Prince Harry is said to be thrilled that the Home Office is reviewing his security in the UK for the first time in five years amid claims his difficult relationship with his father is ‘thawing’. The Duke of Sussex believes the decision to look again at whether he and his family should receive armed police protection in Britain is ‘long overdue’, a source close to him has said. Harry wrote privately to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood requesting a full security risk assessment for him, his wife Meghan Markle and their children Archie and Lilibet.
The decision will be made by committee in January and could pave the way for Harry to return to the UK with his children for the first time in three years – and see their grandfather – although multiple sources have claimed recently that Meghan would likely stay in the US. The King has not spent time with his grandchildren Archie and Lilibet since 2022. A royal source told the Daily Mail: ‘This review could be a reflection of improved relations between the monarch and his son’, but added the King ‘is not directly involved in decisions about security’.
The insider added: ‘There are representatives of the Royal Household on Ravec alongside police and Home Office officials. So it’s possible that the courtiers on the committee have influenced the decision to order a review after the slight thawing of relations between the King and Harry’. Harry wrote to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood shortly after her appointment and submitted a formal request for a risk assessment to the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which is overseen by the Home Office, a source close to the duke said in October. The Home Office has now ordered a threat assessment for the first time since 2020.
A senior security source has said that the assessment may not mean a change for Harry. ‘It’s just a review. It could be that everyone is having a review, which is done periodically to make sure it’s fit for purpose, is properly funded and is resilient enough in the current climate’, they said. ‘Given the recent court successes for the Home Office, they aren’t going to instigate it themselves, they don’t have to. But it is always under review, ad hoc and on a formalised basis, otherwise “they”, the Home Office, are failing in their duty of care’.
Many Britons believe that Prince Harry should be given police protection when he is in the UK – but only if he pays for it himself, according to a poll . Two in five (39 per cent) say that the former working royal should personally fund officers to guard himself and his family if they were to visit from their home in California. However, this is something that the Home Office has previously strongly argued cannot be allowed to happen, because it would effectively make the Metropolitan Police ‘guns for hire’. The survey of 8,022 GB adults, released yesterday , found that 56 per cent think the Harry should receive police protection in some form when he visits the UK. But say he should pay for it himself.
Just 17 per cent said he should be entitled to police protection funded by the state. 28 per cent believe he should not be entitled to taxpayer-funded bodyguards at all. The new review comes after the duke lost an appeal in May challenging the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of Ravec that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country. The legal challenge came after Harry and the Duchess of Sussex left the UK and first moved to Canada, and then California, after announcing they wanted to step back as senior royals.
The duke said the Court of Appeal decision meant it is now ‘impossible’ for him to bring Meghan and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, back to the UK safely . Ravec has now instructed its Risk Management Board to reassess his threat level, the Sun reported. A Government spokesperson said: ‘The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. ‘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.’
