The Complicated Issue of Royal Security

Welcome to So Many Thoughts, a semi-weekly newsletter about royal style and the other parts of life I want to think through with you. You can subscribe here and follow me on Instagram at @EHolmes. Thank you!

In the nearly two years since the Sussexes moved to California, Meghan, Archie, and Lilibet have not visited the U.K. We learned last week one big reason why: security — or lack thereof.

Prince Harry released an extraordinary statement Saturday about his struggles to secure proper protection on visits to his home country. The Sussexes were stripped of their security funded by the British taxpayers when they stepped down as senior working royals in 2020. They now pay for a private U.S. security team themselves. However, according to Harry’s statement, their security “cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K.” Harry, who is sixth in line to the throne, has offered to pay for his family's security himself; that request has been denied. Last September, he sought a judicial review, urging the government to reconsider.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home,” the statement read.

All of this calls into question whether the Sussexes will be able to attend the Queen's upcoming jubilee celebrations this June. So I thought it would be helpful to answer some questions around royal security — who gets it, who pays for it, and why it is such a charged, complicated matter.

* * *

The Queen does not pay for police protection nor does she determine which members of her family receive it. Matters of royal security are handled by the Home Office, a department of the government responsible for security, immigration, and law and order.

Priti Patel currently serves as Secretary of State of the Home Office, also known as the Home Department. “Even in Britain's fractured political landscape, few lawmakers are as intensely polarizing as Patel,” read a CNN profile of Patel, “who has held key jobs in successive Conservative governments and whose name has been floated as a potential successor to Prime Minister Boris Johnson.”

A top-secret group known as the Royal and VIP Executive Committee decides who gets security coverage in the royal family as well as protection of other notable figures, including former prime ministers.

The Royalty and Specialist Protection Command, an elite group within the Metropolitan Police Service (aka “the Met” or “Scotland Yard”), provides the protection. Although the vast majority of Met officers do not carry guns, some of the Royal Personal Protection Officers (referred to as PPOs) are armed.

Security costs are not part of the Sovereign Grant, the annual sum given to the royal family by the government, which “supports the monarch’s official business.”

Rather, the tab for royal protection is “usually picked up by the Metropolitan Police,” according to the BBC. And that makes it a hot-button topic. “As security is paid for from the public purse, the issue is often weaponised by critics,” read a piece in the Guardian this week, “who argue police protection should not automatically be conferred on non-working royals and extended family members.”

Details on funding are not shared publicly as a matter of, well, security. But estimates have surfaced in the press. A 2020 piece in The Times newspaper said, “The budget for the police unit which guards royals, ministers and other dignitaries is believed to be £100 million.”

That number is a bit lower than in 2010, when internal budget figures were released and put the cost of protecting the royal family, as well as politicians and diplomats, for the previous year at £113.5 million. The size of the spend sparked outrage at the time, according to another piece in The Times:

The Queen, Charles, Camilla, Will, and Kate receive round-the-clock protection.

Other members of the royal family — including the Queen’s children, Princess Anne and Prince Edward, as well as Edward’s wife, Sophie — have security when they are on official duties. The shift, from 24/7 protection to select coverage, was made as part of cost-cutting measures a decade ago in the wake of the Cambridges’ wedding.

“The latest move comes as the Metropolitan Police Service tries to recover from its hefty £8 million royal wedding security costs,” read a 2011 article in the Express newspaper reporting on early news of the changes. “The suggestion was last night said to have left Princess Anne, who carries out 600 engagements a year, ‘incandescent with rage.’”

Yes, although it has reportedly been scaled back since 2019 when Andrew largely stopped making public appearances. In the wake of recent news, there are calls for the Queen’s second son to pay for his own security entirely. (ICYMI: Here is my explainer on the sexual abuse allegations against Prince Andrew.)

Andrew’s daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, received full security until 2011, when they were stripped of it as part of the aforementioned budget review. At the time, the princesses were fifth and sixth in line to the throne. The total cost to protect the sisters was estimated to be around £500,000 per year, according to a Scotland Yard Review. Eugenie’s travel during her gap year received particular scrutiny.

“It is now understood that both princesses, who are not working royals, have any security they need paid for privately,” according to a report this week in the Mirror newspaper.

A 2002 story in the Guardian resurfaced this week because it suggested Prince Charles paid for security staff for his then-girlfriend, Camilla Parker Bowles. The two were not married, therefore Camilla was not entitled to taxpayer-funded protection. “The move would represent a considerable increase in protection for the prince's long-term mistress, even though it is apparently being done privately rather than as part of the royal protection budget,” the 2002 report said. Charles’s office declined to comment at the time, saying it was a private matter.

Diana declined police protection at the end of her marriage, in part because she suspected the officers were divulging her actions to others within the Firm. “The Princess had decided she would no longer tolerate being spied on, which meant, except when she traveled with her sons, giving up the safe-guard of royal protection,” wrote journalist Tina Brown in her book, The Diana Chronicles.

The Princess’s former equerry and private secretary, Patrick Jephson, called Diana’s refusal a “bold, even reckless move,” in his book, Shadows of a Princess. “This unorthodox approach to her own security nonetheless caused headaches at the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Group,” he wrote. “They were under tight budgetary constraints, so the lifting of the requirement to field a four-man team for the Princess of Wales was certainly an attractive economy.”

Ken Wharfe, Diana’s former bodyguard, told NBC News in 2017 that he had urged the princess to reconsider:

Diana died in a car crash in Paris in the summer of 1997; the person driving her car, Henri Paul, was intoxicated. “Henri Paul should never have been the driver of that car on the fatal night of August 31,” Brown wrote. “If Diana had not refused police protection from Scotland Yard he never would have been.”

Security logistics were a huge point of discussion in Harry and Meghan’s decision to step down in 2020. Early reports suggested coverage would still fall under British purview. From 2020 piece in the Times newspaper:

When the Sussexes initially relocated to Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stepped in — but only so long as the couple was working for the Queen. “As the duke and duchess are currently recognised as Internationally Protected Persons, Canada has an obligation to provide security assistance on an as needed basis,” read a 2020 statement by Canada’s federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair. That ceased, “in keeping with their change in status.” when they stepped down in March 2020.

Harry told Oprah Winfrey last year that he “never thought” his royal security would be taken. “I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me,” he said.

Meghan said she personally pleaded with the royal family to reinstate Harry’s security:

The Sussexes pay for private security themselves. According to the BBC, Sussexes’ existing team does not have access to the same local intelligence nor would it have the same legal jurisdiction in the U.K.

The issue arose during one of Harry's two trips back last year. He returned in April for the funeral of his grandfather, Prince Philip, and then again in July to unveil a statue dedicated to his late mother. On that second trip, according to Harry’s statement, “his security was compromised due to the absence of police protection, whilst leaving a charity event.”

Harry has offered to personally pay for police protection for his family when visiting the U.K — “as not to impose on the British taxpayer” — but that offer was dismissed, his statement said. After another round of negotiations, Harry sought a judicial review “in the hopes that this could be re-evaluated for the obvious and necessary protection required.”

From the Guardian: “If the case progresses, it will lead to a high court battle between ministers and Harry, thought to be the first occasion in modern times when a member of the royal family has brought a case against Her Majesty's government.”

This all puts a big question mark around the Sussexes’ appearance at the Queen’s historic Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June as well as a memorial service for Prince Philip in April. According to the Mirror, Prince Charles has invited Harry and his family to stay with him on his next visit.

* * *

But mostly: I was shocked and deeply saddened when I first read Harry’s statement. The issue of security, given his mother’s death, must be deeply triggering and traumatizing for him. I hope that the Home Office allows Harry to pay for the protection the family needs or, even better, provides it for him.

What do you think? Please hit “Join the Discussion” at the bottom of this email to leave a comment. You can also send me an email at hello@somanythoughts.com.

* * *

I will see you back in your inboxes next Tuesday, friends. Have a wonderful weekend.

Like what you’re reading? Please forward this newsletter to a friend! You can subscribe here, join the fun on Instagram at @EHolmes and find my book, HRH: So Many Thoughts on Royal Style, at your local independent bookstore.