Royal biographer Angela Levin has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle of blackmail over their reported demands for taxpayer-funded security since returning to the UK, arguing they should not receive protection reserved for senior royals after stepping back from official duties.
Levin said the couple were effectively holding the authorities to ransom, claiming that they had walked away from the working royal role that would have entitled them to state-funded protection and should not now expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill. The Sussexes' security request is said to be under review by officials, and the outcome will be watched closely on both sides of the Atlantic.
The accusation has divided commentators. TalkTV host Charlie Rowley pushed back against Levin's characterisation, noting Harry's years of army service, including operational tours, and pointing out that their children are the King's grandchildren. Rowley argued that the family's profile made them an obvious target regardless of their official status, and that security decisions should be based on threat assessments, not titles.
The row is the latest chapter in a dispute that has run for years. Since stepping back from royal duties, the Sussexes have fought a series of battles over the level of protection they receive when in Britain, including legal challenges over the withdrawal of their automatic security. The couple have repeatedly said they feel unsafe bringing their children to the UK without adequate protection, and each visit reignites the argument.
Supporters of the couple argue that Harry's military record and the couple's global profile mean the threat to them is real and well documented, and that no family should be left exposed because of a bureaucratic decision. Critics counter that public money is scarce, that protection should follow the working royal family, and that those who have chosen to build commercial careers abroad cannot expect the state to underwrite their safety.
No decision has been announced, and the review of their request continues against a backdrop of genuine security concerns, including recent scares near sensitive sites. With the family's UK visits now under intense scrutiny, the outcome is likely to set the tone for how the security of non-working royals is handled for years to come, and to define the limits of what the taxpayer should fund.
The question of who pays for royal security has been contentious since the couple stepped back from official duties. Protection for senior royals is funded by the taxpayer through the Metropolitan Police, and decisions are made on the basis of threat assessments rather than popularity. The Sussexes have argued that the threat to them has not diminished with their change in status, while critics maintain that public funds should be reserved for working members of the family. The review now under way will have to weigh those competing arguments, and its conclusion will be pored over for what it reveals about the future.