Return of Harry and Meghan to U.K. Renews Questions About Their Security Fears
New York Times · LC · trust 22/100
The couple lost their publicly funded security after deciding to leave Britain in 2020, deepening their split with the royal family.
Listen · 5:44 min Share full article 365 Prince Harry with a security detail as he arrived at Britain’s High Court last year for a hearing over the downgrading of his personal security during visits to Britain. Credit... Henry Nicolls/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images By Adam Goldman
Such threats made security a paramount issue for the couple once they announced this week that they are returning to live in Britain. Their safety had been at the heart of the fallout from their original decision to leave the country, when the government withdrew their publicly funded, armed security after they stepped down from their royal roles.
The pair have said the decision put them in danger, and it became a bitter flashpoint in their rupture with the royal family. Harry at one point even claimed the move was a plot to keep him in Britain.
The couple have not said what kind of arrangements they have made for their protection upon their return, expected this month. But the kind of security they had access to while living in California for the past few years is not possible in Britain without government resources.
While armed private security is legal and ubiquitous in the United States, guns are tightly restricted in Britain. Even top American law enforcement officials such as F.B.I. agents must get permission from the government to carry firearms in Britain.
Still, an unarmed detail is relatively common among Britons who use private security, said Chris Phillips, a former senior British counterterrorism official.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Read the original at New York Times →
Open in TruthVane →