Harry & Meghan Deemed ‘Not Entitled to Security’ Despite Stalker Getting 'Within Yards' of Duke
A fresh wave of concern over their safety has reignited questions about who deserves taxpayer-funded protection.
Ever since Prince Harry’s royal security was pulled following his high-profile exit from Palace life, the debate about his safety has raged almost as fiercely as the sales of his memoir. But even a recent stalker scare, by a woman reportedly 'obsessed' with the now-married Prince, hasn’t budged public opinion in the UK, nor softened the argument that, without royal duties, the Sussexes aren’t automatically entitled to taxpayer-funded protection.
Jane Moore, columnist and a regular panelist on Loose Women, argues that while the Sussexes may still draw global fascination, they are, in essence, just 'celebrities’ now. She opined, “I sympathize. But the right (or not) to state-backed police protection is decided by the executive committee Ravec, which decided that, as he is no longer a working royal, he’s not entitled to it. Indeed, thanks to their various commercial deals, it could be argued that Harry and Meghan are now classed as mere ‘celebrities.’”
Her comments, published in The Sun, cut through the emotional fog surrounding the issue. After the couple’s exit, Ravec — the body overseeing royal and VIP security — offered what it described as a 'custom' arrangement. Harry and Meghan Markle were told to give 30 days’ notice for any trip to the UK, allowing authorities to assess potential threats before deciding on protection levels. It was, in many ways, an understood compromise.
Moore questioned whether that was fair. “With alarming frequency, the newspapers are full of stories about other celebrities (particularly women) whose lives are blighted by stalkers that they don’t get state-backed police protection from,” she wrote. “So if Harry was to get it, then why not them?”
She did not make an abstract statement but referred to recent stalking cases in Britain and spotlighted how fame offers little shield against danger. Strictly Come Dancing judge Shirley Ballas had to move her mother from her home because of persistent stalking by a 37-year-old man, Kyle Shaw. Earlier this year, Shaw’s 20-month prison sentence was suspended by Liverpool Crown Court.
Similarly, singer and broadcaster Myleene Klass described her home as being like 'Fort Knox' and 'Alcatraz' after her stalker was found guilty of sending disturbing letters and even an air pistol. Both women live under the same type of fear Harry has voiced. She argues that Harry’s danger might be real, so is theirs. What separates the Duke from Ballas or Klass in the eyes of the law is lineage and Ravec’s definition of 'working royal' status. So when Harry insists he’s being treated unfairly, critics argue the unfairness would be in granting him a privilege denied to everyone else.
However, security sources have different opinions. “These incidents are not uncommon for members of the royal family,” a security source familiar with the incidents shared. “It differs, however, because there was no police presence or close protection; it was left to two staffers from his private office to intervene. This time, they got lucky, recognizing the fixated individual. Relying on luck is not a long-term fix.” The source added that “there is an inevitable foreboding looming over this whole issue.”
