Prince Harry May No Longer Be a Working Royal – But Security Threats Against Him Haven’t Disappeared
EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS: The Duke of Sussex cannot help what he was born into regardless of royal duties
Prince Harry’s sensational return to the UK confused many commentators for many reasons, but especially because of the arrangements surrounding his security.
RAVEC (The Royal and VIP Executive Committee) is the body which decides which members of the Royal Family and other high-profile figures receive police protection that would be covered by the Home Office. For example, global pop icon Taylor Swift was widely reported to have received police protection during the London leg of her Eras tour after a bomb threat shut down her concerts in Vienna. Currently, the bespoke arrangement agreed at the Sandringham Summit remains in place, where RAVEC will decide on his level of security on a ‘case-by-case basis’ – meaning every time he returns to the UK.
After previously losing a legal challenge against the Home Office in 2025, the Duke of Sussex sat down with BBC News. Speaking about the prospect of bringing his family back at the time, he stated: “I can't see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point." It’s not hard to believe why after his own security firm carried out their assessment.
The Threats Against Harry
According to a report commissioned by Prince Harry’s team, the Duke of Sussex has been the focus of six terrorist plots. According to ITV News, which saw the report, five of these originated in the UK. The confidential dossier apparently detailed ‘dozens of threats and potential attacks’ which include an al-Qaeda document calling for his assassination. This was on top of six credible plots from ‘jihadist and right-wing threat actors’ that have also targeted other high-profile UK names. The outlet also reports that the Metropolitan Police are aware of nearly 500 potential stalkers who target the Royal Family, of which Harry’s team claims half have demonstrated a threat against the Sussex family.
British Journalist Benjamin Butterworth also claimed there was a significant threat to Harry’s life from the Taliban. Speaking on Times Radio, he stated: “I think in his book Spare, he rather controversially said that he'd killed Taliban fighters, and I spoke to the Taliban [Official Press Spokesperson] about that … They said to me that he committed crimes against humanity. They were freedom fighters, and that they were heroes, and he should be held accountable.” He added: “The Taliban said to me that ‘human rights activists’ need to rise up and take on Prince Harry because he killed villagers in Afghanistan and should be held accountable. Now, now they're not calling for violence, but it does remind us that if people like the Taliban have an agenda against Prince Harry.” This came after Prince Harry famously revealed that he killed 25 Taliban fighters during his Afghanistan military service in his bombshell memoir, Spare.
Many will undoubtedly question how Harry was able to have the protection he needed in the States but not the UK, because of the are active threats. The Second Amendment in the Constitution protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms across the pond, but that's not something applicable in the UK. Private security firms are not allowed to carry firearms or any weapon of protection. Only authorised members of the police and members of the armed forces are allowed to carry firearms in public. Private security also cannot carry pepper spray, mace, tasers or batons. Meaning the only way that Harry would have access to the close protection or the armed security he feels is needed to keep his family safe from Jihadists and other bad actors is through the police. It is also a question of access to the behind-the-scenes confidential intelligence. For Harry, he doesn't see this simply as a benefit; it seems to threaten his very existence.
Who pays?
When I went to gauge the public mood outside of Buckingham Palace earlier this week, the reaction was mixed. Although nearly everyone wanted to see Harry back in the Royal Family on a private level, many seemed sceptical about any return to Royal Duties. As a non-working member, many in the UK would argue that Harry should not receive automatic taxpayer-funded protection. He doesn’t work within the confines of the institution, is therefore not giving a service back to the public, and should therefore not receive the automatic benefit. However, he is the son of the King and the brother of the future King; if anything were to happen to him or his family, undoubtedly the news would be a country-destabilising event. There is a strong argument that Harry should receive protection if he funds it himself. That sounds like a plan, right? Wrong.
During his previous appeals, Prince Harry did offer to cover the costs of close-protection security himself. However, this was refused outright as the Metropolitan Police said that arrangement would potentially create a dangerous precedent. The force implied that they are not simply guns for hire, whilst resources to fight crime in the capital are already stretched. Whilst an argument can absolutely be made that not every billionaire who travels to the UK should be afforded the privilege of paying for police protection, just to somehow bolster their own profile, Prince Harry is undoubtedly a unique case. As I have stated on several broadcasts this week, Harry cannot help who he is, and he cannot help the family he was born into.
Even as a private member of the Royal Family, his status is still elevated. Although the King has proven that Prince titles can be stripped (see Andrew Mountbatten Windsor), Prince Harry’s title is not going away, especially given the fact that closer family ties are being forged privately behind palace walls. Nevertheless, the threat to his life remains active, regardless of whether he is a working royal undertaking duty. So effectively, the establishment is trapped in a bind. On one hand, a dangerous precedent cannot and should not be made just for rich individuals. On the other hand, Prince Harry is an exceptional case, not because of what he does, but simply because of who he is, and that is not going to change. Whilst the majority of mainstream opinion in the UK suggests that automatic close-protection security paid for by the taxpayer should be out of the question, the establishment may need to come to a compromise.
