Prince Harry's long-running dispute over police protection in the United Kingdom has resurfaced after reports that Meghan Markle and the couple's children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, will not accompany him on an upcoming visit because of security concerns. The latest debate intensified after former royal butler Grant Harrold argued that King Charles III has no authority to intervene in the matter while suggesting Meghan may be using the security dispute as a reason to stay away from Britain.
Harrold's remarks, made during an appearance on GB News, have added another layer to the ongoing discussion surrounding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's relationship with the royal family. While the Sussexes have consistently maintained that security concerns are genuine, Harrold questioned whether the issue is the only factor influencing Meghan's decision not to return to the UK.
The renewed controversy comes against the backdrop of Prince Harry's years-long legal battle over taxpayer-funded police protection. Since stepping back from royal duties in 2020 and relocating to California, Harry has lost automatic access to publicly funded security while visiting Britain and has unsuccessfully challenged that decision through the courts.
According to Harrold, responsibility for determining Harry's protection lies entirely outside Buckingham Palace.
Speaking to GB News presenters Anne Diamond and Stephen Dixon, Harrold said King Charles has "got no control over that kind of thing."
Harrold explained that decisions regarding royal security are handled by government authorities rather than the monarch.
"That's the Home Office, that's the Met. I mean, he's not going to get involved in that. He could contact them and say, 'look, do you think you could,' but that's not really what he's supposed to be doing," Harrold said.
His comments reinforce the constitutional separation between the monarchy and operational government decisions. While the King is regularly briefed on security matters affecting members of the royal family, Harrold argued that he does not direct or override decisions made by the Home Office or the Metropolitan Police.
Harrold also suggested Harry's security arrangements are determined through individual risk assessments rather than permanent royal status.
"It's just not an automatic guarantee, and that's what the fight's about," Harrold said. "But I would have thought on this visit, it's most likely that he would have had it."
The discussion took a more personal turn when presenter Anne Diamond questioned whether security was the primary reason behind Meghan's reported absence.
Diamond told viewers she had "the feeling" the Duchess "doesn't see any point" in returning to Britain. She also remarked that Archie and Lilibet "apparently have very strong American accents" and "don't really know they're British, frankly, and that's that."
Harrold agreed with Diamond's assessment.
"I don't think she does," he said, before adding that it "does seem like it's an excuse not to have to come with the family."
Those remarks reflect Harrold's personal opinion rather than verified fact. Neither Meghan Markle nor Prince Harry has publicly suggested that security concerns are merely a pretext for avoiding Britain. Instead, representatives for the Sussexes have repeatedly argued that concerns over their family's safety remain genuine following Harry's loss of automatic police protection.
The debate also highlights a broader divide that has persisted since the couple's departure from royal life. Supporters of the Sussexes argue Meghan experienced intense public scrutiny and hostility during her time as a working royal, making any return emotionally difficult. Critics, meanwhile, contend that the couple's interviews, documentaries and Harry's memoir Spare have further strained already fragile family relationships.
Harrold expressed his strongest concern not about constitutional issues but about the personal consequences of the ongoing dispute.
"It's sad because the King hasn't seen these grandchildren in what, four years," he said, describing the situation as "unfair on him."
He added that "the children have done nothing wrong in this, and they should have the right to see their grandparents."
