Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should receive state-funded police protection while in Britain because private security firms can't match the intelligence and operational capabilities available to specialist U.K. police units, according to a former senior royal protection officer.
Scott Hamer, a former royal bodyguard, made the case as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex prepare to spend extended periods in Britain, reviving a dispute that has followed Harry since he and Meghan stepped back as senior working members of the Royal Family in 2020.
Speaking to Sky News, Hamer argued that the couple's international profile and the potential threats surrounding them justify government involvement. Specialist police protection can draw on intelligence, firearms resources and coordination among government agencies that aren't available to private security teams, he said.
His recommendation represents his personal assessment rather than a change in government policy. The U.K. government hasn't announced plans to restore the automatic taxpayer-funded protection Harry and Meghan received before leaving their royal roles.
The distinction is central to a legal and political fight that has stretched across several years. After relocating to the U.S., Harry lost the automatic police security that accompanied his position as a working royal, leaving protection during subsequent U.K. visits to be determined according to individual circumstances.
Harry has maintained that the security risks facing him, Meghan and their children remain substantial regardless of whether he performs official royal duties. He began legal proceedings against the Home Office in 2022, challenging the arrangements governing the protection available to him when he returns to Britain.
One element of Harry's case involved his attempt to pay personally for specialist police protection. He argued that private security couldn't provide the same access to government intelligence and law-enforcement capabilities, even if he covered the cost himself.
The High Court rejected his legal challenge, leaving the existing system in place. Protective arrangements involving members of the Royal Family and other prominent figures are determined through the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, with assessments made according to perceived threats and circumstances.
The Home Office has defended that framework in court, maintaining that Harry's security is considered on a case-by-case basis rather than automatically determined by his position as the King's son. Buckingham Palace has generally declined to discuss operational security matters publicly.
Hamer's intervention nevertheless highlights an unusual problem created by Harry and Meghan's post-2020 status. They are private citizens who no longer perform regular duties for the monarchy, yet their international prominence means their appearances can generate security demands closer to those associated with senior public figures.
Supporters of restoring state protection point to Harry's position in the Royal Family, his military service in Afghanistan and the sustained attention directed toward both him and Meghan. They argue that a serious security incident involving the King's son and his family while on British soil would inevitably become a matter for the British government regardless of who had initially paid for their protection.
Opponents make a different argument: Harry and Meghan voluntarily left working royal life, moved to California and developed commercial ventures outside the monarchy. From that perspective, restoring taxpayer-funded security would effectively preserve one of the costly privileges associated with royal service after the couple gave up the duties that once accompanied it.
That tension also complicates Harry's earlier offer to pay for police protection himself. While such an arrangement could reduce the direct burden on taxpayers, the courts haven't accepted that individuals should be able to purchase specialist police protective services simply because they are willing to cover the expense.
Hamer's argument focuses instead on capability. Private protection teams can provide close personal security, but they don't possess the same access to intelligence databases, armed policing resources and government threat assessments available to specialist officers.
