Hannah Furness and Camilla Turner
The Duke of Sussex gave the Home Office security committee less than two weeks’ notice that he was moving his family back to Britain amid fears the news would leak.
The duke’s team did not give the customary 28 days’ notice to Ravec – the body responsible for assessing royal and VIP security – of his full plans to move the duchess, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet to his homeland and enrol the children in school.
Instead, the committee was given notice that the duke would be travelling to the UK for an extended period of engagements, understood to include the WellChild Awards, which he usually attends in September and builds a program around.
The Home Office was informed of the full move as soon as was “practicably possible”, it is understood, in light of concerns about leaks, a late confirmation of the children’s school places and the duke’s wish to inform his father about the decision first.
Under rules set by Ravec, the duke must give 28 days’ notice of plans to travel to the UK for it to assess his security provision.
In the past, after doing so, he has not received full security, in arrangements described by sources as amounting to “handing him a phone number of a liaison officer”.
Other sources familiar with workings of the committee have been left frustrated by the suggestion Ravec had not considered the Sussexes’ case thoroughly, or reached the correct conclusions about security provision in light of the information they had been given.
When the Sussexes landed at Birmingham Airport last week, they were met by private security rather than a visible publicly funded police convoy.
The duke’s annual charity trip, one source suggested, had provided temporary “cover” for the transatlantic move, but meant that Ravec could not plan for the true extent of their movements in Britain.
A source close to the Sussexes dismissed the relevance of exact timescales, saying the committee had been “kicking the can down the road for the last seven years”.
“We have always adhered to the rules they set, even as the goalposts have moved along the way,” they said. “Playing by those rules has never made any difference.
“Despite the facade of a proper process, they have never shown any real intention of doing anything other than maintaining the status quo.
“Geography was the backbone of Ravec’s argument for withdrawing enhanced protective security in 2020.
“The couple’s decision not to live in the UK was treated as a significant factor in that decision.
“That barrier has now been removed, and an obvious off-ramp exists for the committee to do the sensible thing: protect the King’s son and grandchildren.”
The family is now living in Britain, staying in an undisclosed location, with the two children due to start at a prep school in September.
The duke has not been given the results of a risk management board hearing carried out last month, before the move.
He is seeking taxpayer-funded police protection, which he lost when he left the working royal family to live in the United States under arrangements confirmed in 2020.
When he lost a legal challenge over his security, having been told by judge in 2025 that his “sense of grievance” did not amount to a basis for a successful appeal, the duke called the decision a “good old establishment stitch-up”.
Prince Harry now hopes taxpayer-funded security will be reinstated, in light of changes to the family’s living arrangements.
School places for Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet were not finalised until August, it is understood.
A source familiar with the situation added: “Obviously, the King is in an impossible position.
“He cannot intervene, or be seen to apply pressure, in a way that could be construed as constitutionally overstepping.
“But one would imagine he is as concerned as anyone that his son – and, in particular, his grandchildren – are not receiving any form of police protection despite being fifth, sixth and seventh in line to the throne. The situation is untenable.”
The Home Office and Cabinet Office declined to comment.
Buckingham Palace never comments on security issues.
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
