Public debate has intensified over who should bear the cost of security for Prince Harry and Meghan, the Sussexes, during their visits to the United Kingdom. Several members of the public have voiced opposition to King Charles covering these expenses, arguing that the couple should fund their own protection.

Critics highlight that the Sussexes have previously traveled internationally, including to Nigeria and Australia, without receiving security support from the monarch. They suggest that if the couple was able to afford their own security on these trips, they should similarly finance it for visits to the UK, especially since Harry was born in the country.

Some letters emphasize that the Sussexes’ substantial earnings since stepping back from royal duties provide them with the means to pay for personal security. Among the concerns expressed is the perception that Harry and Meghan have publicly criticized the royal family and the United Kingdom, yet continue to rely on public funds for protection. One correspondent questioned whether the prince receives comparable security support during his stays in the United States, the couple’s current base.

Supporters of these views contend that it is unreasonable for King Charles or taxpayers to shoulder the cost, especially in light of tensions between the Sussexes and senior members of the royal family. They suggest that if the couple wishes to visit the UK, they should do so at their own expense or reconsider their travel plans.

The debate underscores ongoing public scrutiny regarding the roles, responsibilities, and funding arrangements surrounding members of the former senior royal household as they navigate their complex relationship with the monarchy and the British public. Official statements on the matter have not been released.