According to a report from Daily Mail, the return of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to the United Kingdom is creating a new debate over one of the most sensitive issues surrounding their relationship with the Royal Family: security.
As the Sussexes prepare to spend more time in Britain after six years living in the United States, former Home Secretary David Blunkett has suggested a possible middle-ground solution. Instead of restoring full royal-level protection, he believes Harry and Meghan should receive a limited and temporary security arrangement that can be adjusted depending on the level of threat.
The proposal comes as the debate over who should pay for the couple’s security intensifies, with estimated costs potentially reaching around £5 million per year.
For Harry and Meghan, the issue is not only about personal safety. It also represents a much bigger question about their position after stepping away from their roles as senior working royals.
A Temporary Security Plan Instead of Full Royal Protection
David Blunkett believes there is a practical solution between two extremes: giving Harry and Meghan complete royal protection or removing security support entirely.
He explained that there are different levels of protection available.
The highest level involves a full security operation, including specially protected vehicles, backup cars, and multiple close protection officers operating around the clock.
A lower level could involve a trained security driver.
But Blunkett believes the most reasonable option for the Sussexes would be a middle level: one or two protection officers traveling with Harry during certain situations.
He described this approach as:
“a perfectly reasonable thing to offer for the time being”
and suggested that the arrangement could later be reviewed depending on how circumstances change.
The idea reflects the complicated position Harry and Meghan now occupy. They remain internationally recognized members of the Royal Family, but they are no longer working royals receiving the same official status as before.
The Biggest Question: Who Should Pay?
The main controversy surrounding the Sussexes’ security is not only how much protection they receive, but who should fund it.
After Harry and Meghan stepped back from royal duties in 2020, they became financially independent and lost automatic access to certain royal privileges.
Now, as they prepare to return to Britain, politicians are divided.
Some argue that Harry remains the son of King Charles and therefore faces a unique level of public attention and potential risk.
Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that Harry, Meghan, and their children deserve protection.
She emphasized that Harry’s position as the King’s son and his years of public service place him in a different category from ordinary private citizens.
She said the family:
“deserve to be secure.”
Other politicians, however, believe the responsibility should fall on Harry and Meghan themselves.
Critics Say the Sussexes Should Handle Their Own Security
Lord Foulkes, a former minister under Tony Blair, argued that the couple’s security should be treated as a private matter.
He pointed out that Harry and Meghan are wealthy individuals and questioned why taxpayers should cover their protection costs.
He said:
“They are wealthy people and I wouldn’t have thought it is something that the taxpayer should be expected to pay for.”
Supporters of this argument also highlight that several members of the Royal Family who are not working royals do not receive permanent police protection.
These include:
- Peter Phillips
- Zara Tindall
- Princess Beatrice
- Princess Eugenie
For critics, Harry and Meghan’s decision to step away from royal duties means they should also accept the financial consequences of living independently.
Harry’s Fight for Security Continues Behind the Scenes
The security debate has been a major issue for Harry since leaving the Royal Family.
Reports indicate that a review by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), the organization responsible for security arrangements for important public figures in Britain, has already been completed.
It has also been reported that Harry privately appealed to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood regarding the outcome.
The issue has been one of the most emotional parts of Harry’s separation from royal life.
He has previously argued that reduced security creates risks for himself and his family, especially because of his global profile and the attention surrounding him.
A Return That May Not Be Permanent
Another complication is that Harry and Meghan’s return to Britain may not represent a permanent relocation.
A source close to the couple reportedly suggested that their move could last as little as six months.
This creates another difficult question for authorities.
Should Britain establish a significant security arrangement for a family that may only spend limited time in the country?
Or should Harry and Meghan be treated more like other non-working royals who manage their own arrangements?
The Larger Meaning Behind the Security Debate
The argument over Harry and Meghan’s security is about much more than protection officers and costs.
It reflects the unresolved tension surrounding their place within the modern monarchy.
Harry remains the son of the King, but he no longer performs official royal duties.
Meghan remains one of the most recognizable figures connected to the Royal Family, but she is also living an independent life outside the institution.
Their return to Britain brings all of those contradictions back into focus.
A compromise solution like Blunkett’s could provide a temporary answer, but it does not resolve the deeper issue: how should Harry and Meghan be treated after choosing a different path from the Royal Family?
As the Sussexes prepare for their next chapter in the UK, the security decision could become one of the clearest signals of where they truly stand within the royal world.
