Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have returned to the UK with their two children, reigniting the long-running dispute over the Duke's security arrangements and leaving King Charles facing a delicate dilemma.
The Sussexes have brought Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet back to Britain, with the children reportedly due to begin at a prep school next month. Their relocation has raised questions about what protection the family can expect while they are in the country, and whether Harry's father can have any influence over the situation.
Security battle reignited
Harry has been fighting for taxpayer-funded police protection since losing his automatic entitlement following his decision to step down as a working royal and move to the US in 2020. His return to the UK has now reignited the debate, with those supporting his position arguing that one of the factors previously used when assessing his security has changed because he is once again spending significant time in Britain.
According to The Telegraph, Harry's representatives notified the Home Office security committee of the family's relocation less than two weeks before it happened. That is considerably shorter than the 28 days normally required by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec. The Telegraph reported that the decision to give shorter notice was partly driven by fears that details of the move could leak. The children's school places were also only confirmed relatively late, while Harry is said to have wanted to speak to his father before news of the relocation emerged publicly.
King informed days before move
Charles was formally informed on Sunday, August 16, with reports about the family's plans following three days later on August 19. Harry, Meghan, Archie and Lilibet subsequently arrived in Britain last week. Their precise whereabouts have not been made public.
While Harry continues to seek police protection funded by the taxpayer, his supporters have argued that his circumstances are now markedly different from those that existed when his security arrangements were reviewed after he left royal duties.
Criticism of Ravec delays
A source close to Harry and Meghan criticised the length of time Ravec has taken over the issue, claiming it had been "kicking the can down the road for the last seven years". The source added: "We have always adhered to the rules they set, even as the goalposts have moved along the way."
They also argued that Harry's physical location had previously been an important consideration, saying: "That barrier has now been removed, and an obvious off-ramp exists for the committee to do the sensible thing: protect the King's son and grandchildren."
The question of Harry's security has also been addressed by Neil Basu, the former royal protection officer who previously had responsibility for the Sussexes' security. Basu said he was surprised the Duke had not been given "the full package", highlighting the potential threat posed by Islamist extremists and the extreme right wing.
He said: "In 2019 he was one of the people we thought needed the full package. In 2026 he doesn't? I have never been able to see why his threat risk has reduced, whether you like him, or you don't."
Basu also stressed that Harry's desire for protection should not necessarily be viewed as a matter of personal preference. He added: "Having protection is one of the most intrusive things. He only wants it because he's genuinely in fear of his life, and more importantly, his wife and children."
Constitutional limits for the King
Despite the concerns surrounding his son's security, Charles cannot simply instruct officials to restore Harry's taxpayer-funded protection. One source familiar with the situation said the monarch faced an unusually difficult position because of the constitutional implications of becoming directly involved.
"Obviously, the King is in an impossible position. He cannot intervene, or be seen to apply pressure, in a way that could be construed as constitutionally overstepping," they said. The source nevertheless suggested the King would understandably have concerns about the safety of his family.
They added: "But one would imagine he is as concerned as anyone that his son - and, in particular, his grandchildren - are not receiving any form of police protection despite being fifth, sixth and seventh in line to the throne. The situation is untenable."
The Home Office and Cabinet Office declined to comment when approached about the matter. Buckingham Palace, meanwhile, maintains its established position of not commenting on security arrangements.
