It has been claimed that a split has opened up in Ravec, the body which will make the decision on Prince Harry’s security, fearing the public’s reaction to taxpayers having to foot the bill for armed protection

Prince Harry’s security arrangements while in UK being reviewed

Prince Harry’s bid to have his taxpayer-funded security restored while in the UK could fail over fears of a public backlash, it has been claimed. The Duke of Sussex was stripped of automatic police protection in Britain when he and wife Meghan, left the country after quitting as working royals.

After a lengthy legal battle, which he lost, it emerged that he wrote to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood shortly after her appointment and submitted a formal request for a risk assessment to the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).

This assessment is understood to be being carried out, with reports suggesting earlier this year that Harry was on the verge of having his armed police protection restored when he visits the UK and felt confident about the outcome of the assessment.

View 2 Images

Prince Harry(Image: Anadolu via Getty Images)

However, it has now been claimed that there is a split in Ravec with senior civil servants from the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office against granting police protection, fearing the public’s reaction to taxpayers having to foot the bill.

According to The Telegraph, no final decision has been made but a source told the publication: “There is nervousness among certain members of the committee who fear a public backlash. The political side believes there is too much political risk, while the police and security chiefs believe that he absolutely must have it due to the extant threat.”

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. More info

During his previous High Court case, Harry argued that his security situation in the UK made it “impossible” for him to safely bring Meghan and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, back to his home country.

In an interview after the Court of Appeal handed down the judgement last May, he branded the decision a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch up and told the BBC : “For the time being, it’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely. I will continue on with a life of public service. So I will always support the charities and the people that mean so much to me.

View 2 Images

Harry with wife Meghan in Jordan last month (Image: PA)

“I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point, and the things that they’re going to miss is, well, everything you know. I love my country I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done. So you know? I miss the UK, I miss parts of the UK.

“Of course I do. And I think that’s it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.” At present, Harry must inform the Metropolitan Police a month before travelling to the UK, who look at his security needs on a case-by-case basis. But his lawyers have previously argued this has put his life “at stake”.

In October, it emerged that a ‘known’ stalker of Harry came within yards of him during his visit to the UK last September. They were reportedly found hiding in the toilets of a swanky London hotel just minutes before he was due to arrive for an event.

It came after the same woman is said to have been “body blocked” by Harry’s security just days later during his trip to the UK. A source added: “If you knew about the kind of threats Harry and his children have been getting, then you would understand why he doesn’t want to bring the kids over until police protection is granted.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”