My News Links

Prince Harry with a security detail as he arrived at Britain’s High Court last year for a hearing over the downgrading of his personal security during visits to Britain.Credit…Henry Nicolls/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Before they left Britain in 2020, Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, weathered a storm of threats and digital abuse. A former top police official once described their safety risks as “disgusting and very real.”

Such threats made security a paramount issue for the couple once they announced this week that they are returning to live in Britain. Their safety had been at the heart of the fallout from their original decision to leave the country, when the government withdrew their publicly funded, armed security after they stepped down from their royal roles.

The pair have said the decision put them in danger, and it became a bitter flashpoint in their rupture with the royal family. Harry at one point even claimed the move was a plot to keep him in Britain.

The couple have not said what kind of arrangements they have made for their protection upon their return, expected this month. But the kind of security they had access to while living in California for the past few years is not possible in Britain without government resources.

While armed private security is legal and ubiquitous in the United States, guns are tightly restricted in Britain. Even top American law enforcement officials such as F.B.I. agents must get permission from the government to carry firearms in Britain.

Still, an unarmed detail is relatively common among Britons who use private security, said Chris Phillips, a former senior British counterterrorism official.

“There are lot of people over here that have security, and they are not armed,” he said.

As for Harry, he added, “There are going to be threats to him. There is no doubt about it.”

Harry’s and Meghan’s return to Britain comes at a time when they are unpopular with the British public, and news coverage of their security has emphasized comments from Britons saying they do not want the government to pay for it.

The armed details that the government provides are stretched thin, officials have warned, in part because of a high number of protectees. Britain has a record nine living former prime ministers who get round-the-clock security.

Prime ⁠Minister Andy Burnham refused to wade into the royal saga on Thursday when questioned by reporters, declining to say who would foot the bill for protecting Harry, Meghan and their two children, Archie, 7, and Lilibet, 5.

“This is a private matter,” Mr. Burnham said. “It’s a ⁠matter for Harry and ⁠for Meghan, and ⁠we wish ⁠them well in the moves that they are ⁠making.”

As Harry and Meghan split with the royal family in 2020, questions over their safety arose as part of a larger debate over their expectations about a post-royal life.

King Charles with Prince Harry during the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022.Credit…Pool photo by David Rose

At the time, a committee responsible for some security decisions in Britain decided that the couple would no longer be eligible for the police protection typically given to royal family members.

The committee, known as Ravec, is made up of government and police officials and members of the royal household. It is responsible for making security arrangements for the royal family and other figures put at risk by terrorism or other threats.

Harry challenged the decision, and at a hearing in 2022 said he would “reimburse or proactively finance the cost of the security measures.” But Ravec decided it was not right for wealthy people to be able to rent armed police from the government.

Harry has said that his family needed full-time armed protection when visiting Britain, where his father, King Charles III; brother, William, next in line for the throne; and other relatives live. In court, his lawyers revealed threats to his safety and described “additional layers of racism and extremism” that they said were fueling the abuse.

Harry lost part of that legal challenge in 2023, and a judge dismissed his case the following year, but he appealed. In April 2025, Harry’s lawyers argued before England’s Court of Appeal that the decision to withdraw protection violated official policy. The court ruled against him.

Separately, the Ravec committee had planned to review security arrangements in Britain for the family. The panel is independent but overseen by the Home Office. A decision has been delayed because the government had to deal with protecting an “unprecedented nine former prime ministers at once,” The Times of London reported last month.

The Home Office said in an emailed statement on Thursday, “It is our longstanding policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”

In a BBC interview in May 2025, Harry said that he hoped to finally reconcile with his family. He and the king had fallen out over the security withdrawal. Charles was diagnosed with cancer in 2024.

But Harry was clear about the dangers to his family. “I can’t see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the U.K. at this point,” he told the BBC.

He said the last “sticking point” in a return to Britain was security, spurring questions about the turnaround and whether the contentious issue has since been resolved.

Related Content