Should Harry Get Protection Funded by Taxpayer Money? New UK Poll Reveals Surprising Results
Public opinion surrounding Prince Harry’s security in the UK is sharply divided, with new polling highlighting the complexities of how Britons believe his protection should be handled. The findings have landed at a pivotal moment, as the government launches a fresh review of the Duke’s security arrangements, as per The Sun.
A majority of Britons believe Prince Harry should be entitled to police protection when he is in Britain, as per new polling results on YouGov. According to GB News, a survey of 8,022 adults in Great Britain, conducted on December 8, found that 56% think the Duke should receive some form of police protection when he visits his home country. However, most say he should pay for it himself rather than rely on taxpayers. The polling showed that only 17% want him to be entitled to state-funded police protection. A further 39% believe he should receive police protection only if he takes care of the expenses, while 28% say he should not be entitled to police protection at all, and another 16 percent responded that they do not know.
The generational divide added further nuance to the findings. Among 18 to 24-year-olds, 20% supported state-funded protection, while 4% backed protection only if Harry pays, and 10% said he should not receive police protection at all. Among people over 65, 38% were against police protection, compared to 15% who support state-funded cover and 41% who back protection at their own expense. These varied views across age groups illustrate how attitudes have become increasingly complex in the post-Megxit era.
The release of the poll coincided with significant developments in Harry’s security situation. As mentioned above, the findings came as Prince Harry’s security arrangements in the UK are under formal review for the first time since 2020. The Home Office has ordered a new threat assessment after the duke asked officials to review the risks he faces when visiting the UK. In his October 2025 letter to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, he sought a fresh review of the dangers he faced when traveling to the country. It prompted action from the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as RAVEC, which has since instructed its Risk Management Board to carry out an updated evaluation of his threat level.
The renewed focus follows Harry’s failed Court of Appeal challenge in May earlier this year over the government’s decision to downgrade his taxpayer-funded security after he stepped back as a working royal and moved to the United States. Harry has long argued that his UK security arrangements have stopped him from bringing his family there. Royal correspondent Jenne Bond echoed this concern while writing for i Paper. She argued, “To me, the equation is simple. If security is offered to a former prime minister who served barely any longer than a lettuce takes to wilt, then surely the son of the King deserves the same?” Bond was referring to former UK prime minister Liz Truss, eligible for lifetime taxpayer-funded security while also noting that it costs the government nearly £10 million ($13.3 million) annually.
The royal correspondent stressed that Harry’s personal background heightens his need for protection. His circumstances make state-funded security even more essential. “He cannot change the fact that he is the King’s son,” Bond stated. Security experts have highlighted that his military tours in Afghanistan, where he killed 25 Taliban fighters in the line of duty, added to the threat. He mentioned so in his memoir, Spare. Bond commented on the same and wrote, “ He [Harry] has, foolishly many would argue, admitted killing 25 Taliban...That admission must only have made the target already on his back even bigger.”