The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 12: Jan 2026 -

[Durham]

I imagine taxpayers will be livid if Harry gets his way.
And why, suddenly, a stalker? She just popped up now?

Whether he is close with his birth family or not, Harry is still quite close to the throne. If anything were to happen to him or his family (G-d forbid), it would be both shocking and horrific.

And many people - who enjoy complete anonymity- do say horrible things about the Sussex couple.

Surely there’s no one who would minimize the effects of a major attack on the son of a king.

Maybe I'm unrepresentative (although I don't think I am) when I say that I don't think the (non public duty performing) younger children of a monarch are any more deserving of taxpayer funded security than any other citizen of the UK.

Yes they can't help the circumstances of their birth (lots of privileges too of course) but neither can the rest of us who have to take our chances in often dangerous urban areas. Women in particular are often the subject of unwanted stalker attention.

I support the monarchy but it's not a blank cheque.

 

[Hallo girl]

The prince is coming back to the UK with his tail between his legs,

 

[Diarist]

Whether he is close with his birth family or not, Harry is still quite close to the throne. If anything were to happen to him or his family (G-d forbid), it would be both shocking and horrific.

And many people - who enjoy complete anonymity- do say horrible things about the Sussex couple.

Surely there’s no one who would minimize the effects of a major attack on the son of a king.

No person in his or her right mind would condone an attack on Prince Harry and/or his family but he has to take some responsibility for the situation in which he now finds himself. As the younger brother to the heir to the throne prima facie he and his family would be entitled to security had he remained a working member of the British Royal Family, but having removed himself voluntarily both from Royal Family duties and from the Jurisdiction for no other reason than [with his wife] to make money, he cannot then expect to enjoy the same degree of protection as does a 'serving royal' at the expense of the British Tax Payer.

If he returns to the UK on a visit, then as the King's son I am sure that appropriate security will be provided where the situation demands this.

I have to say that in the past Harry has not helped himself. For example, being an active participant in car chases does not help, ditto his unfathomable decision to boast about the number of his 'kills' whilst a serving soldier. Talk about 'sticking your head above the parapet' .... and also endangering the lives of other military colleagues...

When it comes to royal protection, the essential feature of the operation is discretion and privacy....I have to say that Harry is a very poor advertisement for a Sandhurst Graduate. Did he learn NOTHING there? It is one of the top military academies in the world, comparable to West Point. Harry's continuing blundering and his whining in my humble opinion only serve to arm those of his critics who felt that Harry was far below the standard for admission to Sandhurst...

 

[VictoriaB]

There seem to be a lot of comments on this page suggesting that the British tax payer will be funding Harry’s security in the US. But the article makes it clear that the decision is to provide full security when Harry is in the UK. It says nothing about providing security in the US.

Given how little Harry is in the UK, it’s not going to make much of a dint in his security bill.

 

[Curryong]

The prince is coming back to the UK with his tail between his legs,

In what universe? Harry still lives in California with his wife and family. He enjoys living there as does his wife and children. He’s returning in January to continue the fight with the newspaper organisation that controls the DM group. Then he will be gone back to California.

The media has been predicting for at least four years that Harry and Meghan will be back momentarily, pleading with the RF ‘Take us back, PLEASE! We apologise, we didn’t mean it’! Hasn’t happened, and isn’t likely to imo.
Harry wants security for himself AND WIFE and CHILDREN when in the UK, yes. He may or may not get that in reinforced form. We will have to wait and see.
Otherwise, he and Meghan have a life in California that they enjoy and a bank balance that would be the envy of any one of us. They have received millions from Netflix and other sources.

Why would Harry or Meghan want to go back to the UK to live for even part of the year in order to put up with insults and lies daily from the tabloid media and other observers. I certainly wouldn’t want that nor would anyone else, I venture to say!

 

[Hallo girl]

In what universe? Harry still lives in California with his wife and family. He enjoys living there as does his wife and children. He’s returning in January to continue the fight with the newspaper organisation that controls the DM group. Then he will be gone back to California.

The media has been predicting for at least four years that Harry and Meghan will be back momentarily, pleading with the RF ‘Take us back, PLEASE! We apologise, we didn’t mean it’! Hasn’t happened, and isn’t likely to imo.
Harry wants security for himself AND WIFE and CHILDREN when in the UK, yes. He may or may not get that in reinforced form. We will have to wait and see.
Otherwise, he and Meghan have a life in California that they enjoy and a bank balance that would be the envy of any one of us. They have received millions from Netflix and other sources.

Why would Harry or Meghan want to go back to the UK to live for even part of the year in order to receive insults and lies daily from the tabloid media and other observers. I certainly wouldn’t want that nor would anyone else, I venture to say!

Let us hope you are right because he is not welcome here, by the way he has been happy to use the media to leak the story about the security. Double standards again.
He has mis called the people, the media, the RF but by the way wants our hard earned taxes to fund him. If he has that much money as you seem to think he has then he should pay the costs himself., why does he need the British public to pay for it.
I rest my case.

There seem to be a lot of comments on this page suggesting that the British tax payer will be funding Harry’s security in the US. But the article makes it clear that the decision is to provide full security when Harry is in the UK. It says nothing about providing security in the US.

Given how little Harry is in the UK, it’s not going to make much of a dint in his security bill.

If he is not going to be here that often why has he kept fighting.

 

[VictoriaB]

If he is not going to be here that often why has he kept fighting.

I have no idea what goes on in Harry’s head. I don’t particularly like Harry (or William for that matter). All I was doing is pointing out that the report only refers to Harry being given security while in the UK and not anywhere else which is contrary to some of the comments here that seem to suggest it applies world wide.

I’m not a UK tax payer. Frankly, if I were I would object to Harry automatically being given security paid for by the government. I see his situation as no different to Andrew’s. Both are sons of a sovereign, neither undertake work on behalf of the country, neither should get security paid for by the tax payer.

As for Harry’s security bill, while the children are at school I wouldn’t expect the family to spend a huge amount of time in the UK - leave aside the fact that I don’t see wild horses ever dragging Meghan back for more that the shortest period of time. So the cost of private security in the US and elsewhere is still going to be great.

 

[TLLK]

I have no idea what goes on in Harry’s head. I don’t particularly like Harry (or William for that matter). All I was doing is pointing out that the report only refers to Harry being given security while in the UK and not anywhere else which is contrary to some of the comments here that seem to suggest it applies world wide.

I’m not a UK tax payer. Frankly, if I were I would object to Harry automatically being given security paid for by the government. I see his situation as no different to Andrew’s. Both are sons of a sovereign, neither undertake work on behalf of the country, neither should get security paid for by the tax payer.

As for Harry’s security bill, while the children are at school I wouldn’t expect the family to spend a huge amount of time in the UK - leave aside the fact that I don’t see wild horses ever dragging Meghan back for more that the shortest period of time. So the cost of private security in the US and elsewhere is still going to be great.

I believe that in regards to the notion of security being paid for by the British taxpayer and possibly other nations taxpayers, posters are referring to the portion of the Sussexes' 2020 announcement regarding security. In their original statement, the Sussexes claimed that they had IPP status. As most of us know that for a time, British and Canadian taxpayers were funding their security while they were living in on Vancouver Island, B.C. Ultimately that did end in March 2020 after MPs in both nations were questioning why their taxpayers were to pay for the couple's security after their announcement that they were stepping back from those duties.
I can only speak for myself, but I believe that the Sussexes' ultimate goal is to have that IPP status reinstated so they no longer have to pay for their own security.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I believe that in regards to the notion of security being paid for by the British taxpayer and possibly other nations taxpayers, posters are referring to the portion of the Sussexes' 2020 announcement regarding security. In their original statement, the Sussexes claimed that they had IPP status. As most of us know that for a time, British and Canadian taxpayers were funding their security while they were living in on Vancouver Island, B.C. Ultimately that did end in March 2020 after MPs in both nations were questioning why their taxpayers were to pay for the couple's security after their announcement that they were stepping back from those duties.
I can only speak for myself, but I believe that the Sussexes' ultimate goal is to have that IPP status reinstated so they no longer have to pay for their own security.

I agree with you but I cannot see it happening any time soon and probably never. Had they handled things very, very differently when they left (no Oprah, no Spare, no Netflix series about them, etc), things could have turned out differently. But their reputation is such that the powers that be will not grant either of them IPP status, imho. It’s sad - they really seem to think their position is still like it was six years ago…

 

[TLLK]

I agree with you but I cannot see it happening any time soon and probably never. Had they handled things very, very differently when they left (no Oprah, no Spare, no Netflix series about them, etc), things could have turned out differently. But their reputation is such that the powers that be will not grant either of them IPP status, imho. It’s sad - they really seem to think their position is still like it was six years ago…

I agree that it's likely to never happen, but IMO the Sussexes will continue to try and pursue their original goal of IPP status.

 

[irish_royalist]

In what universe? Harry still lives in California with his wife and family. He enjoys living there as does his wife and children. He’s returning in January to continue the fight with the newspaper organisation that controls the DM group. Then he will be gone back to California.

The media has been predicting for at least four years that Harry and Meghan will be back momentarily, pleading with the RF ‘Take us back, PLEASE! We apologise, we didn’t mean it’! Hasn’t happened, and isn’t likely to imo.
Harry wants security for himself AND WIFE and CHILDREN when in the UK, yes. He may or may not get that in reinforced form. We will have to wait and see.
Otherwise, he and Meghan have a life in California that they enjoy and a bank balance that would be the envy of any one of us. They have received millions from Netflix and other sources.

Why would Harry or Meghan want to go back to the UK to live for even part of the year in order to put up with insults and lies daily from the tabloid media and other observers. I certainly wouldn’t want that nor would anyone else, I venture to say!

I think you are right - Meghan is fully aware of how much she is despised by the people of the United Kingdom, and I think the number of times she returns there could be counted on the fingers of one hand. As for Harry and the children, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Hallo girl]

My original argument still stands that they should never have leaked the decision before it was finally ratified and agreed. What right has he to sit in America and leak to a UK outlet, one that he is taking to court by the way, the decision made by a UK Government department. He lets it out before the other government departments or the citizens are told.
I realise in some cases the people involved are given the heads up before an announcement but they should keep it to themselves until official.

 

[crm2317]

If it is true that his protection is being increased then I look forward to him being more present for his father and bringing his children to spend time with their grandfather. Hasn’t he said the whole time that the security issue was preventing those things from happening?

 

[taogg]

There seem to be a lot of comments on this page suggesting that the British tax payer will be funding Harry’s security in the US. But the article makes it clear that the decision is to provide full security when Harry is in the UK. It says nothing about providing security in the US.

Given how little Harry is in the UK, it’s not going to make much of a dint in his security bill.

Who has actually suggested that UK taxpayers will be funding his security overseas? As far as I can recall, only one member in this thread argued that Harry should be provided with publicly funded overseas security. That is an opinion, not a claim that it will happen.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The duchess of Sussex lifestyle brand 'As Ever' shared some photos to mark the New Year .
Meghan Markle Rings in 2026 With Rare Photos of Her Family

 

[pieve]

Princess Anne and Princes Andrew and Edward were the children of Queen Elizabeth and working members of the Royal Family, residing in the United Kingdom. Unless I'm mistaken, they never received permanent police protection. Even today, Anne and Edward only receive it during official engagements on behalf of the monarchy.

Furthermore, Andrew was also a soldier (much longer than his nephew Harry, having served in the Royal Navy for 22 years) and fought in the Falklands War.

Yet, he too never received enhanced and constant protection. Moreover, he had the intelligence and discretion not to boast about the number of enemies he supposedly killed.

So, why does Harry want 24/7 enhanced security during his stay in the United Kingdom, for himself and his family? What did he do as a soldier that Andrew didn't?

My original argument still stands that they should never have leaked the decision before it was finally ratified and agreed. What right has he to sit in America and leak to a UK outlet, one that he is taking to court by the way, the decision made by a UK Government department. He lets it out before the other government departments or the citizens are told.
I realise in some cases the people involved are given the heads up before an announcement but they should keep it to themselves until official.

The Sussexes cannot be trusted because they leak unofficial information to the public. It is therefore not surprising that the royal family is distancing itself from them.

 

[pieve]

I believe that in regards to the notion of security being paid for by the British taxpayer and possibly other nations taxpayers, posters are referring to the portion of the Sussexes' 2020 announcement regarding security. In their original statement, the Sussexes claimed that they had IPP status. As most of us know that for a time, British and Canadian taxpayers were funding their security while they were living in on Vancouver Island, B.C. Ultimately that did end in March 2020 after MPs in both nations were questioning why their taxpayers were to pay for the couple's security after their announcement that they were stepping back from those duties.
I can only speak for myself, but I believe that the Sussexes' ultimate goal is to have that IPP status reinstated so they no longer have to pay for their own security.

Personally, I believe the Sussexes' ultimate goal is to regain their protected status so they no longer have to finance their own security in any country.

I think that's the obvious reason for their insistence on this protection.

Here are some comments Harry made during a BBC interview last spring:

"Not only have they decided to withdraw my protection in the UK, but they've also sent a signal to every government in the world not to protect us."

It couldn't be clearer.

 

[Lee-Z]

imo P.Harry should get as much (or little) security as his aunt P.Anne, i.o.w. just when on official duty for the BRF.
Imo he also should realize that having that security when on duty is a privilige and he should conduct himself like P.Anne to fully cooperate with the ones providing security and not making things more difficult for them.

said it before:
i have a feeling (from his interviews and book) that Harry knows relatively little about how the BRF and the British Government actually work, and hasn't give his aunt (or the D/Ds.o.Edinburgh) much thought as a potential rolemodel for his own behaviour.
He seems to be determined in feeling wronged and prefers to look at his father and brother and then complains about his own situation.

when you are determined that people do you wrong and you search hard enough, you're view will be confirmed.

 

[HRHHermione]

i have a feeling (from his interviews and book) that Harry knows relatively little about how the BRF and the British Government actually work, and hasn't give his aunt (or the D/Ds.o.Edinburgh) much thought as a potential rolemodel for his own behaviour.

I do think based on his book that Harry is constantly comparing what he has and his position in the family to his brother and his father’s without internalizing that his aunt and uncles are a better idea of what he should have expected to receive in terms of security and financial support, with some of them giving a great example of how to make their role work and others… let’s just say falling short.

 

[Curryong]

With regard to the security received by Prss Anne, the then Wessexes etc, the late Queen’s Private Secretary did not write directly to RAVEC (as far as we know) requesting in polite terms that they retain their security. This did happen in the case of the Sussexes due to threats made against Harry and Meghan and Archie . It was turned down, but nevertheless, it was requested.

 

[pieve]

With regard to the security received by Prss Anne, the then Wessexes etc, the late Queen’s Private Secretary did not write directly to RAVEC (as far as we know) requesting in polite terms that they retain their security. This did happen in the case of the Sussexes due to threats made against Harry and Meghan and Archie . It was turned down, but nevertheless, it was requested.

Only the most senior members of the royal family, such as the King, Queen, Prince, and Princess of Wales, receive permanent protection. This was already the case when Charles was Prince of Wales.

For all other members of the royal family serving the monarchy, their security is provided during official engagements and on a case-by-case basis, depending on the threats they face.

When Princess Anne was the target of an attempted kidnapping in 1974, her security was not permanently increased afterward. Specialized risk and threat assessment services exist, and Harry, or his family, was no more at risk than Andrew (a Falklands War veteran) or Anne.
Furthermore, her protection was not eliminated, but simply reduced.

When he boasted about killing 25 Taliban fighters, he endangered not only his own family, but also the entire royal family, including the Prince of Wales and their children.

To avenge the slain Taliban, targeting the future king and his family would be far more devastating than targeting the Sussexes.

But the only real risk Harry faces, in my opinion, is the explosion of his already oversized ego.

 

[Curryong]

Individuals in the UK have been prosecuted in the courts and in some cases imprisoned because of racist threats against the Sussexes. And that happened long before Spare and anything stated about the Taliban, and when they were still living in GB. We don’t know about present day dangers as they are obviously not publicised apart from stalkers.

And as for egos, there have always been plenty of those in every royal family world wide.

I have never read however, statements from people who have actually met Harry and those who know him well that he is an egotist. And that includes people who have worked for Archewell.

And not even from the press pack that followed him and other royals around when he was a working royal, some of whom have retained fond memories of interactions with him.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No person in his or her right mind would condone an attack on Prince Harry and/or his family but he has to take some responsibility for the situation in which he now finds himself. As the younger brother to the heir to the throne prima facie he and his family would be entitled to security had he remained a working member of the British Royal Family, but having removed himself voluntarily both from Royal Family duties and from the Jurisdiction for no other reason than [with his wife] to make money, he cannot then expect to enjoy the same degree of protection as does a 'serving royal' at the expense of the British Tax Payer.

If he returns to the UK on a visit, then as the King's son I am sure that appropriate security will be provided where the situation demands this.

I have to say that in the past Harry has not helped himself. For example, being an active participant in car chases does not help, ditto his unfathomable decision to boast about the number of his 'kills' whilst a serving soldier. Talk about 'sticking your head above the parapet' .... and also endangering the lives of other military colleagues...

When it comes to royal protection, the essential feature of the operation is discretion and privacy....I have to say that Harry is a very poor advertisement for a Sandhurst Graduate. Did he learn NOTHING there? It is one of the top military academies in the world, comparable to West Point. Harry's continuing blundering and his whining in my humble opinion only serve to arm those of his critics who felt that Harry was far below the standard for admission to Sandhurst...

Being the younger sibling isn't a reason for security though. Andrew, Edward and Anne, even as full-time working royals had their 24/7 security removed in 2011 when there was a large review. That is when Beatrice and Eugenie also had their security removed (the actual agreement was they would have it until they finished their education but after that they wouldn't have it). Edward and Anne now only have it when on official duties and they are working royals and the siblings of the Sovereign.

Harry's big issue is he doesn't realise that he isn't equal to William and thus won't get what William gets - the money, the homes, the security etc. Same with the whinge about his children's titles and security - HRH doesn't mean security at all.

 

[tommy100]

100% - Harry wants what William gets. The fact he has complained about William getting the 'better half" of a shared bedroom at Balmoral says it all IMO. This is just another example of being unhappy he doesn't get the same as his big brother.
What I find galling is that, as has been pointed out countless times, Harry has been aware (surely) since at least 2011 that in terms of police protection his aunt and uncles have been treated differently to his father. Not because the Queen hates her younger children, not because the men in grey suits have plotted it, simply, purely because Charles is an different position than they are. He is more senior because of his birth right and because of that he is better protected because he is a higher risk and a greater, more important asset to the UK. Why Harry now acts surprised by it I do not know.
What I do understand is Harry pushing for some police protection while in the UK. In many ways I would love to see it as simple as - you quit, so you lost it, tough. But it is the protection of him and his family and to be fair, if as a country we can give Taylor Swift police outriders for her concerts here Im not hugely opposed to a few police officers keeping an eye on harry to stop the crazies getting to him (even if some of them are those Harry and Meghan have encouraged themselves) I have no doubt that a great many well known people are looked after by the police better than you and I are merer "normal citizens" are. I am sure , for example the police would respond quicker to a call (likely from a specially fitted panic button) from Zara and Mike's house than they would my house. So yes, I can understand Harry pushing for an element of police protection. What I find outrageous is him trying to dictate the level of protection - armed officers and a lot of talk about attacks on vehicles etc suggesting he wants, IMO, police outriders. Sorry, no. The police and security services decide the level of protection offered to you based on professional threat assessments, you do not demand it. That shows IMO his "demands" are not merely just about protection but about gaining equal status and "perks" (as I think Harry sees them) as his brother. For context, in one of the many reviews from 2011 onwards there was a huge drawing back on the number of armed police protection officers, not just to members of the Royal Family but senior members of the UK government and others. They replaced armed officers with officers with tasers and other more normal defence items, with armed police called in if needed. I would find it likely if even working members of the RF always get armed police protection when out and about on public duties these days, so Harry demanding it as a given right anytime he is the UK really is beyond the pale.
It is also worth remember, if he was serious about his and his family's security one would think it better not to have gone to the papers in the first place complaining he didn't have armed protection, at a time many people probably would have assumed he did. One the greatest defences most protected people have is the fact they never disclose what security they have.

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

At one point, Harry seemed to understand the pecking order. He made comments about having a time limited window before George and Charlotte came on the scene etc. He does appear to have changed that opinion. He seems to think he's William's equal with regards to things like security and 'perks' related to being heir. I don't know if Meghan was influencing this change or not, but something changed with him.

 

[yukari]

At one point, Harry seemed to understand the pecking order. He made comments about having a time limited window before George and Charlotte came on the scene etc. He does appear to have changed that opinion. He seems to think he's William's equal with regards to things like security and 'perks' related to being heir. I don't know if Meghan was influencing this change or not, but something changed with him.

TBF, living in the US and reading news about mass shooting happening almost everyday, then seeing the huge security bills will make any (non-US) person paranoid and crying for free armed security. It doesn't always have to be Meghan's influence.

 

[Kristen]

TBF, living in the US and reading news about mass shooting happening almost everyday, then seeing the huge security bills will make any (non-US) person paranoid and crying for free armed security. It doesn't always have to be Meghan's influence.

This is a fair point, but living in the US is their choice. Expecting taxpayers to pay for their security when they live as private citizens is outrageous, imo.

 

[Somebody]

100% - Harry wants what William gets. The fact he has complained about William getting the 'better half" of a shared bedroom at Balmoral says it all IMO. This is just another example of being unhappy he doesn't get the same as his big brother.
What I find galling is that, as has been pointed out countless times, Harry has been aware (surely) since at least 2011 that in terms of police protection his aunt and uncles have been treated differently to his father. Not because the Queen hates her younger children, not because the men in grey suits have plotted it, simply, purely because Charles is a different position than they are. He is more senior because of his birth right and because of that he is better protected because he is a higher risk and a greater, more important asset to the UK. Why Harry now acts surprised by it I do not know.
What I do understand is Harry pushing for some police protection while in the UK. In many ways I would love to see it as simple as - you quit, so you lost it, tough. But it is the protection of him and his family and to be fair, if as a country we can give Taylor Swift police outriders for her concerts here Im not hugely opposed to a few police officers keeping an eye on harry to stop the crazies getting to him (even if some of them are those Harry and Meghan have encouraged themselves) I have no doubt that a great many well known people are looked after by the police better than you and I are merer "normal citizens" are. I am sure , for example the police would respond quicker to a call (likely from a specially fitted panic button) from Zara and Mike's house than they would my house. So yes, I can understand Harry pushing for an element of police protection. What I find outrageous is him trying to dictate the level of protection - armed officers and a lot of talk about attacks on vehicles etc suggesting he wants, IMO, police outriders. Sorry, no. The police and security services decide the level of protection offered to you based on professional threat assessments, you do not demand it. That shows IMO his "demands" are not merely just about protection but about gaining equal status and "perks" (as I think Harry sees them) as his brother. For context, in one of the many reviews from 2011 onwards there was a huge drawing back on the number of armed police protection officers, not just to members of the Royal Family but senior members of the UK government and others. They replaced armed officers with officers with tasers and other more normal defence items, with armed police called in if needed. I would find it likely if even working members of the RF always get armed police protection when out and about on public duties these days, so Harry demanding it as a given right anytime he is the UK really is beyond the pale.
It is also worth remember, if he was serious about his and his family's security one would think it better not to have gone to the papers in the first place complaining he didn't have armed protection, at a time many people probably would have assumed he did. One the greatest defences most protected people have is the fact they never disclose what security they have.

There is no need for Harry to ‘push for protection’, he is already receiving it and has received it every single time he visited the UK. He is just not allowed to decide himself what kind of protection he is receiving (which also applies to all other members of the royal family) because that is based on a needs assessment (again, the same applies for his family members).

 

[Leopoldine]

This is a fair point, but living in the US is their choice. Expecting taxpayers to pay for their security when they live as private citizens is outrageous, imo.

They earn their living by engaging in heavily publicized commercial activities. That does not mean they deserve IPP status.

 

[Marengo]

Apparently a bug on the As Ever website has shown how much of everything there is in stock - a lot:

Meghan Markle website accidentally reveals her sensitive data

Meghan Markle's As Ever store appears to have $21.8 million of products after her closely guarded stock tallies were exposed.

www.newsweek.com

The Sun interviews 'a source' who claims that she must have sold a million jars of jam and that the brand must be very succesful. The tabloid does not reveal how the source arrived at that conclusion.

Verifying Device