Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s anticipated return to the UK has sparked outrage amid concerns that taxpayers could face a substantial security bill, potentially reaching millions of pounds annually, if the Sussex family receives extensive protection, Radaronline.com reports.
Harry, 41, and his wife Markle, 45, are reportedly planning to return to the UK with their children, Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, within the coming weeks, six years after moving to the United States.
The family is expected to relocate later this month to a private, non-royal residence thought to be outside London, which has reignited scrutiny over who will handle their security and how it will be funded.
Concerns are mounting over the potential taxpayer burden if Harry and his family are provided with extensive police protection.
Critics argue that round-the-clock security could cost approximately $7 million annually, a figure hard to justify for royals who stepped down from official duties.
The controversy deepened following the Home Office’s response to reports of the Sussexes’ return, emphasizing the robustness of Britain’s security system for high-profile individuals.
The UK’s Home Office stated: “The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.”
It further noted: “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.”
This statement does not confirm whether Harry, Markle, or their children will receive taxpayer-funded police protection, nor does it clarify potential security arrangements upon their relocation.
A UK government source told Radar: “There will be genuine outrage 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.”
The source added, “People will understandably question why taxpayers should cover protection costs on such a scale when the couple voluntarily stepped down from their roles as working royals.”
“The potential cost is discussed at around $7 million annually, considering the extensive resources needed for the family’s security. Although not confirmed, the possibility of taxpayers bearing such costs is likely to provoke a strong backlash.”
A security expert remarked, “Critics will argue that Harry and Meghan sought financial independence, moved to America, and built successful careers outside the monarchy. If they choose to establish a home in Britain, many will feel the financial responsibility for their security should remain private.”
“There is no dispute over the need for appropriate protection if assessments indicate a serious threat. The issue is about who pays. A significant distinction exists between acknowledging a security risk and automatically accepting a multimillion-pound annual bill for taxpayers, which angers many in the UK.”
The insider continued: “The sensitivity arises from Harry’s long-standing battles over his security arrangements after leaving royal duties. If taxpayers end up funding extensive protection upon his return, critics may view it as him achieving something through relocation that he couldn’t secure through the courts.”
“The potential political headache is considerable. When taxpayers hear figures like millions being discussed, the debate shifts from Harry’s personal safety to public spending. In times of financial strain, the notion of spending millions to protect two wealthy individuals is likely to cause public discontent.”
“Ultimately, decisions shouldn’t be based on Harry and Meghan’s popularity. Authorities must assess the genuine threat and determine proportionate protection. However, if significant public expenditure is involved, officials should be ready for intense scrutiny over why that funding is essential and what exactly taxpayers are financing,” the source concluded.
Decisions regarding protection for royals and other prominent figures are not made by the UK Home Secretary alone.
The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, is responsible.
This committee includes representatives from the Home Office, Metropolitan Police, and the royal household, providing advice to its independent chair.
Decisions are based on specialist assessments of risks to individual public figures and align with government policy.
Harry’s security arrangements have been among the most contentious issues following his exit from royal life.
He previously engaged in legal battles in the UK over changes to his police protection after stepping down from royal duties and moving abroad.
Opponents of taxpayer-funded protection argue that Harry and Markle chose financial independence and private lives, thus they should bear their security costs.
However, any decision by Ravec would prioritize professional threat and risk assessments over public opinion concerning the couple or their royal status.
A UK government source said, “The Home Office’s insistence that the system is both ‘rigorous and proportionate’ leaves unanswered the politically sensitive question of what protection the Sussex family will receive once living in Britain and how much of the cost could ultimately fall on taxpayers.”
