{"id":107172,"date":"2025-05-16T20:24:11","date_gmt":"2025-05-16T20:24:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/107172\/"},"modified":"2025-05-16T20:24:11","modified_gmt":"2025-05-16T20:24:11","slug":"prince-harrys-possible-endgame-in-security-row-could-cost-us-taxpayers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/107172\/","title":{"rendered":"Prince Harry’s possible endgame in security row could cost US taxpayers"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the wake of Prince Harry\u2019s bitter BBC interview<\/a> two weeks ago, and a \u201cdevastating\u201d appeals court ruling that denied him automatic, top-level police protection when he visits the United Kingdom, royal observers are still trying to figure out what his real endgame has been.<\/p>\n

After all, Harry has lost a lot in his years-long legal fight with the U.K. government \u2014 seemingly just so that he could receive a certain level of security for the few days each year that he decides to pop over from California to his home country. It\u2019s possible that he has ended all chance of reconciliation with his father, King Charles III, and the rest of his family. And, the infrequently employed Duke of Sussex, who wants to support a multimillionaire\u2019s lifestyle in Montecito, also is on the hook for nearly $2 million in legal fees.<\/a><\/p>\n

One leading theory for why Harry pressed this case so aggressively is that he\u2019s still mad that he lost his status as an \u201cInternationally Protected Person\u201d when he and his wife Meghan Markle decided to leave royal life in 2020 and seek fame and fortune on their own in the United States, as royal editors Rebecca English and Richard Eden explained this week in a special edition of the Daily Mail\u2019s Palace Confidential show.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

\"PrincePrince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex depart Canada House on January 07, 2020 in London, England. The couple has expanded its media empire with a Spotify podcast deal.(Chris Jackson\/Getty Images)\u00a0<\/p>\n

English said there\u2019s been \u201ca lot of debate\u201d about whether Harry\u2019s legal fight actually has been \u201ca front\u201d for him and Meghan to obtain their IPP status again. But giving returning this status to them could prove costly to taxpayers on both sides of the Atlantic, especially in the United States, where they now live, as she and Eden pointed out.<\/p>\n

Being an Internationally Protected Person \u2014 or an IPP \u2014 comes with a high level of prestige and free, state-sponsored protection almost anywhere in the world. For the sake of international diplomacy, participating governments agree to protect one another\u2019s heads of state, heads of government, foreign ministers or \u201cofficial guests.\u201d \u00a0This status, codified in international law, also has long been applied to King Charles and certain members of his immediate family. When these royals are home, the British government pays for their security. When they travel outside the U.K., other governments cover the costs.<\/p>\n

If Harry were to regain his IPP status, that would \u201cbasically would make him such a special case that wherever he goes in the world, whether he\u2019s visiting temporarily or whether he decides to settle, the government of that country would be paying for their security,\u201d English said. So, if Harry and Meghan had this status and continued to live in California, \u201ceffectively the U.S. government would be paying for (their) security,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

English estimated that Harry and Meghan must pay several million dollars each year to receive round-the-clock security. \u00a0That\u2019s a heavy burden for the couple if their various money-making ventures in the United States are do not prove to be as profitable as they hoped, including their media ventures and Meghan\u2019s As Ever lifestyle brand. They famously lost their $20 million production deal with Spotify, and there is question about whether Netflix will renew its production deal with the couple, despite all the publicity around Meghan\u2019s lifestyle show, \u201cWith Love, Meghan.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s certainly a theory that is gaining credence that maybe (Harry\u2019s) court case is all about him being able to get that IPP status (back) because a lot of the deals that they though were going to base their new life on in the U.S. have fallen by the wayside,\u201d English continued. She said it\u2019s possible that Harry and Meghan are worried about how they are going to be able to afford their lifestyle \u2014 and their security costs \u2014 going forward, especially as their children get older and start leading independent lives.<\/p>\n

\u201cIs this about (them) trying to save money in the long run?\u201d English said.<\/p>\n

While Eden acknowledged that there\u2019s no evidence that Harry\u2019s endgame is to retain his IPP status, he wondered about the outcry if that happened, because of the burden it would put on the U.S. government. \u201cIt seems like their popularity has dipped a bit in the US, but can you imagine if hard-pressed US taxpayers had to be funding round-the-clock security for Harry and Meghan? I\u2019m sure that wouldn\u2019t go down very well with a lot of people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Canadians weren\u2019t pleased<\/a> to learn that they were footing the bill for Harry and Meghan\u2019s security when the couple spent an extended period of time, living in a secluded estate on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in late 2019 and early 2020.<\/p>\n

Once the couple announced their resignations as senior working royals, they lost their IPP status. The Canadian government subsequently announced t<\/a>hat it would no longer provide security for them. The late Queen Elizabeth II apparently knew there could be significant diplomatic repercussions if she allowed her grandson and his wife to retain their IPP status, with the expectation that other governments like Canada would pay for their security.<\/p>\n

The outcry in Canada apparently prompted President Trump, during his first administration, to announce on X that the U.S. government would not pay for the couple\u2019s security when it became known that they and their 10-month-old son Archie had traveled to Los Angeles in March 2020, just as the borders between the two countries were shut down amid the COVID-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n

Trump, who has openly sided with the royal family in their rift with Harry and Meghan, took to X to say he learned they had just left Canada for the United States. \u201cHowever, the U.S. will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump has continued to voice his disdain for Harry and Meghan, so it\u2019s not likely that he would support the couple retaining their IPP status.<\/p>\n

Then, as now, Harry has insisted that he should be entitled to the same high level of security as his father or brother, Prince William, given his military service in Afghanistan but especially because of his role in the royal family. In his BBC interview, he said his security risks have even gotten worse in recent years, even though he is no longer a senior working royal. His lawyers also said that he has been unfairly singled out for \u201cinferior treatment\u201d by the U.K. government committee that assesses security for royal family members.<\/p>\n

\u201cI was born into these risks, they\u2019ve only increased over time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Harry spoke to the BBC after an appellate court on May 1 rejected his legal argument, which ostensibly only focused on the level of security he receives when he visits the U.K. He said he wouldn\u2019t appeal the court ruling but he called on the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer to step in and examine how security is decided for royal family members.<\/p>\n

It should be pointed out that Harry still receives Metropolitan police protection when he visits the U.K. but he must give several weeks\u2019 notice. He also also doesn\u2019t automatically receive a certain level of protection; that is decided on a case by case basis, depending on any threats that police uncover.<\/p>\n

But Harry said in court and in his BBC interview that he doesn\u2019t feel this case-by-case offer of protection is sufficient. He said he doesn\u2019t feel safe bringing Meghan and his children to the U.K. for visits. In the interview, he also invoked the 1997 death of his late mother, Princess Diana, to suggest that there are unnamed figures in the royal household who wouldn\u2019t mind if he came to harm.<\/p>\n

\u201cYes, I don\u2019t want history to repeat itself,\u201d he said. \u201cI think there\u2019s a lot of other people out there, the majority, that also don\u2019t want history to repeat itself. But through the disclosure process, I\u2019ve discovered that some people do want history to repeat itself, which is pretty dark.\u201d<\/p>\n

Originally Published: May 16, 2025 at 12:26 PM PDT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In the wake of Prince Harry\u2019s bitter BBC interview two weeks ago, and a \u201cdevastating\u201d appeals court ruling…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":107173,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7708],"tags":[7709,557,4080,30688,23900,7721,7719,77,7718,2843,388,7720,1281,603,12,447,7710,519,6417,23902,7711,263],"class_list":{"0":"post-107172","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-royals","8":"tag-british-royal-family","9":"tag-california","10":"tag-celebrities","11":"tag-celebrity-alert","12":"tag-coffee-break","13":"tag-duchess-of-sussex","14":"tag-duke-of-sussex","15":"tag-entertainment","16":"tag-harry","17":"tag-latest-headlines","18":"tag-lifestyle","19":"tag-meghan","20":"tag-meghan-markle","21":"tag-national-news","22":"tag-news","23":"tag-prince-harry","24":"tag-royal-families","25":"tag-royal-family","26":"tag-things-to-do","27":"tag-tv-streaming","28":"tag-uk-royal-family","29":"tag-world-news"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114519386692796801","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107172\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/107173"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}