has always been our policy not to disclose detailed information about those measures, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect the safety of people.” In the United States, the Sussexes have always paid for their private security out of pocket.
The enormous cost of the Sussexes’ security
According to figures published by the Daily Mail, 24/7 security for Prince Harry and his family in the United Kingdom could cost taxpayers up to €5.8 million per year. Dai Davies, the former head of royal protection for the Metropolitan Police, told the newspaper that Harry’s decision to return to his homeland “has stirred the debate” in favor of greater protection. And he believes that “the highest levels of government” will have to review their decision.
“The chances of him obtaining this protection have increased considerably now. This has changed everything: bringing the family, residing here, their profile… Now there is a need to carefully reassess the level of threat,” Davies added. “I’m not saying he will obtain the protection he requests, but in my view there is a real potential threat, from a professional perspective.”
